Is anyone NOT middle class?

[cardaway]

I did it combined as far as income and wealth and took my education (I have an MBA, DW has a Bachelor's). Profession is the same for both of us, accounting.

Cool. I did the same.

Average 79%

 

[Crankyshank]

56 here.
What cracked me up is that I have more education than DH but since I've not finished my degree yet, my education percentage is significantly lower than DH's associates.

 

[my3kids]

Interesting. 89% percentile.

 

[ransom]

When people did this NYT poll did they put in only their situation or did they count their spouses income as well?

Since off to the side it talks about "..a person's position in society.." and under income it talks about "every individual," I assumed it was measuring the place of the individual rather than the family. But that makes the wealth portion difficult for those of us who are married!

I did it both ways, but my individual score was 84%.

 

[brerrabbit]

I always love looking at things like these because they really throw reality into a tailspin by not actually explaining methodology to well. As far as income goes they are ranking you based on earned wages, in otherwords whats the number on line 7 of your 1040. The truley wealthy believe it or not have very small numbers on this line because the majority of their wealth comes from family money and investments. They don't generally "earn" much. Thats why income of $100,000 will put you in the 95th percentile or above. This is why congress, and Democrats say that with income at that level, you are rich and not entitled to tax relief. The reality unfortunatley is that making that much money a year does not make you rich. Granted it is a lot of money and there are millions of Americans who dream of making that much money but I can assure you it does not mean you are rich. The trueist indicator of wealth is in fact net worth. Net worth measures your ability to save and accumulate wealth over a period of time. You could be unemployed for several years and finally get back in the game making $100k a year and not be wealthy. The education and career field being a measure of class is just ridiculous. If you want to discredit the whole theroy of the Times piece just read "The Millionaire Next Door" sometime and look at those guys. They are owners of junkyards, plumbing companies, pest control companies etc. They have little more if anything beyond a high school diploma. They have worked hard, saved well and lived far below their means to accumulate large amounts of net wealth. On a net worth basis the under accumulators of wealth are doctors, lawyers, and professionals whole live in the big houses and drive the expensive cars and cannot seem to accumulate wealth any where close to what the other guys can.

 

[kinntj]

Top Fifth for us. Since I'm going back to school to finish I just put DH's #'s in there. I stay at home and working on getting my Masters.

We haven't gone to Disney yet, but when we do we'll stay at a moderate or value or even offsite to save money. We're definately not the type that stays at certain places because it reflects the money we bring in. If we did that all the time our money would be GONE.

 

[DawnCt1]

I always love looking at things like these because they really throw reality into a tailspin by not actually explaining methodology to well. As far as income goes they are ranking you based on earned wages, in otherwords whats the number on line 7 of your 1040. The truley wealthy believe it or not have very small numbers on this line because the majority of their wealth comes from family money and investments. They don't generally "earn" much. Thats why income of $100,000 will put you in the 95th percentile or above. This is why congress, and Democrats say that with income at that level, you are rich and not entitled to tax relief. The reality unfortunatley is that making that much money a year does not make you rich. Granted it is a lot of money and there are millions of Americans who dream of making that much money but I can assure you it does not mean you are rich. The trueist indicator of wealth is in fact net worth. Net worth measures your ability to save and accumulate wealth over a period of time. You could be unemployed for several years and finally get back in the game making $100k a year and not be wealthy. The education and career field being a measure of class is just ridiculous. If you want to discredit the whole theroy of the Times piece just read "The Millionaire Next Door" sometime and look at those guys. They are owners of junkyards, plumbing companies, pest control companies etc. They have little more if anything beyond a high school diploma. They have worked hard, saved well and lived far below their means to accumulate large amounts of net wealth. On a net worth basis the under accumulators of wealth are doctors, lawyers, and professionals whole live in the big houses and drive the expensive cars and cannot seem to accumulate wealth any where close to what the other guys can.

You did an excellent job explaining the whole issue. Most people in the upper income brackets do not feel wealthy but they feel over taxed and the cut off points are very close to higher and lower per centiles. Additionally, there are areas of the country where 75% will leave you with a huge disposable income and in other areas, they can be living with very little left at the end of the month.

 

[cardaway]

IMO what makes the upper middle class feel like they are struggling is their irresponsible spending habits. Nothing more, nothing less.

Remember, people at all income levels end up declaring bankruptcy, and often the only root cause is poor money management.

 

[Galahad]

IMO what makes the upper middle class feel like they are struggling is their irresponsible spending habits. Nothing more, nothing less.

Remember, people at all income levels end up declaring bankruptcy, and often the only root cause is poor money management.

Agreed! Perhaps they are confusing the notion of "struggling" with the notion of being "hard done by".

 

[U2_rocks!]

We're around the 75th, which is an average of me (high 70s) and DH (high 60s). We have a large mortgage and other high expenses, so our disposable income is low. We don't feel like middle to upper middle class at all!

