What is "rich"?

The unit is a household. That may be an individual or a couple. The measure is net worth (all assests less all debt).

imo

No way it is upper middle class.

In short, it's relative.

50,000-75,000 is barely getting by in most of California. It's not enough to afford a home, at least not in a safe neighborhood or a good school district. And even if you have an apartment, the other expenses will eat it up quick. In, say, Kansas, you'd be pretty well off with that amount.

In terms of net worth or in terms of earning capacity?

Seems to me you have to consider both aspects. Also seems somewhat relative depending on what geographic area one resides in.

I've known folks who had high net worth and little or no earning ability. Some were older. Some had major health problems. Some had employment challenges. Even a meager existence reduced their assets. I would not consider this rich because one is not self-sustaining. Many banks and credit agencies do not even consider this credit worthy as they use income based measures for credit qualification.

I've also known folks who earned a lot of money but owned no assets and had no savings. I'm thinking of one particular man I once worked with whose assets were seized by the IRS to satisfy obligations of his previous employer - even though he had no ownership interest in the company. They had a tax lien against him and put him on a budget so that he could not accumulate any savings until the lien was satisfied. He may have been earning $500,000 annually but he was living in a one bedroom apartment and had no savings or means to accumulate any savings. I've seen similar situations occur as a result of divorce and financial mismanagement.

As for your other points, you're very correct about adjusting for location. 'Rich' in New York City is **very** different from 'rich' in East Nowhere.

is phrased in terms of net worth and yet I note that many of the responses are phrased only in terms of income. Silly me.

Again, I don't think you can use either criteria independent of the other. Both income and net worth are factors in determining whether or not somebody is "rich" in my opinion.

Maybe the better question is what criteria we use to consider whether someone is rich. And whether that criteria can be measured in strictly financial terms. Ability to earn an income to provide for basic needs? Some savings? Good insurance? Funds available for retirement? Or college for the kids? Or both? Home ownership? No mortgage? No consumer debt? Investment account? Multiple homes? Ability to travel or consume within reason? Or perhaps at will? Ability to forego employment income for a period of time? Or for a lifetime?

Are emotional and spiritual needs as important as financial needs? What value can we place on the ability to be content and enjoy what we do have? What cost does the inability to be satisfied and continued striving to accumulate carry? What costs does significant wealth carry in terms of worry, stress, responsibility, expectations and planning?

One can be well-off financially without having the great material wealth that typically defines the rich. There is a line from a song that says that "pain depends on point of view." The concept of wealth is relative. I'm sure there are a few homeless folks who probably think that the ability to provide for one's own basic needs would make them wealthy. Meanwhile, others that are accustomed to having even a little bit of discretionary spending ability might not share that perspective.

Just my opinion.

Personally, I voted $50,000-$75,000.

I voted that way b/c I live in the midwest, and I'm a frugal person. By my standards, I could live like a king if I made $50,000-$75,000 a year.

Obviously, these figures have increased since 2003, but apparently, are not yet available.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html

Including all tax returns that had a positive AGI, those taxpayers with an AGI of $130,080 or more in 2003 constituted the nation’s top five percent of earners. To break into the top one percent, a tax return had to have an AGI of $295,495 or more. These numbers are up from 2002 when the equivalent thresholds were $126,525 and $285,424. However, top incomes in 2003 still did not equal their peak that was reached in 2000. At the height of the boom and bubble, $313,469 was the threshold to break into the top one percent.

5 People think Im rich!
Im going to go out and get me a tycoon outfit and see if people start to bow to me in the street. Maybe they will pay me to get to wash my socks and stuff like that :)

was $924,000 in 2004. The average net worth of this group is $2.4 million. This has doubled in the last 10 years, while the net worth of the bottom 40% has dropped into negative numbers - an actual negative net worth.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/mar2006/ineq-m02.shtml

I would say that the top 5% are "rich". $5 million is the closest that your poll gets.

I don't understand, was the wording of the poll originally different?

How could anyone think that a person with a $50,000 net worth be rich? That's a car and a good stereo.

Reading is often a filtered process.