Does $250K per year make you rich?

[bjl584]

Found this article today:

Obamanomics - Is $250,000 per Year Rich? - CNBC By The Numbers - CNBC.com

[MoD]

To answer your question, no. Making an income of $250k a year does not make you rich, however, someone who makes $250k a year could be rich, because it is net worth, not income, that defines how wealthy someone is.

A person who makes $250k a year but is in debt because he spends so much is NOT rich, however a person who inherits $80 million then makes an additional $250k a year is rich for sure, but would still be rich even if his income were $0.

As for the article, taxes are way too high already! GR!

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

I have no hesitation in saying that $250,000 a year is rich.

[MoD]

Originally Posted by Joan.of.the.Arch

I have no hesitation in saying that $250,000 a year is rich.

So then a person with an income of $250k per year who is always spending and has $2 million of unpaid debt is rich?

[PrincessPerky]

If not than the person making 250K is a financial umm... not quite smart. (what is the PC way to say idiot?).

[bjl584]

Originally Posted by PrincessPerky

If not than the person making 250K is a financial umm... not quite smart. (what is the PC way to say idiot?).

Financially Inept???

[Broken Arrow]

I suppose the point of the article is that 250k/yr means different things in different parts of the country.

Still, 250k is currently enough to live comfortably in even high cost of living areas, so I'm not entirely down with the idea. If Obama wants to be on the safe side, the highest tax bracket right now is $357,700 and up. I'd say that's a better starting point.

[PrincessPerky]

Originally Posted by bjl584

Financially Inept???

Yes! Thank you

[MoD]

Originally Posted by PrincessPerky

Yes! Thank you

Financially inept... and not rich.

[MomofFour]

Originally Posted by Joan.of.the.Arch

I have no hesitation in saying that $250,000 a year is rich.

I completely agree!

[MoD]

Originally Posted by MomofFour

I completely agree!

[MoD]

I think some people here don't actually know what the word "rich" means.

[bjl584]

Originally Posted by MoD

I think some people here don't actually know what the word "rich" means.

It's hard to define rich. It's been tried in many threads on this forum. It's more of a state of mind than an actual defineable number. More often than not, the term "rich" is used by politicians as a political tool. "Tax the rich", and etc. are campaign slogans that are used to exhaustion. But, what really is rich? Beyond that defenition, should the "rich" be taxed more? Some say yes, because they earn more. Some say no, because in a sense achievement and success is being punished by the government. Also, the "rich" are often the ones that own businesses and create jobs. The easiest way to cut expenses as a short term solution is to cut payroll. Higher taxes often means less jobs being created. So, whether or not I agree with it, I would argue that Obama trying to put a number ($250K or more per year) is a complete political move and not a well thought out economic move. It sounds more like class envy than it does sound economic policy to me. IMO.

[MoD]

Originally Posted by bjl584

It's hard to define rich. It's been tried in many threads on this forum. It's more of a state of mind than an actual defineable number. More often than not, the term "rich" is used by politicians as a political tool. "Tax the rich", and etc. are campaign slogans that are used to exhaustion. But, what really is rich? Beyond that defenition, should the "rich" be taxed more? Some say yes, because they earn more. Some say no, because in a sense achievement and success is being punished by the government. Also, the "rich" are often the ones that own businesses and create jobs. The easiest way to cut expenses as a short term solution is to cut payroll. Higher taxes often means less jobs being created. So, whether or not I agree with it, I would argue that Obama trying to put a number ($250K or more per year) is a complete political move and not a well thought out economic move. It sounds more like class envy than it does sound economic policy to me. IMO.

Right... I just meant that whatever the minimum amount is to be rich (since that is not well defined) is based on net worth and not income.

[Ima saver]

I think it is rich!! If most of it is saved, that is!!

[Maismom]

I don't think earning 250k a year is not necessarily rich. It all depends...

I think the person is rich when he/she owns houses more than he/she can remember LOL I wish I had that problem.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Not really. It's a good income.

[MonkeyMama]

Hardly.

In an area like California you would get to keep $125k (half) for yourself, after taxes. Then you have to figure out how to afford a $600k starter home.

But yeah, I had to absolutely bring up the tax angle.

[ummabdullah]

Oh right is it taxed by 50% monkey mama.

Thats interesting. And everyone says europe has high taxes. Sounds like the US is just as bad with fewer shows of how they spend our money.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

The more you make in the US the less you keep. LOL. It's because a lot of the tax breaks get phased out. Also let's not forget AMT.

Of course the really rich like Warren Buffet, etc only pay 15% because they can live off of dividends.