D
Deleted member 22576
Unconfirmed Member
I've only read the OP. Thats just the vibe I was getting.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
200k a year families claim they are "not rich"
- Thread starter Liberty4all
- Start date
- Status
I've only read the OP. Thats just the vibe I was getting.
Please be a joke post. Please be a joke post. Please be a joke post...
Marty Chinn
Member
And people need to realize it's relative to the living costs too. You know what sucks? When federal taxes don't account for the cost of living. Let's face it, living in CA, a normal average house is like $600k. That house anywhere else would be like $100k. So if you have a 30 year mortgage, you're going to be paying something like 24k a year on just the mortgage. That's roughly 50k worth of salary just spent on the house where as elsewhere it would just be 1/6th of the cost for the same house. That's a huge difference. Not to mention we have high property taxes here, that's another several thousand. Just to have the same house in CA, you need to make more.
Liberty4all
Banned
Marty, one of the issues is that a lot of the 200k earners feel they shouldn't have to contribute more via taxes (because they are "only struggling middle class families" according to them)
Do you see the disconnect? There are many many many more families of four getting by on 100k a year (or often much less) ...
So yeah the 200k a year person probably should be paying more in income tax (and the filthy rich billionaires even proportionately more).
There's a reason the US is in so much debt and it's directly related to the unwillingness of the US government to raise income tax on the rich (yes talking about 200k earners) and the filthy stinking rich (millionaires+).
Do you see the disconnect? There are many many many more families of four getting by on 100k a year (or often much less) ...
So yeah the 200k a year person probably should be paying more in income tax (and the filthy rich billionaires even proportionately more).
There's a reason the US is in so much debt and it's directly related to the unwillingness of the US government to raise income tax on the rich (yes talking about 200k earners) and the filthy stinking rich (millionaires+).
I'm pretty sure the argument is, people who make $200k a year shouldn't complain. So...yeah. Seems pretty reasonable.
CounterSeal
Member
Besides the 166k single guy, I don't see this as a huge problem. As said already, 200k with a family of four in a relatively expensive city is more upper-middle class than "rich".
You ungrateful little shit.
SouthernDragon
Member
Uh, 200k leaves plenty of wiggle room for a family, no matter where you are.
Living paycheck-to-paycheck on such earning power simply means that you are living with a much higher standard of living compared to 95% of the population, that you have poor budgeting skills, and that you can easily cut back on expenses if your income were to fall.
Many people here lose sight of the other end; where if your income falls, there isn't much left to cut.
With comments like that, you could always just point a bullseye on your head.
In all seriousness, this is a prime example of someone that is out of touch.
Living paycheck-to-paycheck on such earning power simply means that you are living with a much higher standard of living compared to 95% of the population, that you have poor budgeting skills, and that you can easily cut back on expenses if your income were to fall.
Many people here lose sight of the other end; where if your income falls, there isn't much left to cut.
With comments like that, you could always just point a bullseye on your head.
In all seriousness, this is a prime example of someone that is out of touch.
Exactly.
I keep seeing a lot of "I still have to live on a budget and can't buy whatever I want," in this thread. Is that the definition of rich? No budget? Being able to buy something without looking at the price tag? Insanity.
Shut the fuck up. I moved from LA to China working my ass off for that money.
I'm just saying if you go to San Gabriel Valley in SoCal, there are tons of people with much more luxurious goods than us. Hell, I see plenty of Gaffers with shittons more cool gadgets than me.
Seraphis Cain
bad gameplay lol
Fuck, $800 a month on wine? That could pay all my monthly bills AND buy all my groceries for a month.
Seriously. Damn.
Seriously. Damn.
Marty Chinn
Member
See, I can sorta see that angle. Like I said before, Federal taxes don't account for cost of living. Someone living in CA, having to pay more taxes by far affects them more than someone making 200k in Iowa. 200k means different things depending on where you live and that's all I'm trying to get at. I'm comfortable, but I don't think I'm rich. I don't have that flexibility. I agree there is a huge problem here that is causing the disparity of so many people having to live in debt, but I just don't agree that just because someone is just able to not live in debt, and get by that suddenly they are rich. Doing better? Yes. Living more comfortably? Sure. Rich? That's where I start to disagree.
As for the US debt, it's not just the unwillingness to raise the income tax on the rich. That's over simplifying it. There was a war that we wasted a ton of money on too. Not to mention the entitlement of people where they want their cake and to eat it too. People don't want to give up things because they feel entitled to them yet they also don't want to pay for it. There's a lot of reasons we're in this mess. I do agree that taxing the rich is something that needs to be done but it won't solve the problem. It'll help, but let's not kid ourselves to think that it is the only reason we are where we are.
