Here is the difference - $125K/year when you are 50 with your student loans paid off, cars paid off, house paid off, and kids out of the house - you will have a very good lifestyle.

Meanwhile, if you are 30 with all of those bills still in front of you, $250K will cover expenses but you will not feel rich.

And the people that I know that got wiped out at that $250K income level have 1 of 2 main issues (not medical debt):

1.) Autistic kid
2.) Divorce

So, I think it is not a surprise upper earners are not rushing to get married and have kids.

"#8 | Posted by LampLighter"

$500K or more. If you are making $250K at 30 and married, you need to grind for another 15 years+ to stack a $1.0M+ in assets. At $250K in Wisconsin (say Milwaukee), your after tax net is ~$170K or $14K/month.

Average home price: ~$700K in the suburbs, monthly payment including PTI: $5,500
Home maintenance (1%/year) = $7000/year = $600/month
Cellphone and cable/internet = $200/month
Assume student loan payment of $500/month X 2 people = $1,000
Assume care payment at $1000/month X 2 people = $2,000
Gas for cars: $150/month X 2 people = $300
Assume heat/gas at $300/month
Average cost for meals: $300/month X 2 = $600

So, after these typical bills, you are at $3,500/month or ~$42,000 per year before any other spending on vacation, buying household items, clothing, or kids, etc. That is not living rich AT 30. But, once they are 45 and your income goes from $250K to $389K in 15 years (3% yearly increase), and the house payment is now only 17% of gross income rather than 26%. Also, their savings start to compound. Assuming they could save 50% of their $42,000/year (assume loans paid off after 5 years with yearly increases), that should be worth $1.025M at 10% savings rate. Also, their house should be worth (3% yearly increase) $1.1M and the remaining mortgage will be ~$480K meaning they will have $620K in home equity. So, savings + home equity = $1.65M AT 45 so they can start to feel a little more rich. However, any job insecurities, overspending, or kids will put a big dent in this. I should note, that $1.65M in net worth would be ~$1.1M in today's money assuming 2.5% annual inflation.

I will also note - having $1M in net worth (with 50% investments and 50% in home equity) IS NOT LIVING RICH today. You have a nice nest egg to build upon - but, YOU ARE NOT RICH. 20 years ago when $1M meant something? - sure. But today? Nope. Especially when it comes to home equity. It is only net worth if you are willing to sell and downsize or retire in a cheaper state.

"Scott, I am very similar to your #10 situation and I definitely do not feel rich. I would certainly agree that pulling in 500k a year is def where one would feel "rich."

Like I said, I think it depends on your individual circumstances (married vs. single, kids, loans, location) but a family pulling in $250K at the age of 30 should not be out buying a GT3 RS. They should be trying to get that investment account up so you can start to have meaningful investment gains. However, if you are at the $500K income level - yeah, you should finally start to feel rich.

"I've concluded I'm going to need 5MM in assets by the time I retire to live comfortably.
#11 | Posted by Bluewaffles"

How old are you if I may ask? The big unknown is what happens with inflation and the housing market. If we get Biden level inflation again, that $5M may not be enough if you are talking retirement in 30 years time. The power of compounding interest makes your investments look great - but, it also applies to inflation.

So people can understand this: $5M in 30 years time is worth today:

@2.5% inflation = $2,383,713
@3.5% inflation = $1,781,392
@5.0% inflation = $1,156,887

5% inflation is not unheard of and with our ballooning government debt and spending, we may get this. So, $5M may sound like a lot - but, I don't think anyone with $1.1M in total retirement savings today is living the high life. You are watching your spending so you don't outlive your savings.

"Why does Pres Trump's tax bill seem to give even more tax credits to those "rich" at the expense of reducing healthcare for those who may not be "rich?"
#12 | Posted by LampLighter"

I am fine giving tax breaks to households making under $100,000/year. In fact, I am fine with ELIMINATING ALL TAXES on households under $100,000/year. In total, this would reduce Fed Income tax collections by 12-15% or ~$300B in total. It really wouldn't even be a big increase to the deficit at this point.

You know who will not agree with that? - DEMOCRATS. We see this with them voting against no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and no tax on social security.

They do this because they know their unwashed mass of voters will continue to fall for their 'paying their fair share' bullshit.

If taxes were completely removed on under $100,000 - only the dumbest of the dumb would still continue with the 'fair share' nonsense when they are paying $0. And that is why this will never happen - Democrats.

But, I would gladly cut their taxes to $0 just so I never have to listen to a braindead liberal whiner ever fucking mention 'pay their fair share' again. Same reason why we won't get means testing for Social Security - Democrats.

"I'm talking about people trying to live day-to-day,
#13 | Posted by LampLighter"

Work harder - simply solution. Bluewaffles is not taking money out of your pocket to amass his savings so why are you so jealous and angry?