I don't think I'd call it "rich", but in my area of the country it would certainly be considered "upper class". But then again in my area of the country you can still buy a decent home for $200,000. In areas like New York, or California I might consider $250,000 "upper middle class", but that's simply because cost of living is higher in those areas.

It's all relative isn't it? To someone whose income is $50-60K, $250K probably seems rich. To someone whose income is $1M plus, I'm sure it doesn't seem so. I think I'd consider it upper middle class but probably not rich/wealthy. I don't think you can really say someone's rich/not based on income alone. I think net worth also has something to do with it.

You could work your way up from a very low income to finally have a six figure income in your fifties at which time you could save in earnest for your retirement/long term care/etc. Assuming you are saving to take care of yourself and not expecting the government (aka taxpayers) to take care of you. If you are expecting to take care of yourself with your own funds you need to be saving a lot - which may make $250K not seem like so much - especially after paying federal and state income tax.

"Rich" is hard to define because it means different things to different people. In terms of income alone...Wiki says this about my community, "...the median income for a family was $70,625." This is considered a 'wealthy' area. In fact, there's a big hubbub going on now at Town Hall because the state has determined we don't have any affordable housing & is cutting off some state funds. At nearly 2-1/2 times our community's family average income, it would be hard to make a case that $250K/year wasn't "rich".

I'm not sure where I read it anymore...maybe the Census Bureau...but I 'think' less than 5% of the population makes $250K, or more/year. If that's accurate...then, yes, $250K should be considered "rich" by comparison.

If you live in an urban area with high concentrations of professionals making mid to upper six figure salaries (or even higher) it leads to being a bit jaded, IMO. Anyway, yeah, I think that $250K is an upper-income salary.

Now, does an upper-income salary make one rich?? Answer: No. That is determined by what one does with that upper-income salary. If every dime goes out for large mortgage payments, car payments, expensive vacations, etc. then they probably aren't rich. They've sure got a better chance than somebody making $47K though...that's for sure.

/tricia

I thought it was interesting to see that 250k in Kentucky would equate to almost 600k in NYC area...I knew cost-of-living was higher, but didn't think it was better then double the cost...This supports my view that a National minimum wge is ridiculous, and states should have their own minimum wage...7.25 per hour in NYC is laughable compared to the same 7.25 in the middle of no-where,err mid -west :)

Hi QDog,

I think trying to paint a label of "Rich" or "Poor" or "whatever class" is irrelevant, divisive, silly and non-productive.

It enforces an "us versus them" drama that is pointless, really.

Are we talking $250k w2 income, as simply an employee?
Are we talking $250k self-employed income?
Are we talking $250k pre-tax? Or after tax?
Are we talking $250k earned by a smallbusiness entrepreneur that employs 10 other salaried people?
Are we talking $250k as earned by the U.S. President (was that at one point anyway... currently "just" $400k)
Are we talking $250k w2 income as paid to Bill Gates, or Warren Buffett and similar (who do not take large salaries, but enjoy lives they have earned by other means)?
Are we talking $250k passive retirement pension yield at a 5% payout on a $5MM nest egg?

Labelling and dividing our society by their income is loathsome, in my opinion. I am amazed that we've failed to rise above it.

I think (if anything at all) we ought to be measuring what people ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTE to society... rather than what they earn for themselves.

Cheers,
Dave

Dave,just made a post in regards to Obama's plan to tax those making more then 250k,not meant to be a point of contention,lol...
I believe that 250k in some parts,maybe even most parts of this country is a significant amount of $$$..However, in certain areas it is just a very good amount of $$$...Obama's plan to tax those is doing exactly what you say should not be done, create an atomsphere of us vs them,rich(or perceived rich) vs middle class, etc....

If Obama can apply that tax and in doing so eliminate the excessive subsidies given to highly paid corporate execs, at least it will level the playing field....a bit. :-)

Here is a link that might be useful: New Report Finds $20 Billion in Tax Subsidies for Excessive Executive Compensation

No I don't think it is rich, I think it means being able to live comfortable and make your bills, but not rich by any means.

