Does an income of $300,000 make someone rich? (independence, 2015, liberal)
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.
so the answer is YES...a "working class cop MARRIED working class teacher" can and do certainly have a household income around 300k (250k-350k)
so again I ask...are you calling two WORKINGCLASS proffessions, married to each other, rich, just because of some magical madeup income line in the sand
I have said previously, that it may not be "rich" in a few zip codes, but it is at the very least, very well off. Whether they are "working class" is irrelevant. 300k is 300k, regardless of profession. If I made 300k as a garbage man, it would be the same 300k as the businessman down the street. Irrelevant.
You are all delving into sociological definitions - something a whole academic discipline exists to cover. I know that many people on the right these days are fearful of "academics" and people who are well-educated in general, but why not listen to the collected thinking and research of people smarter than you, whose life work revolves around defining "classes" by assets and income? (Dirty secret - reading Marx can make a true capitalist even smarter). If you had a proper Liberal Arts education, you would kind of "get it".
Just from the magic of wikipedia, here are two socio-economic class distinction models you can play with (from 2005, add a 22% CPI increase to the dollar amounts)......
William Thompson & Joseph Hickey Model (2005):
Upper class (1%): Top-level executives, celebrities, heirs; income of $500,000+ common. Ivy league education common Upper middle class (15%): Highly-educated (often with graduate degrees) professionals & managers with household incomes varying from the high 5-figure range to commonly above $100,000 Lower middle class (32%): Semi-professionals and craftsmen with some work autonomy; household incomes commonly range from $35,000 to $75,000. Typically, some college education Lower class (14-20%): Those who occupy poorly-paid positions or rely on government transfers. Some high school education
Leonard Beeghley Model (2004)
The super-rich (0.9%): Multi-millionaires whose incomes commonly exceed $350,000; includes celebrities and powerful executives/politicians. Ivy League education common The rich (5%): Households with net worth of $1 million or more; largely in the form of home equity. Generally have college degrees Middle class(46%): College-educated workers with considerably higher-than-average incomes and compensation; a man making $57,000 and a woman making $40,000 may be typical Working class (40–45%): Blue-collar workers and those whose jobs are highly routinized with low economic security; a man making $40,000 and a woman making $26,000 may be typical. High school education. The poor (12%): Those living below the poverty line with limited to no participation in the labor force; a household income of $18,000 may be typical. Some high school education.
I have said previously, that it may not be "rich" in a few zip codes, but it is at the very least, very well off. Whether they are "working class" is irrelevant. 300k is 300k, regardless of profession. If I made 300k as a garbage man, it would be the same 300k as the businessman down the street. Irrelevant.
how can you say its irrelevant
rich is a defination of SOCIAL STATUS...not an income
a cop or a garbageperson, or a teacher...are workingclass or middleclass professions...they are NOT RICH...no matter how you want to redefine/rewrite definations/laws/history
rich by defination is about WEALTH, not income
or an if you want to tax the '''rich''' then stop taxing income, ...tax spending instead
why do you think RICH people like warren buffet make sure their INCOME is only about 100k.... because INCOME is not what makes you rich...itas accumulated wealth and spending...not income
tax spending...not income...tax the rich, they SPEND way more... www.fairtax.org
rich is a defination of SOCIAL STATUS...not an income
a cop or a garbageperson, or a teacher...are workingclass or middleclass professions...they are NOT RICH...no matter how you want to redefine/rewrite definations/laws/history
rich by defination is about WEALTH, not income
Also, why does there need to be a difference in wealth vs income? If you have 300k "wealth" or 300k income, it is still 300k. You can be rich by wealth, or income.
or an if you want to tax the '''rich''' then stop taxing income, ...tax spending instead
why do you think RICH people like warren buffet make sure their INCOME is only about 100k.... because INCOME is not what makes you rich...itas accumulated wealth and spending...not income
In the words of Chris Tucker, "Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?"
It does not matter what your job is. If you make 300k as a garbage man or teacher, you are still in the top what? 2-3% of earners? In a lot of states, that would put you in the top 1% FYI. That makes you rich in almost every zip code in the US. You are arguing that someone making 300k, or even 10 mil, is not rich unless they have a certain job. That is idiocy. How is 300k as a teacher less than 300k as a business man? What is different? If anything, the teacher and cop are more well off than the businessman. They have all sorts of little perks.
Also, you can be rich by wealth or income. If you make $1 a year, but are worth $1 billion, you are rich. If you make $1 billion a year, you are rich. You are arguing semantics.
Also, you can be rich by wealth or income. If you make $1 a year, but are worth $1 billion, you are rich. If you make $1 billion a year, you are rich. You are arguing semantics.
I don't disagree with this. But you are set on $1B either way.
Here we go again. . .and the answer remains NO.
If one makes that much a year and they spend it and have nothing to show for it they are definately NOT rich! Example: I have a friend who is a golf professional. He easily makes that much a year, however he has to fly to all the tournaments, stay in hotels, and basically lives a lifestyle that he spends nearly everything he makes. Is he rich? NO.
While I do object to the leftist hatred of the wealthy, I don't agree with this. I don't care if people can spend most of their money. A normal person cannot afford to fly around the world to live in hotels while spending their money on luxury. The person you just described isn't Donald Trump or Bill Gates, but they are wealthy.
if your 300k a year is coming from a Family Trust, guaranteed until death. Then why not spend it all in one year?
- that person would be pretty rich. . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by spunky1
Here we go again. . .and the answer remains NO.
If one makes that much a year and they spend it and have nothing to show for it they are definately NOT rich! Example: I have a friend who is a golf professional. He easily makes that much a year, however he has to fly to all the tournaments, stay in hotels, and basically lives a lifestyle that he spends nearly everything he makes. Is he rich? NO.
How much you earn is revenue - cost = salary/earnings
The above person isn't "earning" 300k a year, if he is spending 299k to earn it. Basically you described a small self run business that barley keeps its head above water.
Now my answer:
Rich - "having a great deal of money or assets; wealthy."
makes the answer - subjective.
In the united states 300k can make someone rich (earning 300k annually and living in Owen County Indiana your very rich)
In the United States 300k a year can leave you a 2 bedroom apartment, and no ability to really buy (San Fran or Manhattan).
- take home salary is 196k
- monthly is 16k
- between 4.5-9k mortgage and sending your kids to private school, your negative. better move to CT (heard new Canaan is nice)
In most places 300k (urban cities) would be well off/affluent.
if your 300k a year is coming from a Family Trust, guaranteed until death. Then why not spend it all in one year?
- that person would be pretty rich. . .
How much you earn is revenue - cost = salary/earnings
The above person isn't "earning" 300k a year, if he is spending 299k to earn it. Basically you described a small self run business that barley keeps its head above water.
Now my answer:
Rich - "having a great deal of money or assets; wealthy."
makes the answer - subjective.
In the united states 300k can make someone rich (earning 300k annually and living in Owen County Indiana your very rich)
In the United States 300k a year can leave you a 2 bedroom apartment, and no ability to really buy (San Fran or Manhattan).
- take home salary is 196k
- monthly is 16k
- between 4.5-9k mortgage and sending your kids to private school, your negative. better move to CT (heard new Canaan is nice)
In most places 300k (urban cities) would be well off/affluent.
Do you agree that earning $300K in just one year doesn't make you rich?
And if so, how many continuous years of $300K earnings would one need to finally become rich?
I am certain it does to the overwhelming population of the world.
I am pretty certain it does to a large percentage of the American population.
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.