200k is not bad for a couple in Sydney Australia if they have no kids. You can afford a mortgage with that but by no means are you rich. I'm renting a decent 2 bedroom apartment with no car space for $420 a week and my suburb is by no means well off. If i wanted to buy a house in my area ? 800,000 to 1.6m. 2bdrm apartment like the one i'm in now ? $500,000.
I don't consider myself poor but i don't think i would be able to buy a house on my current income (60k before tax) in Sydney anytime soon unless i get a 40k raise and delay having kids till my mid 30s early 40s. So to those saying $200,000 couple with kids can live rich anywhere, not in Sydney you can't. Oh and before the AUD spiked against the greenback our wages were bellow the states in allot of professions.
I think if me and my partner made 200k combined it would be a nice springboard to being financially independent in 10-15 years but if you put in 3 kids in the equation you can kiss that goodbye.
Oh and 800 on wine a month? I spend close to 500 on smokes a month. Everyone has their addictions.
I don't consider myself poor but i don't think i would be able to buy a house on my current income (60k before tax) in Sydney anytime soon unless i get a 40k raise and delay having kids till my mid 30s early 40s. So to those saying $200,000 couple with kids can live rich anywhere, not in Sydney you can't. Oh and before the AUD spiked against the greenback our wages were bellow the states in allot of professions.
I think if me and my partner made 200k combined it would be a nice springboard to being financially independent in 10-15 years but if you put in 3 kids in the equation you can kiss that goodbye.
Oh and 800 on wine a month? I spend close to 500 on smokes a month. Everyone has their addictions.
SouthernDragon
Member
Just because other people have gadgets you don't or earn more than you do does not mean you yourself are not living well and comfortably.
You know what your family's income gets you? Peace of mind.
I'm about to have a big weekend. I might spend $30 on a meal for two. I have set aside about $60 just in case, although I did splurge $5 on DLC about two weeks ago for a game that's my "addiction".
Perspective.
do you seriously think you work harder then those with lesser incomes?
stop being out of touch you just won the jackpot in life and you act "meh no big deal theres others with more"
I believe in taking care of myself, in a
balanced diet, in a rigorous exercise routine. In the
morning, if my face is a little puffy, I'll put on an ice
pack while doing my stomach crunches. I can do a thousand
now.
After I remove the icepack, I use a deep
pore-cleanser lotion. In the shower, I use a
water-activated gel cleanser, then a honey-almond body
scrub, and on the face an exfoliating gel scrub.
Then I apply an herb mint facial masque which
I leave on for ten minutes while I prepare the rest of my
routine.
I always use an after-shave lotion with little
or no alcohol because alcohol dries your face out and makes
you look older. Then moisturizer, then an anti-aging eye
balm, followed by a final moisturizing "protective" lotion...
No, I was simply pointing out I'm not an ungrateful little shit because I'm actually working for that money. And yes, there's probably more risk and stress involved when you are doing business with fortune 100 companies with your own money.
I've never said my family is not living well. Of course we are living well. I'm just saying I still spent money very conservatively even though I have a very good income.
travisbickle
Member
Marty Chinn I'm not saying 200,000 is an excessive amount of money, actually the opposite. It isn't very much especially for a family of 3/4 therefore I believe more than 4-5% of the population of the USA should be earning that amount; a more equal distribution of the wealth USA would have unbelievable positive effects to everyones livelihoods.
Also I think you should appreciate your surroundings a bit more, the expensive house you live in is in a community that has been built and maintained from a large amount of public and private money spent on it, you may not be as rich as your next door neighbour but you are sharing the same public spaces, roads and schools, which are good enough for them.
Also I think you should appreciate your surroundings a bit more, the expensive house you live in is in a community that has been built and maintained from a large amount of public and private money spent on it, you may not be as rich as your next door neighbour but you are sharing the same public spaces, roads and schools, which are good enough for them.
$30 for two? That's a meal for 2 at McDonalds in Sydney do you consider that a big weekend? That DLC would be $10-15USD from an Australian IP in most cases.
Marty Chinn
Member
I don't disagree, but at the same time, if you're saying 200,000 isn't an excessive amount, then why should those families be hit and penalized more? Shouldn't the burden then be placed on a higher bracket than the 200k mark where you feel it is excessive and a lot?
