POLL: What qualifies as rich?

[FatSlob]

Let us know. And...do you want to be rich?

edited because I can't punctuate.

Do you qualify as rich by your own standards?

[RobertSeattle]

1. Or networth

I'd suggest 200K/year or net work of 2 Million or more (including home value minus mortgage)

[FatSlob]

10. $2M isn't rich in my opinion...I think you have to get to about

4 million or more.

[IrateCitizen]

22. Nah, it's even more than that...

I'd classify a deka-millionaire ($10 mil or more) as the threshhold of being financially "rich". It's at that point that you can maintain a lavish lifestyle w/o having to earn your income.

[FatSlob]

26. I could deal with that.

[IrateCitizen]

31. I wouldn't want it, except for one purpose...

To form a foundation and use that money to help other people.

Money isn't the key to happiness. While not having to worry about basic necessities is certainly a plus, quite often it causes more problems than it solves.

But, if "value" is more important to you than "values", then by all means pursue wealth as an end in itself.

[FatSlob]

33. Being rich seems like it would be a good problem to have.

I've already a strong foundation at home. Adding money won't cause any problems. It would be nice to be able to afford the best schools, get a boat or two, an extra home, expand my gun collection, get a Vette and a BMW M3, and a vacation home in Michigan. Value and Values are not mutually exclusive.

[IrateCitizen]

35. "Value and values are not mutually exclusive"

Mmmm... given the manner in which our civilization elevates property above people, they quite often are. It's just that many of the ugly sides of "value" are hidden from us (or, more commonly, simply ignored).

[FatSlob]

41. Please elaborate. eom

[IrateCitizen]

42. Using your dream as an example...

It would be nice to be able to afford the best schools, get a boat or two, an extra home, expand my gun collection, get a Vette and a BMW M3, and a vacation home in Michigan. Value and Values are not mutually exclusive.

First, let's look at "affording the best schools". By this token, you are basing the availability of the best education possible for your children directly to your ability to pay for it. Being in a family heavily involved in public education my entire life, I think that this is a horrible policy to follow. Why? Because it violates the basic idea that people start from a position somewhere near equality. If you pay for your kids to get the best education, then the sidebar to that is that several poor children will be receiving less-than-adequate educations. The biggest problem with this philosophy is that it is based not on achievement of the individual, but rather the achievement of the individual's parents.

Personally, I'd strive for a system in which all children are able to receive a top-flight education. But, then again, this requires taxation -- and I know you loathe taxation from your other posts.

Secondly, you're talking about getting a boat or two and some luxury automobiles. All of those things take natural resources to build -- and there is only a finite amount of natural resources. So, since you are using a disproportionate amount of resources, those resources must be procured for you. We're talking about iron ore for the steel, and most importantly oil to run these machines. The procurement of oil requires both the support of despotic regimes throughout the world that keep their populations in line in return for a share of the profits (don't believe me -- look up "Shell Nigeria Ken Saro-wiwa"), or, as in the case of Iraq, outright war to secure those resources. Then, there's the pollution that results from your "toys" -- pollution that increases asthmatic rates in children and costs millions from the public kitty in additional health care costs. We could also add in the destruction of ecosystems that results from the spills of oil during its transport which inevitably kill off fish stocks and such.

Ditto with your "vacation home". We have destroyed the majority of old-growth forests in our country. By building a second home in which you don't live, you could be using resources that can only be harvested by destroying ecosystems.

As for the gun collection, I'm not going to touch that with a 10-foot pole. I grew up hunting and fishing, and I've never understood why people have such a fascination with such instruments of death as collector's items. But that's just my opinion.

So, let's sum up here -- in order to pay for the best education for your kids, there are several poor kids who receive a substandard education. In order for you to run your "toys", people must be "kept in line" or bombed in order to secure oil supplies. Furthermore, your "toys" contribute to the overall pollution of the earth and ever-increasing depletement of its finite resources. And they help to accelerate global warming, with the droughts and mass-starvations that will accompany it.

