What income is considered upper class?

X-Runner wrote:

I'd say if you are in the top 25% of earners in your area and you spend your money on classy stuff and hobnob with classy people, then you are upper class.

If you make a bunch of money and don't spend it, then you are middle class.

It's not income or wealth.

First class is spending at least $100K/year on non-appreciating items.

That is the image that is depicted in Hollywood. Although, having hung out with those types of people, I would actually say they are lower-class individuals. You said it yourself. They have to spend money on "classy stuff" and they have to hang out with equally shallow people. So, they are defined by their stuff, not by their character.

IDIOT 3 areas wrote:

IDIOT 2 wrote:

$500k is upper-middle class. Upper class means not having to work to maintain a life of privilege and luxury.

IDIOT 1 wrote:

Upper middle to me means freedom from some of these headaches and I'd say that's $1,000,000+ in this area.

Sounds middle class to me. That's what two working parents in an engineer/law/medical/high skill field would make. Sounds silly to describe that as "upper class" IMO.

By no definition are the thresholds you described (income >500K, not needing to work, >1M!) in the "middle" or "upper middle" of the distribution.

Seriously. Do you know the meaning of the word "middle"? Unless you mean the middle 98%, then no, you are not in the middle or the upper middle. This is like arguing about whether a 13:30 is an upper-level or uper-middle-level 5k time -- it only looks slow if you forget the rest of the world and define affix the bounds of your universe to the elite.

I feel bad for you people. As a specialist doctor and a pretty good statistician I know my place in the world, and even making much less than you I am not so out-of-touch to call my situation the "middle" of anything. You must surround yourselves with nothing but other well-off strivers.

Sorry for the typos^.

My post was interrupted as I arrived at work, greeting some actual middle class people!

In my 30's between me and my wife we make a little over $100k a year and have 2 kids. I have more than enough money but I think that is because I buy nothing that would be considered classy stuff.

I'm not looking at Weston or Wellesley I know those are so far outside my budget. Take Melrose for example because it's a nice town, pretty good schools and convenient to Boston. You saw what I posted regarding salary, etc. I'm pretty conservative with money so I'd say the max i'd be willing to spend is $600k which IMO is astronomical for the area. There are 13 single family homes in Melrose with 3 beds+ and 1.25 bath+. There are 4 that fit my criteria on what I could spend and still save for retirement/college/emergency. Every single one is a downgrade from where I live now except they are in a better town for what I'm looking for now. https://www.redfin.com/MA/Melrose/138-Howard-St-02176/home/11790099https://www.redfin.com/MA/Melrose/124-Boardman-Ave-02176/home/11790383https://www.redfin.com/MA/Melrose/235-Grove-Pl-02176/home/170014066https://www.redfin.com/MA/Melrose/235-Beech-Ave-02176/home/11784079 This is why I think I'm middle class. I can't buy a nice house in a nice town that isn't a downgrade from where I am now after 10 years of homeownership. I'm now making way more money than I was 10 years ago and my house appreciated through the roof.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

You're upper-middle class. I grew up in the area, and was fortunate to grow up upper-middle class. I wouldn't say just because you can't afford to move at age 36 to Weston or Wellesley without taking on some debt or dipping into savings you become Middle Class. These are wealthy neighborhoods with high barriers to entry. The average household income is below where you are pulling. But a lot of people have accumulated wealth or bought houses decades ago.

What's the definition of upper class and the type of income(ie gross, adjustable gross, net, etc.)

me and my actual upper class friends would laugh you out of our country club if you came in saying you weren't a middle class peasant. "i know my place in the world" bahahahahahahaha it's not with us i can tell you that

I'd say it starts around $200k in most of the country, $250k in more expensive places like California or New York City. I say this because at those levels you can easily afford a very nice house ($500-700k in middle of the country, $1M in california and New York at these incomes) and still have leftovers to go on vacations and not really have to think about how you're spending your money. As long as you're not regularly buying .

One could say that this level is just 'comfortable'... But being rich is being comfortable and not worrying about money at all.

You are confusing class with income tier. One's 'class' is defined by their place in society. It includes wealth (as opposed to income), power/influence and pedigree (education, family name, etc.).

"Upper class: the social group that has the highest status in society, especially the aristocracy."

"The upper class in modern societies is the social class composed of people who hold the highest social status, usually are the wealthiest members of society, and wield the greatest political power."

Members of the upper class do not need to work for a living. OTOH, the upper-middle class is comprised of people that have worked hard to earn financial security and a comfortable lifestyle.

"In the United States, the upper middle class is defined as consisting mostly of white-collar professionals who not only have above-average personal incomes and advanced educational degrees but also a higher degree of autonomy in their work. The main occupational tasks of upper-middle-class individuals tend to center on conceptualizing, consulting, and instruction."

I would say that based on your profession you are just upper middle-class - apparently, like most of the rest of us.

