• Yes, a household income of $150,000 rich.

    I believe that a household income of $150,000 is rich! I think any household making over $100,000 is doing well. My household's combined income is well under $60,000, so I consider us to be middle class. With a combined income of $150,000 you can afford many nice things, from a big home to a newer model car.

  • Yes, relatively speaking.

    When you consider that 99% of Americans are carrying the financial burden in this country, and consider the disparate range of what is now considered to be middle class, yes, $150,000 is rich in this country, because it is incredibly more than most Americans make even in two years, though someone who makes that amount probably doesn't think so.

  • Yes, relatively speaking.

    When you consider that 99% of Americans are carrying the financial burden in this country, and consider the disparate range of what is now considered to be middle class, yes, $150,000 is rich in this country, because it is incredibly more than most Americans make even in two years, though someone who makes that amount probably doesn't think so.

  • The richest get richer

    A median household income of $150,000 is a lot of money compared to most people in America. The mean or average household size for households earning $150,000 to $154,999 is 3.09.

    The median income for 91% of all households or 110 million households is below $150,000.

    One thing is certain, the wealthy are getting wealthier, and everyone else is getting poorer, actually losing ground.

    U.S. Median household income fell from $51,144 in 2010 to $50,502 in 2011. The Median is the number in the middle that separates the top half from the bottom half; it is not the average.

    The 2012 Median income fell again by $5,484 to $45,018.

    “The richest get richer
    By David Cay Johnston MARCH 15, 2012
    The aftermaths of the Great Recession and the Great Depression produced sharply different changes in U.S. Incomes that tell us a lot about tax and economic policy. The 1934 economic rebound was widely shared, with strong income gains for the vast majority, the bottom 90 percent. In 2010, we saw the opposite as the vast majority lost ground. National income gained overall in 2010, but all of the gains were among the top 10 percent. Even within those 15.6 million households, the gains were extraordinarily concentrated among the super-rich, the top one percent of the top one percent. Just 15,600 super-rich households pocketed an astonishing 37 percent of the entire national gain.”

    Total number of households in 2012 was approximately 121,085,000 – 121 million.

    In 2012, there were 1,166,000 (1.2 million) households (about 1% of all households) with median income between $150,000 to 154,999. There were 5 million households (9%) that had median income from $150,000 to $250,000 and over. So, 9% of the people in America are making most of the money.

    There were 4,945,000 households (about 4%) with median income from $45,000 to $49,999.

    There were 60 million households (50% of all households) with median income from under $5,000 to $49,999.

    There were 30.3 million Households (25% of all households) with median income below $24,999.


    The median income for 91% or 110 million households is below $150,000.

    So if you have a household income of $150,000 you are wealthy.

  • Midwest+150k = lots of money

    Maybe not in California, but in Illinois, this is considered well off. Most family's in the mid west have about 50k - 70k a year. 150,000 is A LOT. Especially, if you save up. In Cali this is probably seen as, not well off lol. Still it's good money. - Illinois

  • Yes relatively speaking they are rich.

    Sooo many of the people in the "No" column are using taxes and increased life expenditures as reasons that a household income of $150,000 does not mean you are rich.

    First of all, taxes are graduated not flat rates. So if you are in the 33% tax bracket, it doesn't mean that you are going to get all of your income taxed at 33%, it means that the portion that you make over the previous tax tier will be taxed at 33%. Sure, your next dollar earned is at 33% but not all of your earning.

    Also, the thought behind many of those who say "No" are related to purchases for nice home/kids/car etc. This points out what I think is a huge flaw in American households. As income increases, inevitably consumption increases. It does not have to be the case though. My wife and I live very simply for our income level and we are relatively young, 26 and 24. No we don't have kids yet and I am sure those that do are thinking, "Just you wait and see. Kids will eat your income away!" I understand that kids cost money but if the median household income is $50,000 in America and let's assume on average that household has 2 kids and they scrap by, living paycheck to paycheck. Tripling that household income is significant. Sure, after taxes it would only be a little more than double but assuming you don't go crazy and buy a super nice house or that Porche you have always wanted then you would probably feel rich compared to the average household. My wife and I have everything we want and then some and are able to save a ton of money each month with a household income of only $115k. So we don't plan on expanding our lifestyle significantly, if at all, from the way we currently live.

  • Absolutely not rich

    Figure in an average home at $300K (midwest), 2 car payments, and a couple kids, and your wading through the sales racks at Walmart. If someone making $150K could be frugal enough to live like someone who makes $50K, then the salary would be very substantial. IF you start throwing in cable TV, groceries, and an annual florida vacation, the $150K turns into living week to week...

  • Comfortable, yes; secure, maybe; but not rich

    Where you live has a big bearing. We make $150,000. My 1700 sq. Ft. House is worth $500,000 in an okay California neighborhood. It would buy me a 1200 sq. Ft. Fixer in a desirable neighborhood. The same money would buy me a palatial estate with acreage in Arkansas. We have two 13 year old Hondas, no kids, have taken one European vacation in our entire lives, and buy $10 wine.

