Answer the poll before you read the link. A survey of a cross section of Americans revealed how much money they thought you had to have to be making per year to be considered 'rich'. Remember this is in US dollars so don't know how you folks overseas can answer unless you know the exchange rate. I have already answered.
There's a difference between rich and wealthy. A rich guy will still go to prison for murder. A wealthy guy doesn't even need to worry about it. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kglXIoiXDFM"]CHRIS ROCK: RICH VS. WEALTH - YouTube[/ame] Wealth can also be considered in non-liquid assets. If I own half the land on this planet but only have $10 000 I may not be rich but I'd be the wealthiest guy around.
Crap, now I can't find the article. It was broken down by age, gender, having children or no children and the overall average was $150,000. Dang I wish I could find it.
In this week's segment of "Ask A Ninja": Gallup Poll Results! http://www.gallup.com/poll/151427/Americans-Set-Rich-Threshold-150-000-Annual-Income.aspx :hat:
I think someone's rich when they can walk away from work and still maintain a relatively good standard of living for the rest of their lives. I'd say I only know 3-4 people that rich. If you have to work then IMHO you ain't rich no matter how much you earn.
The problem with that definition is that there are not many people who are willing to go down a notch if they lost their income. I know a few people who are well off but because their spending massively out paces their income(which is almost 0) they are probably going to be broke in a few years.
Oh yeah. You can be rich but spend it like a muppet and lose it all. But theoretically you could "maintain a relatively good standard of living" off that money too. By "a relatively good standard of living" I mean having a house, a couple of cars perhaps, pay the bills, a holiday every year, indulge a hobby from time to time, eat out occasionally. The sort of living many people manage to maintina by having a job and working all week.
I like that definition a lot. I think to put it in less subjective terms, you could say 'a person is rich if they are able to maintain the level of lifestyle enjoyed by the 'average person' So if the average single person earned $40k after income taxes, to be considered rich (assuming you are also single) you would need to have accumulated 40,000*(life expectancy - current age). So a 40 year old, would need to have savings of $1.6m - $2m to be considered rich
I mean, it doesn't entirely work. Someone that's 90 wouldn't need much to maitain their life. But as a general rule I think what you have to do on a Monday morning defines how rich you are.