I realize that you probably don't want to face such realities, and that your immediate response is probably to just dismiss them as fallacious. That's fine. But once you discover how much actions and ecosystems on this earth ARE intertwined, it's impossible to dismiss them. But, it's impossible to try and impose these ideas on others. Personally, I just try to live my life by two simple guidelines -- there is ALWAYS something downstream, and "Am I my brother's keeper?" It helps me maintain the line that exists between "value" and "values".

[FatSlob]

49. Good post, while I digest it, I've a question.

It seems to me that paying to send my children to the best schools will improve the education for those remaining in public schools. I think this because I will still be paying school taxes to the district and they will not be having to expend money upon my own children. Therefore, the children remaining will have more funding per child. Now, on to the reason that I would like to send my children to superior schools, and why private schools are typically superior. I think it is because of caring. If I spend the money to send my kids to school, I am obviously going to do everything to make sure they get the best for the money. I'll make sure they do their homework, I'll make sure they behave. In my experience in public schools, I learned that many parents just didn't give a shit, and these bad students with their disruptive behavior brought down the entire class. I transferred to a private school later. The private school spent 1/2 the money per student and had superior results to the public school. Now, if I have to send my kids to public school, I'm pleased with the district where we now reside. We live in one of the top districts in Ohio. Madeira City Schools. Madeira spends about the same, or maybe a little less, money per student than Cincinnati Public. Cincinnati Public is a hellhole. Everybody who cares and can afford it sends their kids to Catholic schools in the district.

So, why would sending my kids to a better school hurt the rest of the kids? Even if it does hurt them, should I not look after the best interests of my kids?

[IrateCitizen]

56. Public vs. private schools...

I'll start out on this subject stating that I'm somewhat biased -- I'm the son of two public school teachers, I'm married to another, and I'm currently working toward changing my career to secondary education as well.

The problems of which you speak regarding disruption in public schools do require acknowledgement. Unfortunately, many of these problems result from the fact that public schools are not allowed to choose what students they want to take, while private schools are. Insufficient resources in many (lower-income) public schools also help exacerbate this problem. And I know from second-hand experience with my parents and my wife that there are PLENTY of parents who just don't really care that much about their children's education.

However, the inherent inequities in the system that result from these issues should not be further exacerbated by gross disparities in funding. The fact remains that schools that exist in "at-risk" neighborhoods require not equivalent funding, but MORE funding than those in affluent areas -- if for no other reason than to try and compensate for the inherent inequities that originate outside of the educational system but affect it nonetheless.

I live in a relatively affluent area of Westchester Co., NY. The school district directly to the south of me is Chappaqua -- one of the top public school systems in the country. Funding per student in Chappaqua was approximately $16K per pupil in 2001, compared to around $10K per pupil in the city school system. While the city number may be higher than the national average, it is still misleading, for it doesn't address the disparities in expenditures throughout the city itself. A child in Riverdale (an affluent area of the Bronx) will receive significantly more funds raised by parents than a pupil in the South Bronx, whose parents do not have the means to contribute more. Add to this the crumbling infrastructure of many schools in poorer areas as compared to newer structures in more affluent ones, and the disparity gets even worse.

Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith said in his book The Affluent Society (published in 1957) that the problem of systemic poverty (areas in which poverty is the prevalent norm as opposed to an isolated, episodic phenomenon) could only be adequately dealt with when society decided to actually spend MORE in these areas than it did in others -- because there were more obstacles to overcome. This adage holds true with regards to schools as well. People who live in affluent areas and send their kids to top-flight schools like to say that school funding doesn't really matter when it comes to student performance. Yet, suggest that these districts then REDUCE their per-pupil funding to come on-line with that of poorer areas, and they'll howl in protest. Therefore, it seems that higher per-pupil funding (which results in higher-quality teachers, smaller classrooms, better and newer supplies, etc.) is DIRECTLY attributable to this phenomenon.

