• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What do you consider wealthy (money, not life experience or love etc)?

What do you consider wealthy (money, not life experience or love etc.)?

  • $100,000 liquid regardless of net worth

    Votes: 4 13.3%
  • $50,000 liquid and $500,000 net worth

    Votes: 3 10.0%
  • $500,000 net worth regardless of liquidity

    Votes: 3 10.0%
  • $100,000 in liquidity and $1,000,000 net worth

    Votes: 7 23.3%
  • $1,000,000 net worth regardless of liquidity

    Votes: 8 26.7%
  • $200,000 in liquidity and $4 million net worth

    Votes: 14 46.7%
  • $4 million net worth regardless of liquidity

    Votes: 9 30.0%
  • $5 million or over net worth regardless of liquidity

    Votes: 10 33.3%
  • $10 million or over net worth regardless of liquidity

    Votes: 12 40.0%
  • It takes much more to impress me, and it needs to be liquid.

    Votes: 1 3.3%

  • Total voters
    30
Six digits liquid. At that point a person can afford to purchase anything reasonable and withstand any financial emergency short of the destruction of their house.
 
Ok, so who's rich?

This is one of those types of questions which is purely subjective. A person that has $1 million could see themselves as relatively poor compared to those that have $10 million. A person that only has $20k would see those that have $40k+ as being rich.

From my POV anyone that makes $30k+ could be considered rich.
 
This is actually something I thought through, very carefully, a few months ago.


Five million in net worth, minimum, to be considered actually rich. Below that, you're really just "middle class".

See, for 5 mil net worth, you could generate around $350,000 to half a mil in income annually, without working other than managing your investments. You have to pay taxes on that of course.... right now, 15% cap-gains probably, which means probably $300-425k after tax. That's a nice income. You could hire four or five houshold servants and still live quite comfortably on the rest: property, nice house, cars, boat, vacations, no real worries about medical care or unexpected expenses, Suzie's braces or Jimmy's college.

In the Victorian era, you weren't a "gentleman" unless you had at least one servant. :) I think you're not "wealthy" until you can afford to live comfy without working and hire several ordinary folks to do your bidding as well. Typical household income in America is about 50k right? Eight or ten times that without labor is reasonably the lower limit of "rich".

That's in general.... now in Los Angeles or New York City, you might need more like 10 or 15 million to actually be considered wealthy, due to cost of living being so high.

Now, a million dollars ain't what it used to be. My tiny little hometown recently spent almost a million bucks refurbishing 100 yards of frigging SIDEWALK in the minescule "downtown"... yeah it is nice, brick and lamposts and stuff, but we're talking maybe eight small stores and a total of 100y of sidewalk! You can blow half a million on a house these days pretty easily.

The REALLY rich start in the tens of millions these days, and they're not in the same class as the VERY wealthy with net-worths of 200 million and up. THEN you have the George Soros', Bill Gates' and others in the Billion-plus club, with wealth almost beyond Joe Blow's ability to comprehend. People who could buy an Ocean Liner out of petty cash just for giggles.
 
Ok, so who's rich?

No one in my family has a 100,000 grand so I pick that. IN my city that would get a pretty good modern home in a decent neighborhood. Now I suppose in places like New York city where the cost of living and property is absurdly high a $100,000 probably couldn't even get you a condo.
 
Last edited:
According to benjamin franklin: "Who is rich? he who is satisfied with his portion".
 
I would feel rich if I was any of those things. lol

Honestly if I ever snagged a job making over like 75- $90 thousand a year? I totally would feel rich:2razz:
 
Last edited:
Real wealth, to me, is anyone who can afford to live simply off of interest income, investments, et al. If you technically do not have to work, and especially if your immediate family do not either... that's wealth (and I am not talking about some sort of retirement account either).
 
Is this individual or per family/household numbers? Anyone know what the median wealth per individual or per family is in the U.S.?
 
Ok, so who's rich?

It's not so much "how much you have" as it is how much you earn, in my opinion. If one has a $5 million lifestyle with $5 million in the bank and the checks stop coming that got you there, you'll be going through that $5 million pretty quick unless you're smart enough to make immediate and drastic lifestyle adjustments.

With my own particular lifestyle, $5 million would make me rich. If all Bill Gates had to live on was $5 million, he'd feel a pauper.
 
I would feel rich if I was any of those things. lol

Honestly if I ever snagged a job making over like 75- $90 thousand a year? I totally would feel rich:2razz:

worth noting, after federal taxes alone, that 75K is about 60K, and 90K becomes 71K. you would have to make $96,000 to bring home your bottom figure of 75K, assuming you live in a state with no income tax, such as Florida.
 
Just to clarify what OP is saying about wealth includes all assets. That would include house, cars, personal belongings, i.e. furniture, jewelry, etc., savings, investments, etc.

