Anonymous wrote:

Some people arrange for their universities to get their money after they die. Especially if their families have screwed them. Not all families are nice and generous, and there is no reason to leave miserable people anything. OTOH, there are some that are just so obviously up their families a** for their money.

I would rather be frugal and rich than a broke wannabe.

Me too, absolutely.

Anonymous wrote:Have also known plenty of high-income but absurdly frugal folks. They live their life in fear squirreling away for the tragedies and uncertainties of the future, and don't actually end up enjoying the fruits of their labors and successes. Good to be prudent, responsible, and prepare for retirement. I do really feel sorry for those who don't live in the moment at all. It makes for a sad and depressing life. I personally have known a couple of folks who have died with a few million in the Bank after a lifetime of making the kinds of salaries described here. Not only did they not need their vast sums in retirement, they gave up a great deal when they could have enjoyed valuable time with their young families.

Oh yeah that's a major societal problem...hoarding money......

Anonymous wrote:

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...

We make $400K and don't spend on any of that. Then again, we had our first million before our youngest was out of diapers in our late 30s, and we're self made.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, it really is. But you will never get that. You don't get new standards, nor do I. No matter how you slice it, those who are making not only 250K but much, much less and whining about it are clueless and out of touch.

Why is it ridiculous to bust your rump in med or law school for years and then whine about how you don't feel rich? What truly middle class professions spend 3 or more years in school beyond high school? It's an effort vs. reward thing. It's not that waitresses and school teachers don't work hard, it's that they are less educated. If I made $70K a year, I'd want 2 or 3 months off each year too, but since I make $200K, I think it's reasonable for me to have to work 11.5 months a year.

Eh hem. I work at a private school and most teachers I know have at least a Masters Degree. About 1/4 of them have Doctorates. They actually love teaching which is why they are doing it. Not because they aren't educated enough to earn more. Also, have you been to any college towns lately? There are tons of people with Ph.D's working in restaurants. This effort vs reward thing you speak of? Sounds like we should be paying nuclear plant workers MILLIONS right now. You are an ass.

In addition to effort vs reward, there's common sense. If you love teaching so much that you're willing to pay for a master's degree without discernible financial reward, then you have your reward. You knew teaching pay sux rox when you went into it.

Some people arrange for their universities to get their money after they die. Especially if their families have screwed them. Not all families are nice and generous, and there is no reason to leave miserable people anything. OTOH, there are some that are just so obviously up their families a** for their money.

I would rather be frugal and rich than a broke wannabe.

Have also known plenty of high-income but absurdly frugal folks. They live their life in fear squirreling away for the tragedies and uncertainties of the future, and don't actually end up enjoying the fruits of their labors and successes. Good to be prudent, responsible, and prepare for retirement. I do really feel sorry for those who don't live in the moment at all. It makes for a sad and depressing life. I personally have known a couple of folks who have died with a few million in the Bank after a lifetime of making the kinds of salaries described here. Not only did they not need their vast sums in retirement, they gave up a great deal when they could have enjoyed valuable time with their young families.

Anonymous wrote:I'm 22:48. The problem really is that too many Americans look at saving for retirement as a luxury in the first place. Times have changed, pensions and SS are not what they once were. Americans are living longer and healthcare costs are rising past inflation. If you can't afford to save today (and you're above the poverty line) you really can't afford not to. I live in a working class neighborhood and dont know of anyone who doesn't have cable around here. I used to be one of those people who justified cable as my only "luxury" while not investing in my future. Even if it's $50 a month, its better than nothing.

Actually, it may as well be nothing if its not enough to support yourself b/c if you don't have enough, you will have to spend down your assets so you can get medicaid.

The problem is defining rich. It's clear some people define rich as living in a nice house, saving for retirement and college, plus daycare or a nanny. But I think most of America would define rich as a mansion with live in staff, sports carS, multiple annual vacations around the world, etc.. That is TV and Hollywood "rich". My HHI is just under $250k and I would not self-identify as rich, I would say upper middle class, not because I'm out of touch with most Americans, but because I am in touch with what they and I think of when we say "rich" And it ain't my lifestyle. I'm not saying others wouldn't like to have my income, but I'm not living large enough to qualify for pop culture's "rich" label.

