The Middle Class vs. The Rich

[Moooooo]

At which point do you consider a family to be Middle Class vs. Rich? ( Household income ).

For this poll lets assume we are talking about an area like Baltimore, MD or Richmond, VA or Denver, CO. Two Parent family with 2 kids (aprox 5-7 years old).

Also, if you're up to it, what should the marginal tax rate be for the YOUR cutoff point?

[Bono]

Depends on where you include upper middle class. If upper middle class is within the middle class, than surely 300,000+
If upper middle class is not included in middle class, than 70,000+

[afleitch]

Depends on nation and neighbourhood. There would be fluctuations in earning power across any western nation.

[KEmperor]

Depends in large part on location.  Cost of living is much higher in some areas than others.

[Nym90]

Depends in large part on location.  Cost of living is much higher in some areas than others.

^^^^^^^^^^

Around here, 100,000 would be a reasonable dividing line (though of course it is ridiculous to make a sharp distinction at some particular income level). But property values around here, though increasing, are still far below the national average.

In general, anyone whose yearly salary is higher than the average cost of a house in the area would be in my opinion defined as being at least modestly wealthy, especially if they don't have children.

[MaC]

Depends on how much the Democrats discriminate against you.  When you go from being disliked to being hated, then you're rich

[David S]

Maybe you need to look at assets as opposed to income. If Bill gates had all of his money invested in stocks which pay no dividends and which did not increase in value during the year, then his income would be zero. But would he be poor?

[tulip]

I have family in New Jersey. In Princeton and your analogy of income is there is what I have seen there.

The Midwest would be a bit lower. Especially in the rural areas. I'd say about 100-150 thousand would be considered the break out income here.

[True Democrat]

Depends on where you include upper middle class. If upper middle class is within the middle class, than surely 300,000+
If upper middle class is not included in middle class, than 70,000+

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I picked 70,000

[TheresNoMoney]

It really depends on what part of the country you live.

In NYC and Boston, a household income of $200,000 mean you're very much middle class. In the south and midwest, you're quite rich on that income.

I voted $200,000, but there's really not one set answer for this question.

[TheresNoMoney]

For this poll lets assume we are talking about an area like Baltimore, MD or Richmond, VA or Denver, CO. Two Parent family with 2 kids (aprox 5-7 years old).

Also, if you're up to it, what should the marginal tax rate be for the YOUR cutoff point?

For those areas, I'd say $300,000+.

The top marginal tax rate on income above $300,000 should be about 45%.

[John Dibble]

Depends on where you include upper middle class. If upper middle class is within the middle class, than surely 300,000+
If upper middle class is not included in middle class, than 70,000+

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I picked 70,000

Even in Georgia, with a low cost of living, a family of two parents with two kids making 70k could hardly be called rich. Hell, an individual living on their own making that shouldn't be considered rich. It's really not that much money - it would give some disposable income for sure, but you wouldn't be rich.

I voted 300k, though 200k would also be a reasonable cutoff.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If it's $70k, that means my family is rich. Believe me, we aren't!

I vote for around $150k.

[Smash255]

depends on the area.  Last year my parents made about $115,000, this year it will be in the $105k-$110k (though the income of my family, as the company my mom worked for closed their NY office, and she lost her job.  So their income is slightly less this year than last, though the income of my family is a bit higher this year (about $135,000 last, $150,000 or so this year as both myself and my sister have had steadier jobs than we did last year though neither of us are working in our major field)  In other parts of the counntry that would be upper middle class to even upper class (though that might be a stretch).  On Long island its very much middle class.   If its just defined as middle to  upper class I would say $275,000 or so, though I would say upper middle class would start  somewhere in the $175,000 to $200,000 range. Those I would say would be approx the cutoffs regarding a standard family of four, using the two heads of households income.  If you also count the income of 20 somethings who still live at home (like myself and sister) then I would  bump up those amounts a bit, upper class around $305,000 and upper middle class in the $200 to $225k range

[Platypus]

Total wealth is a better indicator, but still far away from perfect.

[The Duke]

Depends on nation and neighbourhood. There would be fluctuations in earning power across any western nation.

Very important point.  It also depends on how one defines rich.

To be rich in Southern California, you really have to make at least $500,000 to be rich nowadays.

[Gustaf]

In Sweden the mean income is about 25000 SEK a month (so roughly 3400 USD) and I'd put the cutoff between middle class and upper class in the low-to-mid 30s, maybe 5000 USD a month.

[dazzleman]

Nick, I'd answer in two ways -

1. I define rich not by income, but wealth.  The person who is truly rich is the person who does not work for his money, but whose money works for him.  He may have a job, even one with moderate income, but that isn't the main source of his livelihood.  The high-income person who doesn't have significant wealth outside his house really can't be considered rich until he accumulates a certain amount of wealth.

2. The standard of living that can be purchased by a set amount of dollars varies widely around the country, so there can't be any national standard.

In my town, assuming a person puts down a standard down payment of 20% of the home's value, it would take an income of about $150,000 per year to buy a median-priced home.  We're not talking a fancy house here; just an average one.  And at that income, in that priced home, there wouldn't be much money left for too many luxuries.  Many people living here make less than that, because they bought their houses many years ago.

Which brings me to my next point -- WHEN you bought your home plays a big role in the standard of living you can have at any given level of income.  You could have two next-door neighbors with identical houses and identical incomes and family sizes.  But if one bought his house 10 years ago for $200,000, and the other rented an apartment until a year ago and bought his house for $500,000, the one who bought the house 10 years ago will have a much higher standard of living on the same income.

Economic statistics are very complex.

I consider myself upper middle class, because I am dependent on my job for my standard of living.

[opebo]

$100,000, and I would tax people marginally above that at a 50% rate. 

[Citizen James]

It really depends on how you define rich.  According to the US Census bureau  The highest quintile starts about 91,000 and the highest 5% at 166,000.  I'd consider the cuttoff between "upper middle class" and "minor rich" to be somewhere in that range.

[memphis]

These are such loaded terms! Polling shows that nearly everybody considers themselves middle class. I think this partly has to do with the fact that neighborhoods are so segregated by income/wealth. People only see others like themselves and assume they are average. I also think that people have an unrealistic idea of what rich means. People see others in their area with big houses and shiny cars and don't realize that these people are often just as in debt as everybody else. Everybody has money issues and everybody has things they can't afford. Rich implies having every desire fulfilled, and the number of people with this kind of wealth (John Kerry and Oprah come to mind) is so small as to be negligible.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

$100,000 in general, maybe $70,000 for a single person.

[DanielX]

Even within the United States, this varies widely, due to differences in both average income and prices.

In rural Mississippi or Kansas, $70,000/year is rich. In DC, New York, or San Francisco, you'd have to be earning around $300,000/year to be 'rich'. Income is quite a bit higher, as are prices.

So it varies. 

[GOP = Terrorists]

Rich? Say 250k+ a year takehome with no debt.

[Dr. Cynic]

Doesn't even matter... I make less than 50,000 a year right now, anyway.