Oh don't get me wrong. I completely appreciate and am thankful for where I am and that I can live the life that I do. But on the flip side, that doesn't mean I don't worry about the future because financially, in California, 200k doesn't mean you're rich. If one of us lost a job, that would hurt a lot. The reason we save is to try to protect against unforeseeable things in the future but if we dip into that, that dips into our retirement. We're comfortable, but that doesn't mean we are worry free. Far from it. I worry about many things. Paying for my kid, and wondering about the cost of future kids. I worry about their college fund and how costs of tuition are skyrocketing. It's scary to think what college will cost in 18 years. I worry about inflation and how even though we're saving, how it may not be enough for retirement. I have plenty of worries because like I said, while we are comfortable that doesn't mean we're rich. Rich in happiness maybe, but not rich in wealth.
Liberty4all
Banned
30 bucks will buy a meal for two at most branded restaurants in Canada and the states. Hell in the US 20 dollars will get you a big meal for two at most family restaurants ... With an appetizer included!
I know from my euro friends though eating out costs a lot more in most of the world.
Marty Chinn
Member
$20 doesn't buy you as much as it used to. Food has gone up a lot over the last two years.
Cost of living and wages are both higther in Australia, you can't really compare living here to North America like that.
That was his point. That 200k gets you different things in different places.
Funny how Americans/Europeans are complaining about the 1%. We ourselves are the 1% to the rest of the world.
These people seem to work hard, mostly people who have founded their own business. They spend a lot of money so that is good for the economy. And hey, where I live that 200K wouldn't buy you a normal house (three bedrooms, one bath room). Those cost 400K. If you can buy a standard house with a year's paycheck, then you're well off.
These people seem to work hard, mostly people who have founded their own business. They spend a lot of money so that is good for the economy. And hey, where I live that 200K wouldn't buy you a normal house (three bedrooms, one bath room). Those cost 400K. If you can buy a standard house with a year's paycheck, then you're well off.
Well for example if you want to take your gf to a decent place (not a fast food join) be prepared to pay $50 min. in the suburbs. Yum Cha is around $70 for 2. A decent place in the city $150+ for 2.
So say you take a girl to dinner and a movie that's $44 for tickets with no popcorn or drinks or anything, just tickets. Then $100 for dinner most likely. And that's a cheap date for an average girl.
Yes, I was just advising aginst thinking of 200k in Sydney terms. Earning 200k in NA is a lot more money than earning 200k in Sydney.
People saying "smh at how much money they waste"- if you had more money, you'd adjust your tastes upwards. I'm not saying everyone who earns that much is going to be wasting money on wine, but when you have more money, certain things you automatically do to save money no longer become the norm. A simple example here is eating out vs. making your own food. Eating out (or ordering takeout if you don't want to move) are generally nicer than making your own food, as you don't have go and buy the supplies and spend time cooking. However, if you earn only 30k a year, spending, say, 120 dollars at a restaurant that's 1/250th of your income gone right there. If you earn 200k, the cost is only around 1/1700th of your yearly income. Though some people will stick with their old habits in absolute dollars terms, many will adjust their consumption so that they are spending a similar percentage of their income.
Lord Ghirahim
Member
I would get about the same in the states as i do here in an equivalent city like LA or NY. And i'm just trying to show that 200k does not make you rich everywhere like some say.
Yeah your right, housing, cars, smokes, phones almost everything is cheaper over there. If i lived in the states i would be allot better off with the dollar at parity as it is now. But im just trying to illustrate that 200k does not make you rich everywhere. Especially with 3 kids.
If I understand correctly, most Americans (and Canadians) in this thread define rich as living an extremely high lifestyle standard, nurtured by images from Hollywood, magazines and the filthy rich neighbor.
I define rich simply by their income, assets and yearly savings/investments. And that's how most people I know would do as well. In my country, lots of rich people don't show off their wealth, therefore the lifestyle doesn't indicate their wealth at all.
- If you're top 10% (of your country), you are rich. You have a higher income (of your household) than 90% of the population. It doesn't matter if you use other attributes (wealthy, comfortable, well-off), because it doesn't change the fact that you have more money than other people. Saying you aren't rich is just moving the goalpost, and you can do this endlessly, because there's always someone with more money
- If you have money for unnecessary things, you are not poor. If you have money for a lot of unnecessary things, you are rich.
I define rich simply by their income, assets and yearly savings/investments. And that's how most people I know would do as well. In my country, lots of rich people don't show off their wealth, therefore the lifestyle doesn't indicate their wealth at all.
How about this:
- If you're top 10% (of your country), you are rich. You have a higher income (of your household) than 90% of the population. It doesn't matter if you use other attributes (wealthy, comfortable, well-off), because it doesn't change the fact that you have more money than other people. Saying you aren't rich is just moving the goalpost, and you can do this endlessly, because there's always someone with more money
- If you have money for unnecessary things, you are not poor. If you have money for a lot of unnecessary things, you are rich.