You are in the highest tax bracket so you don't take home nearly as much. If you as a household has that income because two people work you get the marriage penalty and take home even less.

Say you have a $300K around 2000-2500 sq ft house with a mortage around $1600/month not including Real Estate Taxes and insurance.

You figure what that would be in your area, but I'm guessing at least another $300 or so per month.

A couple of average cars (such as 4 cyl accord, camry etc) with monthly payments totaling around $600-$900/month depending on interest/credit

A couple of young children (non-school age) with day care costs of $1500/month (adjust for your area)

Add in utilities and on the low end of those maybe $750-$1000/month. Gas, Electric, Cable or Satelite TV, phone, internet, cell phones, etc. Again utility costs depend on the area and climate.

Max out 401K for both incomes.

Add clothing/food/gas and any credit card bills that people seem to have an abundance of.

Deduct health insurance premiums $50-$300 / month depending on company you work for and how generous they are in covering dependents.

Nope not Rich - a good standard of living in some areas, but not rich.

I think I would consider it as that is what middle class used to be. However, middle class is now struggling.

According to the 2000 census my suburb had a median family income of $135K. Median *male* income was $100K. Median *female* $43K. (More stay-at-home moms than many towns.)

Median per capita was $77K -- town of 20K people. (Gosh, those kids and their lemonade stands! Who knew?)

At least that's what someone (or some ones) posted on Wiki.

lyfia in my no one making 250K would live in a 300K house. In fact you'd have to look very hard to find a 300k house which would be rundown and small, and in a bad area.

I would say realisticlly for a 2500sqft 4 br you're looking at 600-750K in a NYC suburb, which further proves your point. If you wanted a real nice suburb, maybe $1m plus.

I make due on much less than $250, but frankly as nice as it would be to make that, it ain't rich.

I feel like I'm dumb, I live in a $400K house that 75% of the people on this board would say is way to small to be considered a real house. One could say a universal federal tax isnt' really fair as $250 here leave much less disposable income than 250 in texas. Although there is a better arguement that local wages, prices etc should fix themselves, not the tax rate.

chrisk327 I was trying to pick something slightly above the average home price across the country and not something that was way expensive to illustrate that even with that house cost and average type bills $250K doesn't get you into a being rich category.

Obviously more expensive areas this is going to be even worse.

Once that sounded like Rich to me, now not so much!

We live in CA - house worth about $650K, in a suburb 45 miles from San Francisco - Mtg, insurance $ taxes $3,300 per month (unfortunately IO loan, will start to adjust in 2010)

We both work full time (and then some), have two kids in school but still need to pay to get them watched after school $1,000

One car payment for an American made minivan $600, other car is a 2000, paid for.

Utilities incl cell phones & everything - about $1,000 depending on the season

Taxes, 401K and health/dental insurance take almost 1/2 of the paychecks. DH's income is good but seasonal, mine is good because of an annual bonus (which get's taxed really BIG when I get it!!!)

We are comfortable. We pay our bills off monthly, we go on frugal vacations, we buy what we need and most of what we want. We like to take the kids to the movies. We don't want designer clothes, jewelry or fancy stuff. We are Target/Ross/TJ Maxx shoppers. I do not go to the Mall as an activity. When we go out to eat it is to get a burrito or subway sandwich - Take out indian food is a treat. We don't even go out to Aplebees level restaraunts (unless we are traveling).

I am posting my info, not for your opinions on what we can do differently, just so you can see what $250K looks like.

We are not rich, we save some, but sure not as much as I would like!

"Presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama wants to raise taxes on Americans making over $250,000 per year. That may seem like a lot of money, but it depends a lot on where you live."

It looks to me that Obama thinks if you make just $31,000 a year....YOU ARE RICH!!

Look at the chart in the link. From the chart it looks like all of the middle class is getting hit. If he is raising marginal rates on those making $31K he is starting at the lower edge of the middle class and working his way up.

This shows that his goal is to raise taxes on everybody not just the rich.

