What is "Upper" class to you?

[EthansMom]

I agree with others in that "rich" is closely related to income and Cost-of-Living, and also financial obligations.

If you make $150,000, live in the NE, pay on a mortgage, have a couple of cars, save for retirement and college, and have a bit of debt (say some student loans, car loans, etc..)... then you're probably somewhere in the middle class. You definitely aren't rich. And with rising inflation, even at a six-figure income, you're probably having to make some severe cuts in your spending.

Likewise, a similar family, making $250,000 with a bigger mortgage and more debt (have a bigger house and higher-end cars to go with their higher income), could probably be considered middle class too. Certainly, I know a family like this who're already hurting due to lower income (pay is based partly on commission) and higher inflation (gas prices are killing them because of the commute and low-gas-mileage autos).

I think, partly, that a definition of "rich" should include "net worth". Someone who makes $100,000 and has a net worth of $500,000 is richer than a person who makes $100,000 and has a net worth of $50,000.

I know people who make $100,000 or $200,0000 who have something put away for retirement, accounts for the kids' college, and no debt other than their mortgage. I also know people with incomes of $100,000 to $200,000 who have no savings, lots of debt, and a mortgage of 90% of the house value with a variable-interest-rate. I'd consider the first family "comfortable"... a term that I think means "able to pay their bills, afford a few luxuries, and put something away for the future". People like that fare better in an economic downturn, extended illness, or job loss.

 

[Aardvarks]

In the UK upper class means inherited money, first division public school, parents and family are directors of their own large corporation. Probably a title in the family somewhere.

On salary alone you could rise to upper-middle class. Earnings over £150,000 house worth over £1.5 million, member of a golf club, children educated at a public school. 3 or more cars, daughter rides a horse.

In the UK, money doesnt buy you class, not does it buy you friends........but it does but you a better class of enemy and a better class of misery

I could do with some of that middle class misery right now

 

[smartestnumber5]

Do you want to know what we think "upper class" is? Or do you want to know what we think "rich" is?

I think the only semi-accurate way to figure out what is upper class is to actually look at the numbers. It makes sense to me to associate upper class with being in the top quintile of earners--that quintile started at about $88,000 in 2004 and in 2007 dollars, that would be more like 99,000. So any household made more than $99,000 last year is making more than 80% of all households in the U.S. That certainly makes them upper class to me. (I don't see how folks in the 10th or 20th percentile of households could count as MIDDLE class--they aren't anywhere near the middle! In cases where people are in the 10-20th percent of households income wise, but they actually have the purchasing power of a household in the 50th percentile because of COL, then maybe we should say they have an upper class income but middle class purchasing power.)

The top 5% of earners are those households made more than $157,000 in 2004, or $176,000 in 2007. The top 1.5% of households made over $270,000 in 2007 dollars. I think making more than 98.5% of all American households certainly does make one rich. (I don't think rich can be associated with "doesn't have to worry about money" or "doesn't have to work." It all depends on how one spends one's money doesn't it? There are plenty of movie stars who had millions and squandered them and then needed to work.)

Now of course I realize that how far money goes will vary greatly by the area in which one lives. But to hear folks on the DIS talk, one would think that *everyone* who makes over $100,000 lives in an area where a 2 bedroom house costs 1/2 a million and *everyone* who makes any less than $100,000 lives somewhere where housing is insanely cheap. I think COL differences are certainly a problem when it comes to taxes and such, and I can't say I have any good solution to it.

But, I also think we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that there are plenty of people making lower than average incomes living in high cost of living incomes and plenty of people in the top 5% living in average cost of living areas. I live in an average cost of living area but many of the university professionals I work with daily make $125,000 a year. Most of them have professional spouses who likely make a similar amount, so that brings many of them up to $250,000. They are thus probably in the top 2% of households nationwide AND they live in an area where the average home price is about $20,000 less than their yearly income. These folks are the first to admit that they should be taxed at high rates.

Similarly, the COL in NYC is 30-60% (depending on the exact area) higher than the COL in my average COL area. But the average income in NYC is actually lower than the average income than the nation as a whole. I know a couple in graduate school who just moved from here to Queens though they are living on graduate students loans and stipends (that would probably put them in the 40% of earners but on borrowed $). Here they along with 1 roommate were able to rent an entire house in a very nice neighborhood. In Queens they are paying more and have an apartment less than 1/4 the size of the house. So it isn't just high income people in high COL areas that get the short end of the stick with the tax code. These friends are only making/borrowing $30-40,000 a year which is what GF and I made last year. Except, our COL is 30% less than theirs and we both paid the same amount in taxes.

 

[Chicago526]

I really think it depends on where you live, and also what else you have going on in your life. If you are in a moderate to high COL area and are paying off a ton of student loan debt, have a couple of kids, and just bought a big house, 200k sounds great but you may be just comfortable. In a low COL area and little to no student loan or other debt, 200k and you're rolling in it.

