Do you consider a household with a net worth of over a million dollars "middle class"?

[MilesColtrane]

Last night Palin claimed that she and her husband were "in the middle class of America".

[ginnyinWI]

1. A million is not what it used to be, so yes.

Granted, it's more upper middle class than middle-middle.

[Indenturedebtor]

7. Um you could live comfortably off the INTEREST on a million bucks

So no it's no longer middle class.

[ContinentalOp]

13. Net worth does not = cash in the bank

You're not going to be living comfortably off of the interest of your house. My parents who were public school teachers for 35 years have a net worth over that, merely because of the value of their home.

[Indenturedebtor]

16. Yeah but the point is that they could sell the home and then live off the interest

Thus joining the "I don't have to work anymore" class :D

Look we don't have pensions anymore, and SS hasn't kept up with inflation so if you CAN retire then you're pretty damn well off imo.

[ContinentalOp]

18. And live where?

:shrug:

[Indenturedebtor]

31. At 4% interest 1 million would get you 40k a year.

I suspect that you could live a lot of places with that ;)

[davepc]

36. Where the hell you getting 4% interest from? Any anyone who exposes 900,000 in cash in a bank

in this environment is asking for trouble.

[Indenturedebtor]

53. Hell you could practically get 4% from a mix of t-bills

The point is that there is an option there not to be gainfully employed. In my opinion once work becomes optional one is wealthy.

[ContinentalOp]

Haha, um yeah. That's called retirement. -nt-

[Indenturedebtor]

69. Yep, and the poor don't get to retire, nor do many middle class n/t

[ContinentalOp]

71. Which is a damn shame. Don't you think that Democrats should stand up for that principle though?

Aren't we in favor of the middle class being able to retire comfortably? Or do you want to engage in ridiculously misplaced class warfare and tell some of the lucky few middle class people who are able to retire that they're "wealthy"?

[Indenturedebtor]

74. Wealthy is a relative standard. I'm not trying to engage in any class warfare against people with

1 million dollars in net worth. It's the people with 10 plus million that I really take issue with.

[ginnyinWI]

65. after taxes?

You have to subract capital gains taxes.

[ContinentalOp]

39. So you expect people to move then.

Don't you see how ridiculous that point of view is? I could easily argue the reverse. Middle class people throughout the country whose houses are worth only $100k must be poor because they could never afford to move to California.

I mean, hell we're all wealthy by that measure. Why not just pack everything up and move to India? You'd be RICH! RICH I tell ya!

[ginnyinWI]

63. so take the example of a couple with 40K a year.

That's two people living on about 33K after taxes (unless Obama changes that) and since they would have to sell their house and other assets, they have to pay rent. And if they had to sell their car they have to live near a bus line. I suppose you could live somewhere that cheaply, but it would be nice to be able to live where there is decent access to things like libraries, hospitals, mass transit, etc.

[Indenturedebtor]

75. I guess that's true, it's really not much anymore is it? n/t

[Pattib]

77. I live in North FL, my house, brick, 3 bdr. w/ pool was 130K in 1997.

[Pattib]

76. I guess I'm "poor" then. Seriously, what is considered Poor? Or lower middle class then?

[phantom power]

2. Yes, in the sense that it requires at least $1m to retire comfortably.

By the time I retire, it is estimated that I would need around $2 million in assets to guarantee a middle-class lifestyle for another 20 years or so.

[Lorien]

33. Most finacial experts agree with you. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Net worth, yes, net income no

[Toucano]

5. Perfect distinction. n/t

[melody]

4. Depends upon where they live

A million is nothing in Southern California.

[fortyfeetunder]

6. Alaska is expensive also.

So a million is not a lot...

[JHB]

11. Let's clarify terms here:

A million IS a lot. It's just not everything.

You're affluent, and you're a long way from the meatgrinder of poverty, but you're not exactly the Sultan of Brunei either (and if you spend like you are, you will cease to be affluent pdq).

[dana_b]

9. nor in the Bay Area

I live there and make a small fraction of that. If that's middle class, and I the working poor then?

[melody]

14. Aren't we all? n/t

[dana_b]

47. evidently. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

24. They live where

The average listing is $298,495 as of last month.

[melody]

82. I have friends with million dollar houses who still can't afford more than basic stuff

In southern California, a million dollars isn't much.

