^ i'm glad i'm not capped at 62,500 with my bachelor's degree...the chart doesn't really help anything you're saying

10/29/2008 1:58:24 PM

thats people, not households. so i guess we need to double every one of those numbers to account for a household ? Meaning a household with an income of 200k, still middle class

10/29/2008 2:04:29 PM

I make 32k.

live in brooklyn

and im doing fine

however i dont own a car and only buy beer and food.

10/29/2008 2:32:17 PM

i'd say 200k household and above you're upper middle. 60k household w/ 2 ppl working - still scraping by i'd imagine, lower middle, especially w/ kids

10/29/2008 2:33:29 PM

This is for 1 person. It definately doesn't double for housholds with two adults but it doesn't stay the same. It doesn't cost twice as much for two people than one. I would say 1.25 for households.

edit

Now that I think about it, its a lot less than that. If one person makes 100k they are rich alone but if they marry a person that does nothing then they are not a rich household. If they marry a person that is in the working class then they are still a rich household because it doesn't cost extra overhead for a second person assuming they sleep in the same bed. Even if that person is waiting tables or flipping burgers they make more than enough to support themselves minus the rent and stuff the rich person would be buying with or without them.

So the numbers a pretty much the same maybe a little bit higher (no more than 10k) for households once you take into account taxbreaks and overlapping shared costs

[Edited on October 29, 2008 at 4:29 PM. Reason : plus theres tax breaks.]

10/29/2008 4:23:27 PM

100k /year is not rich you broke jackasses.

Go ready OEPs thread about HENRYs. 400k a years not rich, its just nicer

10/29/2008 4:42:23 PM

I said they aren't really rich but they definitely can't be classified as middle class because they don't share the common concerns that the middle class would have in everyday life. list the financial problems of a person who makes 100k. (this is going to be funny)

10/29/2008 4:55:15 PM

thats too open ended of a question. You or someone arguing against you can easily come up with an argument to support their cause if you put no boundaries on it.

My gfs dad makes right around 100k and because his wife (of over 30 years, wasnt really expected) just went psycho and left last year he is in a huge financial crisis at the moment. She took their kids' college fund money after it was too late for loans for the semester (had to pay or the girls were going to miss a semester) and he had to scrounge to pay for that and he is having trouble paying off the house but hasn't been able to sell it (it was purchased on 2 people's salaries not just his) and he is also having to pay her money and pay court costs fighting that. Overall he makes 100k lives in charlotte and is living paycheck to paycheck right now. Sure you could somewhat classify this as "living beyond his means" since he certainly is since his lifestyle was based around 2 paychecks and he got screwed. But you asked for an example and I gave it to you.

Also you are doing what a lot of people on the previous page did and arent taking into account where people live.

If you are going to use set numbers, take this into account. Someone making 60,000 in SC (which im hoping you do not consider to be rich), based on cost of living, would need to make $100,000 in SF, CA to "live a similar lifestyle." So are you still confident in saying anyone making $100,000 is free of normal financial burden?

[Edited on October 29, 2008 at 5:13 PM. Reason : ]

10/29/2008 5:03:17 PM

That isn't a typical example and I definitely stated that the bottom of middle class salary depends on where you live. 100k will suffice anywhere.

10/29/2008 5:21:29 PM

Quote :

"100k /year is not rich you broke jackasses. Go ready OEPs thread about HENRYs. 400k a years not rich, its just nicer"

You're going to have a hard time explaining to any rational person that someone who makes more than 99.2% of all people in the country aren't wealthy.

If this is actually the case, then our economic system is broken in more ways than we realize, would you be willing to accept this?

10/29/2008 5:26:13 PM

high income != wealthy.

it can eventually = wealthy if a high earner uses that income to acquire assets.

This is personal finance 101, why are so many people in this thread so ignorant of something so basic?

10/29/2008 5:29:47 PM

^agreed

I also have to say that everyone is not arguing under the same guidelines here. I see some people talking about strict monetary brackets, i see some people talking about wealthy, i see some people talking about being rich, i see some people saying that because a salary will suffice anywhere its not middle class, i see some people arguing that because you can live comfortably and have slightly less economic worries its not middle class.