Here is a link that might be useful: Obama Wants To Shift Tax Burden To Rich

I had so many responses that I deleted.

Yes.

As the chart on the link shows, an area's cost of living can make a big difference in the relative "wealth" of people making the same money but living in different places.

That's why different tax rates for different income levels isn't fair when applied the same nationally.

Without getting into the emotionalness of discussing people being "rich", it's easy to see how it isn't fair.

A married couple, with 2 school age kids, making $50k a year in Smyth County Va can live very nicely and still save quite a bit for retirement and for the kids' college.

A married couple, with 2 school age kids, making $50k a year in Fairfax County spend so much of their money on housing, living in a old, small condo, in addition to paying a lot more for utilities, food, insurance, and most of the other neccessities, that there is no money to "live nicely", nor to save for the kids college, nor to save the max for retirement.

And if the $50K comes from both parents working, then the Symth County family is way ahead of the Fairfax couple. The child care rates in Fairfax County is 4 times or more the rates in Smyth County.

So would it be fair to tax every family in the US making $50k or more an additional 10% more than those making less than $50k? The Smyth County family already has more disposable income so they can afford the higher tax by giving up "luxuries", while the Fairfax County family is going to have to tighten their belts on the neccesities - maybe stop buying any 'new" new clothes for the kids, eating more pasta and less fruits, etc.

Totally not fair in my opinion.

And the same thing holds true for families making $100K, $150K, $200k, or $250k. Yes - there is probably a level of income above which it doesn't really make a difference where you live, as far as how much disposable income you have, but trust me, that's well above the $250k amount.

well said,thetews...

thetews, very good analysis.

But as to being fair...you choose where to live, right? If you choose to live in a high-cost area, why should you get a break over the family that chooses to live in a lower-cost area?

We just moved from Los Angeles to Dallas, and believe me, in August it was so clear why it's cheaper to live here than LA! Doesn't seem to me that it would be more equitable to ask those in lower-cost areas to bear more of the tax burden...they're lower cost for a reason, or rather it's probably more accurate to say those places that are higher cost are so for a reason. Ask yourself why you stay in a high-cost area...those things you value. Your choice, just don't ask me to subsidize.

I don't consider a $250K income especially in the NY / NJ area to be rich. Middle or upper middle class maybe, definitely NOT rich. Not when an average middle class home in an o.k. school district costs at least $500,000 (I am talking a cape cod, bi level, etc. not a McMansion), the property taxes on that house are at least $10,000 a year. $2000+ a year in auto insurance for two cars (and that's if you have a clean record). In our area it's not unheard of for two teachers with some experience to be making that type of a salary.

I also think the estate tax should be repealed on estates under $5 millon. (I actually would prefer $10 million, but am realistic). Because it today's day and age a $2 million dollar estate is definitely not rich.

C

All this talk a fair taxes is just nonsense. The US's tax code is so convoluted, so full of loopholes and special interest provisions for people at all levels of income, that it has become incomprehensible. When IRS employees can't even figure tax liabilities properly and tax attorneys say that even they don't fully understand the code, there is no such thing as a fair tax.

Short of a wholesale replacement of the income tax, all talk of fair taxes is just a waste of breath.

Like it or not, tax rates are currently low by historical standards. With a massive budget deficit, trying to run two impossible-to-win wars overseas to the tune of $16B PER MONTH that is not even included in the annual federal budget, and shortfalls looming in Social Security and Medicare - there is simply no way for either presidential candidate to fund the pretty campaign promises they are making WITHOUT taxes being raised at some point.

".....there is simply no way for either presidential candidate to fund the pretty campaign promises they are making WITHOUT taxes being raised at some point....":

How about simply requiring that taxes be paid by those who are wealthy enough to avoid doing so?

That would funnel a good 20 billion at minimum into the systme just from corp exec comp alone.

Oh..and of course...add at minimum another 16 billion for the end to the no-win wars.

This would just scratch the tip of the waste, fraud and abuse iceberg that is the federal government.

