At what point is a Person "Rich"

You need the things that you would otherwise die without. Things like electricity, car, etc. would be ancillary needs if they're required to get a basic need (things that you would die without).
 
[quote name='SpazX']You need the things that you would otherwise die without. Things like electricity, car, etc. would be ancillary needs if they're required to get a basic need (things that you would die without).[/QUOTE]

Yep.

I'd say a person is in abject poverty when they can't afford food, clothing (just enough to get by) and shelter. Electricity/gas probably fall in there given the need to cook, heat homes in the winter (if it's a cold region) etc. Running water probably falls in there as well.

If you can't afford food, clothing, shelter and power/water, you're pretty damn poor. If you can only afford those things, you're still poor.

A person starts to move away from the poor label when they can pay for necessities and have some small amount left over for other things.

It's still not a black and white definition/classification, but it's a lot less murky than trying to define when someone is rich IMO.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']*I* don't eat three meals a day. (Maybe a small snack for breakfast). I can easily afford it, I'm just not a morning person. I do love breakfast food though.

Electricity? Do you really *need* it? As you said, candles and washing boards work. It's not a glamorous life by any means, but it can (and *is*) done. I've got a grandmother (-in law) who, on nice days, actually prefers to wash her clothes by hand in her old washtub. Says she gets them cleaner than the clothes washer can.

Could *I* survive without electricity? Sure. Is it a life I *want* to live? Heck no.[/QUOTE]
During the brownout in my area a few years ago quite a bit of elderly people died in their houses because the air conditioners no longer worked. So yes to some people *need* electricity.
 
[quote name='javeryh']I think this is because we have two different definitions of "rich". Unless you are living in Newark or renting there aren't many places you can live in northern NJ outside NYC without falling into your definition of rich (leaving out for the sake of argument the lucky bastards who bought houses in the 80s before the skyrocketing prices - my next door neighbor is a 5th grade public school teacher!).[/QUOTE]

My whole reaction: yeah. ok. That's my point.

You're differentiating between rich and poor by talking about renting versus buying, or being lucky enough to buy "at the right time."

That's my point; scraping by in a rich neighborhood still means you're in a rich neighborhood.

EDIT: By the by, folks, the conversation you're having is differentiating the concepts of "absolute poverty" (conditions so poor that malnutrition and death occur due to a lack of resources) and "relative poverty" (conditions poor by means of comparison to others in the same society).
 
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']I agree that this should be a given, but what do you tell all the (out of work) marine biologists and artists that can't see themselves doing anything else that makes them happy? :roll:[/QUOTE]
It had been a while since i'd heard anyone state their major as marine biology, then it occurred the other day. For a while it seemed lke half the students in the country wanted to be marine biologists.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']During the brownout in my area a few years ago quite a bit of elderly people died in their houses because the air conditioners no longer worked. So yes to some people *need* electricity.[/QUOTE]

I can bring up stories of old people living well in their 90's without ever having air conditioning and dying of natural causes.

People survived thousands of years without air conditioning. Hell, when I was in school, air conditioning wasn't even standard until around high school. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big, big fan of it - but I would hardly call it a necessity of life.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I can bring up stories of old people living well in their 90's without ever having air conditioning and dying of natural causes.

People survived thousands of years without air conditioning. Hell, when I was in school, air conditioning wasn't even standard until around high school. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big, big fan of it - but I would hardly call it a necessity of life.[/QUOTE]
Not really an equal comparison. I have never needed to use a heater, but in many parts of the country hypothermia would be a result of not using it. I also know plenty of old people who never used a heater, does that mean a heater in say Alaska is not needed?
 