I'm 22:48. The problem really is that too many Americans look at saving for retirement as a luxury in the first place. Times have changed, pensions and SS are not what they once were. Americans are living longer and healthcare costs are rising past inflation. If you can't afford to save today (and you're above the poverty line) you really can't afford not to. I live in a working class neighborhood and dont know of anyone who doesn't have cable around here. I used to be one of those people who justified cable as my only "luxury" while not investing in my future. Even if it's $50 a month, its better than nothing.

Anonymous wrote:22:58- I think we are actually in violent agreement in that $250K is an excellent income- no argument there. Apologies if you were not one of the posters who made the "saving for retirement is a luxury" argument, but several on this post have and I do take issue with that. If you are middle or upper middle class, you can definitely save some $$ for retirement and should.

Yes, but if you are not of the middle or upper middle class, you could look at someone who can have adequate savings for retirement with envy - "I wish I could do that." That is what I mean by luxury: I feel very grateful to have the option to save, and to work for a company who has a nice plan.

I also think it is a luxury to own a home, have great health insurance, have a job that doesn't require me to punch a clock or stand in a factory line, and have things like paid sick days.

But we are in agreement that saving for retirement is the right thing to do if you have the means, for sure.

22:58- I think we are actually in violent agreement in that $250K is an excellent income- no argument there. Apologies if you were not one of the posters who made the "saving for retirement is a luxury" argument, but several on this post have and I do take issue with that. If you are middle or upper middle class, you can definitely save some $$ for retirement and should.

There are plenty of us who make a lot less than that who are "doing the right thing." I. E., working hard, paying taxes appropriately, being fiscally responsible. Many of us are in fields that just don't pay like that. Wealth does not correlate to moral superiority. Neither does poverty, for that matter.

Anonymous wrote:22:58- your the one who doesn't get it. I never compared myself to people who live paycheck to paycheck (which by the way, there was a point in my life when I was one of those people) nor did I ever say 'poor me'- quite the opposite (I feel very fortunate to have what I do and work very hard for it). What I said was even when I made A LOT less (a salary range that many of this site have compared to struggling, but I wouldn't agree with that either) I made saving for retirement a priority. It is not an option for everyone, but it is certainly not an option reserved only for the so called 'rich'. If it's at all possible to save, even just a little bit, we should!

Not long ago, our HHI income was quite a bit less than it is now and I felt the exact same way. So are you saying I automatically 'don't get it' as soon as my income passes some magic number?

No. I wasn't saying any of that. None of this has to do with the point of the thread which is 250K and above is a good income and I take issue with anyone saying otherwise. I simply commented on your comment that saving for retirement is not a luxury. For some, it is. There are people who would love to save more and can't, so being able to save consistently every month is a luxury. It's something I try not to take for granted and I'm thankful for it.

What you say is not true. You are saying that for a stream of incomes, people cannot put anything aside. For those living below the poverty level, that is certainly true (they have actual gaps between what they need and what they earn, and have to use things like food stamps to bridge the gap). But above some level of poverty, people don't put money aside because the choices increase, and the utility from spending is simply higher than the utility from saving. That makes sense to me, because I do the same thing. I should be saving more for retirement, but my income allows me to make other kinds of investments (like in my children's schooling) that I prioritize above my retirement (foolishly, for sure).

I don't think saving for retirement is the be all and end all. That's not how I judge someone's financial acumen. To me, someone struggling to move to a higher rent area so their kids can go to a better school IS making the right choice.

22:58- your the one who doesn't get it. I never compared myself to people who live paycheck to paycheck (which by the way, there was a point in my life when I was one of those people) nor did I ever say 'poor me'- quite the opposite (I feel very fortunate to have what I do and work very hard for it). What I said was even when I made A LOT less (a salary range that many of this site have compared to struggling, but I wouldn't agree with that either) I made saving for retirement a priority. It is not an option for everyone, but it is certainly not an option reserved only for the so called 'rich'. If it's at all possible to save, even just a little bit, we should!

Not long ago, our HHI income was quite a bit less than it is now and I felt the exact same way. So are you saying I automatically 'don't get it' as soon as my income passes some magic number?