Click on the Wikipedia link for other definitions. </p>
<p>There’s also the dilemma of how to classify dual-income households. Does the combined income of a nurse and a high school principal make a household “rich” and undeserving of college financial aid?</p>
<p>What is your dividing line between MIDDLE CLASS and RICH?</p>
<p>What is the point of this discussion?
To be rich people need to have talents and work hard. There are no lines to divide society into classes.
Movie stars, singers,… make tons of money but they hardly come from the above defined capitalist class.</p>
<p>My husband and I don’t have education, but through the blessing of hard (hard) work, we make what I would consider upper middle class money ($225k). I do think there is a difference between “income” and “class,” however. My husband can’t read very well and lacks certain cultural attainment that most people of our income level take for granted (he has never read a book, for example), but we have been able to do well for our kids. We have been able to make sure that they have the best educations possible, as well as fantastic work ethics. Hubby has a very lucrative pension/benefits for when he retires, so I don’t think we will ever be a burden on the kids. I think (pray) that their children will be of a higher “class” than we are, but heaven only knows about their incomes. But we are both overwhelmed with gratitude that we have been blessed with healthy, smart kids and the ability to pay for their educations. Life doesn’t get better than that for people like us.</p>
<p>Dennis Gilbert’s chart is part of the problem. There is no upper class listed. It goes from upper middle class to the top 1%. In name there’s a vast difference. I think that the upper class try hard not to be categorized as such, until they reach the top 1% and then there’s no denying the fact. </p>
<p>I think it depends. $180K in a rural area would be rich. I’m not sure how far $180K would go in New York City. A couple or single person with no children would have a different lifestyle on $180K than a large family. </p>
<p>There’s a HUGE difference between people who are maybe pulling down a couple of hundred thousand to a millioin a year - which might include dual-income successful doctors or lawyers, small business people, etc. - and, say, Kennedy-style inherited wealth or other mega-wealth which means no one ever has to work again. I think within the top 1%, there’s a huge difference between the lower 0.5% and the upper 0.5%. The lower 0.5% certainly have comfortable lifestyles, can pay for their kids to go to college no sweat, may have a second home, luxury cars, housekeeping help. They’re well off, but they can’t have it all. That’s very different from the upper 0.5%, who are the ones donating buildings to colleges and medical schools, may travel via private jet, may maintain multiple high end households. Conflating the two I think is silly. </p>
<p>I think the definitions by Leonard Beeghley are more accurate:</p>
<p>The super-rich (0.9%)
Multi-millionaires whose incomes commonly exceed $350,000; includes celebrities and powerful executives/politicians. Ivy League education common.</p>
<p>The Rich (5%)<br>
Households with net worth of $1 million or more; largely in the form of home equity. Generally have college degrees.</p>
<p>Middle class (plurality/majority?; ca. 46%)<br>
College-educated workers with considerably higher-than-average incomes and compensation; a man making $57,000 and a woman making $40,000 may be typical.</p>
<p>Working class (ca. 40–45%)
Blue-collar workers and those whose jobs are highly routinized with low economic security; a man making $40,000 and a woman making $26,000 may be typical. High school education.</p>
<p>**The poor (ca. 12%) **
Those living below the poverty line with limited to no participation in the labor force; a household income of $18,000 may be typical. Some high school education.</p>
<p>The percentages are a little off on the chart since they don’t sum to 100. Using the %ages for super-rich and rich definitions would put the breakpoint for middleclass somewhere around $175K in annual income. </p>
<p>Even in the top 1% (which I’m not part of), there’s a big difference between the high 6-figures (usually high-achieving professionals) and folks who can own their own private jets (usually the top folks in finance, management of large companies, and owners of capital, whether self-made or inherited). If anything, wealth gets even more logarithmic there.</p>
<p>Exactly. “Over $350,000” is a pretty blunt measure. The couple making $500,000 are certainly doing well, but they’re not donating buildings and they’re not part of the power elite. </p>
<p>I have never felt richer than the year I was making $6 an hour, had health care for $12 a month, and my share of the rent was $37.50! (1983).</p>
<p>My definition of middle class is that you have enough to pay for housing, food and a car without worry. You have some money for extras, but you can’t buy everything you want. In some communities a $200,000 income will make you feel pretty wealthy. In others, like NYC, you may not be able to live in the neighborhood you want to. Post #8, makes a good point that your net worth also plays into it. So some people are making a middle class income but if they have no safety cushion it’s pretty hard to feel middle class even if you are by most definitions. By #8’s definition we might have been rich in 2008, but then housing prices tumbled and we aren’t any more! Still, we have more of a cushion than many and our house is probably worth twice what we paid for it.</p>
<p>I disagree with the education component of the definition in #8. I’ve got a bunch of guys working on the house - there are a lot of people out there living comfortable middle class lives with nothing but a high school education. They own businesses where they worked from the ground up.</p>
<p>I’m always confused by the whole “income” determines “class” debate. Income seems to be something that can actually be quantified, while “class” is not. Everyone in America typically calls themselves some sort of “middle class” because that is what our culture tells us is what you want to be. The US wants to be a class-less society so everyone lays claim to the middle. </p>
<p>In Britain, and other truly “class” conscious societies (although it is even changing here), class is more determined by your parents’ and your occupations, education, geography, accent. Income really doesn’t have much to do with it. I know plenty of “working class” people who own their own businesses (usually small business or trades) and make a ton of money. They may have summer homes in Spain, but they are still “working class”. Conversely, there are also tons of cash-poor aristocracy (or “upper” class). They have a title and a crumbling estate, but are working relatively low paying jobs. It’s not very confusing here. If you’re not working class or aristocracy - you’re middle class regardless of income. Even Kate Middleton was middle-class!</p>
<p>For me, rich is when instead of working for the money, your money works for you.</p>
<h1>12 I agree. There are no real classes in America - I’m comparing this to my home country. Up & down mobility is too easy & common here. Imho, there is a danger of a certain kind of ideological thinking creating more rigid classes here though.</h1>
<p>My brother is “rich” according to #8, but upper middle class (fits it to a tee) acc to the OP. Lives in a house smaller than a double wide, kids go to public school, main breadwinner commutes over an hour and a half each way to work. He sure doesn’t feel the wealth it and I stay at a hotel rather than with him when I visit, the house is so small. Vacations are all family/friends oriented. Childcare, commuting, the extra taxes, cost of working erode most of the income of that second job. </p>
</p>