In general, I think upper middle class starts at around $150k to 200k (outside of extreme COL areas of course) and rich starts around 500k. Then there are the truely wealthy like Trump, Gates, Oprah, etc.

DH and I make 100k combined. Even with a reasonable mortgage and no kids, we're still just getting by. We do okay, we own a home (small and in need of a lot of work, but it's ours!) and we have enough extra to make modest repairs/remodels to our house, pay off debt, go out to dinner once or twic a month, and take a vacation now and again. Once we have our CC and car debt paid off (about 2 years, give or take) we'll be doing a lot better. But by then we'll likely have a child and we'll need to seriously start saving for retirment. So we still won't be rolling in it!

 

[momto2girls]

In the UK upper class means inherited money

Yes, it definitely is different here in the U.S. A previous poster from the UK explained the difference in his mind, but that really doesn't apply here. A person can be in the upper class even if they weren't born into it, but sometimes people do gossip about someone who has "new money" vs. "old money".

BTW, per your examples of the different kinds of wealth in the UK, is it really true that even the people with wealth send their kids to public schools? I find that so surprising!

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I agree with others in that "rich" is closely related to income and Cost-of-Living, and also financial obligations.

If you make $150,000, live in the NE, pay on a mortgage, have a couple of cars, save for retirement and college, and have a bit of debt (say some student loans, car loans, etc..)... then you're probably somewhere in the middle class. You definitely aren't rich. And with rising inflation, even at a six-figure income, you're probably having to make some severe cuts in your spending.

Likewise, a similar family, making $250,000 with a bigger mortgage and more debt (have a bigger house and higher-end cars to go with their higher income), could probably be considered middle class too. Certainly, I know a family like this who're already hurting due to lower income (pay is based partly on commission) and higher inflation (gas prices are killing them because of the commute and low-gas-mileage autos).

I think, partly, that a definition of "rich" should include "net worth". Someone who makes $100,000 and has a net worth of $500,000 is richer than a person who makes $100,000 and has a net worth of $50,000.

I know people who make $100,000 or $200,0000 who have something put away for retirement, accounts for the kids' college, and no debt other than their mortgage. I also know people with incomes of $100,000 to $200,000 who have no savings, lots of debt, and a mortgage of 90% of the house value with a variable-interest-rate. I'd consider the first family "comfortable"... a term that I think means "able to pay their bills, afford a few luxuries, and put something away for the future". People like that fare better in an economic downturn, extended illness, or job loss.

I agree. My mother is a terrific example of that. She's a trust fund kid, has typically worked volunteer jobs, never needing any money and when she did work, she did so only for the love of helping others and keeping herself busy. She now collects only social security as her annual income, a payout that noone would every in a million years consider wealthy. However, you take a look at some of the seven-figure investments in her trust, and it would make your head spin. She lives a very modest Midwestern life, trying to get by only on what her SS checks pay out, and is one of most content and happy people I know of on this planet.

 

[Chicago526]

Yes, it definitely is different here in the U.S. A previous poster from the UK explained the difference in his mind, but that really doesn't apply here. A person can be in the upper class even if they weren't born into it, but sometimes people do gossip about someone who has "new money" vs. "old money".

BTW, per your examples of the different kinds of wealth in the UK, is it really true that even the people with wealth send their kids to public schools? I find that so surprising!

I believe those terms in the UK are backwards to how we use them in the US. Public in the UK means private in the US, and private in the UK means public in the US. At least it used to be that way, I don't know if the terms have changed. My understanding is that there, schools that you pay tuition for your child to attend are called "public" because they are paid for directly by the public, rather than by the government, and "private" schools are called that because they are funded through the government via tax revenue, thus "private".

 

[okeydokey]

I see that nobody has picked Obama's definition of "the rich" yet (that he says he'll raise taxes on): $75,000 couple, $37,500 single (though $100,000 and $50,000, respectively, for seniors).

I must ofr missed where Obama said that $75000 for a couple was "rich". Could you provide that info please?

 

[Planogirl]

I don't consider the term "upper class" the same as "rich". Upper class includes the rich but also those who make quite a bit of money and live well but can't just do whatever they wish.

Where those lines are is subjective though. You can live quite well if you make $100,000 here and you'd be practically rich if you made $500,000. At least from my perspective.

 

[momto2girls]

I believe those terms in the UK are backwards to how we use them in the US. Public in the UK means private in the US, and private in the UK means public in the US. At least it used to be that way, I don't know if the terms have changed. My understanding is that there, schools that you pay tuition for your child to attend are called "public" because they are paid for directly by the public, rather than by the government, and "private" schools are called that because they are funded through the government via tax revenue, thus "private".

