What's your definition of "Rich"

"Rich" to me means "options". I think there are many people that make good money, and spend good money. They live no different that the rest... pay check to paycheck so to speak just more expensive toys. But savings accounts, CDs, liquid assets, long term investments, not having to use credit... not worrying if you don't work for a year... that's rich. Options.

If you asked me growing up, what I make today I would be rich. But I assure you, I'm not. Rather shocked at what I make, and yet no where near rich.

Anyone who makes more than me, subject to go up according to my future earnings.

When I was a kid I always equated "rich" with a million dollars.  Whether that was net worth or annual income I couldn't say but just thought a million was the threshold.

Now, I know many people with net worths well in excess of a million and I do not consider most of them to be rich because most of that is house value, retirement, etc. and they would not be able to sustain their standard of living without continued substantial income.

Rich is a very relative term depending on where you live and throughout history.  I am sure that in some third world countries I would be considered very rich but not so much in the developed world.  I also think I am very rich compared to how kings lived in centuries past and even as late as the turn of the century I have access to things one could have only dreamed of at the time.  In fact, I would be dead if I had lived 30 years ago with health problems (cancer) I had that were uncurable then.

In today's American society, I don't think of it in terms of the top percentage as much as an absolute value.  I do not know what the income/net worth of top 1% or 10% is but a net worth of $10 million or annual net income (after taxes) of $1 million is rich in my mind. 

I've been to more than a few third world countries.     There, rich is not having to worry about having enough food to feed your family for a day, enough clean water for a day, and having a comfortable dry place to sleep for a night.

All other "definitions" of "rich" are nothing but splitting hairs.

Rich is owning a Porsche

Rich is owning a Porsche

Top 10% seriously?????

It's got to be 50% or more.  Being rich is having possessions, wealth, money or resources.

We Americans have so much its ridiculous.   Have you seen the consumerism in this country?

Go to the mall, hang out in line at Best Buy on Black Friday, see how many people are going to movies on the weekend.

The disposable income that Americans use is insane.  Compared to the rest of the world, probably 95% of Americans are rich.

I believe Pops has a relatively new and shiny Porsche 911 Turbo, if my memory serves me right. He also was unwilling to bring it to Boise to give me a ride in it.

Josh, if I could fit my tri-bike on it I'd take it to Boise in a heartbeat and I would love nothing better than to scare the heck out of you.

That's a tough one.  I remember when I was a teenager I dreamed of making $10/hr.  to me that was really rich when I was making $3.35/hr. at my job at the car wash.  lol

It's hard for me to quantify it, but to me rich is when you have enough money in the bank/investments that you don't have to work anymore and can sustain the lifestyle you choose indefinitely.  Obviously that number varies a lot for different people based on their lifestyle they choose to live.

My wife and I have always said we'd like to have $4M in the bank/investments and would consider that our "number".

If you define rich purely based on the national percentile of your salary that's not a very good one because if you lose your job you go from Rich to poor instantly.  Rich is something that should be sustainable without new income, IMHO.

In the book, "The Millionaire Next-Door", the authors first objective was to find rich people (they were hired by a bank that wanted to sell trust services).  They looked for the things that many have posted on this thread; fancy cars, homes, big incomes, etc.  What they found was that these people were not necessarily wealthy, they spent what they had (one doctor made $700k per year and didn't have any savings).  The really wealthy (high net-worth individuals) didn't waste their money, that's is why they were rich.

I've learned that if you define success by financial measure (income), you will never be satisfied.  However much you make/have, there's always someone who makes more, and you want more.  For those of you who have been earning a living for a while, ask yourself how much income you'd need to feel more successful.  Then look at your current income and ask yourself if your current level is, in fact, an amount that you would have identified as being a successful income at some past point.  If so, do you feel like you've arrived?  The same can be said of performance in endurance sports, as well.

I think of a friend who I viewed as having "made it" once upon a time.  He'd cleared over $10M from the sale of his business.  He wasn't at all happy or satisfied.  He wanted $100M.  Wasn't going to be happy until he got there.

When I was at my most financially successful point in life, I was the least happy I have ever been in my adult years.