[quote name='cindersphere']During the brownout in my area a few years ago quite a bit of elderly people died in their houses because the air conditioners no longer worked. So yes to some people *need* electricity.[/QUOTE]

my wife refuses to do my laundry during a brown out.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Not really an equal comparison. I have never needed to use a heater, but in many parts of the country hypothermia would be a result of not using it. I also know plenty of old people who never used a heater, does that mean a heater in say Alaska is not needed?[/QUOTE]

Using Bob's rubric everyone who is only half starved or not suffering from polio or scurvy is well off.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Not really an equal comparison. I have never needed to use a heater, but in many parts of the country hypothermia would be a result of not using it. I also know plenty of old people who never used a heater, does that mean a heater in say Alaska is not needed?[/QUOTE]

Depends on your definition of a "heater". People lived in super-cold weather places for years using wood/gas burning stoves and bundling up, extra tight. I bet if you looked into it, you'd find out that most people in places where the weather gets rotten, they likely have a reliable source of heat that isn't dependent on electricity - for the fact that one bad blizzard hits and you can be without power for an extended period of time.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Depends on your definition of a "heater". People lived in super-cold weather places for years using wood/gas burning stoves and bundling up, extra tight. I bet if you looked into it, you'd find out that most people in places where the weather gets rotten, they likely have a reliable source of heat that isn't dependent on electricity - for the fact that one bad blizzard hits and you can be without power for an extended period of time.[/QUOTE]
What's your point? To give everybody in a cold climate some wood, a metal trash barrel, and some wood? I fail to see how your approach is better than just using a heater and electricity to deliver a basic need to people in areas with inclement weather. Yes, electricity can be knocked out in areas, but how does that detract from it being a need? It just show there needs to be a better maintained infrastructure for securing electricity during storms.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']You don't consider sales tax a real tax?[/QUOTE]

Forget the sales tax, you don't consider payroll taxes real taxes? And that's just the beginning. People don't really think about how many different taxes we have to pay, even the poor.

As for how to define "rich," it's quite difficult as you have to take into account where someone lives, their income, accumulated assets, liabilities, etc.
 
cinder, Bob has his own personal and very special definition for the word debate.

I mean the guy responds a post talking about people getting enough food security by pointing out he occasionally makes do with just a pop tart for breakfast.
 
[quote name='Msut77']cinder, Bob has his own personal and very special definition for the word debate.

I mean the guy responds a post talking about people getting enough food security by pointing out he occasionally makes do with just a pop tart for breakfast.[/QUOTE]

Oh come on Msut, people would be better off it they'd just eat less ;). Obesity is the great problem of this age... therefore poor people are actually better off.

... plus, I often don't even eat lunch at work cuz 1.) I'm busy and 2.) It's healthier to lay off the calories. I do stay well hydrated, however... :D


Back to the thread, I agree with the people who pointed out that a definition of being rich should include geographical location. $130K in Brentwood, Bel Air, or Newport Coast is not rich.

For a single person in California, say he or she earns 130K

-30K to 35K will go away to federal and state income taxes.

So you have about 95K

-The cheapest reasonable apartment with utilities would run about 15K per year.

So you have about 80K left.

I'd be happy with that; I live pretty frugally. It's certainly more than I have now. But student loans, purchasing a home, etc. would cut into that...
 
Jesus Christ, Bob. Sometimes I think you're a Rip Van Winkle from the 19th century.

Can you honestly say that electricity is a luxury item in 2010? Electricity? Really? Would you add running water on that list? Should we go back to outhouses and wells?
 
$1,000,000. At that point, I really don't think anyone could objectively argue that said person isn't rich. It's kind of an arbitrary line, as you could make similar arguments using $800,000 or $900,000, but it's a nice, even, sexy number, and there's not much that can happen to you in life that $1,000,000 can't cover.

From there, I suppose the next level of rich would be $1,000,000 per.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Jesus Christ, Bob. Sometimes I think you're a Rip Van Winkle from the 19th century.

Can you honestly say that electricity is a luxury item in 2010? Electricity? Really? Would you add running water on that list? Should we go back to outhouses and wells?[/QUOTE]

I'm not exactly saying it's a luxury - but I'm not saying it's a necessity either.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
1.6 billion people — a quarter of humanity — live without electricity
Click to expand...

That's a whole lot of people living - and surviving - without electricity.

I wish "poor" Americans could go spend a month in an actual poor country. The experience would be highly educational for them.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I wish "poor" Americans could go spend a month in an actual poor country. The experience would be highly educational for them.[/QUOTE]

Then they'd come back and still not have any food...