Now, I realize that I still haven't answered your question regarding how YOU are taking opportunities away from other kids. Directly, you are not. However, with an educational system that is set up to be a zero-sum game and that rewards the students lucky enough to have parents sufficiently affluent to afford a home in the top districts while leaving behind those whose parents are not quite as fortunate or accomplished, is far from fair. My point is simply this -- should we not strive for a system in which inequalities between children are minimized, as opposed to amplified? Should we not view all children as being worthy of a substantial investment in their future, as opposed to investing only in some and confining others to the inevitability of a dim future (but then castigate them with messages of "personal responsibility" and "hard work" when things don't work out for them)? My overall point lies in a much bigger picture than just one person, and while you should be lauded for wanting the best for your kids and being involved in their education, it seems that ALL kids should be given the best that we can give them -- regardless of whether or not they were lucky enough to have been born to parents who invest heavily in their upbringing and education.

This may have been a rather roundabout answer to your direct question, but I hope it suffices.

[FatSlob]

64. Thanks, I'll get back to you later today.

[gpandas]

51. not what jesus says...

in fact, he says the opposite of that

[Philostopher]

2. And no.

We gross less than 1/3 of what I consider rich, and we're more than comfortable where we are. We have what we need, and more than we want, and as long as there are so many people out there who don't even have what they need, something inside me rebels at the whole concept of wishing I had more.

[Worst Username Ever]

3. I think a common misconception among Americans is that what you EARN makes

you rich. There are many people out there who make 200K a year, but they spend all of it, and literally have only a few hundred thousand in assets. Now, this is quite nice, but are these people richer than the perosn making 80K a year, saving and investing wislely, who has a portfolio worth 3 million? It's not what you make, it's what you do with it.

[smirkymonkey]

36. I would go so far as to say it's quite the contrary...

the fact that you have to EARN income at all would disqualify you from being considered truly rich.

[Worst Username Ever]

37. I would agree with that...

it is the arguement of EARNING money v. MAKING money. Money invested with the sole purpose of creating more is what true wealth is all about, in my opinion. Which would go right along with the idea that those who have so much money being MADE for them are really the ones I would consider to be rich. "The investor class."

[Hello_Kitty]

4. Depends where you live

In many parts of the country one could live extremely well on 250K a year. In San Francisco you'd get by OK, but the standard of living would be much lower.

[onehandle]

6. Yep. Many variables in play in that question. nt

[ibegurpard]

34. Exactly.

Generally, I would say a family living on 100K per year would be doing pretty well but somewhere like SF, Boston, or New York the cost of living takes a huge chunk out of that.
What I have never been able to figure out is how people like video store clerks, waiters, department store personnel, fast food workers, and many other service industries are able to survive in places with extremely high costs of living.

[VOX]

52. Yes. $100K in El Paso is a lot, but in L.A. or Seattle, it's "doing okay"

Home prices, rents, manufactured goods, state taxes, etc, all come in to play.

Example:
2004 median home price
Los Angeles -- $438,400
El Paso -- $96,000

And even these figures will vary depending upon the location of a particular community.

[7th_Sephiroth]

5. if you have paid off your hummer h-2

your rich
if your stock dividens bought you that h-2 your rich
if you work for halliburton, and have only seen oilfields in pictures from the company newsletter, your rich
if you sit on a board, your rich
if you have me outside your house measuring the distance across the street across your lawn and to your windows, run

[FatSlob]

7. Dave Chapelle "I'm Rich Beeyotch!"

I love that. I wanna be rich...give me $500K a year!

[mzmolly]

8. Next time Bush says making 200k per year isn't rich, we should remind him

that he is against increasing the minimum wage.

"This from the man who is against increasing the minimum wage..."

[teach1st]

12. Bush is being honest, though

He probably can't imagine how anyone could make it on only $200 grand a year.

