Meet the 1%

That's a choice. And the benefits of where you live should be factored into the equation.

And even if you pay $100,000 in loans, you still are pulling in $150,000+ after taxes. That lets you have $75,000 in disposable income if you have $6,000 per month in housing expenses (aka a house worth ~$1 million). You are very, very wealthy.

 

By the way: On the issue of college degree proportions, here's a telling graph:

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/figures/figure-icd-1.asp

 

And they both need Obama to have their utilities lowered because Home Depot and Staples are only paying them $9 an hour.

 

Anyone do the "what percent are you" chart? We are top 40 percent where we live in California. But we both work remote and conceivably live anywhere, and there are some nice nice areas where we would be top 10-15 percent. I could definitely live with average restaurants under those terms.

Really makes you wonder.

Oh and there is nowhere on Earth where $380,000 isn't wealthy.

 

Top 13 percent where I live, according to the NYT interactive "What percent are you?" chart.

 

Per Chris Rock, there's a huge difference between 'rich' and 'wealthy.'

 

Yeah, but would a top 10 percent-er eat at Olive Garden?

 

Between $200,000 and $300,000, I'd see that point. $380K is wealthy.

 

It's not, however, "super rich" as the story that started this would indicate.

 

'Shaq is rich. The man who signs his paycheck is wealthy.'

 

This one would. My only problem here is that the place is so damn crowded.

 

At the risk of agreeing with YF on a semi-political thread, he has said something repeatedly in the Buffett tax discussion that applies here: Income is not the true measure of wealth. Accumulated assets is. In that light, no, a single year of $380,000 is not super-rich.

But four or five or 10 years? Yeah, that's getting toward super-rich, unless you're a professional athlete or Leigh Steinberg.