So, rich?  I really can't tell you what "rich" is in terms of finances or income.  I don't think the financially "rich" necessarily feel "rich."  I bet in most cases, they don't.

Now, ask me if I feel rich when I watch my kid score a goal or make a nice assist in a soccer game, drain 4 straight 3-pointers in a basketball game, or when I'm lying with my boys under the shelter of our tent in a rain storm in the middle of a national park and enjoying some good laughs together.  That's rich.  Sorry, I know you specifically didn't ask for that.  But it's the only definition I can offer up.

I remember an old episode of the Cosby show, where Theo asks if they are rich. Claire says no, because rich people's money works for them, while the Huxstables worked for their money. That always struck me as a really good working definition of being rich, as opposed to well-to-do, or comfortable, or whatever.

Being rich has more to do with how much wealth you have, rather than how much money you make.If you have so much wealth earning its own income that it basically means you can sit around all the time and still have all the things in life you need/want, you are rich. So, although we are in the top 5% income-wise, we are not rich, because if we stopped working today, we would soon be selling off things to pay for food and heat. And that is because we are still paying down the debt we had to go into in order to train for the professions we are in now, that pay us well, but not ridiculously.

I would say that we are comfortable - since we don't worry about how much the day to day things we need will cost. I was actually thinking about this recently at the grocery store, as I remember being the same age as my daughter and having to keep track of how much we were spending at the grocery store so that we could afford it all. Or having to stop the car on the turnpike and search the seats and floor for loose change so we could afford to get off at the exit we wanted, rather than sooner and find back-roads to our destination. 

I realize that the US as a whole is much richer than most other countries, and so even most of our "poor" people are richer than the destitute poor elsewhere. But that is not a completely fair comparison - making $40k a year will go a lot further in, say, Nebraska than Manhattan. 

I am pretty much in agreement with GB

My personal definition of rich is those who could stop working and still live out their lives comfortably.  

My salary, in Manhattan, makes me firmly middle class - and no I cannot stop working I would quickly be in trouble. If you apply percentages I would fall in that 25% for sure and no way am I rich.  No, I do not look at cost of groceries - but to me that makes me middle class.

"Rich" is tough to decide.  I'd think that most people would say a figure that is more than what they make/are worth.   I'm sure many would consider me rich... I'm not one of them.  I'm sure that I fall into the mythical top 10% or pretty damn close... the only problem is that so does Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and I'd bet that they make a bit more than I do.  

I live a comfortable life, and I'm happy for what I have every single day, but I am in no way, shape, or form "rich".  At least not monetarily.  

No matter how "Rich" I am, I will never be able to do whatever I want whenever I want.

I'm married. 

I agree with a lot f this esp. Sevenzulu & Gearboy.  I think I'd also add that in our country there is a lot of pressure to keep up with the Jones's.  We don't really measure success by how we're doing, we measure it more by how we're doing compared to the guy doing just a little bit better than we are, and that's what we aspire to.  Compared to Bill Gates I'm a massive failure and really poor.  Compared to a homeless guy living off of food stamps I'm a huge success and am raking it in.  In reality most people aren't trying to become Bill Gates, they want to be like Frank down the street who has that RV that I can almost afford, but not quite. 

I like the definition like Tuwood put out there that's being rich is basically not having to work, but the problem is that still depends on measuring yourself  against everyone too.  I could make $250k, live in a nice house with a couple of cars, eat at nice restaurants and probably be considered by most to be somewhat wealthy, but not be able to sustain that lifestyle without working.  Or I could make $250k, live in a modest house in a modest neighborhood, take the bus to work, not eat out, have no cable or cell phone and save all my money so that I could retire at 40 and not have to work, but few people would probably consider that wealthy.

In the end I think my definition would have to include something about the ability to buy positional goods - things you only buy because you're keeping up with your neighbors, which I think is a little different from just having extra money to spend on non-necessities.  I might have a little extra money to spend on a tv, which isn't a necessity - if I'm doing average might be able to afford a 40".  If I'm wealthy I can afford to keep up with my rich psychologist neighbor and go with the 60" without breaking the bank, even though a 40" tv would do just fine.