How much money does it take to be rich?

[iJohnHenry]

To me 'rich' means you have enough capital to live well off the interest alone.

Living well is subjective, and depends on the type of life-style you "need" to live a fulfilling existence.

 

[00hkelly]

I think being financially rich is when you just don't have to worry about money. There is enough of it there that it just doesn't matter, you can do what you want and not have to be worried about whether you have enough money. That is what I consider rich, and that will be different for different people.

 

[sushi]

It is all a matter of perspective. I heard this on NPR a while back.

What is being rich?

Is it having a large Net-worth? Or is it having a large salary, or a combination of both?

A 16 year old living at home with his/her parents and a hamster!

30K would be a good amount in this case for sure.

 

[iAlan]

A 16 year old living at home with his/her parents and a hamster!

30K would be a good amount in this case for sure.

Although I said it , I have to admit not in Tokyo, but I do have a hamster - Shima (he is brown with a black stripe, thus the name). However, I am doing all right - money to survive and more, in a country I luv!

I even have enough to eat real sushi (pun intended) not that kaiten stuff....

 

[Mord]

According to a quick google search it can be as low as £14.99 to get your name changed.

Didn't cost me a penny.

Statutory declarations are generally better, also legal in scotland.

 

[PowerFullMac]

Didn't cost me a penny.

Statutory declarations are generally better, also legal in scotland.

Why does this guy have to pay $500 then?

 

[stainlessliquid]

Here in colorado springs if you make more than $80,000 you are one rich son of a bitch since average pay is pretty low. But if you live manhattan then $80,000 a year probably gets you a studio apartment.

A person's richness is totally dependent on location since the costs of living vary wildy and salaries along with it.

As far as what "rich" is, its not a philosophical question thats impossibe to answer. Its upper class, thats it. Theres lower class, middle, and upper, upper is higher than the average and is thus "rich". People cant say "I only have 2 houses, Im not rich, people with 3 houses are rich!" since thats ridiculous, your richness is compared to what the majority has and not what the <1% has.

 

[Mord]

Why does this guy have to pay $500 then?

Because he lives in a silly country.

 

[LumbermanSVO]

Most people are strong subscribers to Parkinson's Law, they just don't know it. Unfortunately for them they will never be rich no matter how much they make.

I knew a guy in Seattle, he drove a beat up '68 Ford pickup and had a 5 year old Lincoln Towncar for his wife. Both cars are cheap to own, neither was bought new. His house was modest and looked like any other house in the area. Inside the house was nice, but now "wow!" He owned a small business and his wife had a part-time job. At any point in time he could lose his income and still never have to worry about money, he could still maintain a comfortable lifestyle for 25+ years. THAT is rich.

I'm projected to make $10-15k more this year than last while reducing my expenses by 30%. All my debt should be gone by the middle of next year then all that extra money will just start making more money for me. That is how the average person needs to start

BTW, pickup and read The Millionaire Next Door and The Millionaire Mind. You can get the audio versions on iTunes if you like. Fascinating books...

 

[motulist]

Most people are strong subscribers to Parkinson's Law, they just don't know it. Unfortunately for them they will never be rich no matter how much they make.

In this particular case the question wasn't "how much income do you need to be happy" it was "how much money does it take to be rich?" Which are two completely different questions.

 

[LumbermanSVO]

In this particular case the question wasn't "how much income do you need to be happy" it was "how much money does it take to be rich?" Which are two completely different questions.

Right. And the point of bringing up Parkinson's Law was that if you spend all your money, no matter how much you make, you will never be rich, you will just have a high income.

 

[ucfgrad93]

I think if you are making over $100,000 you are considered rich.

 

[motulist]

I think if you are making over $100,000 you are considered rich.

What makes you think that?

As I see it $100,000 income per year will put you in the upper middle class bracket, but definitely not rich. At $100,000 per year you can afford to buy a nice house, but not a mansion, in a semi-desirable neighborhood, have 2 nice (but not luxury) cars, raise 2 kids and be able to pay for their health care, college, and several small to medium luxuries like once yearly 5 day vacations. However, you definitely won't be able to afford things that most people consider luxuries that only a rich person can afford, like a huge living space in a very desirable neighborhood, daily limo service, a big yacht in a desirable dock location, several international vacations per year for your family of 4, or other things like that which only a rich person could afford. Not all rich people spend money on those things, but those are the things that a rich person can afford, and a person with a $100,000 income cannot.

 

[andiwm2003]

I think if you are making over $100,000 you are considered rich.

no. i'm not rich.

rich is to me having enogh money on the bank so that you don't have to work anymore for the rest of your life and being able to afford a lifestyle with a good house and good car (whatever you define as good), healthy insurance, college for kids, frequent traveling.

as long as you must work for that you're not rich. as soon as you can choose to do what you want you're rich. it's less about absolute numbers, it's more about freedom and opportunities for you and your family to have the life you and they want.

my 2 cents...........no pun intended

 

[savar]

Also depends where you live

Kind of... If you make $100,000 and all your neighbors make $200,000, that doesn't mean that you're not rich. The cost of living may be higher -- I'll agree to that -- but living in a nice neighborhood is in itself one of the evidences of being rich.

Also depends on who you're supporting. If you're single and making $100,000, that's a lot of money. If you have a wife and are putting 3 kids through private school, the 100,000k isn't as big as it used to be.

Edit:

Additionally, "rich" is highly relative. Above, I was referring to "rich" by American standards. If you're a single income earner making $100,000, then you're on the road to being rich.

