Limbaugh- 250,000 Per Year is not wealthy.


Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Feb 14, 2004
2,435
5,527
OBJECTIVE reality
Yeah, I'm sure Howie Mandell is calling up those people who won a quarter of a million dollars on Deal or No Deal and apologizing for giving them such a piss-poor prize. :rolleyes:

I don't know how much more proof people need that Rush has totally lost touch with reality.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
Yeah, I'm sure Howie Mandell is calling up those people who won a quarter of a million dollars on Deal or No Deal and apologizing for giving them such a piss-poor prize. :rolleyes:

I don't know how much more proof people need that Rush has totally lost touch with reality.
That's the truth. A decade ago he was at least somewhat rational.
 

rhsgolfer33

macrumors 6502a
Jan 6, 2006
882
1
I agree with him, $250,000 a year isn't wealthy. Its pretty good, but you're not chartering jets, purchasing bespoke Brioni suits, and driving Ferraris on that. I know a quite a few people who make at least $250,000, they're hardly wealthy. Are you doing well? Sure. But wealthy is a stretch. Our President makes more than that (so do many accounting firm partners, law firm partners, bankers, doctors, etc.).

Being wealthy to me, means you've got enough money that you don't have to work to maintain it. I would tend to associate it more with net worth than what your yearly income is.
 

obeygiant

macrumors 601
Jan 14, 2002
4,003
3,776
totally cool
$250k a year is not that much. Sure you can live well and have a little room to breathe I wouldn't call that wealthy. In my estimation that amount would put you in the upper middle class bracket.

Wealthy is old money, trust funds, and spending $250k on Christmas gifts.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
$250k a year is not that much. Sure you can live well and have a little room to breathe I wouldn't call that wealthy. In my estimation that amount would put you in the upper middle class bracket.

Wealthy is old money, trust funds, and spending $250k on Christmas gifts.
wealthy, rich, and affluent all mean different things to me. I would consider 250k to be wealthy but not rich or affluent. This subject is pretty relative though. 250K in Kansas and you are going to be living in a nice ass house, 250k in san Fransisco and you might get a garage on your shack. ;)
 

flopticalcube

macrumors G4

IntheNet

macrumors regular
Oct 6, 2009
190
0
I agree with him, $250,000 a year isn't wealthy. Its pretty good, but you're not chartering jets, purchasing bespoke Brioni suits, and driving Ferraris on that...
I agree but as usual the anti-Rush crowd focused on the wrong part of Limbaugh's statement. While $250,000 is certainly not wealthy by today's standards, it is an amount that Obama has picked as a bar in his class warfare agenda to redistribute money, from the haves to the have nots; or more precisely, from the ambitious workers to the lazy bums. The real money quote from Rush Limbaugh came a bit earlier, when Rush was speaking about what Obama is really doing in his class warfare agenda (emphasis mine):

Why "the Rich" Don't Complain
February 1, 2010
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020110/content/01125113.guest.html
"RUSH: Well, you have to understand what he's doing here. He's doing two things. He is relying on the fact that most people don't earn a quarter of a million dollars or more, and in a time of recession he is hoping to capitalize on an emotion of hatred that they have for the people who make that much. Obama is hoping that he'll get kudos for getting even with these people. He's not gonna make anybody's life any better who makes less than $250 a year. He just wants them to be happy that people who have more than they are are getting screwed. The second thing -- and this is more important, Gerald -- is he is redistributing wealth. It is destroying it for the express purpose of redistributing it to his buddies, primarily the unions -- government and teacher unions, public sector unions -- and minorities."

Rush Limbaugh has successfully pointed out Obama's sick agenda of socialism time and time again and we can only hope America's citizens are listening... transfer of wealth (Socialism 101), penalizing middle income wage earners (Socialism 102), and generating a false hatred of ambitious and successful workers/wage earners (Socialism 103) are all part of Obama's agenda. I look forward to subsequent lessons on the Obama agenda courtesy of Rush Limbaugh.
 

Rt&Dzine

macrumors 6502a
Oct 8, 2008
736
5
Of course $250,000 per year isn't considered wealthy by someone like Limbaugh with a net worth of a billion dollars.
 

macfan881

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Feb 22, 2006
2,347
0
I agree but as usual the anti-Rush crowd focused on the wrong part of Limbaugh's statement. While $250,000 is certainly not wealthy by today's standards, it is an amount that Obama has picked as a bar in his class warfare agenda to redistribute money, from the haves to the have nots; or more precisely, from the ambitious workers to the lazy bums. The real money quote from Rush Limbaugh came a bit earlier, when Rush was speaking about what Obama is really doing in his class warfare agenda (emphasis mine):

Why "the Rich" Don't Complain
February 1, 2010
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020110/content/01125113.guest.html
"RUSH: Well, you have to understand what he's doing here. He's doing two things. He is relying on the fact that most people don't earn a quarter of a million dollars or more, and in a time of recession he is hoping to capitalize on an emotion of hatred that they have for the people who make that much. Obama is hoping that he'll get kudos for getting even with these people. He's not gonna make anybody's life any better who makes less than $250 a year. He just wants them to be happy that people who have more than they are are getting screwed. The second thing -- and this is more important, Gerald -- is he is redistributing wealth. It is destroying it for the express purpose of redistributing it to his buddies, primarily the unions -- government and teacher unions, public sector unions -- and minorities."

