Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And you are delusional. Why can't you afford private school for your 3 kids?

Well, cause it would cost us close to $90K - after taxes. Add in the cost of aftercare and you are easily in the $110K range - again after tax. So, even if you presume I make $200K net - that would leave $90k a year to cover retirement, housing, clothing, food, utilities, insurance, gas, emergencies, healthcare, 529 plans, unexpected homeownership expenses, etc. If you consider that financial advisors are now recommending $10K a year per kid for 529 (as absurd as that is), plus of course the standard "10% of your pay" for retirement, we are down to $40K for everything else. Could it be done? Maybe if we ate ramen noodles or didnt save for retirement. Point is, it would come with very large sacrifices. To me, having to make sacrifices in order to afford a decent education for your kids hardly qualifies someone as rich. It might be worth doing, but someone who is "rich" doesn't have that tradeoff to make.

And here again, it shows that you are rich and have expensive tastes. You can get private school in DC for as low as $14K, in the MD suburbs for as low as $11K and in VA for at least as low as $12K. And with sibling discounts, there are some places where you can put all three of your kids for close to $30K. But then, you have rich tastes, so only look at the top schools with the top prices. Surprise, you're rich.

There are many places in the area where you can get a 2000 sf house for under $500K even in a not-so-good school area and put your kids in private for under $40K a year. Easily. But then you wouldn't live in a status symbol community and might feel out of place with those making significantly less money than you.

Affording the crapiest things doesn't make you rich, affording the best of everything with no sacrifices does.

By your logic if you drive a toyota and have a roof over your head you are rich. Get the fuck out of here.

Anonymous wrote:PP, I think your point that certain basics should be accessible to most Americans who work for a living is a valid one. But this is a different argument than stating you're not "rich" if you earn more than 95% of the population. On a bell curve you are at the far end of the tail. That's an indisputable fact.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Rich" isn't about income. It's about lifestyle.

"Rich" denotes private yachts, household help, multiple abodes, etc. Wage slaves earning $250,000 don't have these things, in D.C. or anywhere else in America.

Really? Wage slave? I find this a bit insulting when there are people making minimum wage, no benefits, and barely making enough money to put food on the table.

Anonymous wrote:I get that retirement, 529 plans etc are all "out of reach" for most Americans. So perhaps it makes me rich by virtue of this fact, but it shouldn't. Planning for retirement and giving your kids a half decent education should be achievable by the middle class (or really any class) - the idea that these things are reserved for the rich is sickening to me. It's only in this warped country where people have come to accept such a distorted world view as somehow anything other than appalling.

Clearly, I'm not going to convince anyone that $250k a year isn't rich..so I'll stop trying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And you are delusional. Why can't you afford private school for your 3 kids?

Well, cause it would cost us close to $90K - after taxes. Add in the cost of aftercare and you are easily in the $110K range - again after tax. So, even if you presume I make $200K net - that would leave $90k a year to cover retirement, housing, clothing, food, utilities, insurance, gas, emergencies, healthcare, 529 plans, unexpected homeownership expenses, etc. If you consider that financial advisors are now recommending $10K a year per kid for 529 (as absurd as that is), plus of course the standard "10% of your pay" for retirement, we are down to $40K for everything else. Could it be done? Maybe if we ate ramen noodles or didnt save for retirement. Point is, it would come with very large sacrifices. To me, having to make sacrifices in order to afford a decent education for your kids hardly qualifies someone as rich. It might be worth doing, but someone who is "rich" doesn't have that tradeoff to make.

And here again, it shows that you are rich and have expensive tastes. You can get private school in DC for as low as $14K, in the MD suburbs for as low as $11K and in VA for at least as low as $12K. And with sibling discounts, there are some places where you can put all three of your kids for close to $30K. But then, you have rich tastes, so only look at the top schools with the top prices. Surprise, you're rich.

There are many places in the area where you can get a 2000 sf house for under $500K even in a not-so-good school area and put your kids in private for under $40K a year. Easily. But then you wouldn't live in a status symbol community and might feel out of place with those making significantly less money than you.

Anonymous wrote:"Rich" isn't about income. It's about lifestyle.

"Rich" denotes private yachts, household help, multiple abodes, etc. Wage slaves earning $250,000 don't have these things, in D.C. or anywhere else in America.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And you are delusional. Why can't you afford private school for your 3 kids?