Again, nothing about this makes you middle class. Simply wanting to make more money or wanting to afford a bigger house in a better neighborhood does not put you in the middle class.

-andrew jf wrote:

Just out of curiousity. I would say rich (not wealthy) begins at $500k per year?

Rich begins at the income where you stop complaining about the price of Vaporflys.

There are 4 houses that meet you're criteria which is 3 too many. Is it actually downgrade if it's in a nicer town? Not clear that's true.

At your income finding a nice house within 95/128 will be tough. You can basically decide to be house poor and live in a nice-ish town and nice house and have to think about money or you can settle for something further away, commute longer, and/or go without a modern kitchen/bath, and not worry about money. The choice is yours. I'd argue that because you have a choice, you'll be okay.

A lot of posters from Tennessee, Missouri, Alabama, etc around here. $225K is solidly middle class in Boston - NOWHERE near upper middle.

Also, you have $650K in your 401k at age 36? Seriously impressive on that income. If you really NEED to move to that nicer house or neighborhood - I'd look into taking a loan from the 401k (of course better if you don't have to).

Thanks appreciate the support. $650k is between my wife an I. I have about $415k in mine. I have a very generous employer match and I live far below my means in order to max out. We're also in a massive bull run (Thanks Obama) basically since I've started working. This year alone my 401k is +26.51%.

notscguy wrote:

A lot of posters from Tennessee, Missouri, Alabama, etc around here. $225K is solidly middle class in Boston - NOWHERE near upper middle.

Also, you have $650K in your 401k at age 36? Seriously impressive on that income. If you really NEED to move to that nicer house or neighborhood - I'd look into taking a loan from the 401k (of course better if you don't have to).

depends on where you live. in california, most homes probably cost somewhere between 300K-700K. elsewhere in the america, you can literally buy a mansion. maybe i should set out to buy a 800K house in another state when i retire.

in my opinion,

50K = good enough to live and buy the stuff you want if you save and wait for sales

70K = comfortable life if no family. you can buy whatever you want as long as you don't intentionally waste money

90K = buy a nice house. can afford the newest iphone and airpods without having to wait for a sale. can buy a maxed out Tesla Model X and still eat a steak every dinner

100K+ = you hit the margin of diminishing returns. unless if you have a bunch of people that depend on you, you can buy anything you want aside from supercars and 2 million dollar house. well actually you can buy these things, but it'll set you pretty far back when you consider things like insurance and taxes. if you have lots of kids, make sure you save enough for their college. chances are, if you make 100K+ a year, your kids are probably well educated and smarter than most people. your kids may end up wanting to go to schools like harvard and stanford which will set you back up to like 60K a year per kid if you decide to pay for their full education.

notscguy wrote:

A lot of posters from Tennessee, Missouri, Alabama, etc around here. $225K is solidly middle class in Boston - NOWHERE near upper middle.

.

Completely false and shiws a stunning lack of awareness:

stupid person 69 wrote:

100K+ = you hit the margin of diminishing returns. unless if you have a bunch of people that depend on you, you can buy anything you want aside from supercars and 2 million dollar house. well actually you can buy these things, but it'll set you pretty far back when you consider things like insurance and taxes.

You cannot buy a $2M or even $1M house (i.e. a very modest home in a good neighborhood in coastal cities) in a reasonable timeframe with 100K income. The monthly payments on a 30-year mortgage would be as high as your take home pay.

And I think adding to this, you might not be in the exact perfect financial scenario if you want to upgrade your house and live in a better neighborhood. I know you're stressed about it, but you are in an excellent spot with the 401K, stock portfolio etc. Your $600K number is pretty arbitrary and very conservative given your finances and earning prospects. If your kids go to public school and you guys are steady in your jobs, you're selling yourself way short on your mobility. Will you get to pay every single penny of their college tuition, and retire the exact moment you want to? Not 100% sure, but life isn't about absolute certainty. Only upper class people can mostly think about these things in absolutes. To be upper middle class (like you are IMO) is to have the option of great financial prospects with maybe a situation here or there you'd like to improved, or to have good-very good ones with a concession here or there to pay for something that is meaningful to you.

Lack of self awareness wrote:

notscguy wrote:

A lot of posters from Tennessee, Missouri, Alabama, etc around here. $225K is solidly middle class in Boston - NOWHERE near upper middle.

.

Completely false and shiws a stunning lack of awareness:

https://patch.com/massachusetts/boston/how-much-you-need-earn-be-rich-boston

Wow you just lost all credibility by posting this trash. Do you realize you just cited an article that says "to be rich in NYC you need to make $143K?!?!?!?"

I'll fix it for you - "If you make $143K in NYC you will likely be living in the Bronx or Staten Island. If you're single with no kids you may be able to afford Brooklyn."

Regarding Boston, I'm not going to argue but I've lived there and my brother currently lives there. Hmmmmmmmmmmm is spot on.