I dont know that we are ever going to agree on a salary amount because everyone's angle they are approaching this at is VERY different. If you're going to say that a $100,000 salary can "suffice" in SF, thus you are not middle class, are you then inferring that $60,000 in SC is not middle class?


I still stick to my point on the last page that "Middle Class" to me is about a LOT more than the money on your acceptance letter at your place of employment.

[Edited on October 29, 2008 at 5:35 PM. Reason : ]

10/29/2008 5:34:23 PM

^^ it's presupposed they will do that, rather than blowing their money on cocaine or something.

10/29/2008 5:35:34 PM

Everybody knows what you're talking about but thats just to become filthy rich. Obviously all rich people are not on the same level. A rich dentist has a long way to go in acquiring assets before he is filthy rich like Donald trump but neither are middle class because they are immune to the everyday economic concerns of a middle class individual. Thats why theres no need to separate the rich class into its 3 or 4 categories.

Quote :

"dont know that we are ever going to agree on a salary amount because everyone's angle they are approaching this at is VERY different. If you're going to say that a $100,000 salary can "suffice" in SF, thus you are not middle class, are you then inferring that $60,000 in SC is not middle class? I still stick to my point on the last page that "Middle Class" to me is about a LOT more than the money on your acceptance letter at your place of employment."

Thats the problem. There is a strict definition of middle class and you cannot change it.

[Edited on October 29, 2008 at 5:38 PM. Reason : l]

10/29/2008 5:35:53 PM

^^ I don't think that's a fair presupposition. Even at 100k a year, you have to be extremely smart with your income to end up wealthy.

Quote :

"because they are immune to the everyday economic concerns of a middle class individual. "

you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

zero.

none.

thus, I must conclude that you are just trolling.

[Edited on October 29, 2008 at 5:42 PM. Reason : asdf]

10/29/2008 5:37:17 PM

Quote :

"theDuke866 what % do you save per month?? "

I put $417/month into a Roth IRA. I put $400/month into my stock brokerage acct. I put $150/month into my money market (effectively my savings acct). I spend another ~$150/month on permanent life insurance policies (which are an investment of sorts. I don't recommend these, but my parents bought them when I was a kid...they're almost fully paid for now...not worth quitting, and not worth cashing them out).

Quote :

"you guys can't just make your own definitions of middle class."

...but it's ok for you to do just that, STARTING IN THE NEXT SENTENCE AFTER MAKING THIS STATEMENT? hahaha, what a fucking retard.



[Edited on October 29, 2008 at 5:47 PM. Reason : asdfasd]

10/29/2008 5:46:15 PM

Quote :

"People making above 100k cannot be considered middle class because money and price does not play a role in their everyday life. "

Quote :

" It really doesn't matter that much though (separating rich into subdivisions because once you're making 100k you are set."

Completely absurd.

No wonder you have no trouble rationalizing taxing the bejeezus out of people.

Quote :

" list the financial problems of a person who makes 100k. (this is going to be funny) "

So having financial problems is part of the definition of middle class?

Wait, what was that about making your own definition of middle class...



...and for the record, financial problems (other than self-induced) should be unusual in the middle class, even the lower middle class.

Quote :

"If this is actually the case, then our economic system is broken in more ways than we realize, would you be willing to accept this? "

No. Shitcan the jealousy and get to work.

Quote :

"Even at 100k a year, you have to be extremely smart with your income to end up wealthy. "

No, I'd say that you have to be substantially more disciplined than your average spendthrift American.

10/29/2008 5:58:15 PM

^ our economic problems don't boil down to jealousy, that's just bluntly naive.

10/29/2008 6:07:29 PM

Oh, no doubt. That's not what I was saying.