[dana_b]

8. well, if that's middle class, I guess many here, like me, are "dirt poor"!! n/t

[On the Road]

10. If It's For Retirement,

a million does not buy a very rich lifestyle any longer. A lot of financial analysts say you need $2 million (although that's a bit high).

[npk]

12. Agree that it depends on where you live

If you live in some small town where cost of living is cheap, then a million bucks would put you easliy in the upper class, but living in a state like New York or California, on a million will still leave you in the middle class.

[ContinentalOp]

15. Yeah, it's pretty easy to have bought some modest house in CA 30 years ago and

now have it paid off and have a "net worth" of over a million dollars. That doesn't mean you're rich.

[codjh9]

17. No, even though as someone else said, 'a million isn't what it used to be'. Regardless,

I still think if you have a net worth of a million or more - which I sure as hell don't - then you're wealthy, whether you think you are or not. I realize that if you live in a high-real-estate-value area, it doesn't make you as wealthy as if you lived say, where I do, where real estate isn't as expensive. But still...

[ContinentalOp]

20. Yeah, that's only "wealthy" if you think it's reasonable to expect people to up and leave

the place they love to move to some podunk down where housing is cheap. If you want to stay where you are, then the value of your home does not really make you wealthy.

[codjh9]

26. I'll grant you that, but my perspective is different. I'd RATHER live in a smaller town -

they're not all 'podunk' - where there are artistic/outdoorsy people, but it's not a big city.

[ContinentalOp]

30. Sure, but isn't it unfair to judge us all by your standards?

Maybe members of my family are "wealthy" if they sold their homes in the bay area and moved to Kansas. But is it really fair to expect my parents, my 90 year old grandparents, aunts and uncles and cousins, all to pick up and move away from the place that has been their home for generations?

I mean there are probably places where you can still buy a house for under $200,000 but I don't look down on those people and say that they're "living in poverty" because their houses are worth so little. That's silly.

[ShortnFiery]

66. Right, if you are NOT on food stamps and have a job, IMO, you're lower middle class.

If you drive a BMW or Mercedes, then you best be wealthy or a complete dumb-a**.

Many people consider themselves middle class because they selfishly acquired TOO MUCH DEBT - living beyond their means.

[SoCalDem]

19. "(comfortable)Middle Class" to me is this:

1) you have no inherited wealth
2) you worked your way to where you are
3) you have "enough" to pay your bills
4) you have enough to not have to always say "no" to your kids
5) you have enough to save at least a little money
6) you have enough to "help" with college for your kids
7) you have enough to occasionally take a modest vacation
8) you have enough to buy a MODEST home (and live long enough to pay it off)
9) you have enough to occasionally buy a new car
10) you have enough so that Mom & Dad don't have to each work 40-50 hours a week
11) you have enough to not faint when the clerk totals your grocery bill


you know..the way it "used" to be :(

[Journeyman]

21. I know plenty whose net worth is well over that, and definitely perceive them as middle class. . .

I also do work for one of the wealthiest people in California, so I see first hand the sharp demarcation between classes in the people I know.

A net worth of over a million could be the result of fortunate stock picks (one couple I know have invested heavily in oil since the 1940s), wise real estate investment (as the friend who bought in Newport Beach in 1960 and now owns property valued in the millions), or simply hard work (the case of a friend who -- as an orphan with less than an high school education -- has built a car repair business that now has five or six locations throughout the Southland). A degree of wealth -- or the capacity to earn it -- can be inherited, too, yet leave someone solidly middle class: a buddy inherited a very successful gay bar from his father and now rakes in unbelievable profits every night (most of it cash), while another friend in Central California inherited hundreds of acres of stone fruit orchards from his father.

So I guess it's all in how you define terms. I don't see the people I've listed above (other than my client) as anything but middle class. Each of them either worked hard to attain their possessions or simply lucked into it, and each could lose it all in a moment. As some have point out upthread, it depends in part on where you live and if you're talking investments or income.

[Naturyl]

22. LOL - no. (n/t)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Well, if it is, our household isn't.

[dysfunctional press]

25. it depends on their age and their income as well...

a middle-class household nearing retirement should have a net worth of over a million dollars.

or a younger middle-class couple/family might inherit an estate/portfolio worth more than a million- it doesn't necessarily make them "rich".

[ContinentalOp]

27. I think this is a misplaced brand of class warfare.

It's kind of like the anti-Hollywood celebrity sentiment or people complaining about "overpaid athletes." They want us to focus on these millionaires so you don't pay attention to the people who are worth hundreds of billions and notice how much they are screwing us.