Ideally our elected officials would focus on peeling back the onion on the horribly bloated, wasteful enormous bureaucratic mess known as our federal government - rather than who should be taxed more to continue to fund the behemoth status quo. That would be difficult though - much easier to continue to just tax and spend - which you can do with a captive audience in a non-competitive environment. Good thing about all those rich people is that they pay alot of taxes. We're going to be in trouble when we run out of people earning enough to pay the taxes required to sustain the increasingly large federal government and its debt.

Ideally our elected officials would focus on peeling back the onion on the horribly bloated, wasteful enormous bureaucratic mess known as our federal government

That's funny. The so called large bureaucracy isn't the problem. It's the entitlements and wasteful spending that comes out of those very same elected officials you are counting on to tame the bureaucracy.

I wish more citizens understood how the government actually works. Maybe then they wouldn't send the same bozos back as their elected representatives.

Ideally our elected officials would focus on peeling back the onion on the horribly bloated, wasteful enormous bureaucratic mess known as our federal government

That's funny. The so called large bureaucracy isn't the problem. It's the entitlements and wasteful spending that comes out of those very same elected officials you are counting on to tame the bureaucracy.

I wish more citizens understood how the government actually works. Maybe then they wouldn't send the same bozos back as their elected representatives.

Frog Hopper,
I am with you here 100%!!!
Dave

Not everyone who lives in a place 'chose' to live there. Some were born there. To say that people who don't have much money should move out of expensive areas is silly for a few reasons, such as--
1. It takes money to move, and it's not super easy to find a job from afar. And moving to a new place without a job lined up is really risky, especially for the poor and especially now.
2. If everyone w/ an income below $50k moved out of NYC, say, to TN, then who would sell coffee and bagels to the rich folks left behind? Who would watch their kids and scrub their toilets?

You should be able to deduct state and local taxes even w/o itemizing. High cost areas are also high tax. I used to pay almost 50% of my (low) income in taxes when I lived in NYC.

frog - in my experience bureaucracy = waste. You reach a point you're so big you don't know what's really going on and waste becomes epidemic. It happens in large companies too but competition has some impact on their willingness to make changes to cut the waste - and people eventually get fired. Those elected to office only seem to get fired if they don't manage to spend enough to keep their constituents happy. My company does a small amount of business with the federal government. It's appalling how much money I see wasted - and I'm just getting a tiny taste of it. Clearly I wouldn't count on the current elected officials to change anything - we need a whole new breed. But as you say, since people don't really get it we keep electing the same kind of people who do keep doing the same thing year after year.

Without the bureaucrats the government would collapse. Really! They are the folks who fight crime, disease, and forest fires, muscle material destined for our military, represent our interests in numerous low level international committees and subcommittees, all very necessary in a complex technological world, make sure our shipping lanes stay open and our seaman are competent, and on, and on.

When you see waste, you are seeing mismanagement by proxy. Congress mandates programs that make no sense, while demanding that certain ridiculous procedures be followed. No one is in charge and everyone is in charge, yet no one is responsible, all because Congress has set up a competing and conflicting set of agencies who automatically tread on each others feet.

At the top of each and every one of these agencies is a political appointee of the president of the United States, many of whom are flat out incompetent or hell bent on forcing a narrow ideological viewpoint on the entire country.

Yet somehow the rank and file bureaucrats get the job done day in and day out, despite the never ending stream of venom that comes their way from the chattering class, the unthinking voters who swallow any lie they find on the Internet hook line and sinker, and the double speaking, dirty dealing politicians who are the root of all the problems.

Beating up on the bureaucrats isn't answer. It's part of the problem. Take the hammer to the politicians, and you will start to make a difference.

frog - I'm with you really - I'm not beating up the people doing the work. I'm beating up the politicians who continue to tax and spend instead focusing on making government more efficient and less wasteful. I agree that is the root of the problem.

Even here in NYC, I'd feel pretty flush if I earned $250k a year. Not "rich," quite, but pretty flush!

And talley sue nyc, I would actually consider myself rich with $250,000 here in Lou. KY!

