What salary do you need to be considered "wealthy"

The poster you are responding to is absolutely right. Wealth is defined as assets minus liabilities (AKA net worth). The asset management industry typically sets 10m as the line for high net worth individuals so I will go with that.

Someone else above listed 4m under 40, 3m under 50 etc... This is a stupid way to look at things. A truly wealthy person should not see declining assets in retirement unless they are "doing it wrong"...

ric flair smoothie wrote:

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.

There is no such thing as subsidized housing for someone making 200k. Please provide the zip code and name of the city.

X-Runner wrote:

You're rich if you can afford appetizers.

You're wealthy if you can buy the restaurant.

Great post.

thejeff wrote:

The first two responses summed it up very well.

I didn't read past that.

I agree the Hawkeyes do suck.

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.

The metric for wealth is not salary. Plain and simple.

People are attempting to answering a poorly constructed question.

It is like the OP is asking :

How much water pressure is in a two inch pipe?

Better than Steve Magness https://salaries.texastribune.org/search/?q=magness

What salary do I need to be considered "wealthy"?

$1 more than gohawkeyes makes per year. No, make that 1 cent.

To me being wealthy would mean be able to live my life not having to work and yet never worrying about money.

I like the dude who said wealth is when your investments each year make more than you spend in a year. As long as that is true in any given year I think you can say you are wealthy, because then even if you have no income it is impossible for you to ever run out of money. If it is impossible for you to ever run out of money then you never worry about money, and that would be my definition of being wealthy.

Another more extreme definition of wealth might be that you can afford to buy anything you would ever want and never worry about money.

But for those of us who aren't greedy and want money for life and not just to buy crap, the first definition is perfect.

New goal: become wealthy = make more with investments than I spend.

Money101 wrote:

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.

I have never seen a modest 2 million dollar house. I have seen small ones (say 900 sq ft or so) but they are all paying for something.

Reality is that ~5 million puts you in the top 1%. But 5 million isn't enough for the lifestyles of the rich and famous. You shouldn't be buying a lambo, flying first class (or net jets), and so on. You need to move up to the top .1% for stuff like that.

A quarter million a year. Nothing more nothing less. Your welcome

TrackB0t wrote:

I have never seen a modest 2 million dollar house. I have seen small ones (say 900 sq ft or so) but they are all paying for something.

Here you go:

3 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1050 square feet, $2 million

3 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1700 square feet. $2.4 million

Plenty more examples of those in California and NYC.

You are wealthy when you don't need any more money.

It depends on the cost of living where you live, whether you're single, whether you have kids, etc.

But I'd say most places around the country 250k household definitely makes you wealthy, while 100k household (at least where I live) would just make you upper middle class.

Money 101 wrote:

TrackB0t wrote:

I have never seen a modest 2 million dollar house. I have seen small ones (say 900 sq ft or so) but they are all paying for something.

Here you go:

3 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1050 square feet, $2 million

http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Palo-Alto-CA/pmf,pf_pt/19468353_zpid/26374_rid/37.498559,-121.950989,37.264763,-122.320061_rect/11_zm/?3col=true

3 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1700 square feet. $2.4 million

http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Palo-Alto-CA/pmf,pf_pt/19499633_zpid/26374_rid/37.498559,-121.950989,37.264763,-122.320061_rect/11_zm/?3col=true

Plenty more examples of those in California and NYC.

Neither one is modest. Both are over 1000 sq ft and in a name brand town. The modest house would be the 700 sq ft one over in redwood city.

No salary. Wealthy in a financial sense means that you can simply live off your money indefinitely.

Dago/Frisco/SoCal: $10M in the bank and $300K/yr

Fresno/Bak: $1M in the bank and $100K/yr

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.

You are only wealthy if you don't have to work and don't know how much you are worth.

To me, wealth is when you can live off your interest.

Being rich is something like a minimum of $175,000-250,000 a year based on where you live.

WLA/SM/BH $5M/yr plus gasoline.