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.
I think a minimum threshold of liquid wealth would have to start at at least $15 million.
$1.5 million (non-house) was solid 25 years ago, but right now, you would need to be watching your expenditures if you tried to retire on that, especially if you have a travel or car addiction.
Income is not the primary measure. Wealth is. I would consider anyone with mean household financial (non-home) wealth greater than $1.5 million to be "rich." That's about the top 20%.
In other words your average public-sector employee with a defined benefit plan is rich...
Think fireman, police officer, city admins, school admins, etc.
so i disagree strongly with Obama's contention that $250k/yr constitutes "rich."
but let's also be clear that the opposing party -- the Republicans -- want to eliminate capital gains and inheritance taxes, which are the government's primary means of taxing the (legitimately) rich.
So a Wall street banker making a quarter of a million is not rich, but a school teacher making 39K is rich
Welcome to right wing logic
Its not about the yearly income, as he said in his statement its about having a defined benefit plan in the government sector. He's making commentary on all the huge pension plans that have been handed out to those in government jobs. You work until you retire under some of the very, very nice retirement plans and the net value of your DB plan could very well value in the $1.5M range. Of course those plans are paid out as annuities more often than not so its still not like those people are having that money just dropped into their pockets and the $1.5M has that value strictly actuarially speaking
Its not about the yearly income, as he said in his statement its about having a defined benefit plan in the government sector. He's making commentary on all the huge pension plans that have been handed out to those in government jobs. You work until you retire under some of the very, very nice retirement plans and the net value of your DB plan could very well value in the $1.5M range. Of course those plans are paid out as annuities more often than not so its still not like those people are having that money just dropped into their pockets and the $1.5M has that value strictly actuarially speaking
Having health care is not my definition of rich, maybe it's yours.
You have to work decades to get a pension plan, most government employees have not invested decades in their plan
A good pension is considered 80% of your income, so 80% of 39K is 31K, not my definition of rich, but we all have different standards
My definition of rich, if you can live comfortably off your assets, then you are 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.