I think $250K is very nice here in DFW. You do have to be a tougher sort to live in the Lone Star State; no frilly year round 70 degree days here - but when they do come - you enjoy them a lot more, and the winters are pretty mild compared to the freezing winters up north...

We all must endure essentially the same thing every weekday: get up, shower, eat, go to work, work, come home, eat, family time, go to bed. This is a majority of your life. Just because you live near the culture of NYC or LA doesn't change anything about your day to day routine. If you spend most of your time in an overpriced shack, and have to drive a POS car because your shack costs so much, then life sucks IMO - I don't care how close the beach or SoHo you live. Now if you actually live in Malibu, or Miami Beach, or Aspen then yes, you do have a reason to enjoy life more (at a price). But just because you live somewhat close to one of these places, does not justify a similar huge cost of living at all. I would much rather endure some heat for a few months (or better yet, stay air-conditioned indoors or cool outside in my pool) in a huge house with all the trimmings and drive a bad ass car. I still have plenty left over to travel to NYC or LA (but prefer the islands, vegas, and skiing), and I'm not near 250K...

In the end, you have to ask yourself: Is this place I live really worth what I'm getting out of life. I think so...

Does Obama's tax plan scare me? Why should it?

I think here in the DC metro area, $250K is the amount at which you stop worrying about bills and having to budget for every dollar every month. Is it rich? No, but that amount provides for a very comfortable lifestyle.

If DH and I pulled in $250K, we could easily afford a new car or a nice vacation (probably not both), as well as private school education for our children (we tried public schools and we saw our daughter lose her self-confidence and interest, so it's apparently private for us).

Education aside, we're pretty frugal. I'm having a hard time seeing how one spends $1000 a month on utilities (phone, gas, electric, cell, cable, internet). We may spend up to $400 (haven't yet though) on gas and electric but the rest costs maybe $200. What are you all getting for $1000?

Actually our lifestyle on $150K is very very similar to Kailuamom's. The main difference in costs is the cost of housing (a little less the $2000 for p&i,insurance, taxes) and cost of utilities and the car payment (we don't have one right now). I suspect the pre-tax income needed to make up the difference is close to $100K.

One: where I worked in my home state as some people reached a certain age/state in their career they had to move on, before retirement age. There were no other same jobs so most people tried to find something else similar to stay around family. Some took fairly significant pay cuts, tried starting their own businesses whatever. In my case I elected to move to stay in my type of job. It wasn't easy, can be lonely in a new town. I have since moved again to try to get closer to my home state. I don't really like it here. But....it is more fiscally responsible to try to keep my salary up (no where near 250K) to save for retirement in the hopes I can remain somewhat independent and not burden the state or family.
So there are people who make those choices differently. From my viewpoint I see more people elect to stay and make less and often really struggle (my home state is Michigan) than move. Some feel trapped by homes they can't sell. But most could, if they wanted, cut ties and move south where there are better jobs. I'm not judging them, leaving family is hard. But they do have choices, if not very good ones.
I think there could be a whole new thread, related to real estate, about the changing job market and the length of time spent in bought homes - is there a real paradigm shift coming where the housing market just isn't fluid enough for the shifting job market? How many people here have said "well we thought this was our forever house but now are moving?"
Two: I work for the govt, which doesn't make me an expert on the whole govt. BUT if you think that trimming down govt is going to get rid of 60 trillion in debt, or even 16B a month - well, I think you are overestimating the waste in govt bureacracy. Govt retirement is already a joke. There has been a move to outsourcing more and more work to Contractors in my field already. Some of whom I think work to inflate the system for all that they do good work as well. I think it odd that I have an impression that Govt - and I include contractors in that - has grown under Bush, a Republican - anyone know if that is true? Actually it seems a few major planks has switched btw parties in deed if not verbally expressed.
Three:
"If everyone w/ an income below $50k moved out of NYC, say, to TN, then who would sell coffee and bagels to the rich folks left behind? Who would watch their kids and scrub their toilets?"
LOL! (That was a joke right?)

