If you make over 75,000 a year, are you rich? (hell)

[Mister_T]

Originally Posted by tomspug

Newsflash everybody: I used to LIVE in LA.

When?

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by tomspug

If you make over 30K a year, which is practically everyone in America, you are rich.

Well, sadly, it's not practically everyone in America, but basically, I agree.

It's easy to think we're "poor" because we have such a high standard of living -- and even higher expectations. I love to look at house plans, and I've noticed a tendency among publishers to classify anything under 3,000 square feet as a "small" house, which is absurd.

John and I struggle to make ends meet sometimes, but we live in a 1200 square foot house and we have two trucks, five computers, high-speed internet access, a satellite dish, three televisions, three DVD players, two refrigerators, a ninety-gallon salt water aquarium, an in-ground swimming pool, and thousands of books. It's true that even if our house was paid off we could sell everything we own and still not have enough money to buy a one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan, but compared to most people in the world, we're unspeakably rich. In fact, there have been times in my life when I couldn't afford to have a phone or electricity, but even then I had a roof over my head, clean water, warm clothes, and food, and compared to many of the people in the world, I was rich even then.

I would say that anybody who is able to read these forums and post on them is rich.

[tomspug]

The point is, 30K is plenty. It's people's spending habits that are the problem. You can find apartments under 1K/month in Riverside area, but maybe that's too inconvenient for people who live in LA. So get a better job or move out of California (it's expensive!).

My point was that being "rich" is to be an American in general. Do you have more than one pair of shoes? That means you have a luxury. You do not NEED more than one pair of shoes. Everything you own that is not necessary for survival is a 'luxury'.

Just because people in America have bought into consumerism and spend all their money on things that most people in the world don't doesn't make them NOT RICH. They are, they are just bad with money.

[nutshell]

Originally Posted by tomspug

The point is, 30K is plenty. It's people's spending habits that are the problem. You can find apartments under 1K/month in Riverside area, but maybe that's too inconvenient for people who live in LA. So get a better job or move out of California (it's expensive!).

My point was that being "rich" is to be an American in general. Do you have more than one pair of shoes? That means you have a luxury. You do not NEED more than one pair of shoes. Everything you own that is not necessary for survival is a 'luxury'.

Just because people in America have bought into consumerism and spend all their money on things that most people in the world don't doesn't make them NOT RICH. They are, they are just bad with money.

While I don't believe the OP was talking about America in relation to the rest of the world. Considering the OP was about a recent presidential candidate, it's safe to assume the OP was limited to "rich" within America (which is not $30K+ - in fact, I believe that number is below the poverty line defined by the government).

[Mister_T]

Originally Posted by Mister_T

When?

Tomspug. When exactly did you live here?

[tomspug]

6 months ago.

[UltraViolet]

A PAID OFF house,
residual income,
or doing something you absolutely LOVE
(so it's not work)
NO BANK DEBT,
Savings that can comfortably
(if even modestly) CARRY YOU THROUGH YOUR LIFE.

That's Rich.

No matter how much you make
if you are a slave to your (monthly) income,
well
a slave by any other name is still a slave.

How many "rich people" are 3 or 4 paychecks away from bankruptcy?
No different from me. They just scrape by in style.

Big life illusions abound.

[tomspug]

Originally Posted by nutshell

While I don't believe the OP was talking about America in relation to the rest of the world. Considering the OP was about a recent presidential candidate, it's safe to assume the OP was limited to "rich" within America (which is not $30K+ - in fact, I believe that number is below the poverty line defined by the government).

So you disagree with my analogy that to be rich is to be able to afford luxury?

The American definition of 'luxury' is a joke. There is no poverty in America. Anyone, anywhere can find food and shelter for FREE. Not only that, the government PAYS the unemployed and gives them health services, food stamps, education, and provides them with the means to find work.

Give me a break!

[doppelgänger]

Being rich doesn't necessarily have anything to do with annual income - especially if its from work. Being "rich" to me means having wealth - that is, possessing a sufficient amount of net worth that one could generate enough money from existing assets to live reasonably comfortably without having to work in any substantial way at all.