Anonymous wrote:I think this thread clearly shows that most people think $2.5 million is rich and set for life.

Most people could happily live the rest of their lives with this. Especially if they are willing to move. Working is optional, not required.

Some people say this is not enough. Those people probably want expensive homes, private school, luxury vacations, etc. etc.

So the final answer is that this is rich for most people, but not all.

But most people don't graduate from high school with straight As, go to a top public or private university, go to grad school. How can you compare what someone who barely graduated from high school thinks is "rich" with someone who's done certain things designed to help make money? If I went to law school and made no more than $75K a year, max, for my whole career, how is that "rich"?

Anonymous wrote:I think this thread clearly shows that most people think $2.5 million is rich and set for life.

Most people could happily live the rest of their lives with this. Especially if they are willing to move. Working is optional, not required.

Some people say this is not enough. Those people probably want expensive homes, private school, luxury vacations, etc. etc.

So the final answer is that this is rich for most people, but not all.

Well, we have spent over $300,000 the past 15 years just on childcare and taxes related to childcare. Most people would consider that very expensive. Are we rich just because we did that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Because I enjoy my job. I dont understand American obsession with retirement. But kids will most likely go to school in Europe. "

How many years consecutively did you spend working 80+ hours a week? If you do that enough years in a row, retiring and doing absolutely nothing starts to seem mighty appealing.

i understand that, but why do you spend so much working? i would rather spend my whole life working reasonable hours than work 80 hrs a week only to retire and do nothing... i have been living here for some time and i concluded that americans really lack cultural models of moderation. not just in work, but also food, exercise, sex...

Because I'm in a profession where working those types of hours are the norm. You're right, at this point, having worked very hard for over 20 years, I don't want to have a "moderate" retirement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, to argue that some who has more money than the average family (you know the real middle class, the ones in the middle) will earn over the course of their entire lives is dumb. Just like it is dumb to assert that everyone who is between the 15% living in poverty and 0.001 with jets and boats is somehow one big middle class.

I would agree that the .0001% with the jets and boats are NOT in the middle class. I think it is far more gray than most of you (without the wad of dough) think. Just because it is far more than most average families will have doesn't make it meet MY definition of rich. Hello - MY opinion. I am not dissing yours; don't diss mine.

So what would you think if I said that I considered every man over 5 feet, nah, make that 4 feet so that analogy is more accurate, to be tall? Just my opinion!

Tall/short is more easily defined than something more abstract as wealth.

No, actually its very similar. There is an underlying concept (height, net worth) that is very easy to measure and compare, and then there are qualitative categories (tall/short, poor/rich/middle class) which are somewhat vague but still command fairly broad consensus by virtue of their usefulness. To call 99.99% of men tall is, at the end, just useless - words are supposed to convey information. Similarly, calling virtually everyone but billionaires 'middle class', is useless. Which is why people are not doing it, except for a sliver of rich obsessed with distinctions among various levels of rich. invent your own word for that - for the rest of us, you are simply rich.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, to argue that some who has more money than the average family (you know the real middle class, the ones in the middle) will earn over the course of their entire lives is dumb. Just like it is dumb to assert that everyone who is between the 15% living in poverty and 0.001 with jets and boats is somehow one big middle class.

I would agree that the .0001% with the jets and boats are NOT in the middle class. I think it is far more gray than most of you (without the wad of dough) think. Just because it is far more than most average families will have doesn't make it meet MY definition of rich. Hello - MY opinion. I am not dissing yours; don't diss mine.

So what would you think if I said that I considered every man over 5 feet, nah, make that 4 feet so that analogy is more accurate, to be tall? Just my opinion!

Tall/short is more easily defined than something more abstract as wealth.

let's take pretty - we can't disagree who is pretty? Ridiculousness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, to argue that some who has more money than the average family (you know the real middle class, the ones in the middle) will earn over the course of their entire lives is dumb. Just like it is dumb to assert that everyone who is between the 15% living in poverty and 0.001 with jets and boats is somehow one big middle class.

I would agree that the .0001% with the jets and boats are NOT in the middle class. I think it is far more gray than most of you (without the wad of dough) think. Just because it is far more than most average families will have doesn't make it meet MY definition of rich. Hello - MY opinion. I am not dissing yours; don't diss mine.

So what would you think if I said that I considered every man over 5 feet, nah, make that 4 feet so that analogy is more accurate, to be tall? Just my opinion!

Tall/short is more easily defined than something more abstract as wealth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, to argue that some who has more money than the average family (you know the real middle class, the ones in the middle) will earn over the course of their entire lives is dumb. Just like it is dumb to assert that everyone who is between the 15% living in poverty and 0.001 with jets and boats is somehow one big middle class.

I would agree that the .0001% with the jets and boats are NOT in the middle class. I think it is far more gray than most of you (without the wad of dough) think. Just because it is far more than most average families will have doesn't make it meet MY definition of rich. Hello - MY opinion. I am not dissing yours; don't diss mine.