10/29/2008 6:10:54 PM

okay

10/29/2008 6:11:42 PM

a combined household income of >100k means you don't worry about money but you don't have tons of it. you don't live in a 500k home. if you want something bad enough you do have the means to buy it. that has been my experience so far. I would say the upper middle class is over 175k.

10/29/2008 6:20:01 PM

^ that really depends on how much kids you have.

10/29/2008 6:20:33 PM

Well I have no kids. If i had kids i imagine things would be very tight.

Quote :

"So ya'll are saying that as single 20-something's making >$75k, you're middle class?"

I think this is true. Sure you can drive around in a 45k car and own a 225k townhouse but you are by no means rich. You hardly even stand out.

[Edited on October 29, 2008 at 6:25 PM. Reason : ,]

10/29/2008 6:22:09 PM

You all are in a bubble. Seriously.

$75k per household is top 20%

$250k per household is top 1.5%

I can't think of any other way to address this. Upper class doesn't mean rich or "rolling," as many of you are implying. It simply means that the financial situation of a single guy earning $75k is fundamentally different from a middle class family of four earning $60k.

10/29/2008 6:39:27 PM

(No shit.)

10/29/2008 6:40:43 PM

Quote :

"You all are in a bubble. Seriously."

agreed.





holy shit i agreed with Boone.

10/29/2008 6:45:30 PM

^^Yet for some weird reason you all are insistent that both households are in the same economic class.

[Edited on October 29, 2008 at 6:46 PM. Reason : ]

10/29/2008 6:45:36 PM

A single guy making $75k is in a completely different economic class than a family making $500k/year, yet you want to lump them in the same economic class.

10/29/2008 6:52:46 PM

Of course they are in a bubble they're college students. While I was in college I thought you could do whatever you wanted with $50K. When I graduated and made that I thought with $100K you could do everything. If you have a roommate and live in a college setting that is certainly true, but if you buy a house, have a car payment and pay ALL your own bills your discretionary spending gets lower, and as Bobby said you need to be smart with your money to even approach rich and that takes lots of time unless you have equity in something that blows up big.

[Edited on October 29, 2008 at 6:55 PM. Reason : ss]

10/29/2008 6:53:48 PM

^^ They're both upper class (the top 20% of anything is "upper" by any definition).

The former's at the bottom end of the upper class, and the latter shouldn't be included in the equation for the same reason you wouldn't include someone who makes $0. Hell, it's ludicrous to lump a $500k family in with Warren Buffet, too, but they're both no doubt upper class.

[Edited on October 29, 2008 at 7:04 PM. Reason : ]

10/29/2008 7:04:30 PM

No, Warren Buffet is an outlier who shouldn't be included in the equation. $500k/year is, like, smack in the middle of "rich" or "upper class".

10/29/2008 7:10:20 PM

I just do not think income can be the sole qualifier for being 'rich'.

I can make 150,000 a year but if I am blowing a gram of coke every day, spending 700/month car payments, and waste my money on depreciating crap than I would not think other would consider me rich.

I also don't like wethebest chart which marries education level with class bracket. With a Bachelors in Electrical Engineer I would confidently label my job as that of someone in the "professional" class not the "lower middle" class. A couple raises or a promotion and my income before age 30 would qualify for even the conservative lower limit of the "upper middle" class.

10/29/2008 7:19:19 PM

yeah, my dad has only a HS education, and he's into the "upper class" region by the definitions of most people in this thread.

I grew up about a half mile away from a guy who owns an automotive salvage company. he has an 8th grade education. I don't know what his annual income is, but he's worth many millions of dollars. he has prob a half million dollar house (at least, maybe more), an expensive boat, motorcycles, a fairly late model Beechcraft Bonanza airplane, a beach house, and I don't even know what else. He's had all that stuff for many years, too.

(I would classify him in the relatively lower end of rich/upper class. I wouldn't say "barely qualifying", but he's not crazy filthy rich, in my book.)

10/29/2008 7:26:14 PM

I JUST GOT FIRED TODAY WFT

10/29/2008 7:36:05 PM

hell Bill Gates did not even finish college

10/29/2008 8:00:15 PM