rofl - and you still have almost as much money per month for "sweet vacations" and stuff as many of the people you are trying to equate yourself to make per month.

More like 3000/month on vehicles. But yes, those are things that rich people do. Rich people send their kids to private schools. Rich people go on sweet vacations. Rich people eat at nice restaurants and buy fancy food and wear expensive clothes. Rich people pay other people to mow their lawns and clean their house. Rich people send their kids to college on straight cash and buy them cars. Rich people do all this and still are able to save tens of thousands of dollars at the end of the year. If you can't do all this stuff then you aren't rich imo. If you do all this stuff but are going into debt, then you also aren't rich.

classic... nothing really needs to be said. good job.

You don't think that it is reasonable to include private school, going on nice vacations, and saving several tens of thousands of dollars at the end of the year in one's definition of rich?

I'm not disagreeing with you (although many would) on this point. The point is, if you CAN do all this stuff (which you've just shown you can with your little breakdown), then you are rich.

But seriously, you can't be rich unless you have a maid? Get some ****ing perspective man.

Don't worry bro, the more you think that you think how they think, the more likely you'll achieve your goals.

Honestly, as a teacher, after 8 years of service, I net $2100 a month. If you have this much left over after all of your cars, and maids, and insurance, and personal lawn-mower is paid for, congratulations. Seriously, I mean that. You worked hard, and are reaping the benefits of that. Just don't tell me you aren't rich. Because I'll curb stomp you.

I'm not talking about a live-in maid. I'm talking about a cleaning lady that comes in once a week and charges 50 bucks to clean the house. This is hardly extravagant.

The example I showed failed the yearly savings target/ability to send kids to private school test. They would probably need at least 75k in additional pre tax income to qualify as rich.

Wtf does the commute time have to do with you being rich or not?

People work in the middle of a city. The best housing tends to be far away.

Also its pretty lol that the kids (2 i assume, im not going back over it) are getting badass new cars at 16, then leaving home at 18 for badass college so your snapshot is maximising the small window of time when they will be paying for these things.

Look, the national household average in the US is about 50k and in this made up example your "not rich" family is paying 48k per year just on their mortgage. They may not be mega millionaire rich and they probably do live paycheck to paycheck, but thats cos they are spending 48k a year on the mortgage, own two luxury cars and two entry level cars for the kids, pay for private school, spend a grand a month on shoes and electronics and have a ****ing gardener and maid.

By your definition of rich virtually no one is rich unless they are CEO of a Fortune 500 or are a megastar actor or singer or summit similar.

Oh, well **** man, sorry I misunderstood. Unless you have a live-in maid, you can't be rich ldo.

They CAN CAN CAN CAN send their kids to private school.

They ELECT ELECT ELECT ELECT to spend their money on extravagant ********* instead.

A person who makes 1 billion dollars a year isn't going to be able to send their kids to private school if they spend $999,999,000 a year on a time-traveling Delorean.

People's time is worth money. My definition of rich has to do with lifestyle and quality of life. Someone who has a 30 minute daily commute has a much better quality of life than someone with a 3 hour daily commute even if they make the same amount of money and have the same consumer goods.

Rich kids drive nice cars. And if we're talking about younger kids then there are daycare costs to consider. But even without the kid's cars -- about 800/month -- the family could not afford 30k/year in savings and sending the kids to private schools.

Well I define rich as being able to live a certain lifestyle and go backwards from there rather than arbitrarily draw a line at a specific income level. And plenty of people make 300k+ who aren't entertainers or CEOs of fortune 500 firms. More than 1% of households in the US have an income greater than 300k.

Sure. But to meet my definition of rich a family should not have to choose between sending their kids to private schools and driving luxury cars and living in a large and nice home. I mean is it unreasonable to have a definition of rich where the rich person is able to comfortably buy extravagant stuff like luxury sedans and big houses and send their kids to private schools? I mean in my mind this is standard rich guy stuff.

Yea this is my point. Rich people do buy these things and to say they aren't rich because they have little left over at the end of the month after buying these things is insane.

How is it insane? I mean you seem to agree that the lifestyle I've laid out is a reasonable "rich person" lifestyle. Is it so unreasonable to then go a step further and say you have to be able to maintain that lifestyle (including sending kids to private school and college) and have say 20k left over to save for retirement every year?

Anybody else have an arbitrary definition they would like to share?

Everyone's definition of rich is arbitrary. But yeah, since you're so critical of my definition let's hear yours.

I agree that words like 'rich' can have arbitrary definitions. But I prefer to use a metric a little more measurable and relevant, like "in the top 2% of income", rather than something like "they have 2 $100,000 cars AND send their kids to private school".

It is fine that you prefer that. But it seems to me that having a lifestyle in mind and then working backwards to an income level is also a reasonable way to determine a "rich" threshold.

I suppose, but in my mind, what you can afford is more appropriate in gauging wealth than what you actually buy.

No, my measure is also what someone can afford. If someone can afford the lifestyle I lay out then they can be classified as rich. I have picked a particular lifestyle and a set of expenses associated with that lifestyle and then worked backwards to an income level. It doesn't matter if they are a miser or if they are spending way beyond their means, if a person can afford that lifestyle they are rich. This is leaving aside considerations for different costs-of-living for different areas and commute time. And of course people without children will not need as much money to be considered rich.

I really dont know what to say other than you are wrong. But I understand your desire to defend your ludicrous claim.

You are right...I should have chosen my words more carefully. I should have said it is a measure of what someone makes rather than what they buy.

I am trying to make it as 'unarbitrary' as possible. When you say things like 'the lifestyle I lay out", it shows that you are not.

The whole argument that 250k is in the top 2% is laughable and only goes to show how large the gap is between the top 2% and top 1%. So basically yeah, you just claimed that a family making 250k will have the same lifestyle as someone making 50k except their kid goes to a state school instead of a community college, drives a BMW rather than a toyota, and takes their once a year vacation to the bahamas instead of Florida.

That scale of difference doesn't even scratch the surface of the level of difference when compared to the actual rich. Just is a slight material upgrade with the same lifestyle. As I already said though, this just comes down to a difference in how people are defining rich -- but if we want to be ******ed about it anyone that's middle class in the USA is considered rich by most of the worlds standards.

This list is missing way too much and understating the expenses of a family of 5. Anyhow, /thread
Being bitter about netting $2100 a month doesn't now mean people making a lot more than you are rich. That seems to be the common theme ITT however.

.

Yeah, I can see how it would be laughable because the gap between the rich and super-rich is large. Wait, no, I don't see the humor. Or the relevance.

Here's an even better idea: make $250,000 a year, send your kids to community college, buy them a Toyota, vacation in Florida, and then use the other $200,000 to make it ****ing rain like T-Pain.

The issue here is whether someone making $250,000 a year is rich relative to those around them/in the same country. If the average person in a third-world country owns 5 chickens, then calling someone in that country with 25 chickens 'rich' is laughable? I bet not to the people in that country.