[mzmolly]

24. It's a modern day "let them eat cake" statement if I ever heard.

:hi:

[onehandle]

9. President Clinton was not a rich man.

That's why the GOP hated him so. He was one of us.

Only smarter.

[KurtNYC]

11. Middle class family of 4 = $90K

Congress recently defined middle class as total income of $90K plus for a family of 4. I think most Americans would be surprised by that number. The standard of living in this country has been in decline since the late 1950s but few people do the math.

[TexasBushwhacker]

15. Well, that's pretty scary

considering that AVERAGE income for a family of 4 is about $45K. So, that means that the average family is at best, lower middle class. Considering how many of those families are 2 earner families makes the situation even worse.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

18. So what are people who make below $90,000?

Isn't the poverty line set to some ridiculously low number, like $15,000 for a family of four? Are the people in between lower middle class?

[John BigBootay]

48. I read an interesting book with the opposite premise-

I don't remember the name of it right off- I'm at work and not next to my bookshelf-- something like "Unbridled Greed." It was something of a sarcastic title that played off of the common perception that modern middle class Americans are stupid, lazy, greedy and self-absorbed.

One of their premises was to disavow the notion that the standard of living has been steadily diminishing. Rather they presented some pretty solid evidence to the contrary-- pretty much by every measurable indicator, the standard of living has improved over the last 50 years. Better food, better health care and medicine, longer life spans, more disposable income, cheaper products, more entertainment, better safety standards, etc. etc. etc.

Now, I would also counter that there is a price you pay for the improvements we've seen-- more commercialization, more homogenization, more crowding, more pollution, etc. But, in general, I agree with the idea that I enjoy a higher standard of living than my grandparents.

The proof of this for ME. Is that I would not trade the general conditions of today with the conditions of the 1950's.

[TahitiNut]

13. Well, $100K/year of UNEARNED income is 'rich'.

While $200K/year of EARNED income (from one's own labors) is needed to come close to matching that. In my view, it's not just the "income" -- it's also how much of one's own labor/life is SOLD to obtain that income. In a sense, I regard income as only one side of the equation. When one obtains income through 'ownership' - which gets translated into some entitlement to the wealth created by the labors of others - I regard such income as having no personal life investment.

Every person has some finite allotment of LIFE itself. When some people derive income from the SALE of their own allotment, and others derive income from the exploitation of others' allotment, I see a vast difference in what 'rich' means.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

14. I never have been anywhere close to being rich.

My husband and I are working at it. This economy bites. BTW, I think you are rich if you make $100,000. That's more than three times what my family makes now, and about five times more than what my parents made when I was growing up. Damn, we could do a lot with $100,000. It's too bad we don't have it. It's a shame to see so many rich people wasting their money on things like Hummers. A thrifty person could do so much more with that amount of money.

[IrateCitizen]

16. Financially rich isn't about income -- it's about wealth

People that are financially rich don't have "income" because they don't have to "work" in order to maintain a lavish lifestyle.

Personally, I define rich as having a loving family and a wide circle of friends, along with a true sense of community around where you live. In this respect, I want to be rich -- and it doesn't have much to do with money after basic needs are met with a little left over for luxuries.

[unblock]

17. way too simplistic, depends on income, networth, and AGE

among other things.

age is a huge factor, because if your income has finally gotten up to something wonderful like $250,000/yr, but you're now 65 and about to retire, that VERY different from someone making $250,000 in his second year after college on wall street.

same with net worth. $2,000,000 in the bank when you're retired is comfortable, but not rich. that same $2,000,000 when you're still in college is HUGE.

[On the Road]

19. A Two-Income Couple

both with corporate manager-level salaries can earn $200K in a year. That is well off, but it is not rich.

[Paxdora]

20. Having money accumulate in a bank

without being used for a good purpose other than the 'benefit' of accumulating...

ho hum

[HawkerHurricane]

21. "Rich" is when...

you don't HAVE to work.