Well, cause it would cost us close to $90K - after taxes. Add in the cost of aftercare and you are easily in the $110K range - again after tax. So, even if you presume I make $200K net - that would leave $90k a year to cover retirement, housing, clothing, food, utilities, insurance, gas, emergencies, healthcare, 529 plans, unexpected homeownership expenses, etc. If you consider that financial advisors are now recommending $10K a year per kid for 529 (as absurd as that is), plus of course the standard "10% of your pay" for retirement, we are down to $40K for everything else. Could it be done? Maybe if we ate ramen noodles or didnt save for retirement. Point is, it would come with very large sacrifices. To me, having to make sacrifices in order to afford a decent education for your kids hardly qualifies someone as rich. It might be worth doing, but someone who is "rich" doesn't have that tradeoff to make.

Doesnt the fact that someone has to choose - either live in a desirable location OR afford your kids a good education - bot not BOTH, basically automatically exclude them as rich? Maybe this is the life of the 'rich' but it shouldn't be. Access to quality education should be achievable by ALL incomes, not just those in the highest stratospheres.

And why do you have two old beat up cars?

Mostly because I loathe spending a lot of money on fancy cars. But also because, frankly, a pair of BMWs would run $1000 a month in car payments. Thats pretty absurd.

Because you've made other expensive choices (most likely living in an expensive area in an expensive house). If you chose to live in a less expensive community in a less expensive house, you could opt to send your three children to private school and have newer cars.

Indeed, I have elected to live in a "more expensive" area because the area has good public schools. Its a tradeoff - living here means I can skip private; but it comes at the cost of a higher tax/mortgage payment. I could, as you note, move to the middle of nowhere and send my kids to private, but its a bit six of one, half a dozen of another. (Truth be told, I did the math - the private costs a LOT more than the house does, hence the choice we made). Again, its not that it CANT be done - but that it would come with a lot of real, meaningful tradeoffs. I'd likely have a much longer commute, perhaps an hour an a half each way, I'd see my kids less as a result, it would add strain to the marriage if I never made it home for dinner, and I'd miss out on much of children's lives. Possible? Sure, but that just doesn't sound like a "rich" persons life to me.

I'd also add that my house, while pretty, is hardly something someone would describe as "a rich persons". I have an un-remodeled 1960s kitchen, one bathroom for 3 bedrooms, no master bath; our closets are so small, i use our boiler room to store my clothes. My backyard fence is chain link, my bathrooms a mix of pink and black tile from the 1950s. My bedroom is ikea furniture, not ligne roset or roche bobois.

If you make $260K HHI, with zero deductions, you are taking home about $200K. That's close to $16K per month. Paying for insurance, retirement, etc, and you should still be clearly $12K per month easily. I'm sorry, but that's rich. The average middle class person, even in this area doesn't make that money gross let alone net after all of those expenses. You've chosen to live in an expensive area, made expensive choices and don't have a lot of disposable income left over. Boo hoo. I'm sorry, but just because you spend a lot, and have very little left over doesn't mean that you aren't rich, it just means that you spend a lot, which frankly, enforces the idea that you are rich.

Dont get me wrong - $260K is a solid income by most any measure, but if you look at the life it affords me you wouldn't call it rich. Put differently, if you assessed my life without the knowledge of income - you'd see a family driving old cars, living in a beat up small house, with kids in public school. The rich people I know send their kids to private, drive the luxury cars, live in that $2.5M 5,000 sq ft craftsman home, still sock away tons of cash for retirement and 529s, have 'weekend' nannies, a home in NYC and generally don't have to worry about ever loosing their jobs. Those are people for whom money is an abstract concept. For the rest of us, its all a question of tradeoffs.

Anonymous wrote:"Rich" isn't about income. It's about lifestyle.

"Rich" denotes private yachts, household help, multiple abodes, etc. Wage slaves earning $250,000 don't have these things, in D.C. or anywhere else in America.

Anonymous wrote:Because calling someone rich in this context means that person should have enough extra that they won't even feel a tax increase. And most people at the $250K-ish income level don't fall into that category. It's not about people's perception of the lifestyle, it's about being asked to take on a larger tax burden by virtue of being "rich."