Also, a lot depends on where you are in life. If you are just beginning and have a great income, your wealth may not be that much yet. If you 60 and have a very good income and nice home in suburbia, nice cars, and funds in 401k or other investments, you could be wealthy. The second you retire, you wealth has to stand on its own, and in a bear stock market (as we are in today), it can erode your wealth. A booming economy is good for everyone.

The good news for young people of today is that if you invest every pay period, you will do well on your investments over time. The market is still quite low and when the economy starts to churn again, and it will, the market will turn bullish and your wealth will increase very nicely. The best time for investing is when the market is low. Now is not the time to be sitting out. Just an opinion, but it has worked for me.
 
that's what we're hoping, but when you don't have much, it is depressing to watch it shrink :).
 
Wealthy = anyone not living paycheck to paycheck

I'll throw out the number $75k/year (income), just because of the study showing that's when you stop being unhappy because of lack of money.
 
Last edited:
In what state and locality. 1.5 million in Arkansas is very different from 1.5 million in New York.

Yeah. And 1.5 in net worth ain't nothing. That's a gas station. A small gas station.
 
Wealthy = anyone not living paycheck to paycheck

by which you mean someone who lives above their income?

I've always been confused by people using this line - I budget so I live "paycheck to paycheck", but if I miss a paycheck (or three), I don't have to miss any payments or anything - my savings covers it.

I'll throw out the number $75k/year (income), just because of the study showing that's when you stop being unhappy because of lack of money.

pre or post tax?
 
I think figures like 75k or "not living paycheck to paycheck" are poor ways to define "rich". I get the impression that some people think there are "rich" and "poor" and that's all. Never heard of the middle class??

A guy with a small business might own 5 mil worth of property and equipment, owe 4 mil to the bank, have half a mil in his personal home and vehicles; giving him a net-worth over 1 million, and an annual income (after business expenses and repaying his biz loan) of $300k, then pay $150k in taxes of various sorts... giving him a take-home of $150k... then his house mortgage costs him 50k, leaving him 100k to support his lifestyle and 2.5 kids... is he rich? I don't think so. He's middle class. If his business declines a little bit he's in trouble... if his business declines a LOT he could quickly find himself BANKRUPT. He still has to work hard to keep the biz going, and he has to sweat whether a bad economy will make him lose his biz, his house, and everything.

The VERY rich get richer even in bad times, apparently.


I always figured RICH was the point where you could kick back and not really worry about earning a living anymore, and when you had enough cushion that going bust wasn't much of a worry. That's one of the reasons I figure 5 mil in assets is the minimum to be rich.
 
Over most of my working life, I thought of myself as upper middle class, but many here think I am rich. And, my income is Social Security and a small pension. However, my trophy wife continues to work so that I can continue to live in the manner to which I have been accustomed. :roll:
 
It's not money that makes me feel wealthy and gives me comfort. It's a higher power than cash and liquidity.
 
When you judge what you can afford by looking at the calorie count, rather than the price, of the entree, then you're rich.

Perhaps too rich.
 
See, for 5 mil net worth, you could generate around $350,000 to half a mil in income annually, without working other than managing your investments. You have to pay taxes on that of course.... right now, 15% cap-gains probably, which means probably $300-425k after tax. That's a nice income. You could hire four or five houshold servants and still live quite comfortably on the rest: property, nice house, cars, boat, vacations, no real worries about medical care or unexpected expenses, Suzie's braces or Jimmy's college.

If you think you can reliably earn a 7% return on your entire net worth in the long term, please enlighten the rest of us -- for most, such a yield is very unrealistic. The problem is compounded when you take inflation into account.

You also need to account for a house in there somewhere.

If you allow $2M (40% of net worth) for a house and a more realistic 2% yield on the remaining $3M, that's $60K/yr income (less taxes), or about what someone earning $30/hr would make -- certainly not enough to hire staff unless you're talking part-time or illegals.
 
worth noting, after federal taxes alone, that 75K is about 60K, and 90K becomes 71K. you would have to make $96,000 to bring home your bottom figure of 75K, assuming you live in a state with no income tax, such as Florida.

I meant after taxes but those numbers would make me feel good too:) 60K is above what I make now. lol Of course 60K would not make feel rich but it would make my life hella easier.
 
If you think you can reliably earn a 7% return on your entire net worth in the long term, please enlighten the rest of us -- for most, such a yield is very unrealistic. The problem is compounded when you take inflation into account.

Combined Annualized Growth Rate of the S&P 500 (counting for inflation) since 1980 has been 7.68%. He's pretty much on the right track.

If you allow $2M (40% of net worth) for a house and a more realistic 2% yield on the remaining $3M

without even knowing you I already know: you need to fire your financial adviser.

I meant after taxes but those numbers would make me feel good too:) 60K is above what I make now. lol Of course 60K would not make feel rich but it would make my life hella easier.

:) well, our hope is to get to making 100K post-tax. that way we can live on 50, save 25, and give 25.
 
Back
Top Bottom