If you have to ask what the price is on anything, you aren't rich.

If I work my butt off, and make $1m a year, I'm not rich.

If even sitting on my arse I make $50k a year, I am.

Rich is not a amount of money, it's an attitude.

GWBush was given million's. He's rich.

John Edwards earned million's. He's not.

[KitSileya]

23. I put in $100K a year.

I did this, because if you're earning that much, as a single person, you have the opportunity to put aside money.

I think that to be completely rich, you have to have enought so that, should something happen, it wouldn't cripple you financially if you don't work for a year or more.

There's a difference between affluence and wealth, as the frugal zealot has taught many of us. Affluence is the apperance of wealth, or the spending of money, while wealth is to have enough for security, in my opinion.

[Lorien]

43. I made around $125,000 a year seven years ago

I'm single, own a modest home (1600 sq. ft, 1920s, very mixed neighborhood). I run my own business and have all the expenses that go with that, including paying for health insurance. I had quite a nest egg-until the stock market plunged, and I had six months worth of unemployment four years ago, and an emergency procedure...all of which served to wipe me out and put me into debt. I come from a Mennonite family, so frugal behavior is part of my heritage (I'm not into "stuff").

Depending on where you live, what you do for a living, and your general health; 100k can be an upper middle class or middle class income. Inflation and other costs no longer make it a standard for being "rich", IMO.

[KitSileya]

47. Being an out-of-work new teacher with tons of student loans....

....I wouldn't know rich if it hit me on the head. Of course, I am translating these numbers into Norwegian kroners, ($1=NOK7) and seeing how I would do on them.

Bear in mind that Norway's one of the most expensive countries in the world, so any gains in terms of welfare (no health insurance etc) is offset by the incredibly expensive food, entertainment, houses etc. $100,000 is roughly what my stockbroker brother-in-law is earning, and over twice as much as I would be paid (after 7 years of university education) if I could just find a steady job. It is also over twice as much as my current student loans. In terms of Norwegian earning power, you could get pretty rich earning $100K as a single person, willing to save money and not live affluently. Of course, we don't have to worry about having our savings wiped out should we break our leg or need emergency surgery, and that's of incalculable worth in and of itself.

Thanks for setting me straight on the numbers. :) I guess that as someone who just got out of school, still shares an appartment with strangers and who has never actually earned a full year's salary, let alone $100K, I don't realize how much is much, and how much is enough. :)

[Lorien]

50. When I was fresh out of school, I was in the same boat

making only $245.00 a week and sharing a small apartment with four roomates. Still not as bad as when I lived in an unfurnished basement with an abusive boyfriend-on $180.00 a month! I'll take the six-figure income any day over those unhappy times, but I'll probably never see one again; Shrub has done so much damage to our economy, it's hard to imagine how we'll get out of this!

[Kanary]

25. Anyone who can afford assault weapons is RICH.

[FatSlob]

27. I guess I'm rich, then.

I can and do afford those $1000 rifles. I love them.

[gpandas]

54. you love rifles?

[B Calm]

28. Rich is a person who only flys first class!

[RobertSeattle]

29. Lots of us fly first class based on air mile upgrades...

Perhaps if you purchase full fare first class tix...

[Trailrider1951]

30. $125,000 per year is $10,400 per MONTH

Some people live on $10,400 per year! I don't see how. My gross income is around $3000 per month, and while I'm not quite living in poverty, there are times when the dollars don't stretch as far as the once did. If I made $125K per year or more, I would consider myself wealthy.

[oldlady]

32. there ya go...

whenever this topic comes up in real life, I pull out the calculator--- c'mon! Bush granted tax cuts to people who make $4000 a WEEK!! The average income in my neighborhood is under $10,000 a YEAR! I couldn't spend $4000 a week...not even at the bookstore (my most expensive vice)! egads.