  • Depending on the amount of kids

    My family consist of 7 people and growing up wasn't a struggle. I don't mean that we were traveling to distant countries but I could ask for things I needed. Now I think if I was an only child then I would consider us rich but with 5 kids its a different story.

  • Income or Net Worth

    While I certainly think that $150,000 is a comfortable income, I don't know that it is "rich." There is still a budget required to stay within financial limits and prudent planning to stay ahead. Rich is not an "income" per say but rather a net worth. Someone could make $150,000 and have nothing in savings. Someone else could make $50,000 but have $1.2 million in retirement. I think there are other factors than just "income." For the spenders, no amount of income can satiate their consumer desires.

  • No it is not rich

    Where I live( Silicon Valley) the house prices are very high. Every one makes around 150k or MORE but the all have giant loans for their houses. Also if you re a middle aged man with a family of four making 150k a year you are not rich. But overall it depends on where you live.

  • Rich is a relative term

    There way to many variables to determine "rich" in a response short enough that most people would be willing take the time to read the whole thing.

    In our case....We make just short of 150 a year, both in our late forties, both previously divorced, home is paid for with the help of the meager $ from the unfortunate death of a full service Marine spouse.

    We support 4 children, I personally have worked from the age of 13, most years holding 2 jobs, our house is a small 1400 Sq ft. I drive a 1998 ford, wife has a 2007 Subaru, I take care of both vehicles out of necessity, I do almost all maintenance and repairs because I have to. We spend responsibly, rarely go out, last year we paid over $40,000 in taxes (to be redistributed to those who don't want to work, spend beyond their means and believe they are 'entitled' because they are alive), that being said, we are happy and consider ourselves rich in the sense of life, not monetarily.

    We have both grown up in dysfunctional households, me poor, my wife living in a real tepee while her father built their house over a 4 year period, while working a full time job and in the Nebraska climate, with temperatures at 95 in summer and winters at 10° and sometimes below zero.

    All that being said, we, on our own accounts, both single, then married, families, divorce, death, single and married again, have overcome adversity in more ways than three quarters of Americans today, granted we live in the plains states where hard work is required to survive and expected but we are NOT rich, we don't spend beyond our means, we have both held 2 jobs at times and worked our asses off to get to where we are today.

    The fact that some people believe that our current household income could be considered 'rich' is a phallicy, it's only because we didn't give up, we persevered in the face of hard times and crappy circumstances, only spent what we had, bettered ourselves at every opportunity available, learned from our mistakes, made the best of every situation and saved the money we didn't have. We didn't rely on the government to give us money because we were to lazy to help ourselves and made the most of nothing, in contrast we have given money to the government, or should I say, the government has taken our money to supplement the ones who choose to not do the things required to survive in a free society. All in all, being 'rich' is what you make of your situation and adapt to the circumstances that you face, if you choose to give up...You'll be poor....If you choose to step up and do what is necessary, you'll be rich.

    "Being rich is not a state of living, but living, is a state of being rich."

  • No because I'm too busy footing the tax bill for the Yes column

    It would be rich in a flat tax environment but not in today's US economy. Net 150k household income quickly is reduced to sub 100k once Federal, State, and Local Sales taxes are applied. Now that pensions are a thing of the past and SSN will be bankrupt by the time I'm of retirement age, putting 15% of income in a IRA or 401k is a necessity. So that leaves you just over the median US household income.

  • Not really rich

    Any way you look at it, that income is hardly rich.

    First, the taxes: The tax structure in the US punishes income from labor to the largest extent possible. At $150K, most are at least in the 25% tax bracket, some might be in the higher bracket minus the deductions. So 25+7+5 (federal + FICA + state) is almost 37% that straight away goes in taxes. OK, you are now down to something like $96K.

    You need to save at least 15% of it in retirement accounts to have any fighting chance at retirement. So you are now down to $80K.

    Here's where it gets interesting. How this income i.e. earned (if a single person earns it, it is tremendously helpful...With both parents working, the overheads are too much), how many kids and at what ages (2 kids, both in daycares...You are probably swimming in red), and also, where in the respective careers you are (if you are already over 50 and at a tail end of your careers, it's not that attractive).

    If you are in your 30s, have 1 child and are living within your means, $150K can go a long way EXCEPT in NYC and the Bay Area. Those 2 places are outliers and $150K is just pittance over there.

    So $150K is really $80K, in which you can have to pay mortgage, pay for cars (if any), pay for childcare (if appropriate), and then have leftover money for fun. Sure, it can be done, but it's not being rich as a lot of things have to be working for you simultaneously.

    Posted by: apd

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
sadashivan says2013-05-22T15:17:48.113
Income is not important rather cost of living is important