You're talking about means bob, means by which to get a basic need filled. The means will be different depending on the situation, the point is that you're warm enough, fed enough, etc. to survive. If it can be done without electricity then it can be done without electricity, in the US it would probably be easiest and most cheaply done with electricity unless you live in a place where there isn't any electricity. And if there's already a sewage system it would probably be easiest and most sanitary (hence keeping you alive) to have indoor plumbing of some sort, etc.

If you lived in an area that was temperate all the time, had no animals or insects to hurt you or anything you probably wouldn't need heat/cooling and you'd barely need clothes or shelter. That's not really relevant though.

You're just quibbling to quibble. The variance in this (electricity or wood for heat, indoor plumbing or an outhouse) isn't nearly as big as that when defining what is or is not "rich."
 
[quote name='SpazX']in the US it would probably be easiest and most cheaply done with electricity unless you live in a place where there isn't any electricity. And if there's already a sewage system it would probably be easiest and most sanitary (hence keeping you alive) to have indoor plumbing of some sort, etc.[/quote]

"Easy"? I'm not sure what the level of ease has to do with defining rich and poor.

You're just quibbling to quibble. The variance in this (electricity or wood for heat, indoor plumbing or an outhouse) isn't nearly as big as that when defining what is or is not "rich."
Click to expand...

I'm just saying what I said from the beginning - I believe it would be more difficult to define what's "poor" than what's rich. Other people have taken what I said and expanded on it - should I not reply to them?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']"Easy"? I'm not sure what the level of ease has to do with defining rich and poor.[/quote]

You're bringing up things and asking if they're a necessity. I said they're a necessity if they're necessary to get a basic need. If a place is built around electricity then it would be the most efficient (in ease and cost) way to fulfill that basic need. Hence electricity would be necessary. If it was built around wood-burning then wood would be necessary, if it was built around hamsters running in wheels then a hamster and a wheel would be necessary. It would be unnecessary to fulfill a basic need in a significantly more expensive or difficult way.

[quote name='UncleBob']I'm just saying what I said from the beginning - I believe it would be more difficult to define what's "poor" than what's rich. Other people have taken what I said and expanded on it - should I not reply to them?[/QUOTE]

Your reasons for saying it's more difficult is based on saying what is or isn't a "need." But the variance in what a "need" is is not as great as the variance in how people define "rich" so it's not as difficult to define.
 
Bob's problem is that he's always able to find someone *more poor* than the lowest point he's considered, and his attention span forgets everything he's seen prior.

The person living on $700 a month is wealthier than the person living on $600 than the person on $400 than the person with no electricity than the person who lives on two bowls of rice a day. And that person is wealthier than the person who lives on just one bowl of rice. But Bob doesn't get that all are poor. He wants a clear, definable line where "poor" starts and is unwilling to declare anybody poor until he's found the lowest possible limit of human sustainability. If you're doing slightly better than "barely alive," you're wealthy in Bob's world.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']My whole reaction: yeah. ok. That's my point.

You're differentiating between rich and poor by talking about renting versus buying, or being lucky enough to buy "at the right time."

That's my point; scraping by in a rich neighborhood still means you're in a rich neighborhood.[/QUOTE]

But it's not a rich neighborhood! People may be doing well for themselves but that does not equal rich. A friend of mine is a public school teacher and her husband is an orderly at a hospital. Surely these are super common/average jobs and no one would think they are rich yet they make well over $100,000 combined. In my area all they can afford is a condo and a crappy little Kia. Now, they may be rich by other definitions because she has the life of a school teacher (summers off, vacations every other week, tenure, etc.) but if we are just talking money they definitely aren't.

I just don't think that you can define whether a person is rich or not solely by what they earn for a living. There are too many other factors to consider. I am fascinated by the discussion though.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Bob's problem is that he's always able to find someone *more poor* than the lowest point he's considered, and his attention span forgets everything he's seen prior.