2.5 million is not just more than the average family will ever HAVE, it is more than they will even EARN or MAKE. Meaning even if they didn't pay any taxes (payroll, fed, state), didn't have any expenses, and never spent a dime they would still never touch that amount of money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not consider that rich. We have more than that (not including retirement or real estate) and I don't consider us "rich." To be rich I would say you'd be in the upper class. OP is in the higher middle class range. She could not stop working NOW and survive through life without trouble. Right now she is not rich.

just shut up. if you have more than $2.5 million, not including retirement or real estate, you are rich, and it's embarassing, to say the least, to argue otherwise.

Gotcha - your opinion is the only one. Sorry, I was a little slow on the uptake. It is like defining "smart" or "pretty" or "happy" or "successful". They are abstract enough that each person will have his/her own subjective slant on what the definition would be. MY definition is this isn't rich for two people at that age.

No, its not like defining smart or happy because wealth is very easy to measure and compare. The argument is just where to draw the line, with rich people here insisting that it should be drawn at something like top 0.001% because that would, in their minds, allow for such specific luxuries such as vacation homes, immediate retirement, grandchilden not having to work etc etc.

I never said it is drawn at the top .001% or anywhere near there. I certainly would say, however, there is a difference between Buffett and what I would call "rich". Just like I'm sure two reasonable people could disagree as to what would constitute poor. Is poor owning your own home or only renting? Is poor owning your home, having good salaries but being upside down in your home?

Again: owning a home is a lifestyle choice, and in itself doesnt define anything. There are some very wealthy people who prefer to rent, as well as many poor/middle class who cant afford to own... Luckily, there is this thing called net worth that makes it easy to compare a middle class person who owns a home with a rich person who rents.

If you can stop working and live off your investment income and they draw 450K a year you are rich.

This is ridiculous OP is rich and probably also a shitty person. I don't think anyone with any empathy would have started this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, to argue that some who has more money than the average family (you know the real middle class, the ones in the middle) will earn over the course of their entire lives is dumb. Just like it is dumb to assert that everyone who is between the 15% living in poverty and 0.001 with jets and boats is somehow one big middle class.

I would agree that the .0001% with the jets and boats are NOT in the middle class. I think it is far more gray than most of you (without the wad of dough) think. Just because it is far more than most average families will have doesn't make it meet MY definition of rich. Hello - MY opinion. I am not dissing yours; don't diss mine.

So what would you think if I said that I considered every man over 5 feet, nah, make that 4 feet so that analogy is more accurate, to be tall? Just my opinion!

Anonymous wrote:No, to argue that some who has more money than the average family (you know the real middle class, the ones in the middle) will earn over the course of their entire lives is dumb. Just like it is dumb to assert that everyone who is between the 15% living in poverty and 0.001 with jets and boats is somehow one big middle class.

I would agree that the .0001% with the jets and boats are NOT in the middle class. I think it is far more gray than most of you (without the wad of dough) think. Just because it is far more than most average families will have doesn't make it meet MY definition of rich. Hello - MY opinion. I am not dissing yours; don't diss mine.

No, to argue that some who has more money than the average family (you know the real middle class, the ones in the middle) will earn over the course of their entire lives is dumb. Just like it is dumb to assert that everyone who is between the 15% living in poverty and 0.001 with jets and boats is somehow one big middle class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not consider that rich. We have more than that (not including retirement or real estate) and I don't consider us "rich." To be rich I would say you'd be in the upper class. OP is in the higher middle class range. She could not stop working NOW and survive through life without trouble. Right now she is not rich.

just shut up. if you have more than $2.5 million, not including retirement or real estate, you are rich, and it's embarassing, to say the least, to argue otherwise.

Gotcha - your opinion is the only one. Sorry, I was a little slow on the uptake. It is like defining "smart" or "pretty" or "happy" or "successful". They are abstract enough that each person will have his/her own subjective slant on what the definition would be. MY definition is this isn't rich for two people at that age.

No, its not like defining smart or happy because wealth is very easy to measure and compare. The argument is just where to draw the line, with rich people here insisting that it should be drawn at something like top 0.001% because that would, in their minds, allow for such specific luxuries such as vacation homes, immediate retirement, grandchilden not having to work etc etc.

I never said it is drawn at the top .001% or anywhere near there. I certainly would say, however, there is a difference between Buffett and what I would call "rich". Just like I'm sure two reasonable people could disagree as to what would constitute poor. Is poor owning your own home or only renting? Is poor owning your home, having good salaries but being upside down in your home?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not consider that rich. We have more than that (not including retirement or real estate) and I don't consider us "rich." To be rich I would say you'd be in the upper class. OP is in the higher middle class range. She could not stop working NOW and survive through life without trouble. Right now she is not rich.

just shut up. if you have more than $2.5 million, not including retirement or real estate, you are rich, and it's embarassing, to say the least, to argue otherwise.

Gotcha - your opinion is the only one. Sorry, I was a little slow on the uptake. It is like defining "smart" or "pretty" or "happy" or "successful". They are abstract enough that each person will have his/her own subjective slant on what the definition would be. MY definition is this isn't rich for two people at that age.

No, her opinion is not the only one (raises hand).

+1