How much money?

[Bob The Skutter]

I think the fact "additional tax rate" kicks in at £150,000 is a good sign that even the generally wealthy agree with your estimate of what passes for "wealthy" or "rich" in this country.

Is 'additional tax rate' code for 'move your registered office to Luxembourg'?

It may well be.

Additional Tax Rate is the top Income Tax rate. So once you take the personal allowance in to account, and the point various rates kick in at, I guess take home rate would be around £85,000 or so. But you knew that.

 

[Gryffindorian]

To be considered extremely wealthy, I would have to have assets in the millions of U.S. dollars. And if I had a six-figure salary, I would consider myself financially well-off.

 

[Taylirious]

Several billion dollars!

I'd like to live above the poverty line.

 

[Kelthaz]

ITT there's lots of definitions for the word "rich" floating around.

 

[Mudd]

I feel wealthy most of the time.

 

[Hatshepsut]

The Rich-Poor Continuum leads to a geometric progression. It goes like this:

Suppose $100/day is considered a "basic" income.

Then, to feel noticeably elevated, you need 10% more, or $110. But once at $110 you still need 10% more to feel elevated again, or $121. Then the next step is $133.10. Our society easily has 100 steps of this kind of elevation at 10% per step. And the 100th step up gets you to $1,387,000/day.

That's why I think we have such a huge gap between rich and poor, and why no proposals to establish legal income range limits are ever politically feasible in the USA. We have neither floor nor ceiling: You can drop to zero or earn a billion dollars a year. The issues involved motivate a great deal of rage and defensiveness, and are usually described in moral terms: laziness vs. skill, hard work, creativity, and thrift. Or the fat personal connections of Occupy's vaunted 1%.

The thing is, what you now think is enough to be "rich" won't be enough when you get there: Expenses always rise to meet income!

 

[Amaris]

The Rich-Poor Continuum leads to a geometric progression. It goes like this:

Suppose $100/day is considered a "basic" income.

Then, to feel noticeably elevated, you need 10% more, or $110. But once at $110 you still need 10% more to feel elevated again, or $121. Then the next step is $133.10. Our society easily has 100 steps of this kind of elevation at 10% per step. And the 100th step up gets you to $1,387,000/day.

That's why I think we have such a huge gap between rich and poor, and why no proposals to establish legal income range limits are ever politically feasible in the USA. We have neither floor nor ceiling: You can drop to zero or earn a billion dollars a year. The issues involved motivate a great deal of rage and defensiveness, and are usually described in moral terms: laziness vs. skill, hard work, creativity, and thrift. Or the fat personal connections of Occupy's vaunted 1%.

The thing is, what you now think is enough to be "rich" won't be enough when you get there: Expenses always rise to meet income!

Not always. Were I to make a million dollars a year, there is no way I would even approach that level of spending. A decent house, a decent car, whatever bills are needed to pay for my family's needs (should I have one), and a few nice extras. After that, money will either be invested, saved, or donated to various charities.

I've lived in a tent, in the backyard of my aunt and uncle's house. I've lived in a car in the dead of winter. I've gone days without eating. I will never forget that.

 

[Mudd]

The few people I've been close to who suffered serious deprivation and insecurity for long periods of their childhoods - not just financial need, but anxieties relative to civil authorities, etc. - aren't shy about enjoying material wealth and success. It's refreshing.

 

[Amaris]

The few people I've been close to who suffered serious deprivation and insecurity for long periods of their childhoods - not just financial need, but anxieties relative to civil authorities, etc. - aren't shy about enjoying material wealth and success. It's refreshing.

Certainly, but there comes a point where I see it as exceedingly wasteful, so wouldn't do it for myself beyond what I already mentioned (nice house, nice car, bills paid, plenty of food, etc). What others do with their money is alright by me, so long as it's not harming anyone else.

 

[Hatshepsut]

Not always. Were I to make a million dollars a year, there is no way I would even approach that level of spending. A decent house, a decent car, ...

There's the rub. One's notion of what constitutes "decent" can evolve. Once a gain in standard of living is made, most people find it psychologically crushing if that gain is lost. Which may make it easier for young folks from modest backgrounds to endure hardship while on the way up, while rich stockbrokers jumped out the window right after the crash of 1929 before they had even lost their homes or cars.

It's pretty easy to spend $1 million. A single flight on a Lear jet can set you back twenty grand. An apartment in Manhattan's One57 building can go for over $100 million. People define their personal identity in terms of access to this stuff.

Perhaps you're exempt: I'm not calling you a liar. Enough people are susceptible to temptation, however, to keep the system going strong.

 

[Amaris]

Not always. Were I to make a million dollars a year, there is no way I would even approach that level of spending. A decent house, a decent car, ...

There's the rub. One's notion of what constitutes "decent" can evolve. Once a gain in standard of living is made, most people find it psychologically crushing if that gain is lost. Which may make it easier for young folks from modest backgrounds to endure hardship while on the way up, while rich stockbrokers jumped out the window right after the crash of 1929 before they had even lost their homes or cars.

It's pretty easy to spend $1 million. A single flight on a Lear jet can set you back twenty grand. An apartment in Manhattan's One57 building can go for over $100 million. People define their personal identity in terms of access to this stuff.

Perhaps you're exempt: I'm not calling you a liar. Enough people are susceptible to temptation, however, to keep the system going strong.

I'm sure there are, but I've always had a sense that told me "this is enough". I tend to give away much of what I have anyway, so at some point, I would start pouring my money into others' needs.

 

[RoJoHen]

Not always. Were I to make a million dollars a year, there is no way I would even approach that level of spending. A decent house, a decent car, ...