[tokenlib]

38. It depends on your perspective.

When John Kerry defines people over $100,000 as middle class--it bothers me.

At about $48,000 a year, my wife and I were beginning to feel comfortable--not living paycheck to paycheck. I'd just payed off my student loans--then the paycuts and benefit cuts from the economic downturn sliced the added $200 a month off our income and we were back to struggling paycheck to paycheck. After 20 years of waiting--that broke my heart. And in our area of central Michigan--I have one of the better paying jobs!

The more you make, the more you need to live. From a perspective of 45,000 a year--100,000 sounds rich. I know friends who have big $30000 pickup trucks, snowmobiles, Harleys, and I have NO IDEA how they can afford them.. I get the pleas from League of Conservation voters, the ACLU, Sierra Club and all the groups I admire and support with my heart--but I cannot afford to join them. That $20 here and there adds up to more than I can spare. To send $25 to the Kerry Campaign or the DNC is actually a real sacrifice for some of us.

Now I know wages and expenses vary by location. So I don't mean to demean anyone making a lot more where the cost of living is a lot higher.

But to me, the beginnings of being rich are when you no longer live from paycheck to payheck to fulfill a basic, comfortable existance. When you can actually afford to have a goodly sum set aside for retirement. The beginnings of being rich are when the Grover Norquist -Bush plans for Social Security and Medicare no longer have you stressed out, fearful, and scared for your personal survival in the future. In my view, people who "buy" into this "ownership" crap from Bush and are unaffected by it, are rich indeed.

And on EDIT, those of us who have the worries I do are the lucky ones. It grieves me what is to become of the millions who are worse off in our increasingly "social darwinist" society.

[Pithlet]

39. If one's definition of rich

is a longwinded definition concerning earned income vs unearned blah blah blee, then he or she is probably rich.

[cheezus]

40. If you go to sleep every night in a bed under a roof with a full stomach

IN America? If you don't ever have to even WORRY about having those things.

[Cleita]

44. I don't think income counts for being rich.

It's what you own. Of course what you own can generate income. So you have to figure out what income generating assets will provide you with the income you desire. This means you need to own stocks, bonds real estate and/or businesses.

Having worked for some obscenely rich people in my lifetime, it's not their profession, whether it be a doctor, lawyer or whatever that makes them rich. It's what they do with their excess income, like how they invest their money, that sets them up as rich.

If they get an inheritance, it's so much easier to acquire wealth, yet some heirs, not having to work for what they get, have often frittered away a fortune through poor choices in life and have died much poorer than what they were born into.

However, there is a new breed of recently rich who find that legal stealing is much easier. These are the guys who strip a company of its assets, running them into bankruptcy, while they walk off with millions. They also figure out ways to rob the government of it's assets. These are the new robber barons and our government is presently being run by these pirates. They all belong in jail.

[RaleighNCDUer]

59. What is this 'excess income' you mention? It's a phenomenon

I'm not familiar with.

[rman]

63. then you're not rich

imagine your income is so much that after paying taxes and paying for living expenses, there's still much more left then what you have just spent on living and taxes.

[RaleighNCDUer]

65. Such a thought. Does such a world really exist? My head hurts.

[Cleita]

66. Yes, it does.

I once went for a job interview for a family known in So. California as the Dohenys. They made gazillions of dollars at the turn of the last century up to the present day in oil. There is a whole street in Los Angeles, Doheny Drive, named for them. The twelve story building in Beverly Hills that I went to housed all the offices that were needed to manage the Doheny family fortune.

I mean it wasn't a business, but a whole twelve story building that did nothing but manage the private fortune of the Doheny family members. Imagine accountants, investment managers, secretaries, bookkeepers and clerks of all kind taking care of what amounts to your checkbook. Everything is taken care of for you, payments on your expenses, payrolls for your servants, even their hiring.