I mean it's really ironic that this thread is happening right now as congress votes to steal a trillion dollars from taxpayers and hand it out to multi billionaires. Let's just ignore that and direct our ire at people who have a net worth of ONE MEEEELION DOLLARS. :eyes:

Just wait another year or so and that $1 million net worth will probably be below the poverty level with the way inflation is probably headed.

[redqueen]

35. You misread. The ire is at people like her, who claim to be middle class, when they aren't.

Not at people whose net worth is $1Mil... it's at people like her...

[ContinentalOp]

42. I know, but it's a silly way to frame it in my opinion.

And it just distracts from the people who are truly wealthy. You know, the ones that just as we speak got away with a $700 billion heist.

[redqueen]

50. Definitely agree there... poor framing kills the message far too often.

Alas.

[MilesColtrane]

38. Almost everyone considers themselves middle class, but only 33% actually are.

I find that interesting. Thus the poll.

[Gormy Cuss]

57. Are you going to put up a similar poll asking about a net worth of $25,000

because the delusion of middle class extends too low as well as too high.

[Fla Dem]

28. I voted no, but there are qualifications.

Your question was over $1 million which in reality could be $1 Million to infinity. So based on that you would have to vote no. OTH a retired couple with a house that they have owned for 30 years, and has appreciated, from say $80,000 when they bought it to $300,000 now, and have some retirement funds in the $700,000 range, I would definitely consider middle class. Hopefully one or both of them are collecting either a retirement pension and/or social security. Hopefully, one or both of them have health care coverage, or are eligible for medicare. If not, they could be one major illness away from losing all their savings. Even with some form of health care coverage, with deductibles, co-pays, etc, a major health crisis could be financially devastating. The problem here is they do not have the time, nor the availability to rebuild their wealth. They are no longer sought after for high paying jobs, they may not be able physically/mentally to participate in the work force, except at low paying jobs. So they cannot regrow their financial health. $1 Million in net worth is not much when it's all you have to live on for maybe 20-30 years and 1/3 of that is the value of your home. If the funds are invested wisely, they should be comfortable, but as we have seen in the past few weeks, anything doing with investments is a crap shoot at best.

[gravity]

29. Its upper middle class

If you have a professional job, but you can slowly build wealth in excess of 1 million without being considered rich.

[drmeow]

32. In Palin's case, no

Their net worth includes a house worth about double what their neighbors houses are worth and commercial fishing rights that nets them almost $50,000 in 1 month's worth of work. Between the two of them, they make about $225K/year thanks to his decent paying UNION job and her decent paying GOVERNMENT job (not including her per diem and other perks). They have no credit card debt.

My husband and I make about 1/2 what they do and do not have anything near their net worth and I consider us to be at LEAST upper middle class if not lower upper class.

No, she's not John McCain level wealthy but she also is not middle class. On their annual income, they can afford a lot more luxuries than someone I consider middle class.

[ContinentalOp]

46. But as you point out they have a very large INCOME. Net worth is a red herring. -nt-

[redqueen]

34. Please. (nt)

[Dover]

37. Depends. If you live in California it is...lol!

Or any of those 'bubble' towns.

[Trillo]

40. Possibly.

Net worth is a whole different ballgame from yearly net income.

Upper 1% is said to make over a million per year gross, even with taxes, that's still over 1/2-2/3 mil per year. So, after multiple years of earning, say, $100,000 per year, it is possible, in the absence of excess spending, to have a net worth of a million.

I'd say 200K of income per year is probably the division line. 50K is much too small. If you only have 50K of income per year, you're likely lower middle class or upper-poor class.

[Oregone]

41. Its complicated

I know households of a net-worth of half a million who I would consider "upper class", and some multi-million households that I would consider "middle class".

Sometimes it depends on how you got the money, what form its in, how you use it, what your lifestyle is, and even your age (stage in life).

You know, I grew up in poverty...hell, everyone I knew around was poor, living in shack like homes. Cheap property I guess, where we were. Our closest neighbor was a half mile away. He was about 70. He was a trucker, logger, and farmer (grew hay and had cows). Worked every damn day of his life until he died, and he lived in a single wide trailer out on his farmland. Anyone that would of met him, talked with him, saw him (he looked rough), would of thought he was also poor unless they knew what he owned. His property was filled with a lot of junk too (old cars, truck parts, tractor equipment, etc). I used to work with him while I grew up, since he paid good and always needed help with his hay (but I was the only person he worked with--he didn't have a crew or anything). He was a nice man who barely fed himself properly, probably didn't get proper health-care, and probably didn't buy anything new (literally) since his logging truck in the 70's, and a John Deere tractor that was even older. Even the trailer he lived in was falling apart.