The person living on $700 a month is wealthier than the person living on $600 than the person on $400 than the person with no electricity than the person who lives on two bowls of rice a day. And that person is wealthier than the person who lives on just one bowl of rice. But Bob doesn't get that all are poor. He wants a clear, definable line where "poor" starts and is unwilling to declare anybody poor until he's found the lowest possible limit of human sustainability. If you're doing slightly better than "barely alive," you're wealthy in Bob's world.[/QUOTE]

That is, of course, if you define "poor" as "unable to pay for basic needs".

The American idea of "poor" doesn't hold a candle to what a large majority of the world considers poverty.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The American idea of "poor" doesn't hold a candle to what a large majority of the world considers poverty.[/QUOTE]

And the American idea of "rich" is unimaginable to what a large majority of the world would consider "rich." What's your point? I thought we were talking about the US.
 
[quote name='SpazX']And the American idea of "rich" is unimaginable to what a large majority of the world would consider "rich."[/quote]

Isn't the world's richest person Mexican? Unless of course, you're defining all North Americans as Americans - which is understandable.

What's your point? I thought we were talking about the US.
Click to expand...

I don't recall the OP saying anything about the US.
 
[quote name='BigT']Oh come on Msut, people would be better off it they'd just eat less ;). Obesity is the great problem of this age... therefore poor people are actually better off.[/quote]

People can be enormous and suffering from malnutrition you know, if people are getting enough calories but it comes in the form of hot dog rolls and not much else it still isn't good.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Isn't the world's richest person Mexican? Unless of course, you're defining all North Americans as Americans - which is understandable.[/quote]

So? What?

[quote name='UncleBob']I don't recall the OP saying anything about the US.[/QUOTE]

Well he was talking about income and later went on to talk about how he wanted to know because of "taxing the rich" (in terms of income). Maybe the US can tax people's income all over the world, but if we could we'd probably have less debt.
 
I asked for household income because this is what the IRS uses to determine the brackets ,without regard to your assets and liabilities.

I want to know who my fellow citizens, and government are talking about when they say rich. Nobody asks about your A&L, they ask what you make and then judge whether or not your rich or poor.
 
I would think the deifinition of rich would change if you have a family. $130,000 for a single person in most parts of the United States is pretty well off (I personally don't consider that person rich though). $130,000 for the head of household for a family of 4 isn't rich at all IMO.

It really is all subjective. If talking strictly salary I would say though that if a single person makes more than $373,651 in the United States they are rich simply because they are in the highest tax bracket.
 
[quote name='SpazX']So? What?[/quote]

Huh? What? Buh? Fuh? Guh?

I do see your point though - so many people around the world are so destitute in poverty, they would be completely surprised at what the American idea of "rich" is. They'd be just as shocked to find out what our idea of "poor" is.

Well he was talking about income and later went on to talk about how he wanted to know because of "taxing the rich" (in terms of income). Maybe the US can tax people's income all over the world, but if we could we'd probably have less debt.
Click to expand...

I see it now. In the OP - where he says something about income. Because only Americans have income.

23 posts in, the original poster says something about taxes.

But let's do it your way. We'll define "American Poor" and we'll make sure the rest of the world knows that "American Poor" is different from every other country's "poor". Maybe we can get some African villages to pitch together and adopt some poor families here in the US that only have one car. How sad for them. Won't you help this poor family get a second car?
 
Has anyone seen Off the Grid? It's on netflix streaming. Just saw it last night. It's a documentary about a loose-knit group of people that live on a Mesa in New Mexico that have completely removed themselves from "the system". Anyway, it's eye-opening.
 
Oh for fu...

Fine. I'll be the first to say it - I'm a fucking pansy. I want my electricities, my internets, my Xbox Lives, my Smash Broses, my DSes, and all that other chump shit that keeps me from being a survival man. I can't start a fire with sticks, I won't eat scorpions raw, I'd die in the mufuckin' desert, and flies laying their eggs in my skin unnerves the SHIT out of me. I like smelling good, hot running water, conditioned air, and a box that can cook my food in twenty three seconds. Did I wash my face with specially formulated facial cleanser? YOU BET YOUR SWEET ASS I DID.

