• Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    As a separate point, I agree that the headline is being somewhat disingenuous by calling the top 10% “ultra wealthy”. $212,110/yr is still much more wealth than most Americans could ever dream of having, but it’s not “ultra wealthy”. Just “wealthy” or “very wealthy” imo.

    But again, it doesn’t matter whether you’re “wealthy”, “very wealthy”, or even “not even wealthy at all”. Pay your taxes.

    • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      $212,110/yr is still much more wealth than most Americans could ever dream of having, but it’s not “ultra wealthy”. Just “wealthy” or “very wealthy”

      Entirely disagreed. Even in Des Moines, Iowa, it’s well within the reach of literally any two individuals pursuing IT or other similarly-skilled positions. It’s much easier in dense population centers.

      • Wizard@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Let me get this straight. You don’t consider 3 or 4 times the national median household income “wealthy”? National median household income is about $62k.

        It’s pretty rare for a couple to have two specialized degrees like what you’re mentioning.

        • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m in IT with no degree. It’s not hard to do.

          I do not consider merely 3x median household as “having a great deal of money, resources, or assets; rich”, no.

          In the current economy, I’d consider it the bare minimum necessary to, say, afford a single-family home built in the last 50 years.

          I’d consider it enough to pay off student loans, to afford a couple well-used cars - and their payments, to afford daycare - enabling starting a family, etc.

          I’d consider it enough for both earners to be able to set aside savings for future earmarked uses e.g. home repairs, retirement, etc., so long as they maintain consistent employment.

          I would not consider it either actively at, or enabling future qualification of “having a great deal of money, resources, or assets; rich”. You could argue it’s at a threshold enabling saving for a rainy day, but there’s no way it’s going to facilitate mass asset acquisition, building a fuck-you-sized cash reserve, etc. That bracket’s money isn’t making them money; that bracket is just as dependent on having a job.

            • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Alternative question: Do you feel that a household making the median income as “poor”?

              Quite likely, yes.

              If I plug the median (~$62,000) into an income tax calculator and select Iowa to include state tax, the effective annual household income is ~$50k.

              The average mortgage payment as of 2023 (and yes, it should be median ideally, but that wasn’t available) is ~$2,300 per lendingtree.com.

              ~50,000 - (12 * ~$2,300) = ~22,400 annual remaining.

              Playing a bit of hearsay with nerdwallet (and their referenced Experian), the average used car payment as of 2023 is $516/month. If we assume our average family is paying for a car…

              ~22,400 - (12 * ~$516) = ~16,208 annual remaining, or ~1,350 per month… for the entirety of utilities, interest payments, groceries, clothes, school-related/extracurricular (for any kids), daycare, etc.

              But let’s look at it from the other side - if we don’t assume these averages, here’s what your median household is looking at.

              ~50,000 / 12 = ~$4,166/month… for the entirety of mortgage, any auto payment, any fuel/maintenance, any home improvement/supplies/maintenance/repairs (hope that water heater doesn’t go), any groceries, any utilities like water, gas, electric, internet, cellular, any day care costs, any costs of kids education / extracurricular activities, etc. This is expected to somehow cover 2+ people.

              Yes - I’m pretty confident in stating that the median household income is likely to be lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society. Or, if poor is to be directly compared to wealthy, I’d say they’re exceedingly unlikely to manage having a great deal of money, resources, or assets; rich.

              I feel attempting to tie concepts such as poor and wealthy to arbitrary points of income is largely futile, as the real indicator would be the relative ability of a household to cover average/expected expenses and save/amass cash.

              That previous “top 10%” benchmark of ~$210,000 will be pulling ~$153,000 annual/$12,750 monthly after taxes. Subject it to the same considerations- average mortgage, average car payment, etc. - and they’re looking at $119,200 annual/$9,900/month.

              I’d say they’re much less likely to be in the situation defined by poor - factor in the entire gamut of expenses and they’ll still have some discretionary income - but they’re also not at the point of qualifying as wealthy. At best, they’d be able to retire more comfortably.

              Compare this to, say, the $995,000 pre-tax / $593,251 after-tax annual / 49,437 after-tax monthly of the 1% margin and that… changes. The relative gap between the entire gamut of usual expenses and actual monthly income is immense; wealth aggregation is almost unavoidable.

              That’s wealthy.

              Edit: Per latest Census Bureau data, the median household income in the US is ~71,000, compressing the gap between them and that “top 10%” a bit.