But if you live in the U.S., odds are that you're already rich by international standards. Just look around you: almost everybody is clothed, fed, driving a car, sleeping in a bed, literate, has running water, etc.

 

[motulist]

"rich" is highly relative. Above, I was referring to "rich" by American standards. ...

But if you live in the U.S., odds are that you're already rich by international standards. Just look around you: almost everybody is clothed, fed, driving a car, sleeping in a bed, literate, has running water, etc.

Yup, that's why it's important for all of us to define the word "rich" in our responses. Some words are mostly objective, like saying "the traffic light is red*," while other words are mostly subjective, like saying "the building is tall." I think the definition I used in an above post is pretty close to as objective as you can get for the word rich.

assuming a bell curve distribution of wealth, if you have more money than [85%] of the other people in your society, then you are rich.

So the percentage in that definition will vary in each person's personal opinion, but I think that definition eliminates the vagaries of comparing a person's wealth to the wealth of people from other incomparable societies.

Also depends on who you're supporting. If you're single and making $100,000, that's a lot of money. If you have a wife and are putting 3 kids through private school, the 100,000k isn't as big as it used to be.

If you're a single income earner making $100,000, then you're on the road to being rich.

I don't agree with that. If you make $100,000 per year but don't have a family to support, you may be able to afford more expensive objects, but you aren't any richer. In other words, whether you decide to spend $900,000 on a huge boat, sports car and penthouse apartment, or if you choose to spend that $900,000 on raising a couple of middle class kids, it makes no difference. Both are luxuries that you've chosen to spend the same amount of money on. Which luxury items you choose to spend the same amount of your money on says nothing about how rich you are, it just says something about what your priorities are.




* while a blind person may not be able to see the color red, the word "red" has a precise definition as any light with a wavelength between 610 and 780 nm. And you could get into existential questions like 'is red really the color red if no one is there to see it,' but those tangents, while interesting in their own right, do nothing to further the topic at hand.

 

[Zwhaler]

I wrote 150,000. It may not be enough to be 'rich' stereotypically but it certainly is enough to live a very nice life.

 

[Cromulent]

I don't agree with that. If you make $100,000 per year but don't have a family to support, you may be able to afford more expensive objects, but you aren't any richer. In other words, whether you decide to spend $900,000 on a huge boat, sports car and penthouse apartment, or if you choose to spend that $900,000 on raising a couple of middle class kids, it makes no difference. Both are luxuries that you've chosen to spend the same amount of money on. Which luxury items you choose to spend the same amount of your money on says nothing about how rich you are, it just says something about what your priorities are.

I find it interesting that you have classed having kids as a luxury. It just goes to show how far the human race has progressed that something which should be considered a necessity in life has turned into a luxury.

Reproduction is one of the big three biological necessities. Anyway I won't derail the thread any more, but it is genuinely interesting hearing peoples opinions on such things.

 

[7on]

According to the results of this pole somebody thinks that what I make a year puts me in the "rich" category!
wow!

me too! 30k and luvin' it I have maybe $40 to live on until my next paycheck.

Which isn't too bad, I just stocked my fridge and bills are all paid for this month (I pay them as I get them instead of waiting until the last minute). I get paid every two weeks on a friday (so a week from this coming friday).

 

[Prof.]

At the very least $200,000 a year.

 

[iMpathetic]

I'd say rich is walking the fine line... having a very comfortable life but not having to worry about managing your finances or possessions any more than the average person.

 

[motulist]

I find it interesting that you have classed having kids as a luxury. It just goes to show how far the human race has progressed that something which should be considered a necessity in life has turned into a luxury.

Reproduction is one of the big three biological necessities. Anyway I won't derail the thread any more, but it is genuinely interesting hearing peoples opinions on such things.

Firstly, having kids is a luxury. Just ask all the people throughout history who desperately wanted kids but were unable to have them and or unable to raise them into adulthood. Secondly, you're misquoting me anyway, I said having 2 American style middle class children is luxury.

 

[Xfujinon]

Yeah, kids are expensive. An illustration:

My friend is going to medical school next year, and his wife will be the only one working, making around $27,000 per year. They are extremely concerned about staying above water. Really, really concerned.

My wife and I have no kids (nor do we plan on ever having any), and while she makes somewhere in the vicinity of $23,000 a year as a solo wage earner, we still have plenty of money to invest in various retirement funds, pay for decent trips, and afford some little luxuries.

I hope to make somewhere between $115,000 and $165,000 as a physician (in six years, mind you), and that would be an insane amount of money to live on compared to the present. Since kids can run between $189,000 to $210,000 from 0-18 to raise, I'm looking at it as a huge cost savings.

If you want kids, somehow you'll make it happen. But man, it sure takes a load off if you don't want any, especially with the absurd debt I'll accumulate.

 

[Cromulent]

Firstly, having kids is a luxury. Just ask all the people throughout history who desperately wanted kids but were unable to have them and or unable to raise them into adulthood. Secondly, you're misquoting me anyway, I said having 2 American style middle class children is luxury.

Actually I would say your misquoting me. I was talking from a biological perspective, you were talking from a societal perspective. No big deal, I wasn't attacking your post .

 

[skunk]

Firstly, having kids is a luxury. Just ask all the people throughout history who desperately wanted kids but were unable to have them and or unable to raise them into adulthood.

How about asking all the people throughout history who had no choice but to have kids, and who wanted them anyway as a means of support in their old age.