Anyway, they sold off all the property he bought out there when he died about 5 years ago (when bubble was at its peak and farmland was in high demand in the area). He had millions in assets....millions. 100s of acres he bought so long ago, probably for nothing from the original homesteaders.

So who's going to convince me he was "upper class"? Was he part of the antagonists in this class war we find ourselves in?

Yeah, maybe before death when his assets were probably finally worth something he could of sold them off and bought a mansion to live in for a few years before his heart gave out. Thats probably something that he didn't want anyway. He enjoyed his life, and his life was working his farm, alone, up there in those mountains. Poor or rich, he is the type that probably would of been happy with anything, as long as he could do his thing.

Anyway, I think its all complicated. Especially if you do think there is an active "class war", and little American Eichman's that contribute to it (intentionally or not). Not everyone fits the profile, just based on their net worth.

[ContinentalOp]

44. No dont you see?

He could have sold it all and moved to Manhattan, therefore he was wealthy. :eyes:

[Oregone]

52. Then died in a year.

:)

Who cares about labels such as "upper class" and "middle class"....

Here is what I want to know. If the "proletariat" ever throws down, what side are they going to be on? Hm? Thats a better question.

Did they gain their assets raping people under them and fucking people over for years, while skirting taxes....or would they happily and genuinely jump on the side of the little guy, being one all their lives and paying their fair share all along the way (unfortunately, our tax code doesn't quite convince everyone pay their fair share)?

Anyway, its complicated

[yardwork]

43. Other - it depends.

Some folks are still living in houses that have appreciated greatly in value, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the owners are wealthy. Suppose you're in your fifties and you have kids in college and live in a home that is now worth $500,000, even though you bought it for $200,000 twenty years ago. Say you bought it with a 15-year fixed rate mortgage so now you own the house. Suppose you and your spouse have retirement investments that are worth $400,000 or so. Add in the value of two cars, furniture, etc. - maybe some inherited things - and the household could reach a net worth of a million dollars, provided that the family wasn't eaten up with credit card debt or other debts. Suppose your combined income is $200,000 - and you're spending $50,000 a year sending the kids to college.

Is that a middle class family? Maybe upper-middle class. Certainly not wealthy by the standards of a McCain or a Bush.

[Greyhound]

45. There are only two kinds of people that wouldn't consider a net worth

of over a million "not rich".

People that have it, and people that can't grasp how much that is.

[ContinentalOp]

Or...

a comfortable middle class family who bought their house for $70,000 30 years ago and now it's worth a $1.5 million but they choose to stay there because it's their home.

[Greyhound]

56. You've made one half of my point perfectly, thanks. n/t

[ContinentalOp]

67. No, not really.

I don't have a million dollar net worth but I can clearly see how not everyone with a million dollar net worth is "wealthy." So I don't fit into either of your categories. As many people have pointed out here, a net worth of a million dollars isn't really that much for a couple near or at retirement age, living in a place like California.

[NNN0LHI]

72. How much would property taxes run on a house worth $1.5 million dollars where you live?

There is one down the street from me worth less than half that and the property taxes are about twelve thousand dollars per year.

I don't know any middle class people who can afford to pay out twelve thousand dollars, or perhaps twice that amount per year just for property taxes.

People who can afford to do that are wealthy.

Don

[TreasonousBastard]

48. I've always coinsidered "middle class" to be...

more of a state of mind than a financial statement.

However, considering that someone making around the median income in the mid $50s would be middle class, it's not inconceivable that family could have a house that appreciated to equity of several hundred thousand and retirement plans way up there. Someone making a couple of hundred thousand should eventually have an net worth of at least a million.

As someone said, a million ain't what it used to be.

[kick-ass-bob]

49. Depends on how old you are.

Are you 60 and it's all for retirement? Or are you 30-40?

My parents have about that much net worth, and there is no way you can say they are anything but middle class.

My dad worked for the Feds for 30+ years, and never made more than 75K any year. My mom rarely worked.

