Major city, what income do you need to be considered wealthy?
$100K doesn't go as far as you would think in a lot of place, especially if you have kids.
Major city, what income do you need to be considered wealthy?
$100K doesn't go as far as you would think in a lot of place, especially if you have kids.
gohawkeyes wrote:
Major city, what income do you need to be considered wealthy?
$100K doesn't go as far as you would think in a lot of place, especially if you have kids.
Wealthy people don't have "salaries." Whoever owns the company paying you that salary is likely wealthy.
Ps Hawkeyes suck
Wealth is a measure of what you already own, not your salary.
A person with $10 million in the bank who makes $40k per year is wealthy.
A person making $400k per year living in NYC with no savings and $200k in student loans is not wealthy.
Depends how you define wealthy. I live in a small town and even here $100k is a long way from wealthy. There's a lot of $300k households in my area and I'm sure they don't think they're wealthy. They aren't executives or business owner / entrepreneurs. As my dad would say though, they aren't wondering where their next meal is coming from.
Everything is relative but I'll say $400k a year in the Midwest and twice that on the coasts or in a major metropolitan.
-Para
I heard a great definition for it....
If you stop working and your standard of living doesn't change at all....you are wealthy.
Major City? We talking San Francisco or Austin? Both are major cities, very different economics.
But lets talk San Fran or NYC. 35 y/o. no crazy inheritance, just a stable job that has grown with inflation over the past 10 years.
AS an individual, 250k with little no debt outside of a mortgage is probably wealthy.
As a couple, 400k combined would probably be considered wealthy.
Same idea for Austin or a cheaper city? 125k and 200k.
Money101 wrote:
Wealth is a measure of what you already own, not your salary.
A person with $10 million in the bank who makes $40k per year is wealthy.
A person making $400k per year living in NYC with no savings and $200k in student loans is not wealthy.
+1 wealth is about assets, not income
not from here anymore wrote:
Money101 wrote:Wealth is a measure of what you already own, not your salary.
A person with $10 million in the bank who makes $40k per year is wealthy.
A person making $400k per year living in NYC with no savings and $200k in student loans is not wealthy.
+1 wealth is about assets, not income
If "ASSets" is the definition, then there are some hurdlers and sprinters who are very, very wealthy, albeit poor financially.
Austin definitely isn't like San Francisco or NYC but it's not like it was 10 years ago. My wife and I make about 170k a year and have two kids. We're doing fine but certainly not living in the nicer neighborhoods and driving fancy cars.
When I moved here in 2002 it was sooooo cheap!
Fine put differently then, if you are inheriting nothing (didn't realize how much this played a key in things until I had to pay for college and start working) how much do you need to make to be considered wealthy? Conversely how need worth do you need to be considered wealthy? ($1M, $3M, $5M?)
Synonym Discussion of wealthy
rich, wealthy, affluent, opulent mean having goods, property, and money in abundance. rich implies having more than enough to gratify normal needs or desires . wealthy stresses the possession of property and intrinsically valuable things . affluent suggests prosperity and an increasing wealth . opulent suggests lavish expenditure and display of great wealth, more often applying to things than people
Tell us what you actually want to know.
With salary only, zero assets, $1 million pre tax per year is wealthy, no less. You guys live in Dogpatch or what?
gohawkeyes wrote:
Fine put differently then, if you are inheriting nothing (didn't realize how much this played a key in things until I had to pay for college and start working) how much do you need to make to be considered wealthy
As already explained, wealth is a measure of assets. The question doesn't make sense without more information.
A lot of people are rich, but to be wealthy, you don't even know how much money you have exactly. The reason is because your investments are making so much money every day.
gohawkeyes wrote:
Conversely how need worth do you need to be considered wealthy? ($1M, $3M, $5M?)
This question makes sense assuming you mean net worth. The answer is a matter of opinion. I'd say over $1 million net worth would be considered wealthy in some parts of the country. In other parts, I'd say $3 million. Even more in a few parts. A huge variable is the cost of housing, which can exceed $2 million for even a modest home in a few places.
Compared to the rest of the world, pretty much all of us here are wealthy.
Money101 wrote:
Wealth is a measure of what you already own, not your salary.
A person with $10 million in the bank who makes $40k per year is wealthy.
A person making $400k per year living in NYC with no savings and $200k in student loans is not wealthy.
The guy with $10M net worth should have more income too though.
Alls I need is the Eugene Mission where you can stay for free if you pitch in a do some simple chores around and about.
uhhhh wrote:
[quote]gohawkeyes wrote:
Ps Hawkeyes suck
THIS. As a Cyclone I support this message.
Money101 wrote:
Wealth is a measure of what you already own, not your salary.
A person with $10 million in the bank who makes $40k per year is wealthy.
A person making $400k per year living in NYC with no savings and $200k in student loans is not wealthy.
In the BANK? That's not where I keep my assets.