Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many people who say they can't afford to save for retirement (including working class) really can. Certainly not maxxing but a contribution.

OK, I'll tell that to my BIL who is living with his parents with massive debts hanging over his head while trying to support his two kids and fiancee on MAYBE $25K. Since they can't even afford to pay rent...

I would say your BIL is not the person being referred to.

then let's define "working class"...since we've spent so much time defining "rich"

For many families, putting ANYTHING aside is a luxury. They are just trying to pay for rent/mortgage, food and gas for their cars. Living in DC and seeing all the wealth and high salaries makes people out of touch with the everyday lives of "normal" people.

As for the tax brackets lumping $250K with $2M, yes, that is goofy and they can create tax brackets to accomodate that. I know I've seen discussion of this, at least in the recent debate when they held tax rates steady at the Bush tax rates. But we also can't tax CUT our way out of our current situation. Holding where we are currently keeps our revenues below our expenditures. It's absolute insanity to continue on this path.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many people who say they can't afford to save for retirement (including working class) really can. Certainly not maxxing but a contribution.

OK, I'll tell that to my BIL who is living with his parents with massive debts hanging over his head while trying to support his two kids and fiancee on MAYBE $25K. Since they can't even afford to pay rent...

I would say your BIL is not the person being referred to.

Anonymous wrote:Many people who say they can't afford to save for retirement (including working class) really can. Certainly not maxxing but a contribution.

OK, I'll tell that to my BIL who is living with his parents with massive debts hanging over his head while trying to support his two kids and fiancee on MAYBE $25K. Since they can't even afford to pay rent...

Many people who say they can't afford to save for retirement (including working class) really can. Certainly not maxxing but a contribution.

Anonymous wrote:14:58 here- never said I was struggling overall, but yes childcare is REALLY expensive and not easy to cover. I said I am very fortunate to have the income and choices I do, but that yes, I do have to make some hard choices (no, I cannot afford to send my kids to a $35K/year private school or drive a luxury vehicle- that is no where near the realm of reality for us). And, I'm actually pretty lucky when it comes to my mortage (we bought before the bubble got huge and have a lot of equity) and we're very careful with our money, but I also have some pretty heavy duty expenses when it comes to my extended family. I would describe my family as affluent, but we're certainly not rich. After the AMT and property taxes, my 'disposable income' doesn't look nearly so rich.

I do take exception to people who say saving for retirement is a luxury- it is our number one priority now and it was when we made $80K gross. Why? Because it's important to be able to take responsibility for ourselves and not depend on others when we retire. The future we face with social security, etc. is VERY different that our parents did.

Wow - again, not getting it. When people say saving for retirement is a luxury, they don't mean it's an option. They mean WHEN YOU ARE LIVING PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK you can't afford it. Oh my. It really is amazing. Of course most of us on this board who are professionals making good money are saving for retirement. I'll throw in emergency savings as well as college. We have enough saved in case someone gets laid off, to live several months, etc. But that is a LUXURY. It is nice to have that security, and not everyone has it. Some don't because they are pissing their money away, but some really are doing the best they can just to scrape by.

We are not in the 250K realm, but we make good money, and I would never say we were struggling or that we weren't living a life that is very different from people making much less. I'm not saying I don't take it for granted some of the time and I'm some saint, but at least I have the awareness to acknowledge how good I have it. Clearly many on this thread don't.

I'm a single mom who owns property in DC, contributes towards 10% towards TSP plus almost max a Roth IRA, Comcast bundle service, $125 a month in 529 for only child, primarily grocery shops at Whole Foods, vacations 2-3 times a year, travels internationally, etc..all on 65K annual govt salary. I guess I'm rich by some of your standards. I could afford to contribute more to retirement and/or 529, but I spend it on clothes and restaurants instead.

250K is a great income but it's not rich and certainly not wealthy. I agree that cost of living should be factored here. Saving for retirement is a necessity, not a luxury. In fact, everytime money is tight and I'm tempted to stop for awhile, I remind myself that I can't afford to not save.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you make 113K, you are in the top 10% of income earners in the US. 90% of people in the US make less than you. Feel rich now, do ya?

I feel half rich, since I make about half of that.

You should feel more rich than that b/c half that still puts you in the top 25% of income earners.

So, by the numbers, if you make $67K, then YOU are the upper middle class as you make more than 75% of the income earners in the US. Does that seem about right to you?

21:28 - NP here. I have to agree. We are in a similar situation.

People who do not make as much so very often want to LOOK like they do by spending their money on those things mentioned. It is obvious and pathetic. If they only thought about the ramifications of their selfishness. It only hurts themselves in the end.

I have actually heard less qualified job applicants try to tell me "I have to make this amount". Well yeah, don't we all? Is my response. Take a good look at your lifestyle and the changes you have to make to be happier. Buying this car or that jewelry will not make you happier, contrary to your belief. You may never reach that unrealistic goal of making "this" obscene amount of money. Maybe it is just not meant to be. You probably need better qualifications. Buying less will give you less stress, if nothing else.

