Posted on 01/27/2019 5:41:47 AM PST by Gamecock
Who are America’s rich?
“Not me” is the answer from a surprising segment of the population, including many people making six figures and above. Some 87% of people who make at least $90,000 a year said they weren’t rich or poor, according to new findings from polling company YouGov. (The survey asked 1,163 Americans how much money someone needs to be rich or poor.)
When it comes to who’s poor, most respondents (68%) thought people who make the equivalent of the federal minimum wage ($7.25 an hour, or $15,080 a year) fell into that category. “The point at which most Americans think you’ve escaped being poor comes at around $30,000,” wrote YouGov’s lead data journalist Matthew Smith.
People start to be considered “rich” when they make at least $90,000, the survey found. But only 44% of poll participants said someone making $90,000 a year was rich. Meanwhile, hitting those six figures seems to make all the difference: 56% of those surveyed said they considered people who earn $100,000 a year rich.
Josh Bivens, research director at the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive think tank, said the findings relate to the growing gap between the rich and poor, and middle class and everyone else. The average annual income of America’s top 1% was $1.8 million in 2015, Bivens noted. That was a far cry from the $100,000 a year deemed rich in the survey he said.
But many people seemed to feel they exist in a middle zone between poverty and affluence, likely influenced by the cost of living in their respective towns and cities: 64% of the participants said they weren’t rich or poor. The survey sheds light on attitudes about poverty and affluence, and how they align with official calculations surrounding “haves” and “have nots.”
There are clear definitions of poverty in the U.S. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, for example, draws the 2019 poverty line at $25,750 per year for a four-person family. Some 12.3% of Americans lived in poverty in 2017, according to the latest U.S. Census Bureau figures. The median household income was $61,372 in 2017, according to the Census.
YouGov’s survey on “rich” and “poor” labels arrives as income inequality has become a growing concern for many observers and policymakers. Lawmakers across the country are weighing whether to increase minimum hourly wages to $15. The District of Columbia and three states are planning to make $15 the minimum; cities including New York City, N.Y., San Francisco, Calif. and Seattle, Wash. are already there.
Being somewhere between rich and poor doesn’t necessarily mean living comfortably. Costs of living can vary widely across the country and many households have heavy debts and costs to contend with, like student-loan obligations or child-care bills. Likewise, a lack of savings for emergencies and retirement also make people feel financially unstable.
There are probably two things going on with the survey: An underestimation of how much more the top 1% earned and a broadening of what it means to be rich, Bivens said. “It mostly means something being less than yachts and mansions, free from economic anxiety about paying next month’s bills,” he added. That’s sadly something lots of people aspire to, but don’t experience.”
It may not be surprising that people making at least $90,000 didn’t view themselves as rich. With the nation’s highest earners so high above and the cost of housing in cities like New York and San Francisco and Seattle, it takes a lot of money to not be housing insecure, experts say. People earning $90,000 a year compare themselves to others, just like someone earning $180,000 a year.
“I think that’s a very human thing,” Bivens said.
I make a little over that around 6 digits although not rich I’m lucky to live in no tax state. Single have a home boat two cars. Rich no but very comfortable. Friday night I helped my girlfriend at her work (she cleans a school at night) I pulled trash for 3.5 hours for free help all the time when she short on staff. So even though I’m not rich in cash I’m rich in life.
Yeah... I too think the value of money has been highly over rated... :)
Before retirement I made in excess of $90K. I certainly wasn’t ‘rich’. Drove used cars, worried about bills, taxes, paying over $12K a year for health coverage, etc.
I would agree that Dems are “priming for tax increases”. All things being relative, depending on age and financial responsibility 90k can be considered good money, or barely enough.
Isn’t it great to be an American though! With choices and ways of bettering your income at anytime.
My daughter is 25 and lives in NYC. For 2 years she worked hard at a “draw against commission” job straight out of college. It was difficult to get by and she has 2 room mates.
She took that experience and now earns 75k at a salaried professional position with unreal benefits. She patiently toiled at something she disliked to get a dream job with endless potential. THAT’S how it’s done.
Work hard when you’re young. Set goals.
This is why the minimum wage increase BS ticks me off so much. It will increase all expenses and decrease jobs. If the wage is too low for you...move on!
People think they need a 3,500 sq. ft. home, two new cars, a vacation property, a new wardrobe every couple of years, top of the line electronics, new furniture every 5-10 years etc. You would think a doctor making 300-600k per year would have 3-5 million in cash and assets by retirement.
The Buddhists have a saying, “To know contentment is to be rich”.
Rich people seldom seem content.
It only took 70 years for me to learn this
so I’m doing ok.
Agree. The $90,000 being rich depends on where you live. I read a comment on a thread yesterday that said ‘70% tax rate? So, in California that would translate to an 83% tax rate’. Appalling. When they hit a 100% tax rate, we will know we have capitulated to Communism. (Where everybody works for the Government, because the Government owns everything, and said Government gives people an ‘allowance’ on which to live)
$90k before taxes or after?
I could see someone being borderline “rich” netting $90k in usable income, but $90k before taxes? Maybe if you’re young and single.
It is not relevant how they feel. They are rich. Trust me. I lived a year in east Africa.
JoMa
The article is before taxes. $90k income is basically poverty level in SFO, but could be a lot if you live in a deep rural location. Taxes and cost of living vary widely by locale.
That’s not rich. The fed takes a big chunk. The state takes its piece of flesh. Both are “progressive,” so the more you make the less you keep. So, you get to keep, say, 55K out of the 90k. You never see the 90k, but you are still listed as having an income of 90k and as rich. Plus gets all kinds of scorn.
The person receiving government benefits totaling $40k is listed as having zero income, and as poor. Plus gets all kinds of sympathy.
A paycheck is not a measure of wealth. The true measure of wealth is savings and a debt-to-income ratio. If you’re making $10,000 a month but you owe $9000 a month, you’re poor.
Correct. In some areas, you have to hit around 200K+ to afford a decent home large enough for a family, etc.
At $60k myself and I sure as hell don’t consider $90k to be rich.
For liberals, anyone making $1 more than them is “rich”.
That’s very close to the bottom rung of middle class, to be honest.
> I suspect this is Dems priming the pumps to raise taxes on those earning above $90k.
Good bet. I wish there was more written about taxes on this. I’m self employed and bill a little over $90k/year. Every 3rd month I literally have to send checks (state and federal) for more than I make that month.
14% FICA + 20% (fed & state income tax)=34%. The government takes over 1/3 of my income. If I “make” $90k, I “keep” $60k. Whether or not anyone wants to call me rich, that’s a problem (my wife works and gets health care but that would be another huge chunk of the $60k thanks to Obamacare - it used to be much more reasonable and my wife didn’t need to work for that).
Most people making around $90k have the same taxes. It’s just hidden from them by employer withholding and the misnamed “employer-side FICA” so they don’t realize how much tax they pay. Throw in another couple percent for “employer-paid” unemployment insurance (which also comes out of a “salary budget” not some magical “tax budget” or “corporate profit” for most managers and would go to increased salaries if the government didn’t take it before the employee sees it).
It would be pretty weird if they did—unless they otherwise had substantial assets. (And yes, earnings and wealth once again confused.)
You’re forgetting sales tax, gas tax, property taxes (cars, boats) and real estate tax.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.