Someone making a $250K annual salary does not even come close to being rich based on that alone.

Yes, someone who makes $250,000 or more is rich. Very few people in our country make that kind of money. If you make that kind of salary, just admit that you're wealthy! It's just a fact.

I don't think making $250k in one year determines if you are rich or not. How much you have in savings and investments determines if you are rich or not.

"Not everyone who lives in a place 'chose' to live there. "

I guess I just don't agree...in a free country, you can move or not, it's entirely up to you. Every day you don't move, you are choosing to stay. We are a very mobile society, and that's a huge benefit to our economy.

As for having a hard time finding someone to clean the toilets...either pay the going rate (which should incorporate the cost of living) or clean it your own self!

thetews I do like your analysis, however, I will throw in an evaluation using classic economics...
Supply and demand, The house costs what someone will pay, the daycare costs what someone will pay etc... ie:price is elastic. using this theory I should be either making proportionally more, living 25 miles from NYC than the family in Smyth, to the point that I should be able to afford the things that they do. As it stands, earning more than twice what the smyth family makes, my house is tiny(1000 sqft), my cars are ok, and my savings is minimal except for my retirement contribution.

Point of this is, that in theory the tax is fair, as the price of the house and other cost of living componants should adjust down to reflect the tax, conversely wages should adjust up in high cost of living areas.

Now, moving out of the classroom, none of this is 100% true, in fact its only close to 50%. Cost of living close to NYC is high(10-50% higher). property values very high (100-200%) higher, and wages are better than most other areas by something like 10-20%(at least in my industry).

Hi Chris,

Let's go into even simpler, more basic economics;

2 ECONOMIC TRUTHS:
Whatever you tax gets repressed,
Whatever you subsidize gets increased.

Taxing productivity and employment REDUCES income and jobs.
Subsidizing poverty simply increases poverty.

Basing taxation on income, whether it is earned or passive, is economic poison, at best. It reduces exactly what the economy needs the most, willing employers and compensatable opportunities.

Cheers,
Dave

I agree with BernieK. He said:

"I don't think making $250k in one year determines if you are rich or not. How much you have in savings and investments determines if you are rich or not."

That's the lesson I've learned this past year. In NJ my DH and I made decent salaries but were barely scraping by each month. It was made even more difficult when my husband was downsized out of a job.

We finally moved to SC (because we had to - we could not afford to stay in NJ) and even though we are making much less money, we are better off.

Why?

Because we're no longer using credit cards. We're on a cash-only basis to pay for things (I am having some work done on my house and have paid for it all with cash I've saved up over time - even the materials have been paid for with cash). We've been proactive in paying off debt. The end result? More going into savings and long-term investing, as well as having the luxury of things like home projects and vacations (our family of four went to Disney for a week in May - paid for the entire week in cash and came home with $600 in spending money leftover).

Sure, $250K is a lot of money - but not if that person spends all s/he makes without thinking about saving for the future, or spending it in the least efficient ways (read: credit cards which charge interest versus cash which is just that...cash - no extra fees later on!).

For my family, our goal is to pay off all our consumer debt (including cars) within the next two years and basically have only our mortgage as our long-term debt. If we can do that we will actually be able to afford for me to QUIT WORKING ALTOGETHER, and STILL have plenty to pay our bills and put money into our kids' college savings accounts.

I can't wait for that day. Will we be rich? No - my husband's single income wouldn't qualify us as rich by a long shot. But we'll be better off financially because of the decisions we've made and our conscious effort to spend our hard-earned money more wisely.

"Rich" = Living the way you want without needing to work.

Jaynees, I agree with you,

However, maybe its just me, but If I spent a week in disney, it would be for cash. Most home improvments all cash. I guess I never signed on to the credit as a way of life thing.

I do have credit cards, with 0 balances, a small car note and a large a$$ mortgage. Not sure if that is better, or worse.

How did you overcome family issues of moving? I can't get my wife, or myself over the issue of moving away from both our familes. Even if I can make 100% of my current income in a place where cost of lving is half.

