Hating on the wealthy... (student loan, expenses, $40k, stocks)

[Texas User]

You can still be poor owning all those businesses and homes.

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

Funny you should say that. We have a friend that owns a chain of resteraunts. His places are in California, Hawaii, Nevada, Florida, and he is putting one in Washington D.C. The guy has done well for himself, has homes in Hawaii, California, and in Las Vegas. When he goes out he never tells people what he has. My brother and him will hit up a club and things are fine till my brother starts drinking. When he gets lit up he tells everyone that his friend is paying because he is has more money than all of them. we were at this party one time talking about this. Our friend says he hates it when my brother starts doing that. My brother has his own money so he should pay. LOL

Another thing is he had to move because his family would hit up one of his places and say hay cousin your going to take care of the tab right? Just because someone has built their wealth why should they have to take care of every little family member and friend all the time?

[Escort Rider]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948

government retirees. cops, teachers and social workers, most hated and coveted people in america.
those that didnt die from a heart attack or get murdered got the pension and the people that they served 30 years hate them just hate them for it.
many envy what i have, none what i had to do to get it.
when you have slain the dragon,
the village does not in fact turn out to cheer
and the beautiful princess does not in fact fall in love with you

There are several aspects of that post which can be commented on. First, this is a thread about hating the wealthy. Now we've gotten down to government retirees, who are by no stretch of the imagination wealthy even if many people are envious of their pensions.

Second, it would be interesting if some large survey would document the extent to which people's resentment of those with pensions has actually become hatred. I don't think most people "hate" people who have a pension, although I know there are some because I have seen their remarks right here on City-Data.

[texdav]

Originally Posted by Chango

There seems to be more and more of it as time goes on. It's seriously amazing to see how things changed so fast.

I work for the Government and regularly dealt with "do you know who I am?" folks... you know the type, the "supersize my life" McMansion and chromed Hummer crowd that has virtually disappeared in the last three years. No one has used that line with me since 2008; seriously.
These days, if you are wealthy you are scorned and shamed and demonized and joked about like never before in this country. It's as if everyone with a positive bank account suddenly became a ridicule-worthy clown like this:



I don't consider myself to be rich, but I come from a family that is. Their crowd seems to have switched their Mercedes and Cadillacs for Toyotas and Chevys, their vacations are now to Colorado or California instead of Europe or Bali, even though they really aren't any poorer than they were back in the glory days of conspicuous consumption. They seem to try very hard to not stand out anymore.

So am I just imagining this? Is being rich bad for your health these days? It's just amazing to me that we went from "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" to the French Revolution mentality in only a couple of years... and the trend seems to show no signs of slowing. Maybe it isn't a bad thing, but then again, maybe it is... whatdayathink?

Those are not the wealthy or how they do things. That is the poor who as long as its free want nothing but the best. Likely they are always telling you ;you work for them .The wealthy deal with your boss;who tells you as always what he wants done.

[k374]

I think we really need to redefine wealthy.. it used to be that net worth of $1 million classified you as wealthy...no longer is that true.

In today's world you need at least a net worth of $5 million to be wealthy. This was John McCain's demarcation point during the Saddleback debate and I agree with it. Obama's $250k/yr income limit to classify the wealthy is a total joke! Most $250k/yr incomes are bound to be in the high cost metro areas and in these places $250k/yr is not rich, it's just getting by and people earning less than $100k/yr in areas like LA are actually *poor*!

[sonarrat]

No one ever defended the rich until the media realized people were foolish enough to actually go for it.

[Escort Rider]

Originally Posted by k374

I think we really need to redefine wealthy.. it used to be that net worth of $1 million classified you as wealthy...no longer is that true.

In today's world you need at least a net worth of $5 million to be wealthy. This was John McCain's demarcation point during the Saddleback debate and I agree with it. Obama's $250k/yr income limit to classify the wealthy is a total joke! Most $250k/yr incomes are bound to be in the high cost metro areas and in these places $250k/yr is not rich, it's just getting by and people earning less than $100k/yr in areas like LA are actually *poor*!

I'm calling b..s.. on that. I have lived in the Los Angeles area since 1966 in three different areas: the central San Fernando Valley, Glendale, and the western San Gabriel Valley within 10 miles of downtown. What an absurdity to claim that people who earn less than $100k/year here are poor. If you are a spoiled brat who has to wear designer clothes, it may seem so. Or if you think not having granite counter tops means you are suffering, it may seem so. Or if you think driving anything less than a BMW or a Mercedes means you are suffering, it may seem so. Furthermore, there is no need to live in the priciest areas, which are Beverly Hills, San Marino, Brentwood and other parts of West L.A., and various other smaller enclaves. There is perfectly good housing in many, many other safe areas which is affordable for someone making $70k/year. The sort of whining in the post by K374 is a good example of the greed and entitlement mentality that has brought this country to its knees and it turns my stomach.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Originally Posted by Texas User

You can still be poor owning all those businesses and homes.

True, you could be. Still how many poor people do you know with a chain of resteraunts and homes in 3 states?

[Texas User]

Originally Posted by k374

I think we really need to redefine wealthy.. it used to be that net worth of $1 million classified you as wealthy...no longer is that true.

In today's world you need at least a net worth of $5 million to be wealthy. This was John McCain's demarcation point during the Saddleback debate and I agree with it. Obama's $250k/yr income limit to classify the wealthy is a total joke! Most $250k/yr incomes are bound to be in the high cost metro areas and in these places $250k/yr is not rich, it's just getting by and people earning less than $100k/yr in areas like LA are actually *poor*!

Its not the dollar amount. If you can live below your means and still stay happy then you are wealthy. This means you can even have $100K in total wealth.

Not lot of people make over $250K though.

[Texas User]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

True, you could be. Still how many poor people do you know with a chain of resteraunts and homes in 3 states?

Unless they disclose it. Why would they?

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Originally Posted by Texas User

Unless they disclose it. Why would they?

I think the differance that we are talking about is those with access to assets that maybe not performing or have lost value. Or maybe where the individual has created a debt load that exceeds the value of the assets. They would be poor but still have access to the assets. Not exactly the kind of poor people that I am talking about. Name me a poor person that has no assets that lives a similar life as someone with access to many assets even if those assets are not performing as well now as they did in the past.