Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Rich (Now with the Upper Middle Class) Rich (Now with the Upper Middle Class)

10-11-2012 , 02:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cotton Hill

Have we come up with a consensus number yet? I'm ready to start pillaging and I don't wanna accidentally steal from the wrong people.



Quote:
Originally Posted by JayTeeMe
People who make > me

We all need to become rich - and there are great guides for doing so. I received this magazine in the mail not long ago:



This is exciting because it shows 81 NEW ways to get rich - all the old ways, I'm sure, still apply so the options are becoming almost limitless.


See here also:

http://www.amazon.com/Forbes-June-20.../dp/B008A6WFKO
10-11-2012 , 02:31 AM
Anyone making more than 4 times the medium income for the country and doesn't want to scrape by living in one of the top locations in that country can move somewhere else. The reason it is median for the country is because I don't know any country where you are not free to move to a different state, county, city or suburb. You are however not free to move to a different country.

That person in NYC making 4 times the median income took that job knowing it would mean a different lifestyle because he wanted to live in NYC. He can afford to commute and he probably had plenty of opportunities to get a job outside of NYC. He is rich, he just decided to spend his money on rent/mortgage and not on hookers/blow.
10-11-2012 , 03:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorKeeed
I think lifestyle has more to do with "is person X rich or not" than their salary. If a person has enough money to sustainably live at a certain level then he is rich imo. Noam Chomsky says that the one thing that money buys is freedom, and I think asking "how much freedom does person X's financial situation buy him?" is a good way of answering the rich/not rich question. And the answer to that question for the family blowing through their take home pay of 12k/month while driving a couple of moderately nice cars and living in a moderately nice house is "not a whole lot".
grunching, as i don't expect to read this whole thread, but this kind of argument is pretty worthless and i bet chomsky would agree. the family that chose to have those cars and live in that house has already exercised that freedom.
10-11-2012 , 06:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by terp
grunching, as i don't expect to read this whole thread, but this kind of argument is pretty worthless and i bet chomsky would agree. the family that chose to have those cars and live in that house has already exercised that freedom.
I'm just saying that 250k a year doesn't really buy you that much freedom, especially when you have a couple of kids and your income is not passive and is directly tied to both you and your spouse working. I'm not saying these guys aren't very comfortable, but they have to face the workaday grind just like everyone else. Now, of course they could live well below their means and bank like 80k a year and end up with a 3-6 million nest egg once they retire, which would buy them a ton of freedom for their 65+ years. But then they'd be living like a couple of meter maids. So for rich I'm thinking of an income where you can live a very comfortable Henry17 sort of lifestyle and still retire with 5 million+. So probably in the 400-500k range.
10-11-2012 , 07:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch101
Anyone making more than 4 times the medium income for the country and doesn't want to scrape by living in one of the top locations in that country can move somewhere else. The reason it is median for the country is because I don't know any country where you are not free to move to a different state, county, city or suburb. You are however not free to move to a different country.
That is a ridiculous definition of rich. Part of being rich is you have the ability to pursue your conception of the good. A small minority is lucky because their conception of the good is living in the midwest. For the vast majority living in the midwest is hell. Your argument is basically that well they could move to a place where they would have a ****ty quality of life and survive on less so they are rich. Any acceptable definition of rich has to include the ability to avoid having a ****ty quality of life.

Quote:
That person in NYC making 4 times the median income took that job knowing it would mean a different lifestyle because he wanted to live in NYC. He can afford to commute and he probably had plenty of opportunities to get a job outside of NYC. He is rich, he just decided to spend his money on rent/mortgage and not on hookers/blow.
Again you completely fail at understanding what rich means. Yes you can reduce some costs by living in less desirable places and then commuting. That isn't free -- it costs you between ten and twenty five hours of your life every week. Further, it is a really ****ty way to start the day and a terrible way to end it. Further, living in suburbia will impact any social life you might have in a negative way. Having to commute has a serious impact on quality of life. Any definition of rich has to include enough purchasing power to avoid commuting.
10-11-2012 , 09:00 AM
Rich is a fluctuating number for people, what I need to be rich is a different number then say Donald Trump needs to be rich.

Bottom line is as long as money is being invested and flowing thru the system it is going to be taxed and things will improve. What is killing the economy right now is there are to many unknowns and to much money is parked waiting for a better spot.

Taxing the "rich" more than they are already are being taxed is just dumb, you need to get the churn higher.
10-11-2012 , 09:26 AM
I'm "rich". Own a small business that my Father created. I average 400-500k per year (for the last 8 years or so.

