Who is Rich?

[Fis_Hunter]

I would post this as a pole but it would limit you to the dollar amounts I would pick for you to chose from. This is a personal question I do not want to know what you make and I don't want to what Obama and McCain think.

This is a question for you what is the minimum annual income for a person you would consider rich?

What is the net worth of a person you consider rich? (House, Cars, Boats retirment..)

What part of the country are you from? (Or country)

[zenspearo]

It's subjective. Even if an objective number can be named, it depends on your locale and your background.

I'd look at net worth instead of income.

Net worth of $1M and modest income of $30K. You are rich.

Net worth of $100K and income of $200K. You are poor.

Cars, boats, etc. are all expenses and negatively contribute to wealth. Boats especially (LOL).

Houses, stocks, business interests--those are assets.

As I was stating in another thread, I drive a 1993 pickup truck, 120K mile most of the time. Coming from a very poor background, I feel pretty rich driving it.

Sure beats the 1991 Celica with 160K miles and a leaky roof (I still have that too and it runs great still).

[Prater]

I think the manner of your lifestyle has to play a bit also. But net worth should determine it.

The guy who makes $60K a year but has a small house payment or no payment at all is living better than the guy making the same amount but has a $1500 month house payment. But if the net worth of guy #1 is only $120K and guy #2 has a net worth of $700K then who is richer?

I used a net worth calculator that put me at $1.25M

[bgbill]

I started a job today that pays minimum wage 30 hours per week, I feel Rich.

[jonsjameson]

It's subjective. Even if an objective number can be named, it depends on your locale and your background.

I'd look at net worth instead of income.

Net worth of $1M and modest income of $30K. You are rich.

Net worth of $100K and income of $200K. You are poor.

Cars, boats, etc. are all expenses and negatively contribute to wealth. Boats especially (LOL).

Houses, stocks, business interests--those are assets.

As I was stating in another thread, I drive a 1993 pickup truck, 120K mile most of the time. Coming from a very poor background, I feel pretty rich driving it.

Sure beats the 1991 Celica with 160K miles and a leaky roof (I still have that too and it runs great still).

I see someone has read the millionaire next door. Great book that everyone should read

[Q]

I have 4 kids a wonderful wife... All this other stuff is nothing with out them.

I am rich and only have a few K in the bank.

Q.

[Bill McIntyre]

I'm rich.

I have a loving wife of 47 years who seems likely to keep me for the duration, two adult children who managed to grow up without drug problems or other issues with the law, who have good educations, and who still return my phone calls, and dive buddies who pull my anchor and put up with my sea stories.

[zenspearo]

I see someone has read the millionaire next door. Great book that everyone should read

No, it's learned in a refugee camp. UN camp in Malaysia. Sixteen months.

We learned early to earn a buck and try to save 90 cents under the mattress.

My sons, however, have no such concepts. Sigh...

[RichT]

I'm really Rich...

[Bill McIntyre]

I'm really Rich...

I think you have the best claim to the title.

[SpearMax]

Bill, I heard something on a network tonight that may or may not be true.

Did Obama start out saying a few weeks ago that his tax cuts would be for those below $250k, then switch to a $200k threshold, and lastly did Biden come on today talking about a $150k level? If that is true, the moving target may be evidence of the elusive definition of "rich" - the subject of this thread. Such shifting (if true) is troublesome.

Just curious as to the truth of what they actually said, Tony

[Q]

Tony - I think the 250 or lower is a no tax increase. 200k is a tax break. this has been his pitch for a while now.

I have not herd of a 150 lvl.

Q.

[Bill McIntyre]

Bill, I heard something on a network tonight that may or may not be true.

Did Obama start out saying a few weeks ago that his tax cuts would be for those below $250k, then switch to a $200k threshold, and lastly did Biden come on today talking about a $150k level? If that is true, the moving target may be evidence of the elusive definition of "rich" - the subject of this thread. Such shifting (if true) is troublesome.

Just curious as to the truth of what they actually said, Tony

Tony,

I admit that you have to listen carefully. But the way I've heard it all along is "if you make less than $250K, you won't see a tax increase." And then separately in different speeches, "if you make less than $200K, you will get a tax cut."

In other words, if you make between $200K and $250K, your taxes will reman the same.

