What is "rich"?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

"Tax the rich"

"Income tax breaks for rich americans"

Blah blah blah........what is rich? 

Let's keep it simple......Mrs. M3 and I both work and our 1 child is grown and gone so it's just the two of us..........how much per year would we need to make to be classified as "rich"?

[phk]

I'd say that the true definition of rich would be where you come to a point where your money works for you rather than you working for your money.

[Sbane]

"Tax the rich"

"Income tax breaks for rich americans"

Blah blah blah........what is rich? 

Let's keep it simple......Mrs. M3 and I both work and our 1 child is grown and gone so it's just the two of us..........how much per year would we need to make to be classified as "rich"?

It really depends. If you lived in NY or SF you would be middle class even if you made 200-300k a year. In a place with lower costs I might consider you to be rich. Regardless I want to create a new income bracket over $500,000 and tax them at an even higher rate. That is what I would call "taxing the rich".

[??????????]

I'd say that the true definition of rich would be where you come to a point where your money works for you rather than you working for your money.

[memphis]

Really depends how much wealth you have. One can have a low income, but sitting on a pile of money and be rich. Assuming you don't have a money bin, a consistant income of $200,000/year or greater makes you rich in my book.

[opebo]

We've had this thread before, of course.  I always say it is anyone who can live upon the returns of their capital - in other words political privilege allows them to live without working, upon the toils of others. 

Realistically of course this classification includes quite a lot of very minor capitalists who can make do with $20 or $30K in rental income from a few old shanties.  Its a bit of a stretch to call such people 'rich' in a meaningful sense, though they are obviously on the oppressor side of the divide.  I think it would be reasonable to say 'lives upon return on capital, with at least enough income to securely command what is commonly thought of as an upper middle class lifestyle'.  So, the bottom end of rich would, under this definition, be people like my parents.  (coincidentally memphis they are provided with around $200K).

[Storebought]

The ability to choose your own surroundings without incurring debt. Another one would be Torie.

[Torie]

We've had this thread before, of course.  I always say it is anyone who can live upon the returns of their capital - in other words political privilege allows them to live without working, upon the toils of others. 

Realistically of course this classification includes quite a lot of very minor capitalists who can make do with $20 or $30K in rental income from a few old shanties.  Its a bit of a stretch to call such people 'rich' in a meaningful sense, though they are obviously on the oppressor side of the divide.  I think it would be reasonable to say 'lives upon return on capital, with at least enough income to securely command what is commonly thought of as an upper middle class lifestyle'.  So, the bottom end of rich would, under this definition, be people like my parents.  (coincidentally memphis they are provided with around $200K).

200K per year parses out to about 4-5 million in net worth more or less exclusive of personal residence. However that is eroded by inflation, so to maintain the status quo in real dollars, one needs closer to 6-7 million, or one needs to buy an annuity.

$200K does not afford a comfortable upper middle class lifestyle in my zip code really, unless one does not have dependents other than maybe a spouse, and certainly not kids in college. $350K is more like it, whether from capital or compensation from sweat and toil, or both.

I am not sure why someone who has earned every penny they own honestly and ethically and has reached financial "critical mass" should be deemed some sort of "oppressor."  But I am confident Opebo that you will give me an at once cogent and arresting explanation for me to savor and ponder.

[Ban my account ffs!]

It's hard to define "rich" as a broad term since some people are rich simply because they don't spend money.

I'd say having an income of over $200,000/year for a single person is rich.  I do like the definition where your money works for you rather than working for your money.

I think another safe definition would be living a comfortable upper middle class lifestyle with little or no debt and overall financial security.  Some people who make $150,000 year don't have much leftover because they're sending their 4 kids to private college with little financial aid.

In any case, I strongly support progressive income taxes both for income as well as excessive capital gains.

[??????????]

I think another safe definition would be living a comfortable upper middle class lifestyle with little or no debt and overall financial security. 

By your definition I'm rich then. I guess I can stop playing the lotto twice a week.

[Vepres]

"Rich" is relative to location, number kids, investing ability, monthly expenses (important things), and debt. While tax breaks should favor the middle-class, I don't like that the Democrats' solution to every fiscal short fall is raise taxes on those making 250K or more a year.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I think another safe definition would be living a comfortable upper middle class lifestyle with little or no debt and overall financial security. 

By your definition I'm rich then. I guess I can stop playing the lotto twice a week.

But you also work for your money.  How long would you have financial security if you lost your job tomorrow?  I also don't know what you consider upper middle class.  I think your'e probably closer to regular middle class.

[Vepres]

I think another safe definition would be living a comfortable upper middle class lifestyle with little or no debt and overall financial security. 

By your definition I'm rich then. I guess I can stop playing the lotto twice a week.

But you also work for your money.  How long would you have financial security if you lost your job tomorrow?  I also don't know what you consider upper middle class.  I think your'e probably closer to regular middle class.

Because you would know.

[??????????]

How long would you have financial security if you lost your job tomorrow?

A year or slightly more.