I don't worry too much about taxes. I'm very disillusioned with American politics - both parties - and I try not to worry about things that are beyond my control (like whether taxes will be increased or not).

That being said - speaking for me and the people I know that are "rich" - if we could believe that increased taxes would be used to pay down the national debt (as part of a plan that would eventually lead to being debt free); I think we could be almost enthusiastic about that - but my opinion (no matter which party is in control) is that more taxes are just going to lead to more spending...and it really hacks me off that the people running our government (for many, many years now) have no intention or inkling to run the government like a business would be run...or like a household would be run.


(I'm not implying that all forms of government assistance should be eradicated or anything like that - so please don't put those words in my mouth)
10-11-2012 , 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorKeeed
I'm just saying that 250k a year doesn't really buy you that much freedom, especially when you have a couple of kids and your income is not passive and is directly tied to both you and your spouse working. I'm not saying these guys aren't very comfortable, but they have to face the workaday grind just like everyone else. Now, of course they could live well below their means and bank like 80k a year and end up with a 3-6 million nest egg once they retire, which would buy them a ton of freedom for their 65+ years. But then they'd be living like a couple of meter maids. So for rich I'm thinking of an income where you can live a very comfortable Henry17 sort of lifestyle and still retire with 5 million+. So probably in the 400-500k range.
Believe it or not, there is a middle ground:

They could save 15-40k/yr and live quite comfortably.

Even in NYC. As long as they didn't do something dumb like overpay for a condo with absurd maintenance fees or buy a brownstone they don't need.

Now, if you say being rich means the freedom to be completely dumb with money, then I guess I can see where 250k doesn't seem like enough.
10-11-2012 , 09:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jb9

They could save 15-40k/yr and live quite comfortably.
.
If you have no life and live like a pauper then this is possible.
10-11-2012 , 10:08 AM
Would love to see a prototypical rich guy monthly budget from you henry.
10-11-2012 , 10:10 AM
lol.
Spoiler:
Honestly, I thought I had more to say, but lol just sums it.
10-11-2012 , 10:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorKeeed
Would love to see a prototypical rich guy monthly budget from you henry.
I'm not going to get into an argument with a bunch of young people about what stuff costs. I will say that a topic like this would really benefit from people posting where they live, their age, and income level. People who think $250,000 is a lot of money have no concept of what stuff costs. I'm not going to say it isn't a decent amount of money but it certainly isn't omg I'm rich money either.*

*If we are talking a single person then it is actually pretty good money but I assume we are talking total income for a couple.

As a side issue I fail to see where this topic hopes to go. If $250,000 is rich or not doesn't mean anything with respect to income redistribution. People still need to make an argument of why someone should be taxed and that argument has to be more than well they have a lot of **** and can afford it. Having a lot of stuff does not in and of itself create a duty to share that stuff with others. I have not read the entire topic but I have a feeling that a first principled argument using public reasons for why people who make greater than $x should be taxed heavily has not been made. I think that is much more important than arguing over what counts as rich or not.
10-11-2012 , 10:37 AM
This topic has never been about drawing the line at "who" can be taxed heavily. That's a weird strawman that some angry not rich people have made in their attempts to supplicate themselves before their Galtian overlords.

This thread has always been for:

1) Laughing at how people don't know how tax brackets work

and

2) Facepalming at the callous obliviousness, e.g. that time you said that saving $15k on an income of $250k would require living like a pauper.
10-11-2012 , 10:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorKeeed
I'm just saying that 250k a year doesn't really buy you that much freedom, especially when you have a couple of kids and your income is not passive and is directly tied to both you and your spouse working. I'm not saying these guys aren't very comfortable, but they have to face the workaday grind just like everyone else. Now, of course they could live well below their means and bank like 80k a year and end up with a 3-6 million nest egg once they retire, which would buy them a ton of freedom for their 65+ years. But then they'd be living like a couple of meter maids. So for rich I'm thinking of an income where you can live a very comfortable Henry17 sort of lifestyle and still retire with 5 million+. So probably in the 400-500k range.
nh
10-11-2012 , 11:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
This thread has always been for:

1) Laughing at how people don't know how tax brackets work
This is expected. Most people are very ignorant when it comes to personal finance so I would not expect them to understand taxes any better.