 

[poohandwendy]

I always love looking at things like these because they really throw reality into a tailspin by not actually explaining methodology to well. As far as income goes they are ranking you based on earned wages, in otherwords whats the number on line 7 of your 1040. The truley wealthy believe it or not have very small numbers on this line because the majority of their wealth comes from family money and investments. They don't generally "earn" much. Thats why income of $100,000 will put you in the 95th percentile or above. This is why congress, and Democrats say that with income at that level, you are rich and not entitled to tax relief. The reality unfortunatley is that making that much money a year does not make you rich. Granted it is a lot of money and there are millions of Americans who dream of making that much money but I can assure you it does not mean you are rich. The trueist indicator of wealth is in fact net worth. Net worth measures your ability to save and accumulate wealth over a period of time. You could be unemployed for several years and finally get back in the game making $100k a year and not be wealthy. The education and career field being a measure of class is just ridiculous. If you want to discredit the whole theroy of the Times piece just read "The Millionaire Next Door" sometime and look at those guys. They are owners of junkyards, plumbing companies, pest control companies etc. They have little more if anything beyond a high school diploma. They have worked hard, saved well and lived far below their means to accumulate large amounts of net wealth. On a net worth basis the under accumulators of wealth are doctors, lawyers, and professionals whole live in the big houses and drive the expensive cars and cannot seem to accumulate wealth any where close to what the other guys can.

That is interesting. In our case, our education level does not match up to the income and worth, but that is mainly because my DHs position is blue collar but pays well and we don't use credit cards, own our cars and our house is almost paid off. I do think it is strange that in the net worth category, 100-500k is in the same range. There is a huge difference in the lifestyle of people like us and someone who has 500k net worth. HUGE.

I remember the first time we were hit with the AMT (adjusted minimum tax) and were FLOORED that the govt assumed we were up there far enough to penalize us. I still think that 100k income is low for the top 5%

 

[Cool-Beans]

This NYT thing is way off. I came out 10 points higher than someone I know who has about 10x as much money and is about 1000x smarter than I...because I have a degree and a job title.

He didn't finish college, so he lost points there, but started his own business and made a forturne. And the amount of knowledge he has is unbelievable...I'd put him up against any college grad today and bet everything I have that he knows more. He also doesn't have a "professional" job title, so lost points there.

And I agree with the poster that said the amount of money you earn isn't indicative of the amount of money you have. Some people make millions and whiz it all away. Other make little and save like crazy. And some people inherit money. Whatever.

And I don't like this business of putting people in a "class." That isn't how I look at our country. Everyone is equal. The guy who doesn't have anything today may be rich in 20 years and vice versa.

Who cares how much money people have, anyway?

 

[Cool-Beans]

I remember the first time we were hit with the AMT (adjusted minimum tax) and were FLOORED that the govt assumed we were up there far enough to penalize us.

I saw one day how much money we pay in taxes and couldn't believe it. I was saying, "But we don't have THAT much!" DH was like..."Oh, noooooow you get it!" Now I just don't look. He gets mad enough for both of us.

They yell and scream about how the rich should be taxed more...then they turn around and say, "Oh, by the way, you're rich. Pony up the dough."

Grrr.

 

[mill4023]

I remember talking with my DH about this when the ny times did a story on it. It is interesting to see what goes into a persons perception of class. Try this out it really raised some eyebrows in my house.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_01.html

Occupation: 77
Education: 91
Income: 84
Wealth: 25
Average: 69

The education part surprised me. It seems odd that just having a bachelor's degree puts me at 91.

But yeah, we're middle class.

 

[poohandwendy]

Grrr.

Double-Grr!

 

[toocooltobeMom]

We are Super Wealthy(quality of life)
We are lower class(value resorts every time)
We are middle class(DW is a child shrink!)
We are your all americans roll into one!!!

 

[Galahad]

Occupation: 77
Education: 91
Income: 84
Wealth: 25
Average: 69

The education part surprised me. It seems odd that just having a bachelor's degree puts me at 91.

But yeah, we're middle class.

Less than 23% of the populaton have a Bachelor's degree or above (you would think that would put you in the 77th % or something less than 91% though). But I think most people don't really register how relatively few people have a Bachelor's degree.

 

[Disney-Kim]

I think that NY times thing is kooky. We did well in each category but wealth. I purposely put in a lower number...because I wasn't sure what to include. I figured 401k and savings.??? so that tells me we aren't wealthy.... ,
but we are happy !!

 

[katerkat]

We scored 75th based on DH's occupation - though I could only put pilot and not military.

In WDW, we are military SoG all the way!

 

[momof3littlelilos]

We came in low...It was a higher low than I expected, but really low compared to you guys...can I still play with you all if we're some sorta blue collar, working class, ghetto, trailer trash?