The multiple "how do I get rich quick/make all this money for few hours" posts are nauseating and offensive to those of us who actually work for a living and our paying our dues and doing our best truly, every day. Its part of living a fulfilling life, and will make you far happier than buying "this" or "that". Happiness can not be bought. You are responsible for your own happiness.

The frequent said posts are very telling and truly sad. You can't be angry at those who have more money than you, since you are not doing everything you can to make your own situation better. Believe me, the rich pay their share of taxes, to your benefit. But the idea of being responsible for ourselves? Totally lost in the land of entitled.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After the bugaboo, 7 jeans, coach diaper bag, lexus SUV, folks are a hurtin'- these things are all bona fide necessities for the 250ker. Social ostracism is inevitable without them.

You really need to get a reality check. We make $300,000 and we don't have any of these things. That was the point of the article, if you bothered to read it. We don't spend our money on crap, we save.

Call on the BS- I've met very few 300k folks who don't spend on indulgences of some kind- might not be the things on this list, but the majority certainly do...if you don't, you are most certainly the exception to the rule and unusually frugal...

Anonymous wrote:After the bugaboo, 7 jeans, coach diaper bag, lexus SUV, folks are a hurtin'- these things are all bona fide necessities for the 250ker. Social ostracism is inevitable without them.

You really need to get a reality check. We make $300,000 and we don't have any of these things. That was the point of the article, if you bothered to read it. We don't spend our money on crap, we save.

After the bugaboo, 7 jeans, coach diaper bag, lexus SUV, folks are a hurtin'- these things are all bona fide necessities for the 250ker. Social ostracism is inevitable without them.

14:58 here- never said I was struggling overall, but yes childcare is REALLY expensive and not easy to cover. I said I am very fortunate to have the income and choices I do, but that yes, I do have to make some hard choices (no, I cannot afford to send my kids to a $35K/year private school or drive a luxury vehicle- that is no where near the realm of reality for us). And, I'm actually pretty lucky when it comes to my mortage (we bought before the bubble got huge and have a lot of equity) and we're very careful with our money, but I also have some pretty heavy duty expenses when it comes to my extended family. I would describe my family as affluent, but we're certainly not rich. After the AMT and property taxes, my 'disposable income' doesn't look nearly so rich.

I do take exception to people who say saving for retirement is a luxury- it is our number one priority now and it was when we made $80K gross. Why? Because it's important to be able to take responsibility for ourselves and not depend on others when we retire. The future we face with social security, etc. is VERY different that our parents did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you make 113K, you are in the top 10% of income earners in the US. 90% of people in the US make less than you. Feel rich now, do ya?

I feel half rich, since I make about half of that.

You should feel more rich than that b/c half that still puts you in the top 25% of income earners.

Anonymous wrote:fyi I don't think that cell phone is considered a luxury once the gov't starts giving them away to people who can't afford them b/c they have been deemed so essential to safety and welfare. (eye roll) And internet is now pretty much necessary for job seeking, school and working. In my opinion, TV and cell phones are luxuries. TV more so than cells, though. As technology advances, more and more things we grew up considering 'luxuries' become 'standards'. At one point, electricity was a luxury. And indoor plumbing. And home phones. And then radios. And then TV. Ask anyone who serves people in poverty and you will find most people will sleep of the floor but someone manage to have a TV (most low cost apts include basic cable...something else once considered a luxury) You see what I mean.

I used to deliver meals on wheels and every house had "a dish". I didn't have cable at the time and I was making $75,000. Then there was the year that I wrapped and handed out "angel tree" gifts. Lots of women driving up in SUVs, wearing leather jackets and talking on cell phones. It certainly makes you feel a lot less generous.

Anonymous wrote:Oh, lord, here we go with the class warfare BS.

All of us GET that DC costs a lot. We live here too.

The country as a whole needs more revenue in addition to making prudent budget cuts. The IRS/Congress needs cutoff points for income where taxes are concerned. I think tax rates across the board are going to have to be raised, honestly. I am personally a fan of less giveaways to corporations in the form of subsidies and tax breaks. There need to be less tax loopholes for people in the highest brackets.

I'm not saying you are "rich" - the government is creating a tax bracket for the highest income earners. That is it. Where do YOU suggest the cutoff be? I think top 3% of households is pretty darn reasonable.

Are taxes an easy topic? No. Do they hit all households the same way? No. I wish they would simplify things a lot. I'm still for progressive taxation, but there has to be a limit to what you can "write off."

So, you think that people earning $250,000 per year and $2 million a year should all be lumped together? How about a serious tax on inheritance? Trust fund babies are the truly wealthy in this country since they have never actually had to work for a living. Or how about the hedge fund managers who only pay capital gains? $250,000 in DC = a married couple in senior govt positions or a dentist.