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.
"The average income for a tax return in the top 0.1 percent is $7.4 million, while the average amount of income tax paid is $1.6 million, indicating an average effective individual income tax rate of 21.5 percent. This very top income group actually has a lower average effective tax rate than the rest of the top 1 percent of returns because these extremely high-income returns are more likely to have income from capital gains and dividends, which are typically taxed at lower rates."
1 a (1): a stock of accumulated goods especially at a specified time and in contrast to income received during a specified period; also: the value of these accumulated goods (2): accumulated goods devoted to the production of other goods (3): accumulated possessions calculated to bring in income b (1): net worth (2):stock 7c(1) c: persons holding capital d:advantage, gain <make capital of the situation> e: a store of useful assets or advantages <wasted their political capital on an unpopular cause> <wrote from the capital of his emotionally desolate boyhood — E. L. Doctorow>
300 000 Bucks a year? OMG ! YESYESYES
OR DOES BEING RICH STARTS WITH AN INCOME OF 3 ...MILLION ????????
It's all relative...
Quote:
1: having abundant possessions and especially material wealth 2 a: having high value or quality b: well supplied or endowed <a city rich in traditions>
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?
Very affluent, perhaps rich. But it's really the assets that determine whether or not one is rich, not their income. I would say if a person has over $1 million in LIQUID assets, or some number above that depending on the relative liquidity of their assets (a luxury home in a down market can be less "liquid" than in a boom market), then they are rich.
Hawkeye you are a bad manager if you don't think you are doing well. Chances are they are paying you too damn muchjust kidding. We could both do a family budget here and if I had yours and you are making 150M clear and not living a damn good what i would call rich life, I could pull your shorts down around your ankles with citing your personal budget mistakes.
I will give you this though. If you juxtoposed the budget of some of the low income families that know how to and take advantage of the entitlements offered by this society to your budget and then measured the sacrifice, you may if fact be the stooge
They educate their kids for free, particularly if they are smart scholarship kids. You may have to pay 6 figures to get your B student through school. They pay no taxes in many cases, they have subsidized housing with very decent living standards in many cases. A 1200 sq. ft. house with a garage can be purchased even today under some loan programs at 1% and it goes on and on.
Talk about redistribution of wealth to compensate those that do not excel in eduaction or skill with those that do excel, well...the liberals have it going on now don't they?
In fact the greatest recipients of the free hand outs in this country are the pedantics themselves. The educational system is both a sham and a scam. These people by and large are often making 6 figures to peddle disciplines to our children that result in student loan mortgages equal to the house mortgages of our generation then they can't find a freaking job. It is bull**** and the system needs to be changed and a vast majority of these pedantics turned out to get real jobs. I see these young people on a daily basis. Bright young people that have bought into the bull**** gotten a degree and can't find a $10 per hour job. It is heart breaking and we have sold them a bill of goods.
I think alot of it is attitude. I thought I was doing okay when I made $30K-$50K per year.
I must disagree about education; education and hard work are the keys to success. One must choose a major in college that will actually increase one's ability to obtain a job and be a productive citizen. Degrees that do not achieve that goal are worthless (literature, art, dance, ect) and are the luxury of the super rich. I have told my kids I will not pay for thier education if they choose a worthless major (life is full of choices, but I do not have to finance them), as it will not allow them to become independent functioning citizens in a difficult world. So far, it has worked- three "A" students who have no delusions about the differences between work and entertainment.
I think alot of it is attitude. I thought I was doing okay when I made $30K-$50K per year.
I must disagree about education; education and hard work are the keys to success. One must choose a major in college that will actually increase one's ability to obtain a job and be a productive citizen. Degrees that do not achieve that goal are worthless (literature, art, dance, ect) and are the luxury of the super rich. I have told my kids I will not pay for thier education if they choose a worthless major (life is full of choices, but I do not have to finance them), as it will not allow them to become independent functioning citizens in a difficult world. So far, it has worked- three "A" students who have no delusions about the differences between work and entertainment.
That is good. There are not those with guidance though. If we ever needed to protect the innocent we would find a way to step in between those that would dupe our kids for their personal profits, the institutuuional dupe artists. It is a problem and it is creating an educated underemployed society.
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?
Yes..
Because unless the person is horrible with money and just spends as much as they make.. they most likely have some good solid investments.
Whne you make that kind of income, you pass a threshold ..
What i mean is this:
A family making a combined average income of say $56K a year ,may own a modest home, drive a car or two (maybe one is a junker , the other is a more reliable car) have cable, a cell phone etc. Live modestly, not in the poorhouse, not living wealthy.. but live pretty basic.. probably do not have enough to take family vacations or splurge unless they put those items on a Credit card.. There is probably not much left for any real investments.. and they would be lucky to be putting money away for college. P erhaps a small 401K with a spouse's job or something. If they are not self employed, their medical is paid for by employer (if they are self employed.. they probably cant' afford insurance).
However, someone thati s making $300K a year can have a few luxuries, lie in more than a modest home and have substantial amounts of investments because they hae expendable income.
While the $56K earner has no expendable income , he has no income to grow his income.. he's stuck at his salary.
A $300K income has enough income to invest so that his $300K can easily become 400K , 500K , 1M or more a year over time.. with $300K coming from his "salary" and the rest coming from the ..well the salary his money is earning..
So, yes, I consider someone that is making $300K a year wealthy.
If a person making $300K a year can't find two nickels to rub together at the end of the week, I just call that person plain STUPID. LOL
Because unless the person is horrible with money and just spends as much as they make.. they most likely have some good solid investments.
Whne you make that kind of income, you pass a threshold ..
What i mean is this:
A family making a combined average income of say $56K a year ,may own a modest home, drive a car or two (maybe one is a junker , the other is a more reliable car) have cable, a cell phone etc. Live modestly, not in the poorhouse, not living wealthy.. but live pretty basic.. probably do not have enough to take family vacations or splurge unless they put those items on a Credit card.. There is probably not much left for any real investments.. and they would be lucky to be putting money away for college. P erhaps a small 401K with a spouse's job or something. If they are not self employed, their medical is paid for by employer (if they are self employed.. they probably cant' afford insurance).
However, someone thati s making $300K a year can have a few luxuries, lie in more than a modest home and have substantial amounts of investments because they hae expendable income.
While the $56K earner has no expendable income , he has no income to grow his income.. he's stuck at his salary.
A $300K income has enough income to invest so that his $300K can easily become 400K , 500K , 1M or more a year over time.. with $300K coming from his "salary" and the rest coming from the ..well the salary his money is earning..
So, yes, I consider someone that is making $300K a year wealthy.
If a person making $300K a year can't find two nickels to rub together at the end of the week, I just call that person plain STUPID. LOL
What you say simply isn't so. Take home on $300,000 is really closer to $190,000. After mortgage payments, taxes, food shopping, vacations, cars, school tuition, saving for college. There ain't much left over. Now before you say the items listed above make one rich, they don't. The ability to lose your job and still maintain the same lifestyle makes someone rich. You simply can't accumulate enough on $300,000 to maintain the lifestyle if you lose your job.
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.
just kidding. We could both do a family budget here and if I had yours and you are making 150M clear and not living a damn good what i would call rich life, I could pull your shorts down around your ankles with citing your personal budget mistakes.