Does this make me rich? Does it make me happy? I dunno. It does make me a pampered modern day jerk who would crack in a matter of days if all of this was removed from my life, and I were made to go without it for months. There'd be a break, I'd writhe around for a bit, accept the situation, and move on with my considerably-less-cushy life.

Now, let's get back to a real discussion, instead of perverting it onto a lot of tangents that are really just extermified lapses into the stratosphere of "shit that has nothing to do with the original topic," k?
 
Well, Strell, I think the point kind of ends up being that the OP question is relative, so discussing the variety of differences in what people "value" is kind of relevant, imho.
 
[quote name='Strell']Does this make me rich? Does it make me happy? I dunno. It does make me a pampered modern day jerk who would crack in a matter of days if all of this was removed from my life, and I were made to go without it for months. There'd be a break, I'd writhe around for a bit, accept the situation, and move on with my considerably-less-cushy life.[/QUOTE]

This sums it up.

I've thought about posting something along the lines of "Rich" isn't about money, it's about happiness - but figured I'd get trashed for being some kind of new age, feel good freak.

That, and you can't really tax happiness.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']and you can't really tax happiness.[/QUOTE]
No, but you can tax people into misery...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Huh? What? Buh? Fuh? Guh?

I do see your point though - so many people around the world are so destitute in poverty, they would be completely surprised at what the American idea of "rich" is. They'd be just as shocked to find out what our idea of "poor" is.[/quote]

k?

[quote name='UncleBob']I see it now. In the OP - where he says something about income. Because only Americans have income.

23 posts in, the original poster says something about taxes.[/quote]

Sorry if I, and everybody else, made an assumption about the OP talking about the US, which he didn't correct and turned out to be true anyway.

[quote name='UncleBob']But let's do it your way. We'll define "American Poor" and we'll make sure the rest of the world knows that "American Poor" is different from every other country's "poor". Maybe we can get some African villages to pitch together and adopt some poor families here in the US that only have one car. How sad for them. Won't you help this poor family get a second car?[/QUOTE]

$100 in America - not that much. $100 in many other parts of the world - a pretty decent amount. Can you see how this comparison isn't relevant? Can you see how poverty in one area can be different from another? How it's possible that a person can barely pay for food while having indoor plumbing? I'm sure a lot of starving Africans would love a nice house with indoor plumbing!

(And by $100 in both instances I'm talking about US dollars, in case you wanted to quibble)
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm not exactly saying it's a luxury - but I'm not saying it's a necessity either.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats


That's a whole lot of people living - and surviving - without electricity.

I wish "poor" Americans could go spend a month in an actual poor country. The experience would be highly educational for them.[/QUOTE]

The thing about this is that people have survived cold winters in human history, but some people have also died. If you take a look at old people who need artificial oxygen--they either need electricity or fresh oxygen cylinders being brought in (and I bet it takes electricity to run the compressors).

There's a good example of this too in the book "Lucifer's Hammer." There's a guy who's a scientific wizard but who is a diabetic, and he argues that the new society can't afford to keep slaughtering pigs just to harvest insulin just to keep him alive, when people without medical issues are going to have a hard enough time getting enough food to eat.

So anyhow, he gets screwed up--goes blind and loses his feet and eventually croaks. What was a necessity for him to live (insulin) wasn't a necessity for the other characters in the book (namely because they got to use the guy's accumulated wisdom before he died). Therefore--back to my argument about electricity--yes, some people can live without it, but some people are going to have problems living without the infrastructure electricity can provide.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm not picking a random number, I'm picking the threshold the Census Bureau uses.

EDIT: More to the point you may perhaps be thinking, if you think $130K isn't "that much money," so to speak, then that's fine. But it speaks to how we as a society overestimate wealth (and our likelihood of getting there) and how we underestimate poverty in modern American society.


The cynical side of me then says "if you can afford to live where you live, then you're rich."