[Naturyl]

51. Average net worth is just over 100k. So absolutely not.

$1 million net worth is rich in all but the most expensive areas, and guess what - you only get to live in the most expensive areas if you are WEALTHY.

So no, it's not "middle class" by any sane or reasonable standard, lol. If that's "upper middle class" then the category is so large that I'm "lower middle class" instead of poor.

But I'm not.

[kick-ass-bob]

54. No it's not.

Only if you are 30 or so.


Middle class people are told to have at least $1M for retirement, so somehow they get promoted to rich when they hit that mark?

[Liberal_in_LA]

55. In CA that net worth could be tied up in your home.

[TBF]

58. Average income for a family of 4 (IRS, 2006) is 32K. Not sure what it would

be if you include the value of homes, but I doubt it would be one million. I wonder how that would be calculated, because many do not own their homes. I'd be interested in seeing those numbers.

[baldguy]

59. When a 2-bdrm 1200 sq ft house is $400,000, yes.

It really depends on the cost of living. In most areas of the country, if you're a millionaire then you're rich by definition. But most areas of the country don't offer employment opportunities that allow people to make that much either.

In some they do.

[tech3149]

60. In general, no but it depends where you live.

In most parts of the country you could be very comfortable with that income level. There are areas where $1 mil might just about put you there. I'm pretty sure that that income level would go a lot farther in Alaska than it would in the Metro NY area. If I had $ 1 mil where I live now, I'd be well above "middle-class". Christ, I get by on about $ 10K a year, but then I adjust my lifestyle based on my income. That, and I am not a part of the consumer society anymore. I buy only what I need and get it as cheaply as I can, so long as it supports the local economy. I'm lucky that my parents had to grow up in the last Republican Depression and taught me well. Since they're still with me, I try to remind myself of the lessons I didn't learn so well.

[ContinentalOp]

68. Right but the O.P. didn't specify a million dollar INCOME. They said net worth. -nt-

[sinkingfeeling]

61. In net worth, yes. If you'd asked if a household with $1 million in income yearly, no.

[Igel]

62. Maybe.

My aunt died recently with a net worth over $2 million. She worked her entire life as a secretary at a VA hospital, her husband was a clerk (white collar, but low-paid) at a steel mill.

No kids. House appreciated. And they were misers, squirrelling away every cent for their entire lives and investing it.

My parents were for a while, because my father received a lump-sum retirement and invested wisely, while my mother saved. Both worked in a steel mill for 30+ years.

Now, the Palin net worth > $1 million had a caveat with it: They didn't know what was owed, they summed up the assets' values and stopped there, pending release of her financial statements. It was both a method for increasing pressure on her to release her financial statements asap, as well as a way of not so much determining their net worth as determining the upper bound of their net worth. Caveats are often overlooked when they don't confirm our bias; critical thinking is intended to help both undermine an opponent's argument, strengthen our own, and get past our confirmation biases.

Contrast this with the Bidens' and Obamas' net worths: Biden's house is worth > $3 million. However, since his statements were released, they know that he owes nearly $1 million on it, and has some other debts, so his net worth is less than you'd get using the media'a Palin-valuation method. And we know how much Obama's house is worth--and what's owing on it, reducing it's value as an asset, for the same reason. The result is having two different metrics for judging. Aren't Palin's financial statements to be released today?

[ContinentalOp]

70. Those filthy rich elitist steelworkers and secretarial fat cats!

:P

[ShortnFiery]

64. Who are the WEALTHY voting "yes" ?

Yeah, millionaires are part of the middle class .... NOT! :puke:

[KitSileya]

73. Probably - but the problem is that most Americans aren't middle class.

Most Americans just think they belong to the middle class when in reality they don't. A net worth of at least a million dollars is necessary to achieve the financial security I think one must have to belong to the middle class - however, at least 70% of Americans don't have have that security.

[Fuzz]

78. I think it depends on where you live. A house can be most of that

in some places and it isn't a mansion anymore. Add 401k's and retirement accounts and you can be worth close to that, but not financially secure, not even close.

[GetTheRightVote]

79. There are many wealthy people on DU who do not know that is what they are...

no wonder the average Joe on the street got a knife in the back today.

:grr::grr:

[Rabrrrrrr]

80. In this day and age, absolutely.

[Orsino]

81. She doesn't come from big money...

...so I can nearly forgive her for that claim. Her wealth is brand-new.