Ah, thanks for clarifying! (I've been to England several times but I guess I never realized that.) That makes much more sense now!! I was just shocked that most people in the UK with some wealth were sending their kids to my-understanding-of-public school. Now I get it!

 

[corndog]

I must ofr missed where Obama said that $75000 for a couple was "rich". Could you provide that info please?

It has been in his standard stump speech, and, list time I checked, can be found in numerous places throughout his website. He's certainly not shy about it.

 

[MushyMushy]

Where I live, I would consider 150K as upper class, but overall in the US, I think it would be 500k.

 

[MsAmerica]

Cost of Living is the true determining factor of what is upper class in this country.

Someone here said they live in Iowa with 30K a year in income and bought a large home for $52K. Well a large home in the northeast, and not even that large of a home, is still over 500K-even with the decrease in the housing market. So if we multiply Iowa figures by 10, it would mean you have to make $300K a year to maintain the same lifestyle having a 500K mortage.

When politicians talk about increasing our taxes, it simply isn't fair. It doesn't cost nearly the same amount country wide to live but we are all living by the same tax codes. Any increase in taxes for people making over 75K in this country, with the current financial conditions, is going to send this country into an even bigger recession.

American's simply cannot afford more taxes at this time, gov't needs to curb its spending.

JMO,

MsA

 

[rayelias]

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

This is a truly eye-opening website on how rich (and blessed) we ALL are in America.

As an example, someone working full-time at minimum wage in the US is in the top 12.26% in the world. (AND they would still qualify for numerous government subsidies, such as food stamps, asst housing, asst utilities, asst/free healthcare, etc.)

 

[MovieJunkie]

Where I live, I would consider 150K as upper class, but overall in the US, I think it would be 500k.

Yea, exactly how I feel. Around where I live 150-200k a year and you are definitely considered "upper class". However, when it comes to the nation as a whole it would have to be over 500K to be considered that, because there are so many people making loads of money.

 

[Dodie]

I am shocked at the number of people who think that $100K is upper class/rich. Seriously? Regardless of the whole cost of living/where you live argument - there are people (several?) who think a household income of $100K is RICH?

I guess that fact does point out different perspectives...

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I am shocked at the number of people who think that $100K is upper class/rich. Seriously? Regardless of the whole cost of living/where you live argument - there are people (several?) who think a household income of $100K is RICH?

I guess that fact does point out different perspectives...

It sure does. If you look strickly at the numbers, $100K annually is "richer" than roughly 85% of the US population. For me, it only reinforces that fact that many American families are just getting by and still need a little assistance from our society as a whole.

 

[alldiz]

I think the idea of being "rich" or "upper class" is purely subjective. IMO, "rich" means being able to walk away from work right now and having enough money so that your kids and grandkids never have to work.

The truth of the matter, for the rest of us, is the annual household earnings of the top 5% Americans is in the neighborhood of only $150,000 and the top 2% of Americans start around $220,000. That means that 95% of all American families bring home less than $150K. Pretty striking, especially when you consider that so many people think that raising a family on a six figure salary is somehow unmanageable. IMO, if you're just squeaking by on $200K and can't make it in the neighborhood you live in, you're most certainly living beyond your means.

Wow....this is really shocking. I just squeaked intot the top 5%. I don't feel any wealthier knowing that though

Of course a family income of 150,000 on LI is really needed to live comfortably. Prices of everything is crazy high.

Maybe I'll move to "middle of nowhere" USA to feel "richer"

Truth is the more we make the more we spend....bigger house,,,,nicer cars...better vacations, fancier clothes....etc. It is all relative.
Kerri

 

[RitaE]

I don't think of a yearly income as "rich." To me, it is the accumulation of wealth that defines your class. $200,000 a year in income isn't much if you spend it all on non-investment luxuries and are still up to your eyeballs in debt. I'm much more focused on Net Worth than yearly income.

Now if you have a stock portfolio worth $1million or more, then you are good to go.

It bothers me that our society moves further every year toward encouraging people to spend and consume, rather than save.

 

[Chicago526]

I agree. My mother is a terrific example of that. She's a trust fund kid, has typically worked volunteer jobs, never needing any money and when she did work, she did so only for the love of helping others and keeping herself busy. She now collects only social security as her annual income, a payout that noone would every in a million years consider wealthy. However, you take a look at some of the seven-figure investments in her trust, and it would make your head spin. She lives a very modest Midwestern life, trying to get by only on what her SS checks pay out, and is one of most content and happy people I know of on this planet.

Just curious, but why does she try to just live on SS? I understand wanting a modest life style, but SS is pretty dang modest! My MIL lives on SS out of nessecity and even with a paid for house and car, still needs us to help her out now and again (of course she never asks, my husband just knows when she needs extra money, so what do you know, she gets $200 in cash at christmas, or a $250 gift cert to Lowes so she can replace the dishwasher tha broke last month. Funny how that works... )