- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: what is considered middle and upper class in louisiana?
Posted on 3/30/07 at 4:59 pm to Powerman
Posted on 3/30/07 at 4:59 pm to Powerman
quote:So, the question can't be answered...just fricking great...in all your bullshite, did you list all of the factors that contribute to defining one's economic class?
I've already acknowledged this isn't possible
I mean, the dude with the $700k salary is upper class, no doubt according to you, but now you say that salary alone can't make that designation...so you are now contradicting yourself...so what else besides salary?
Posted on 3/30/07 at 5:01 pm to Chicken
quote:
so what else besides salary?
relative cost of living in the area, spending habits
What do you think Einstein?
Posted on 3/30/07 at 5:05 pm to Powerman
So, now it is more of a net worth thing...so, what is a cutoff for net worth of an upper class person?
And, is your worthless chart relevant any more?
And, is your worthless chart relevant any more?
Posted on 3/30/07 at 5:10 pm to Chicken
quote:
So, now it is more of a net worth thing...so, what is a cutoff for net worth of an upper class person?
I suppose the top 1% of people as far as net worth would be a good start
Income is a driving factor when talking about net worth is it not? If you consider inheritance income, which it clearly is, then I'd say that the chart is still pretty relevant.
Posted on 3/30/07 at 5:12 pm to Powerman
this shite is going to go on for DAYS because you both aren't even debating the real issue which is my mis-use of the term "financial class".
Posted on 3/30/07 at 5:16 pm to Powerman
quote:Ok...then I will still submit that it is still possible that the person making $700k a year in salary does not have a net worth in the top 1%.
I suppose the top 1% of people as far as net worth would be a good start
You have just changed the argument even more in my favor now that we are talking net worth and not salary.
Posted on 3/30/07 at 5:16 pm to rmcc316
quote:rmcc, Powerman and I can both agree that your original question regarding salary can't be answered...
this shite is going to go on for DAYS because you both aren't even debating the real issue which is my mis-use of the term "financial class".
This post was edited on 3/30/07 at 5:19 pm
Posted on 3/30/07 at 5:18 pm to rmcc316
quote:
this shite is going to go on for DAYS because you both aren't even debating the real issue which is my mis-use of the term "financial class".
as you can tell, the argument isn't about that anymore. Blame yourself.
Posted on 3/30/07 at 5:19 pm to Chicken
quote:
You have just changed the argument even more in my favor now that we are talking net worth and not salary.
Umm no
If you have an average "income" of 700K a year, that would naturally give you a very high probability chance of making it into the 1% net worth bracket unless you literally just pissed it all away.
Posted on 3/30/07 at 5:20 pm to Powerman
quote:which is what? Again, what is the cutoff, in US dollars?
1% net worth bracket
Posted on 3/30/07 at 5:21 pm to Chicken
quote:
rmcc, Powerman and I can both agree that your original question regarding salary can't be answered...
because it was worded incorrectly, yes?
Posted on 3/30/07 at 5:22 pm to LSU Fan 90812
quote:
as you can tell, the argument isn't about that anymore. Blame yourself.
i was looking for 6-7 responses. WOW
Posted on 3/30/07 at 5:22 pm to Powerman
quote:Sure, I will concede that, but the point is that you are trying to create a range for upper class and you can't even give numbers.
If you have an average "income" of 700K a year, that would naturally give you a very high probability chance of making it into the 1% net worth bracket unless you literally just pissed it all away.
Posted on 3/30/07 at 5:22 pm to rmcc316
quote:
i was looking for 6-7 responses. WOW
Posted on 3/30/07 at 5:23 pm to Chicken
hey chicken, have you ever banned anyone for personal reasons?
im not insinuating you should ban powerman, just curious.
im not insinuating you should ban powerman, just curious.
Posted on 3/30/07 at 5:35 pm to rmcc316
if it amkes anyone feel better, Powerman basically just conceded every point that we've argued through the thread via AIM.
I know he'll deny it.
I know he'll deny it.
Posted on 3/30/07 at 6:35 pm to LSU Fan 90812
Not really
I just agreed with a few things
I just agreed with a few things
Posted on 3/30/07 at 8:34 pm to Powerman
see deny deny 
Posted on 3/30/07 at 10:39 pm to LSU Fan 90812
(Edited to add: Based on reading the first 8 pages)
Why has this discussion been based almost exlusively on level of annual income? In my opinion, the key differentiation between upper middle class and upper class is net worth.
Defining the upper class based on net worth is consistent with many of the statements like "making money through investments, not salaries", not having to work, etc.
Focusing on income differentiation is a fruitless debate, especially considering that the upper class often effectively conceals their annual income through tax sheltering techniques.
Why has this discussion been based almost exlusively on level of annual income? In my opinion, the key differentiation between upper middle class and upper class is net worth.
Defining the upper class based on net worth is consistent with many of the statements like "making money through investments, not salaries", not having to work, etc.
Focusing on income differentiation is a fruitless debate, especially considering that the upper class often effectively conceals their annual income through tax sheltering techniques.
This post was edited on 3/30/07 at 10:42 pm
Posted on 3/30/07 at 10:53 pm to Chicken
quote:One approach would be to start with the amount of spending in a given year that is required to maintain what is considered an "upper class" existense.
quote:
1% net worth bracket
which is what? Again, what is the cutoff, in US dollars?
The next question might be what level of net worth is required to sustain this cash outflow on an annual basis with an acceptable amount of principal degradation.
For example, if $500,000 spending per year is required to sustain an "upper class lifestyle", the approximate net worth required to sustain this would be $5,000,000. This assumes +/- 10% rate of return on net worth for annual spending. Rate of return may be slightly lower but this also accounts for mild depletion of principal.
It's certainly not a perfect approach. There should be some consideration for annual income. Still, net worth seems to drive our society's definition of upper class.
More specifically, it is defined based on the perception of this net worth from observing those who appear to have sustainable upper class lifestyles. With a mountain of debt, some of these "richies" may have a low net worth, but in such cases this upper class perception is not sustainable.
Would it therefore be more useful to delimit upper class based on net assets (or even based on some measure of annual spending) rather than on net worth or annual income? Net assets or spending might ultimately be the most correlative with societal perceptions.
This post was edited on 3/30/07 at 11:05 pm
Page 20 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News