So What is Rich?

The other night, during a debate/town hall that almost nobody watched (I think maybe swimming was on), both the presumptive nominees were asked how much someone has to make to be "rich." Obama said a family income of over $150,000 per year is rich (although I have seen it reported as $250,000 too). McCain sort of flippantly said $5,000,000 per year - and that's now being spun as having been a joke.

Joke to who? Blog for another day.

We need some new language, or maybe some new math. Certainly someone making $5,000,000 each year is rich - from my perspective really fucking rich. Does that mean that the McCain philosophy says that someone making $4,250,000 per year is "just getting by?" People say McCain is out of touch. They may be right.

I have to say that I struggle with this concept of wealth measurement. I mean, when there are people pulling down say $30,000 per year that have kids and a mortgage - well then I guess Obama's $150,000 per year figure makes sense. Certainly there are many many people getting by with less than that. But what is the criteria for "rich?"

I would think that someone who is rich never has to be concerned about food, housing, retirement, transportation, communication, education, insurance, & health care. Since "rich" I think should imply being beyond that threshold I guess there ought to be some amount beyond that that counts as discretionary spending money.

I'm not sure how child care should fit into that list.

Here's the rub. I think I can see a family with a couple of kids that earns $150,000 per year and really can't legitimately cover all those bases. Also, I think when you look at that list some people might respond that if there's no money to use for making money - no investment beyond retirement savings that those items constitute what it means to be middle class, not rich. Maybe the difference between middle class and rich isn't a dollar amount so much as a quality issue: where you live, what you eat, how you retire...

But even without a great neighborhood and many meals out I think I can see that $150,000 going away quickly, especially when you start looking at higher education.

Or is higher education just for people who are rich?

So maybe we shouldn't use a number. Maybe we ought to look at the various needs and say that if people cannot meet those needs that they aren't rich - regardless of how much money they make. I mean right off the top the dollars for a family of six should be different than a family of three, yes? Or just a couple? Shouldn't it be easier to get rich without kids than with? Or, under this analysis is having children a luxury - a discretionary expense people decide to undertake foolishly without first taking care of the basics?

Certainly that can't be what we mean. Although after a point there does seem to be some logic there (says the guy with 5 cats - and 5 annual vet bills).

This whole issue came from a discussion of taxes I think. Both candidates go out of their way to say they're not going to tax "middle class families." Clearly that rhetoric is meaningless. If Obama means "people making over $150,000" when he says "tax the rich" I think he needs to look at his math again - maybe even if its the $250,000 figure. If McCain intends to protect people making over $1,000,000 per year while "protecting working families" he needs to check his math.

When there are people out there like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates who have actually said they think they should be paying more taxes I don't understand why there's so much concentration on people that are just getting by, regardless of what level they are scratching to get at.

But none of that helps me understand how much it really takes to be "rich."