Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My question is, if a family has a combined income of $300,000 a year, are they considered "rich". Of course everything is relative, but in most parts of the US is this considered wealthy?
It's been asked at what salary level is someone considered rich, and there has been some very interesting insight.
My question is, if a family has a combined income of $300,000 a year, are they considered "rich". Of course everything is relative, but in most parts of the US is this considered wealthy?
While this figure is clearly a large sum, I think it depends how old one is when they earn this kind of money which determines whether or not they are rich. If it's someone in their 30's or even 40's, I would argue that they are affluent (not rich).
But if it's someone in their 50's or 60's (who has yet to pay off their mortgage, drives luxury automobiles, travels extensively, dresses to the nines, enjoys fine wine and food) I would say they are not.
Even though a salary of $300,000 puts one in the top .9% of US income earners, I still do not consider this figure to be "rich". Do you?
Does winning the lottery make you rich? No. If you suck at managing money, you'll be poor no matter your salary.
$300,000 makes you comfortable almost everywhere. It could also make you rich in low COL areas but you usually don't find that kind of salary in those places.
Yes it's rich. If someone making $300,000 and feels they aren't well off because (it's relevant) they spend it on cars, houses and vacations then they are rich fools who don't know how to manage their money.
It's been asked at what salary level is someone considered rich, and there has been some very interesting insight.
My question is, if a family has a combined income of $300,000 a year, are they considered "rich". Of course everything is relative, but in most parts of the US is this considered wealthy?
While this figure is clearly a large sum, I think it depends how old one is when they earn this kind of money which determines whether or not they are rich. If it's someone in their 30's or even 40's, I would argue that they are affluent (not rich).
But if it's someone in their 50's or 60's (who has yet to pay off their mortgage, drives luxury automobiles, travels extensively, dresses to the nines, enjoys fine wine and food) I would say they are not.
Even though a salary of $300,000 puts one in the top .9% of US income earners, I still do not consider this figure to be "rich". Do you?
Um, they're not required to buy luxury automobiles or dress to the nines. Those would be indicators of wealth.
Rich, wealthy, affluent, opulent means having goods, property, and money in abundance.
Rich implies having more than enough to gratify normal needs or desires.
Of course it is all relative. But I am pretty sure that being in the top 1% of income earners would put you in the category of having "money in abundance". And it would definitely allow someone to have "more than enough to gratify normal needs or desires".
No matter how much money you have, you could find a way to spend it. But if you believe you are not rich if you make $300,000 a year, then your needs and desires are not normal. They are beyond the realm of normal, into the fabulous.
A rich guy is typically someone who makes 2x what you do or has 2x more money than you do. It's not really a number in and of itself.
When I made 50k a year I thought man if I could make 100K i'd be so well off. Then at 100K it was 150K and so on. Once I had 1 million I thought 2 was "the number". Somewhere along the line I figured out that I was chasing an illusive number. Kind of like chasing your own shadow I suppose. I no longer define "rich" in monetary terms because I got too damn frustrated trying to figure out what that meant.
Rich, wealthy, affluent, opulent means having goods, property, and money in abundance.
Rich implies having more than enough to gratify normal needs or desires.
Of course it is all relative. But I am pretty sure that being in the top 1% of income earners would put you in the category of having "money in abundance". And it would definitely allow someone to have "more than enough to gratify normal needs or desires".
No matter how much money you have, you could find a way to spend it. But if you believe you are not rich if you make $300,000 a year, then your needs and desires are not normal. They are beyond the realm of normal, into the fabulous.
Sorry, but you are rich.
That's rich!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