If you live in a expensive house, you are rich, because poor people can't pay for it.
Liberty4all
Banned
Denny's, Kelsey's, the keg, red lobster, east side Mario's, appleby, olive garden, .... Basically places that you can get "real" food at for anywhere from 10 - 20 dollars a plate.
I love traveling through the US ... Restaurants like the ones I mentioned and many many more are much cheaper than in Canada. Oh and the buffet places .... Man Americans sure know how to do a buffet.
That's exactly the problem on this world. People with much monies still say "hey, there are a few people with more, so we have to be definitely poor - let's get even more". I guess Warren Buffet cries himself to sleep, because there is still Bill Gates and some other dude that got more than him. Although he got 50 fucking billion dollars.
I mean compared to those 3, yes, those 200.000$ or 166.000$ people are "not rich", probably even "poor". But that's just a numbers game. If they can afford 800$ of wine every month, they are rich in my book (Bill Gates and such are filthy rich) and should be happy about it. Other people in the same country work a whole month for just those 800$ or even less than that.
lol, both were banned, so yes - a stalemate.
Unknown Soldier
Member
You're not truly "rich" until you don't have to work a day in your life and still have money to burn. Of course most rich people actually still do work, but they wouldn't have to if they didn't want to.
Marty Chinn
Member
Terrible definitions.
1) Let's say there are 100 people. 85 out of 100 make 30k, 10 out of 100 make 35k, and then 5 people make 10 million. Now those 10 people who make 35k are in the top 10% but the discrepancy between those in the 90% and the 95% is huge. It's not just pure percentage. It's a combination of factors of what your buying power is relative to the cost of living in your area.
2) What defines some things vs a lot of things? Plenty of poor people buy a lot of unnecessary things. It's part of the reason why many Americans are in debt. People live beyond their means.
3) What classifies as an expensive house? A 500k house in Iowa is expensive but a 500k house in CA is a normal smaller house. Poor people tend to not be able to afford 500k in either state but the buying power is different.
What?
That's why you use the percentage of your country, not a random 100 households.
When they live beyond their means, they can't afford it. Just because they still buy it doesn't mean they can afford it.
It doesn't matter how big or small your house is. Of course I have to live with less square meter in a city (in my case: Bern), but I have better public transport, more variety, more hospitals etc. If I live in a city, I don't even need a car, therefore cars are luxury in a city lifestyle.
You live in an expensive environment, your quality of life is - on average - higher. I suspect your definition of rich is purely based on buying power.
RobotChant
Member
I'm reminded of a quote: "we make a lot of money, but we spend a lot, too.
Having a lot of of expenses doesn't make you not rich.
Having a lot of of expenses doesn't make you not rich.
Suits are real damn expensive. Most places a suit jacket alone goes for $100+.
The only suit I've owned has been a Frankenstein piece of Goodwill parts.
oneils
Member
200k is in the top 1% of income earners. If we are starting to think of that as any where near middle class then I would say we have all become deluded as to what middle class means. Or, we have started to lose sight of what a middle class lifestyle is.
To me, the middle class lifestyle is not one where you can afford two luxury class cars, hundreds of dollars a month on clothes, maid service, multiple vacations, and a cottage. Not saying that the folks in the article don't deserve these things. But let's get real, it is not middle class.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I don't make $200k a year. I do work a skilled job that pays well.
Here are the reasons why I am not poor:
- If I do not spend frivolously, I am able to save a non-trivial portion of my income.
- My income allows me to rent or eventually buy a modest home and I am not forced to have an exceptionally long commute for my area simply to live in a region that
- I might choose unhealthy foods at the supermarket, but I am not forced to make financial sacrifices in order to choose modest and healthy foods.
- I am able to afford hobbies that cost a modest amount of money (~$100-150 a month)
- I own a ten year old car free and clear
- I have medical and dental insurance
- I am able to take a short (7-10 day) travel vacation per year to some destinations (I would say I am able to budget $1750-2000 per year for a vacation)
- I have enough liquid savings to cover my minimum living expenses for 6-9 months and I do not carry any debt.
- I am able to eat out at non-family restaurants periodically
- It is possible for me to lower my fixed and variable expenses if need be.
- We are not forced to scour coupons or flyers in order to cover basic expenses
- Although I don't have any kind of student loans, if I did have reasonable student loans, I would be able to pay them.
- I will be able to retire at some point in my life.