There's the rub. One's notion of what constitutes "decent" can evolve. Once a gain in standard of living is made, most people find it psychologically crushing if that gain is lost. Which may make it easier for young folks from modest backgrounds to endure hardship while on the way up, while rich stockbrokers jumped out the window right after the crash of 1929 before they had even lost their homes or cars.

It's pretty easy to spend $1 million. A single flight on a Lear jet can set you back twenty grand. An apartment in Manhattan's One57 building can go for over $100 million. People define their personal identity in terms of access to this stuff.

Perhaps you're exempt: I'm not calling you a liar. Enough people are susceptible to temptation, however, to keep the system going strong.

I'm sure there are, but I've always had a sense that told me "this is enough". I tend to give away much of what I have anyway, so at some point, I would start pouring my money into others' needs.

Once I got a few luxury items out of the way, I'd pretty much be in the same boat. I've never needed newer and nicer things, and this has become even more the case the older I get. I'm a boring dude. I don't have that much to buy.

If anything, I'd end up spending it all to pay off other peoples' debt.

 

[Amaris]

There's the rub. One's notion of what constitutes "decent" can evolve. Once a gain in standard of living is made, most people find it psychologically crushing if that gain is lost. Which may make it easier for young folks from modest backgrounds to endure hardship while on the way up, while rich stockbrokers jumped out the window right after the crash of 1929 before they had even lost their homes or cars.

It's pretty easy to spend $1 million. A single flight on a Lear jet can set you back twenty grand. An apartment in Manhattan's One57 building can go for over $100 million. People define their personal identity in terms of access to this stuff.

Perhaps you're exempt: I'm not calling you a liar. Enough people are susceptible to temptation, however, to keep the system going strong.

I'm sure there are, but I've always had a sense that told me "this is enough". I tend to give away much of what I have anyway, so at some point, I would start pouring my money into others' needs.

Once I got a few luxury items out of the way, I'd pretty much be in the same boat. I've never needed newer and nicer things, and this has become even more the case the older I get. I'm a boring dude. I don't have that much to buy.

If anything, I'd end up spending it all to pay off other peoples' debt.

Yep. Money I get never stays mine. It goes into taking care of the family needs. I don't think I've kept a paycheck for myself since I started working around the age of 14. For those keeping count, I'm 35.

 

[SPCTRE]

I would start using the word "rich" (well, at least "very well off") at about €100k to €200k per annum, but that definition will change as my income (or rather, our household's income overall) increases.

Which is only natural.

At this rate, I'll probably be taking over my parents' business in a a decade and a half, which will likely shift expectations in that department.

 

[Mudd]

There's the rub. One's notion of what constitutes "decent" can evolve. Once a gain in standard of living is made, most people find it psychologically crushing if that gain is lost. Which may make it easier for young folks from modest backgrounds to endure hardship while on the way up...

Exactly so.

I have no fixed sense of what's "enough," nor really any strong opinions about what's wasteful for other people. I just know what I can afford and what my priorities are in budgeting what I have at a given time.

I'll tell you one thing - if I had no limits right now the two things I'd do is travel more often and buy at least one or more of every convertible I see.

 

[Hatshepsut]

Money I get never stays mine. It goes into taking care of the family needs. I don't think I've kept a paycheck for myself since I started working around the age of 14...

I think you have a generous heart and should be commended. Now, what about those family needs? Once the seven lean years of Egypt are past, aren't they sociological? Perhaps the youngsters are bullied at school because their shoes are out of date. That employer will demand candidates bring their own iPhone 6 to the interview. Aviation to nearby soccer matches is real.

Almost enough to make a guy nostalgic for Josip Broz Tito, but letting that genie out the bottle....

 

[Mudd]

Yeah, there's the principle of the hedonic treadmill:

The hedonic treadmill, also known as hedonic adaptation, is the observed tendency of humans to quickly return to a relatively stable level of happiness despite major positive or negative events or life changes.[1] According to this theory, as a person makes more money, expectations and desires rise in tandem, which results in no permanent gain in happiness. Brickman and Campbell coined the term in their essay "Hedonic Relativism and Planning the Good Society" (1971).[2] During the late 1990s, the concept was modified by Michael Eysenck, a British psychologist, to become the current "hedonic treadmill theory" which compares the pursuit of happiness to a person on a treadmill, who has to keep walking just to stay in the same place. The concept dates back millennia, to such writers as St. Augustine, cited in Robert Burton's 1621 Anatomy of Melancholy: "A true saying it is, Desire hath no rest, is infinite in itself, endless, and as one calls it, a perpetual rack, or horse-mill."

One of the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism, of course, is usually rendered as "Suffering is caused by desire."

 

[Bob The Skutter]

How dare you! I've never used a treadmill in my life!

 

[Mudd]

There does not seem to be any concept of the Altruistic Elliptical.

 

[Hatshepsut]

Yeah, there's the principle of the hedonic treadmill...The concept dates back millennia, to such writers as St. Augustine, cited in Robert Burton's 1621 Anatomy of Melancholy: "A true saying it is, Desire hath no rest, is infinite in itself, endless, and as one calls it, a perpetual rack, or horse-mill."

I wasn't aware Augustine was aware of it back in the 5th century. I do wonder if this stuff will bite our rumps. Human beings are far and away the most consumptive of any large animal species, and despite the myopic assurances of Julian Simon, we're going to hit environmental carrying capacity limits at some point. Even in terms of sheer physical room for our sprawl: Are 1-acre lots to be mandated in city codes?