How much money you have to earn to be considered rich in DFW? (Dallas: apartment, houses)

[TurtleCreek80]

Originally Posted by ufcrules1

I have some friends that live in North Dallas and they own 4 single family homes (All paid off) and they make 700k per year and have no debt and they do not consider themselves rich. I don't either. I think they are "Well off" but not rich.

I personally think rich means you live comfortably and don't have to ever worry about working for the rest of your life.

Your friends are rich, no question about it. Technically they’re considered “ultra-rich” at that income level. They would even be considered “ultra rich” in NYC where $585k is the cutoff for top 5% income.

They - and you - are completely delusional to think someone in the top fraction of the top 1% are not rich. And especially with 4 mortgage free properties. And I assume ample investments or else what are they doing with that kind of annual cash flow…

If the top 1% is not rich, then who is? Seriously, I expect a reply.

[ufcrules1]

Originally Posted by TurtleCreek80

Your friends are rich, no question about it. Technically they’re considered “ultra-rich” at that income level. They would even be considered “ultra rich” in NYC where $585k is the cutoff for top 5% income.

They - and you - are completely delusional to think someone in the top fraction of the top 1% are not rich. And especially with 4 mortgage free properties. And I assume ample investments or else what are they doing with that kind of annual cash flow…

If the top 1% is not rich, then who is? Seriously, I expect a reply.

In my original post I explained my definition of truly rich/wealthy means you no longer have to work for anyone. Although our friends are very comfortable, they are in their 40's and still have no choice but to work. That to me isn't rich. Sure, they are very comfortable and on the right path to financial freedom, but as comfortable as they are, they cannot retire and are forced to show up to work each and every day just like us. Also, they haven't always made that kind of money, only for a few years. They have always been financially responsible with their money though and are living debt free now.

[20Hope20]

To be honest, $2.5 million in assets and $700k per year earnings for two full time professionals isn't exceptional.

Unless you have enough money to never have to worry about salary, you aren't wealthy, just better off.

To feel wealthy and not having to worry about work, expenses, healthcare, accidents, retirement etc, you need enough assets to generate at least $ 1million per year without having to work.

[TurtleCreek80]

Originally Posted by 20Hope20

To be honest, $2.5 million in assets and $700k per year earnings for two full time professionals isn't exceptional.

Unless you have enough money to never have to worry about salary, you aren't wealthy, just better off.

To feel wealthy and not having to worry about work, expenses, healthcare, accidents, retirement etc, you need enough assets to generate at least $ 1million per year without having to work.

By definition, they ARE exceptional. They make more money every year than 99% of other American households and probably 99.9% of the entire world’s population.

There are really F’d up views on money in this forum.

[jiping]

It depends on whether your income are sustainable and transferable.

$700k from two-physician family or two-Googler in their 30s is definitely rich. They will continue making $700k and more for decades and reach $10M+ NW soon.

$700k from Ebay sales, website ads, crypto, day-trading could be a one-off. Most time it's not even a real number, but an expected one, calculated by multiplying occasional $60k month by 12. In this case even "$7M" is not rich enough.

[hindsight2020]

Originally Posted by Xalistiq

I don’t care what they consider themselves. They are rich. A $700,000 household pre-tax income is in the 99th percentile of all US households.

Yup, and this is the problem with the upper middle class (petite bourgeoisie) and the aristocracy class proper. Everybody self-reports as middle hyphen this, middle suffix that. Any monkier of income modesty they can hide behind for self-preservation reasons. Nobody likes owning their class privilege in this Country. Remember, acknowledging "class" in America is to reveal the denied panty line of the narrative of a classless society behind the exceptionalism mythology of our bifurcated society.

[hindsight2020]

Originally Posted by TurtleCreek80

There are really F’d up views on money in this forum.

Of course, this place is an "upper middle" (as they self-report themselves anyways) echo chamber. They've always spoken of the "poors" in the third person here.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by TurtleCreek80

By definition, they ARE exceptional. They make more money every year than 99% of other American households and probably 99.9% of the entire world’s population.

There are really F’d up views on money in this forum.

Maybe. But $700K income and some free and clear residential RE per se isn't ultra-wealthy by any definition I'm aware of. Obviously if the RE includes a place in The Dakota or on Jupiter Island that'd change things.


Where this get's interesting is it may be the $700K salary(ies) have been augment with liquidity events (MA and or options and or big retention/performance bonuses etc.).

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by hindsight2020

Yup, and this is the problem with the upper middle class (petite bourgeoisie) and the aristocracy class proper. Everybody self-reports as middle hyphen this, middle suffix that. Any monkier of income modesty they can hide behind for self-preservation reasons. Nobody likes owning their class privilege in this Country. Remember, acknowledging "class" in America is to reveal the denied panty line of the narrative of a classless society behind the exceptionalism mythology of our bifurcated society.

Stow that. All of it. I've done exceptionally well for a lot years and I have no problem being frank about it. I'm not modest nor do I live in any fear of judgment from people like you. My privilege was growing up picking cotton, milking goats, spending summers on a brush hog, hauling hay, cutting sheep - fun stuff like that.


I've also studied economics for a few decades.......I've never heard anyone claim that the US is a classless society.

[move4ward]

Originally Posted by ufcrules1

In my original post I explained my definition of truly rich/wealthy means you no longer have to work for anyone. Although our friends are very comfortable, they are in their 40's and still have no choice but to work. That to me isn't rich. Sure, they are very comfortable and on the right path to financial freedom, but as comfortable as they are, they cannot retire and are forced to show up to work each and every day just like us. Also, they haven't always made that kind of money, only for a few years. They have always been financially responsible with their money though and are living debt free now.

You don't have to be wealthy to retire. It's about money management. People are retiring with far less income your friends, but they are not wealthy. Check out the FIRE Movement groups in various forums.

The FIRE Movement Is Alive and Well
https://www.kiplinger.com/retirement...alive-and-well

Perhaps the best known of them is Adeney, who retired from his job as a software engineer at age 30 with $600,000 in savings and investments and a paid-off house. Now 47, Adeney continues to keep his expenditures low. His annual spending of about $20,000 includes groceries, household costs, and entertainment for himself and his teenage son—despite an income that could support much higher outlays, thanks to his carpentry hobby and the success of his blog. He donates about $100,000 to charity each year, and with friends he runs a coworking and events space in his town of Longmont, Colo. Although Adeney got divorced in 2018, he and his ex-wife remain financially independent after splitting a comfortable surplus of money. Divorce is “much less stressful if you aren’t also fighting over money with your former spouse,” says Adeney.