What salary do you need to be considered "wealthy"

Cool, so if i am reading this correctly, you would need about $200K an earner for most ppl to consider you pretty well off.

As has been pointed out, wealth is about assets not income. Wealth is a stock (how much you have); income is a flow (how much came in this year). The two are related, but they aren't interchangeable. You can have lots of income and few assets or lots of assets and little income.

The best way measure of how much you make is income minus outgo. And outgo depends on a lot of things, like where you live. In some places, $200K just isn't that much.

End of lecture.

gohawkeyes wrote:

Cool, so if i am reading this correctly, you would need about $200K an earner for most ppl to consider you pretty well off.

There are a number of very very wealthy "ppl" that have or had annual salaries of $1.

You must be one of those Hawkeye fans who didn't even go to school there. I understand these concepts must be difficult for you to understand.

Sincerely,

A different Cyclone

gohawkeyes wrote:

Cool, so if i am reading this correctly, you would need about $200K an earner for most ppl to consider you pretty well off.

So, why don't we set the minimum wage at $200k a year. Then everyone can be wealthy.

notrump wrote:

With salary only, zero assets, $1 million pre tax per year is wealthy, no less. You guys live in Dogpatch or what?

If your example "wealthy" individual has 20 mil in debt you're still saying he's wealthy? As the countless other posters have said, wealth is distinct from earnings. I would agree your man is well paid, but can't agree he's wealthy until I know what his debt situation is. Even with zero debt and zero assets, he's still not wealthy. Your man still has to get up and work hard every day. Wealthy people don't have to, although, unlike most poor people, most are still driven to do so.

Wealth is about net worth. NW = assets - liabilities. Salary is only one source of income. The rich grow their assets which pay them passive income while they live within their means and control their expenses. Over time their income from assets exceeds their expenses and they can eliminate salary as a source of income.

There was talk among economists back in 1960s that in order to be considered wealthy you have to be at least worth your weight in gold.

Salary is income, but it can contribute to wealth, wealth is more of a total accumulation of equity.

Mope Dealer wrote:

There was talk among economists back in 1960s that in order to be considered wealthy you have to be at least worth your weight in gold.

Salary is income, but it can contribute to wealth, wealth is more of a total accumulation of equity.

Funny. But still relevant. 150lbs of gold at $1350 per ounce is about $3.2 mil. I'd agree if your net worth was $3.2 mil you could make the case for being wealthy. Not that you could live extravagantly, but with some discipline, you'd be "independently wealthy" and not dependent upon working for a living.

lots of crap on this post... Basically, if you are making 200K/year you are probably comfortable on a day-to-day basis (given you do not live in NYC, San Francisco, or other super high cost of living addresses).

So - a person making 200K/year in Eugene or Boise is probably rather comfortable.

Atx 2 wrote:

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!

Same with Boulder and Denver. Those people saying we are in a housing bubble are very wrong

Hesdumberthantrump wrote:

Mope Dealer wrote:

There was talk among economists back in 1960s that in order to be considered wealthy you have to be at least worth your weight in gold.

Salary is income, but it can contribute to wealth, wealth is more of a total accumulation of equity.

Funny. But still relevant. 150lbs of gold at $1350 per ounce is about $3.2 mil. I'd agree if your net worth was $3.2 mil you could make the case for being wealthy. Not that you could live extravagantly, but with some discipline, you'd be "independently wealthy" and not dependent upon working for a living.

Agreed a 5% yield on this wealth is 160k, a 7% yield is 224Ä·, 10% is 320Ä·. I reckon this sort of income after tax would be considered wealthy. But when gold is $248 an ounce as it was 15 years ago this system does not work, but I would reckon that if gold was that cheap again people go and buy some.

HiltonMagic wrote:

gohawkeyes wrote:

Cool, so if i am reading this correctly, you would need about $200K an earner for most ppl to consider you pretty well off.

There are a number of very very wealthy "ppl" that have or had annual salaries of $1.

You must be one of those Hawkeye fans who didn't even go to school there. I understand these concepts must be difficult for you to understand.

Sincerely,

A different Cyclone

You guys both suck.

Signed,

A Panther

BleedingBlue wrote:

lots of crap on this post... Basically, if you are making 200K/year you are probably comfortable on a day-to-day basis (given you do not live in NYC, San Francisco, or other super high cost of living addresses).

So - a person making 200K/year in Eugene or Boise is probably rather comfortable.

True. $200k in Boise is living pretty darn well. I have friends who made the switch from $800 per sq/ft condo living in Seattle to $300 per sq/ft in Boise and love it.

I live in a zip code that has an average single family home price of $6.51 million in 2016 ($1,338 per sq/ft). If you're making $200k or $400k you will be in subsidized housing or live 20-30mi away. A reality you can't avoid, but if you get lucky (like me) you score a subsidized in an amazing spot.

That makes you rich in life, the wealth that makes you happy with what you have right now...:)

Nobody wants to think of themselves as wealthy b/c then they'd feel guilty about it... Hence people saying things like $200,000/yr isn't that much (when that's in the top 2 percent of earners in the U.S.). Even if you 'adjust' that to 150k b/c of state/city taxes etc., you'd still be top 4%. And the high cost of living area argument is mostly bs as it just lets you accrue equity while taking the mortgage interest deduction.

You can pick your wealthy $ amount and see what it's percentile is here

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/03/02/what-percent-are-you-2/

100K would be wealthy. I grew up in a household with 30K income.

1 in 2 American WORKERS earn LESS than $30,000 BEFORE taxes...

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/25/1-in-2-working-americans-make-less-than-30000-a-year/

Makes over $30,000 and I'd say you were wealthy! In the top half of earners at least!

anything over exactly $119,852 with $756,870 in savings is wealthy.....

It's all relative. I'm sure my private school buddy making $120k at his engineering job is on the lower end of earners from his graduating class but methinks most average college grads that are in their 30s would call 80k a healthy salary...

Observer of things wrote:

not from here anymore wrote:

+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.

Pics to go with your lame post?