All you have to do is get up each day, go to the SPA or beauty shop, then go shopping. Have lunch with a friend. Go to Paris if you like on a whim. Everything is put on store accounts or credit cards and you never have to worry about paying for it.

I never got this job, but I did work for many institutions in my lifetime that did business and maintained accounts for clients as rich as this family.

[TexasSissy]

45. Question: Is this income PER PERSON or PER HOUSEHOLD?

The taxes being talked about are PER HOUSEHOLD.

[patcox2]

46. Being able to live without working, exploiting the work of others.

Thats the only line that matters. If you don't have to work, you are rich. There are people out there who work like dogs, doctors, lawyers, who earn half a million a year, but they are just very highly paid working people, they are glorified servants and laborers, they could be reach, but they don't know what it means (they think it means having a lot of money and spending it all).

Those who live off accumulated capital, those are the rich. They may not have as much disposable income as a hard working lawyer, but they are in a different class.

I am not sure what to think of corporate CEOs and high finance types like investment bankers; these people fall outside the old marxist categories, it seems. I call what they do theft, siphoning a share of other people's money, exploiting cracks and weaknesses in our ruless governing corporate governance to enrich themselves at the expense all both shareholders and workers; they exploit the rich and the poor. Its organized criminality. And it does give many of them a path to true wealth, they reach the point where they can stop stealing.

[Djinn]

53. most people in the west

the vast majority of those in the west are rich - they wont get a fatal disease from drinking filthy water because that's all there is.

I don't know where I draw the line within western nations - but 100,000+ a year is NOT middle class where I live.

[Blaukraut]

55. someone told me this;

I met a fellow Kerry volunteer at my work place, and she told me about an interesting exchange she had with one of her friends, who is a dentist.
Friend thinks he is rich, so Kery lady asks him;
If you were to be unemployed all of a sudden, how long would you be able to live your current lifestyle with your stock portfolio/savings.
He says, maybe four, five years. So she replies;
Then you're not rich. Only if your assets allow you the freedom to quit having to work for a living for the rest of your life, are you rich.


Personally, I'm not rich, and never will be - especially if I use the above analogy as a guideline. :shrug:

[RaleighNCDUer]

57. I think $150K. About six time what I make, in my 55 hrs/wk.

By gov't definition, I guess I'm 'lower middle class' simply by being fully employed and able to cover my expenses month to month.

[slackmaster]

58. It depends on where you live

Here in San Diego where the median resale price of a single-family home was $480,000 last month, a $100K income is barely enough to support a family of four. In a lot of other places $100K would be a very comfortable living.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041013/news_1b13housing.html

I put the definition at $200K because of my own circumstances. YMMV.

[dr.strangelove]

60. I think its worth about the accumulation of wealth than income

but, I put 175k, only because I think thats enough to be rich where I live. My wife and I earn a little under $150k per year, and are probably the most well off income wise in my neighborhood. I don't think we are rich because we paid $500,000 for our house and our mortgage is almost 50% of our monthly take home. After car payments, insurance, food and others, we have only about 200 - 300 a month in "disposable income" which we spend on our nieces and nephew mostly.

I think if I had an extra $1,000 a month disposable I'd be rich by my standards.

[napi21]

61. Read a post on DU last night about wealth & Pub supporters.

I can't recall who wrote the article, but it spoke about the difference between wealthy and super rich and why the wealthy support Pubs, but the super rich don't. Even people who earn $1 million+ a year don't feel financially secure, so they are very concentrated on tax cuts and gaining more $$. The supper rich, those with assets of $10 million or more, are financially secure, and they don't have to worry about the mortgage or anything else, concentrate on social issues and helping others. They referenced Warren Buffett and a few others, and said these guys really don't care if they pay a little more in taxes.

[rman]

62. income? you forgot capital

Paradoxically, at higher income levels income doesn't really matter that much.
What difference does 1 million/year make when you'v got several billion in the bank?

One may think income distribtion is unequal, but the unequality in capital is outside of any proportion.