Rich is when one can by almost anything they want. Wealthy means they don’t look at the price tag when they do it.
Nice way of putting it. I’m reminded of the Congressperson who tried to insist that some tax increase would harm the middle class because it would affect those making over $200K, which he tried to construe as being middle class (without the upper qualifier) since you couldn’t afford to live in luxury in San Francisco or NYC on it.
Not necessarily. I admit, it’s a rough and very imperfect definition. Most babies don’t have to work, either, but I wouldn’t call them rich on that account.
Entirely my own yardstick, but here goes;
Rich= you will come into an inheritance of some substance, or you earn a very high salary.
Wealthy= you have, over time, invested your assets wisely and now possess generational wealth.
(Pay check to pay check = only people with zero resealable assets. If you got a car, diamond, collection, you’re really just living beyond your means. Pay check to pay check should be reserved for the truly poor, not those who’ve simply overspent themselves into a hard spot! IMHO)
Rich is anyone with more money than me.
Wealthy is a rich person who wears a waistcoat with a pocket for his watch on a chain.
A chocolate mousse is rich.
A millionaire is wealthy.
I’m totally willing to say that anyone in the top 10% should be considered rich, including myself.
Yes, I understand that many people in the top 10% live in expensive places where they live a middle class lifestyle. Including myself, again. But I look at it like this: if I move to Bel Air, California, and live in a 2,000 square foot house, I can’t claim I’m not wealthy on the basis of the modesty of my house… because the damn thing is going to cost $3 million. That’s a lot of money, whether the owner feels wealthy or not.
It’s all about perception. To YOU, you might not feel you are ‘rich’ (it’s not surprising…a lot of folks who you probably think of as ‘rich’ don’t think of themselves that way either)…but to someone who has to work in a factory until they basically die, driving into work in a shitty car and living in a small apartment or house and has no retirement or prospects of one, you will seem pretty rich to them. By the same token, that person who has to work until they die will seem rich to someone who has spent the last 10 years saving to try and get a bicycle so they can more easily and quickly move their crops to the village market once a week. And the guy with the bicycle will seem rich to the guy without one who still has to carry the stuff on his back. Or the guy who doesn’t even have a farm will think that even the guy who has to carry the stuff is rich. Almost all of them are going to look at you as incredibly rich…and that comprises the majority of humanity.
The OP brings up those that have $100,000 and up, while your two links talk about multimillionaires and billionaires. I was wondering if there were any threads that attacked the levels of “rich” and/or “wealthy” that the OP was talking about.
“Rich” is, indeed, relative. I have access to lots of things that, in most times and places throughout history, were only available to the rich, if they were available at all—e.g. as much food as I want, and professionally produced entertainment on demand.
I’m reminded of Kurt Vonnegut’s “Money River” in “God Bless You Mr. Rosewater”. You’re rich if you have a spot on the banks of the Money River and a bucket, and can slurp to your heart’s content (just don’t be too noisy).
I was amused by the fact that in Pride And Prejudice the Bennets are considered “poor” because Mr. Bennet is a mere esquire living on a paltry £2000 per annum. He’s only poor for his class; by the standards of the day he’s immeasurably better off than even the most respectable tradesman.
Well, according to that, my household in the top 5%. Granted I have not been in there for long. I am debt free and that’s about the best of it, I don’t buy anything I couldn’t pay for in cash. I have a 1990 1700 sq house worth about $250K that needs a lot of work and will probably take years to get even into a nominally sellable position. I drive a 4 year old $25k car and my wife drives a 10 year old paid off car. I don’t have any extragavant do-dads and my most prized possesion is my wonderful $3k english bull dog. I have no savings to speak of and the thought of going on a yearly vacation is something I want to start doing but feels extravagant. All my children go to public school.
In short, the idea of being me being “wealthy” is laughable to me.
“Wealthy” to me, would be living in a 5k sq/ft McMansion (We’ll say a half-million dollar doimicile), no debt, multiple family vacations per year, children’s college paid off, $100K+ in the bank, a couple of $50K+ cars in the driveway. I don’t know what you need to make to have that, but I don’t. There’s a lot of those type of people around here, but I don’t know how much money they make or their debt situation.
“Rich” would be all if the above supersized. Actual, high quality mansion, with pool and servants in a gated community, any car you wanted. Bascially Kardashian level.
Obscenely Rich is Bill Gates, Oprah level.
Note: My personal income is in the top 11%. My wife’s is not, but helps bump us up into the 5% territorry.
I’m gonna guess a lot of people are going to think if you can spend 3k on a dog, you’re def wealthy!
I “can” do a lot of things. Can and should are two different things. I’m not saying that was a particuarly smart purchase, although I wouldn’t give her up for the world.
Even people who have spent far more on housing, vehicles, vacations, etc.
If you priortized a companion you’ve dreamt about your whole life over a a far more expensive one shot vacation, yes.
In the latter part of this thread, it mutates into a discussion of private schools, and k9bfriender basically accuses private school students of being “rich”, and I pointed out that at the school I went to, there were very, very few “rich” people, but a lot of upper middle class people. Then there was a lot of nonsense about whether or not private schools are the devil, etc…
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=21464320
The OP is asking what people think ‘rich’ and ‘wealthy’ are. Look at the responses…answers vary pretty wildly. To some people, $100k (presumably a year as a salary, non-loaded) IS ‘rich’, while to others it isn’t. The point is that there are plenty of threads on this board (that you have participated in) that have some posters attacking ‘the rich’ or ‘the wealthy’ to one degree or another. And those two threads had plenty of attacks. Where you set the bar on what is or isn’t ‘rich’ or ‘wealthy’, well…that’s what this OP is asking at it’s core. What’s your answer?
Well Off-maintain current lifestyle with a family vacation a couple of times a year without having to go to work.
Rich-Able to pay cash for a new house and a couple of cars without having to check the bank balance.
Wealthy-Able to give to charities what I used to earn per year without blinking, and can live comfortably on dividends, interest and the like without touching the principal.