[SpearMax]

Tony,

I admit that you have to listen carefully. But the way I've heard it all along is "if you make less than $250K, you won't see a tax increase." And then separately in different speeches, "if you make less than $200K, you will get a tax cut."

In other words, if you make between $200K and $250K, your taxes will reman the same.

Bill, I found it! Biden definitely said $150k. :p

Here is a Neil Cavuto clip you should watch and the actual text Neil said on the clip.

Interesting shift in wording from Obama Biden, would you not agree? ;) :D

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3170203&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/yourworld/

________________________________

NEIL - They call it a “Freudian slip” when you say something you didn’t intend, but really meant – that non-staged moment when you blurt out something you probably shouldn’t have, but did, and now you have some ‘splain’in to do. Like Barack Obama telling Joe the Plumber about spreading the wealth - or John McCain acknowledging that economics wasn’t his strong suit – or Joe Biden promising tax relief for those earning under 150,000 dollars a year.

So the listener just stops, and thinks - and in Joe’s case, remembers the Obama-Biden ticket promising relief for those earning 250,000 or less – and the listener’s ears perk up, right? And he thinks, “What did he mean by that? Why did he say that?” And the Obama camp comes out with a non-statement statement saying essentially that no family making less than 250,000 will see their taxes increase one cent. But they don’t take Joe’s lower number back, and Joe doesn’t take his lower number back, so everyone is … taken aback, by a campaign that could be hinting at something by, maybe, accidentally saying something?

We don’t know. But this much, I know: The definition of who is rich has changed mightily over this campaign. A year ago Barack Obama called anyone making a million bucks rich – it was a big number, a round number, an easy-to-remember number. Then it went down, and down some more, and now, with the Biden slip, may be down some more. Maybe it was a slip. Or maybe it was this campaign’s way of saying “We’ve done our math, and our own numbers don’t add up, doggoneit. We can’t pay for all our programs taxing just the very rich, so we’ve moved on to the rich, then the close to rich, then, maybe, not so rich at all, then, maybe - what the heck - everybody." Now isn’t that rich – assuming we’ll dismiss it as a slip – which, maybe it was – and not see it as a trend, which I tend to think … likely … it is.

[Bill McIntyre]

Bill, I found it! Biden definitely said $150k. :p

OK, I don't know why he said that, but he has slipped before. Are you trying to say that it doesn't matter how often Obama repeats the same numbers, a slip by Biden with another number means that Obama is lying?


And the Obama camp comes out with a non-statement statement saying essentially that no family making less than 250,000 will see their taxes increase one cent. But they don’t take Joe’s lower number back, and Joe doesn’t take his lower number back, so everyone is … taken aback, by a campaign that could be hinting at something by, maybe, accidentally saying something?


This is really a stretch, even for Faux News. Yes he said that no family making less than $250K will see their taxes increase. That includes those who make less than $200k and will see a cut, and those that make between $200k and $250k and will see their taxes remain the same. I've been hearing both statements for weeks, and I was smart enough to figure it out. If the Faux News guy wasn't, then he shouldn't blame anyone but himself.

[mbhalihunter]

Bill, I found it! Biden definitely said $150k. :p



I reminds me of when Carli Fiorina was a major advisor for McCain and said, "The problem with health care is that it will pay for viagra for a man but not birth control for a women."

McCain had no comment.

Shit happens, subordinates slip up all the time.

[SpearMax]

OK, I don't know why he said that, but he has slipped before. Are you trying to say that it doesn't matter how often Obama repeats the same numbers, a slip by Biden with another number means that Obama is lying?



No, it just seems like Joe "slips" all the time.

[Fis_Hunter]

Net worth is not a good gauge either. There are many people in California which own homes which placed them in the Rich but could hardly be considered Rich. They have enough money to live in the homes they own but not enough for much else.

[SpearMax]

:scratch: :slap: Here is a thought for you wealth definition pundits.

Why not look at the SEC rules as to who is an accredited Investor?

http://www.sec.gov/answers/accred.htm

The most important qualities on the list are:

- a natural person who has individual net worth, or joint net worth with the person's spouse, that exceeds $1 million at the time of the purchase;

- a natural person with income exceeding $200,000 in each of the two most recent years or joint income with a spouse exceeding $300,000 for those years and a reasonable expectation of the same income level in the current year;