Here are the reasons why I am not rich:
- I would not be able to afford professional help cleaning my household
- Loss of my partner's income would negate virtually everything I list above and cause significant compromises in our standard of living
- Having a child and resulting costs arising from it would compromise many of the things I list above.
- Although I am more than able to eat out, doing so on a frequent basis would cause a measurable impact on my bank balance fairly quickly. When we do eat out, we generally stick to a single drink, never order a full bottle of wine, and often choose not to have appetizers in order to help control costs.
- It is not possible for me to significantly lower my fixed and variable expenses if need be. I have a cheap phone plan, I don't smoke and rarely drink, I rarely buy new clothes and when I do I choose affordable options and get significant use out of my clothing before donating it or throwing it out.
- Vacations are a source of some financial stress, I would not be able to take more than one in a year, and the one I do take is designed around my available money rather than simply my desire to go a particular place or do a particular thing.
- Although I would easily qualify for pretty high car payments, a car payment on a median new model car would be a significant expense and impact my budget for the month. I would not consider an expensive truck or SUV at all because I would simply not be able to make the payments. My partner has a car provided by her job--if she didn't, we'd be stuck with a single car.
- Our household meets our needs pretty much exactly. We don't have any unused rooms, extra bathrooms, we don't have a significant amount of space beyond what we need for pretty near bare essentials, we generally have to get rid of older things as we get new things to keep our space usage contained. Our appliances are entry level or older, our furniture is entry level or older.
- Although I don't have any kind of student loans, if I did have high student loans, it would cause me trouble to pay them. If both my partner and I had high student loans, it would significantly compromise some of the things I said above.
- I will not be able to retire until I am old, and retirement will probably impact my standard of living unless I choose to pursue further work on a part-time basis.
Here are the reasons why I am not poor:
- If I do not spend frivolously, I am able to save a non-trivial portion of my income.
- My income allows me to rent or eventually buy a modest home and I am not forced to have an exceptionally long commute for my area simply to live in a region that
- I might choose unhealthy foods at the supermarket, but I am not forced to make financial sacrifices in order to choose modest and healthy foods.
- I am able to afford hobbies that cost a modest amount of money (~$100-150 a month)
- I own a ten year old car free and clear
- I have medical and dental insurance
- I am able to take a short (7-10 day) travel vacation per year to some destinations (I would say I am able to budget $1750-2000 per year for a vacation)
- I have enough liquid savings to cover my minimum living expenses for 6-9 months and I do not carry any debt.
- I am able to eat out at non-family restaurants periodically
- It is possible for me to lower my fixed and variable expenses if need be.
- We are not forced to scour coupons or flyers in order to cover basic expenses
- Although I don't have any kind of student loans, if I did have reasonable student loans, I would be able to pay them.
- I will be able to retire at some point in my life.
Here are the reasons why I am not rich:
- I would not be able to afford professional help cleaning my household
- Loss of my partner's income would negate virtually everything I list above and cause significant compromises in our standard of living
- Having a child and resulting costs arising from it would compromise many of the things I list above.
- Although I am more than able to eat out, doing so on a frequent basis would cause a measurable impact on my bank balance fairly quickly. When we do eat out, we generally stick to a single drink, never order a full bottle of wine, and often choose not to have appetizers in order to help control costs.
- It is not possible for me to significantly lower my fixed and variable expenses if need be. I have a cheap phone plan, I don't smoke and rarely drink, I rarely buy new clothes and when I do I choose affordable options and get significant use out of my clothing before donating it or throwing it out.
- Vacations are a source of some financial stress, I would not be able to take more than one in a year, and the one I do take is designed around my available money rather than simply my desire to go a particular place or do a particular thing.
- Although I would easily qualify for pretty high car payments, a car payment on a median new model car would be a significant expense and impact my budget for the month. I would not consider an expensive truck or SUV at all because I would simply not be able to make the payments. My partner has a car provided by her job--if she didn't, we'd be stuck with a single car.
- Our household meets our needs pretty much exactly. We don't have any unused rooms, extra bathrooms, we don't have a significant amount of space beyond what we need for pretty near bare essentials, we generally have to get rid of older things as we get new things to keep our space usage contained. Our appliances are entry level or older, our furniture is entry level or older.
- Although I don't have any kind of student loans, if I did have high student loans, it would cause me trouble to pay them. If both my partner and I had high student loans, it would significantly compromise some of the things I said above.
- I will not be able to retire until I am old, and retirement will probably impact my standard of living unless I choose to pursue further work on a part-time basis.
Pretty much. Deserve doesn't come into it.
sankt-Antonio
Banned
I second the notion that the therm "middle class" is used falsely in this thread by some.
For the US it is $500K.
- Status