Quote:
2) Facepalming at the callous obliviousness, e.g. that time you said that saving $15k on an income of $250k would require living like a pauper.
I don't live in NYC so my view of what it costs to live in NYC is based on taking what it costs to live in my city and adding a multiplier. I accept the possibility that my multiplier might be wrong but since I've actually lowered it over the last few years I doubt it is. As such based on what it costs to live where I am I feel very comfortable in that statement. Like I said I have no interest in having this debate because it will just devolve into value judgments and people claiming that 700sqft in a bad part of town is good living.
10-11-2012 , 11:06 AM
pauper/ˈppər/
Noun:
A very poor person.
A recipient of government relief or public charity
10-11-2012 , 11:23 AM
Fly,

I assume you are familiar with using hyperbole to make a point when you realize that there is no point having a discussion and you just want to make the point and be dismissive. I think you are smart enough to realize I didn't mean pauper in a literal sense.
10-11-2012 , 11:26 AM
Fly,

Would you consider Henry to be one of my "Galtian overlords"?
10-11-2012 , 12:33 PM
Fly has never used hyperbole ever.
10-11-2012 , 01:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry17
Fly,

I assume you are familiar with using hyperbole to make a point when you realize that there is no point having a discussion and you just want to make the point and be dismissive. I think you are smart enough to realize I didn't mean pauper in a literal sense.
I know, obviously that's hyperbole, but calling someone who lives like someone making $220k a "pauper" is like just perfectly hilariously out of touch in the context of this thread. Which is the point of the thread. Thank you. It started with a guy living paycheck-to-paycheck on $300k of income, and now we're at where living like a junior investment banker, GP doctor, or biglaw associate lawyer is PAUPERISM.

With you we all get that this stuff is an affectation of your rich lifestyle conscious guy online persona and it's par for the course, but for the other people's attempts to take a stab at the definition of rich it is pretty hilarious at people trying to one-up each other's definitions.
10-11-2012 , 02:39 PM
FlyWf,

This is my definition of well-off which is less than rich but for the purposes of this topic sufficient. I'm not presenting this as an ideal life but just something that I think is a pretty low standard for living well. I'm curious which of these nine you consider being out of touch with reality.

1) Housing that has the following qualities -- in the core, decent size, two indoor parking spots, security, not an elite building but still something that is nice. You furniture is better than Ikea but not the ridiculous stuff either.

2) Personal Appearance -- Clothing you are basically being able to afford the low end of the nicer stuff and a few items from the expensive stuff. You don't pay $300 for a hair cut but you also don't go to SuperCuts. You take care of yourself and have decent products both for appearance and health.

3) Car -- Ability to replace your cars ever six years or so. A luxury car but not anything ridiculous.

4) Travel -- One or two vacations a year mixed in with a four to six weekend getaways. You don't stay at the Ritz but also no staying at the Best Western either. Economy travel but no using cheapo websites to book.

5) Entertainment -- weekly date night, six to eight casual nights out a month, go full baller one night every 2-4 months.

6) Retirement -- Goal of retiring late 50s / early 60s with $1.5M to live off.

7) Children -- most people seem to want them so I'd expect that you'd help pay for their university if you do. As such it is a good idea to start saving for that.

8) Health care -- whatever good insurance costs.

9) Pets -- optional
10-11-2012 , 03:02 PM
Henry's world view is really weird. Basically "Well-off" = stereotypical yuppie?
10-11-2012 , 03:05 PM
Henry- No offense, but I don't really have a strong opinion on your random idiosyncratic definition of how many pets you need to be able to support to qualify as "well off". That's not the point of this thread.

Here's the OP again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
The recent spate of rich people whining about their taxes and either being shown to be liars and/or idiots(Ben Stein and Todd Henderson) amuses me.

I'm not sure if this is a parody of them or the most hilarious one yet:
http://abovethelaw.com/2010/09/earni...ot-in-my-town/

After all, the core conceit of all of these whines is a fundamental misunderstanding of how marginal tax rates work. Yeah, maybe $250K isn't rich. I mean, it is and it's insulting to claim otherwise, but I'll pretend that it isn't. People making $250k won't see their taxes go up under Obama's tax plan.
10-11-2012 , 03:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn
Henry's world view is really weird. Basically "Well-off" = stereotypical yuppie?
I am trying to post what I think most people would consider acceptable so yes I guess it does come out as stereotypical yuppie. If I posted my own personal views on things it would just lead to a fight.

My point is that a couple making $250,000 can barely afford the lifestyle listed in a major metro.

      
m