[opebo]

200K per year parses out to about 4-5 million in net worth more or less exclusive of personal residence. However that is eroded by inflation, so to maintain the status quo in real dollars, one needs closer to 6-7 million, or one needs to buy an annuity.

The decrepit progenitors are slumlords, Torie.  The inflation hedge is built in.

$200K does not afford a comfortable upper middle class lifestyle in my zip code really, unless one does not have dependents other than maybe a spouse, and certainly not kids in college. $350K is more like it, whether from capital or compensation from sweat and toil, or both.

Yeah, I meant $200K in Sant Louie.

I am not sure why someone who has earned every penny they own honestly and ethically and has reached financial "critical mass" should be deemed some sort of "oppressor."  But I am confident Opebo that you will give me an at once cogent and arresting explanation for me to savor and ponder.

Well, sure.  The whole reason it is so desirable to get into that position is in order to oppress.  Once you have a certain 'position', legally defined - call it wealth, call it membership in an aristocracy, whatever, you receive by right a share of the production from the toils of your serfs.  In the middle ages it was a bit more obvious, as they were right outside stinking of dung, and even now my parents serfs can be visited easily (and must often be at the first of the month, the recalcitrant rednecks), but even in your post-modern case there are serfs somewhere serving you due to your investments.

The truth is that most such 'position' in our heirarchical society is not gained from earning but rather from past advantage, inheritance, etc.  You may have 'worked hard', Torie, but you come from a particular class.  It is seemly to admit this.

[Vepres]

I'd say that the true definition of rich would be where you come to a point where your money works for you rather than you working for your money.

This is generally true, yes. But, a very intelligent person could have a fairly average income (30k-50k) could make that money work for them through the stock market and such. They would be far from rich, even if their investments were successful.

[minionofmidas]

70% of the OECD and 10% of the rest of the world.

[opebo]

70% of the OECD and 10% of the rest of the world.

No.  So some slob who (for the moment) still makes $30,000/year in the USA is 'rich'?  So how do you differentiate between him and billionaires like Boolmberg.

[minionofmidas]

"Rich" versus "sickeningly wealthy".

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Maybe $250,000 in San Francisco. Use a salary converter to convert to some other location.

http://www.bestplaces.net/COL/

[Beet]

I'd say that the true definition of rich would be where you come to a point where your money works for you rather than you working for your money.

^^^^^

I remember Dazzleman giving this definition years ago.

Of course, it's all relative. To the multi millionaire, such a person barely on the threshold of retirement might be considered poor and uncouth. While to the homeless person, anyone who has a job is rich...

[TeePee4Prez]

"Tax the rich"

"Income tax breaks for rich americans"

Blah blah blah........what is rich? 

Let's keep it simple......Mrs. M3 and I both work and our 1 child is grown and gone so it's just the two of us..........how much per year would we need to make to be classified as "rich"?

It really depends. If you lived in NY or SF you would be middle class even if you made 200-300k a year. In a place with lower costs I might consider you to be rich. Regardless I want to create a new income bracket over $500,000 and tax them at an even higher rate. That is what I would call "taxing the rich".

I'd say over $1 million, but no higher than 42%.  I do agree with the Laffer curve to some extent.  I think a poll was done and most of the super rich even said they SHOULD be taxed higher.

[Sbane]

"Tax the rich"

"Income tax breaks for rich americans"

Blah blah blah........what is rich? 

Let's keep it simple......Mrs. M3 and I both work and our 1 child is grown and gone so it's just the two of us..........how much per year would we need to make to be classified as "rich"?

It really depends. If you lived in NY or SF you would be middle class even if you made 200-300k a year. In a place with lower costs I might consider you to be rich. Regardless I want to create a new income bracket over $500,000 and tax them at an even higher rate. That is what I would call "taxing the rich".

I'd say over $1 million, but no higher than 42%.  I do agree with the Laffer curve to some extent.  I think a poll was done and most of the super rich even said they SHOULD be taxed higher.

Would the optimum level of taxation increase with increases in spending as we have witnessed under Bush and are again seeing under Obama?

[opebo]

I'd say that the true definition of rich would be where you come to a point where your money works for you rather than you working for your money.

^^^^^

I remember Dazzleman giving this definition years ago.

Why credit that bonehead?  Everyone uses this definition, at least partially.

But do keep in mind, all, that wealth is political power.  Or rather a result of political power.  A proper way to view wealth is not as a 'thing', like a physical object, but as privilege within human society.  Like in an ape-troupe, certain apes have the authority and the position.  This is no different.

So, 'taxation' of the rich is merely a small reduction in their privilege.  Any such policies are an inherent compromise with the brutal system which creates privilege in the first place.

[phk]

I'd say that the true definition of rich would be where you come to a point where your money works for you rather than you working for your money.

^^^^^

I remember Dazzleman giving this definition years ago.

Of course, it's all relative. To the multi millionaire, such a person barely on the threshold of retirement might be considered poor and uncouth. While to the homeless person, anyone who has a job is rich...

Of course its all reference point dependent, which is why I used my definition as it avoided reference-point dependence as mucha s possible

Interestingly if we all had the same reference points, than this thread likely wouldn't exist, and neither would half the posts here.