The more willing to discuss things side of me wants to inquire: what can't you afford in your neighborhood on $130K/year?[/QUOTE]

Can't remember where you live, but I lived in the Bay Area for about 3 years, combined household pre-tax income was about $100k. We were able to put some money in the bank each month, but were renting a pretty run down apartment for $1100/mo. Then you have incredibly high water costs, sales tax, your other rather high household bills, more expensive groceries, higher gas prices, commute fees like tolls, far more to register and maintain a vehicle...you get the idea higher cost of living.

That's what is always missed when people start calling a guy rich. If I made $100k as a household in Arkansas...I'm rich. I make that in the Bay Area, I'm milddle class. Considering the median house price was about $500k when I was there, your money doesn't go so far.

The asset method seems far better than saying if you made $130k before taxes, you're rich. I've said it before and I'll say it again, that $130k household is paying for all their stuff, tuition, medical, rent/mortgage. The $30k household is getting a ton of that for free, so unless people want to deduct the costs of the services that the $130k household pays for (in addition to paying taxes which supports the $30k households free services), then I think pre-tax salary is actually a terrible way to measure wealth...or "richness".

Then think of how many dependents a household has, compared to salary...dear Lord, it gets complex fast. Does the $30k household have 1 kid or 8, how bout the $130k household. Can we say that we shouldn't feel bad for the $130k household because they chose to have that many kids, but then feel bad for the $30k household because they have 8 kids? TONS of factors.
 
[quote name='myl0r']so your monthly utilities take up your entire salary? I'm curious how you are debt free with a decent salary yet can not afford a car.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='RAMSTORIA']ill 2nd that.[/QUOTE]

Keeping a wife and two kids in clothes/food/books/toys/medicine wields a healthy blow to the monthly income, as does a 33% income tax rate, a 13% harmonized sales tax on nearly everything we buy and a sizeable enough annual property tax bill.

Add in putting money away every month for the kids education as well as our retirement savings and there's no kitty left at the end of the month for a car or a vacation or other luxuries.

It's not as unimaginable as you make it out to be.
 
[quote name='Fanboy']Keeping a wife and two kids in clothes/food/books/toys/medicine wields a healthy blow to the monthly income, as does a 33% income tax rate, a 13% harmonized sales tax on nearly everything we buy and a sizeable enough annual property tax bill.

Add in putting money away every month for the kids education as well as our retirement savings and there's no kitty left at the end of the month for a car or a vacation or other luxuries.

It's not as unimaginable as you make it out to be.[/QUOTE]



I'm not criticizing... but the idea of a car being a luxury is a strange one to me. I understand it if there's public transportation, but in a huge portion of the US a car is more of a necessity. Well I guess it's not really a stange idea as more of a foreign one.
 
[quote name='Fanboy']Keeping a wife and two kids in clothes/food/books/toys/medicine wields a healthy blow to the monthly income, as does a 33% income tax rate, a 13% harmonized sales tax on nearly everything we buy and a sizeable enough annual property tax bill.

Add in putting money away every month for the kids education as well as our retirement savings and there's no kitty left at the end of the month for a car or a vacation or other luxuries.

It's not as unimaginable as you make it out to be.[/QUOTE]

There you go. While it's noble of you to plan for the future like that, the point is that you are able to plan for the future like that, and not simply wish for the future like that.
 
yeah, this is much more of a "we choose not to buy a car" as opposed to a "we can't afford a car even with a decent salary"

could you not pause putting money in savings for college and start saving up to buy a car? I mean, I don't know how much you are putting in each month, but you could certainly get a very reliable newer used car paid off in only a year to 18 months if you paused the college fund and possibly even cut back on some of the other stuff(how much do you spend on books/toys monthly that it is eating up your salary?).
 
Don't get me wrong, more power to y'all if you use public transit or, better yet, bicycles (or roller skates!). I ain't hassling anybody who doesn't own a car; but you're not really in a place where you can reasonably say you can't afford a car.
 
Myke just wants to knock your ass over.

Myke: Have you seen the King of the Hill with rollerderby in it? I like how Lucky says "No one really knows" in reference to how the scoring works.
 
:rofl: No, but that reminds me of the Nothing Nice 2 Say comic strip about it.

I can't believe I may have to hunt down a King of the Hill episode.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top