> In your view, being “rich” means having an income in the ...
> Don’t know/none of these<p>Wealth.<p>Or unearned income. Which approximately no-one actually thinks about when they say "income".<p>Basically the whole thing is pointless due to that.
This tool is important because it makes clear one of the biggest problems in America: the rich refuse to believe they are rich.<p>In Europe, top income tax rates kick in at far lower incomes often just 2-3X the median income. The additional tax revenues generated here are used to fund things like national health care. Similar programs will never be possible in the US unless more Americans come to the realization that they are, in fact, rich and deserved to be taxed as such.
The dichotomy for people earning high incomes, but viewing themselves as "average", stems from the fact that you need to be in the top 5% of income if you want to live a stereotypical 50's style "middle class" life in a high-cost of living area: a (modest) single family home, a car, 2 kids, health care, children's college paid for, saving for retirement, etc.<p>All of the above were easily had back then on the median income. Everyone lower than you on the income curve is cutting in places you can't see (retirement accounts). If you observe conspicuous consumption by peers making less, they're going deep into debt to make it happen.<p>The only thing not 1950's about our middle class ideals: your spouse probably works to make ends meet.
I feel like being rich is a combination of income and like assets/net worth. Like I know people who make 6 figures+ and live pay check to pay check because they have a lot of expenses.
This didn't change how I see myself at all.<p>For me it shows that a BS and MS at a state university, plus more than 10 years of experience working in aerospace, will get you to about 60th percentile in the Northeast US.<p>I should have got a god damn finance degree...
There's 'no trouble paying a mortgage' money and then there's "oh that's one of Bill or Jeff's 'toy' companies" kind of money
FYI this site employs 3 sophisticated ad networks and several other deep tracking scripts.<p>No reason to expect that the information you fill in here on your actual income, etc doesn't wind up in an leaky ad profile.
Well according to this I'm not rich, but I'm getting close. I'm disappointed it doesn't include property ownership because that might put me up there over the magical rich line.
I feel like age shouldn't factor in, only location. Granted expenses will be different based on age, but they don't seem to be using expenses to determine "rich-ness" at all.
Speaking of feeling rich or not, Anyone ever follow this guy’s blog?<p><a href="https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/all-the-posts-since-the-beginning-of-time/" rel="nofollow">https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/all-the-posts-since-the-begi...</a><p><a href="https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/category/mmm-classics/" rel="nofollow">https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/category/mmm-classics/</a><p>Like “hacking hedonic adaptation to get the most out of your money”<p>And so on.
For the South Bay, the top 5% household income is apparently $523k.<p>But this dumb website doesn’t even allow entering a household income that’s higher than $400k.<p>So if you think 1% or 5% is the threshold for being rich, then nobody who fills in this survey will ever be declared rich.<p>Edit: turns out you can enter your income in the field right above the slider. But that’s not obvious at all IMO.
First, I suggest doing this in private/incognito mode.<p>Second, the "survey" misses the most important distinction: investment income vs earned income. Or, more directly: wealth.<p>A family making (say) $300k from only wages is in a VERY different situation than the same family making that income from investments.
This Global Rich List does this for the global distribution and offers it for income, and more importantly, wealth (<a href="http://www.globalrichlist.com/wealth" rel="nofollow">http://www.globalrichlist.com/wealth</a>)
For the Boston-Cambridge-Newton area they have this:<p>Top 5% More than $374,000<p>So 1 in 20 people in this area bring in more than 374K a year? That is sort of mind-blowing. I thought I was doing fairly well, but now I feel like I'm missing out on something...
Is this broken? My only choice after completing the questions is "[Click here to skip the exercise altogether and see the answer for a New York area household earning $150,000 a year.]
"
This tool doesn't even work in the San Francisco area! The top income they let you select is "$400k+", but you need an income of $498,000 to be top 5% here.