Rush Limbaugh has successfully pointed out Obama's sick agenda of socialism time and time again and we can only hope America's citizens are listening... transfer of wealth (Socialism 101), penalizing middle income wage earners (Socialism 102), and generating a false hatred of ambitious and successful workers/wage earners (Socialism 103) are all part of Obama's agenda. I look forward to subsequent lessons on the Obama agenda courtesy of Rush Limbaugh.
/facepalm.
 

macfan881

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Feb 22, 2006
2,347
0
hehehe..The doctors said there was nothing wrong with his heart ( physically speaking ) either.

Might want to change that to "Panic Attack".;)
To quote Dr Suse it may be hard to find cause it was one Size too small :D
 

63dot

macrumors 603
Jun 12, 2006
5,271
339
norcal
It's not what I would consider middle class, but on the lower end of wealthy.

Of course, those on the higher end of wealthy like Rush are so rich they may consider that large chunk of change to be pocket change.

If Rush wanted to buy a one of a kind watch or motorcycle for a quarter of million dollars, it wouldn't even dent his bank account.

Rush Limbaugh's comments reminds me of a kid I knew who went to a neighboring high school who turned pro in baseball and was complaining about his mere $300,000+ a year salary in his waning years back when the average household in his hometown were making a tenth of that. You can imagine the locals who saw this brat growing up were not exactly happy with his comments.

On the baseball front, he was at his height on the short list of people who could challenge anybody for AL or NL player of the year and if he were on the Yankees he would have easily been paid several times that in those same years.

A solid .300+ hitter on the Yankees today makes crazy money, probably up there with Rush, and probably in the category who would think $250,000 dollars is a small amount of money.
 

Rodimus Prime

macrumors G4
Oct 9, 2006
10,132
4
As much as it pains me to say it I am going to have to agree with Rush.

250k a year is not wealthy. It is upper middle class but not wealthy. It is not unheard of with 2 income family with both people college educated to pull in that kind of money with 15-20 years of experince. Big time if they are both Engineers.
I will take chemical Engineers at the Oil planets in Houston for example with 20-25 years of experience. The average base salary for them is 100-125k a year. Now bonuses between stock opitions and bonuses it is pretty common to see those break 30-40k for those people in a single year. This puts the total income for the family's at 200-250k a year bases plus another 60-80k.

Homes are 300-400k homes that are 3500 SQ. It is Texas so prices are lower. The cars these people drive for the most part are Hondas, Nissans, Chevys, Ford ect.-- non luxury cars basically.

Yes they are very well off but they are not wealthy by any stretch. 250k a year I would call very well off but not wealthy.

It is enough money to not have to stress about money. I know for many people here it is hard to image having that much of an income and yes even for me it harder but I only was pulling in 50k a year which to many is a lot of money.

He is right Obama is playing polits because very few people make that much but how many people in this country have a college degree and 20+ years of experience -- Very few.

Last numbers I saw only 30% of the country has a 4 year degree.
 

184550

Guest
May 8, 2008
1,978
2
I think that it all depends on where you live in the US. I wouldn't consider $250k rich by any means if I lived in New York City. However, in my hometown in North Carolina, I would be quite well off with $250k. The cost of living greatly affects how 'rich' one actually is.

This cost of living calculator was pretty interesting. My parents would need to double their salaries to maintain their standard of living in NYC, which I would think be pretty unlikely.
 

63dot

macrumors 603
Jun 12, 2006
5,271
339
norcal
He is right Obama is playing polits because very few people make that much but how many people in this country have a college degree and 20+ years of experience -- Very few.

Last numbers I saw only 30% of the country has a 4 year degree.
The Statistical Abstract of the United States of America (with statistical models taken from the 2000 census) showed that the number was approaching 24% percent if taken to this decade (January 2010), but set to decline during the recession years if there was to be a recession as it looked on the horizon during the 2000 census. But we had a bigger recession than statistically projected so the number of new college graduates, to replace the retired and ones who will pass away, may be at an all time low. We won't live in a society where for every college graduate who dies or retires, there will be legions to replace them in the workforce.

We may never have an adult populace with a 30% percent number with 4 year degrees.

Before the recession, the rule of thumb was that almost 1 in 4 had a four year degree.

Of those who attained a four year degree, just over 1 in 4 would eventually attain a master's degree. A very large percentage of those in the United States with a 4 year degree are disproportionally Asians, but many with a non-equivalent bachelor's degree from an Asian nation. Only some Asian bachelor's degrees are considered the equivalent of a US bachelor's degree. And not all American bachelor's degrees are supported by the six regionally accredited agencies.

The PhD portion of the population was 1% percent of the US populace. Those with a professional degree or premier certification (JD, MD, PharD, DVM, PsyD, CMA, or CPA designation) was also a small percentage around 3% percent.

In some fields, like a JD practicing lawyer or CPA, can only be for a person state by state so if you are a Delaware CPA and you move to California, then you are not instantly deemed a California CPA. The same goes with an LL.B or JD who is a lawyer in one state if they move from the state they practice in to another for which they have not taken or passed the bar.

If online education from inexpensive state run colleges held its online fees to that of its brick and mortar campus fees, then we could see a rise in college graduates. But that is currently not the case.
 

Attachments