This article from the NY Times is interesting for a few reasons:
1. It equates being "rich" with your annual income (at least in part), a frequent mistake by the mainstream media.
2. It verifies something we've addressed frequently here: the more you have, the more you think it takes to be rich.
3. It shows that even those who likely are rich (higher net worths), don't think they are.
It lists what people at various incomes think is needed (in net worth) to become rich as follows:
- Annual income under $25,000 -- Need $293,000 to be rich
- Annual income $25,000 to $60,000 -- Need $394,000 to be rich
- Annual income $60,001 to $120,000 -- Need $426,000 to be rich
- Annual income greater than $120,000 -- Need $501,000 to be rich
So, that's America's opinion. What's yours? If you had to list a net worth at which someone becomes "rich", what would that be?
Or can it even be done?
Sure, we can go by averages and the like and look at the top 5% or even the infamous top 1%, but do things like expenses come into play?
And "rich" is a tough word to define anyway, isn't it? Does it mean wealthy enough to care for yourself or wealthy enough to buy a small country?
Personally, I think if you have enough assets to provide for yourself and those you care for, then you are rich. That could be $200,000 or $200 million. But maybe that's too simplistic of a view.
What's your take?