If you are earning $250K per year, you are in the top 2% of wage earners in the US. On a relative basis that makes you rich.

Maybe you can't buy *everything* you want on that income, but surely you can buy everything you *need*. That alone makes you rich, comparatively speaking.

I think that all of us, myself included, have to be careful not to lose sight of reality and our blessings.

I'm pretty sure that all of my students, taking night classes at a community college, would agree. Most are working full time (which is why they are attending night school) and make an average of $21,500/year, in a relatively high cost of living area. I can't imagine how they would feel to hear that many people don't think that $250,000 a year is rich.

Dave, I completely agree with you. My first thought when I heard about the Obamanomics was that we could take it a bit easier when the high tax comes in. We could work a bit less hard during the high tax years, spending more time catching up with some education thats been on the back burner. Then when lower taxes come in, we could put the pedal to the metal.

chrisk327 asked:

How did you overcome family issues of moving? I can't get my wife, or myself over the issue of moving away from both our familes. Even if I can make 100% of my current income in a place where cost of lving is half.

In our case we literally had NO CHOICE. Our property taxes were costing $800 a month on top of our $1,200 mortgage and we just couldn't afford the house anymore (and it's not like it was a massive house - it was a 70+-yr-old, 1,800 square foot house on .16 acre). I had already talked him into moving to SC, but he figured we'd move in 5-6 years. When we hit the skids in the spring of 2006 he agreed that we needed to move immediately.

My family lives in Virginia, so whether we were in NJ or SC we'd be the same driving distance away. His family is all in NYC and it has been an adjustment for him, but with email and free long distance on the cellphones it's easy for him to keep in regular contact with them. And it came down to this: Did he want to live near his mom, or did he want to provide a better life for his kids? His kids easily won out in that argument.

Here in rural Kansas, $250,00 would be considered very "rich"....but then rich can not be measured by money....it is your health, family, and not "things" that money can buy. Once my grandson (who was about 6-7) asked me if we were "rich" (we do live in a comfortable home and I had just gotten a new car)....I told him "Yes I am rich because I have wonderful children and grandchildren, like you....that is what makes one rich in this life."

The word "rich" is vague and is almost always used in a comparative sense. The answer always seems to be which side of the number you are on.

When I think of "rich" I think of not having to work and being able to buy whatever you want on a whim. But I don't think you are there until you get into the 100s of millions of dollars.

That is the problem w/ lottery winners. When they win a couple million in the lottery they think they are "rich" and soon find out that they aren't. Many end up worse off than before.

Live simple, spend within your means, contribute responsibly to your retirement, save 10% of your salary for a rainy day and you will and you will be "set for life".

I will acknowlege that $250K a year, no matter where you live, is a lot better off than the average person. At that income amount, unless there are unusual circumstances (large medical expenses, etc), if you don't overextend yourself with a huge mortgage and/or huge car loans, or other debt of that sort, then you can live without worrying about paying your bills on time, able to take at least simple vacations fairly often, etc.

And I know the question of what is "rich" is very subjective. But to me, being rich means not having to work and still being able to live better than at least 90% of the rest of the population. It means not having to do laundry or housework or grocery shopping or cooking or yard work or having to wash your own car. Heck, even having to fill up the car with gas is something I think a rich person wouldn't have to do. I don't think that even in the least expensive area of the US a family could live like that on $250 a year.

Of course there is the intrinsic definition of rich, meaning the quality of your relationships. But the financial definition is to me: Not having to work, living wherever you choose, ownning multiple properties, not flying coach or even commercial if you don't want. Not needing to look at the price before you make a decision to buy something. Now, that is just not in my nature, I will always value shop - but if I were "rich" I wouldn't have to. If I were rich, I could afford to make charitable donations without giving something up.

I don't see the two parents having to work driving a minivan qualifying as rich, anywhere. Trust me, I don't work for the love of it. I work because we need the benefits and job security that are not offered in DHs line of work. I agree that we are more comfortable than many, and I feel very blessed and grateful. Rich, not even close.