sort by best latest
Thanks for commenting. What other factors aside from income should you included or is it to your opinion that it can't be quantified at all?
Beyond income, you would look at liquid net worth. Many reitrees live off of dividends from tax free muni's. That is also misleading though, because most people entitled to a defined benefit in ret, have more commuted value and less liquidity.
- See all 2 commentsHide extra comments
Yes, as time goes by, our needs increase specially technology wise. This is true I suppose in a capitalist driven economy.
Sid Kemp says
I would challenage the notion that 90% of Americans will run out of money. In the financial planning field there is something called the mass affluent. They make up much more than 10% of the Population and are far from running out of money.
Thanks for commenting and for your definition of middle class. How about income or poverty threshold, is there a specific income say for a family of four as a basis to be included when one household is deemed a middle class.
Hi LandmarkWealth. I am aware of the "mass affluent." I appreciate your thinking. My concern is that that level of affluence, if looked at in the New Economy (2008 going forward) is actually, on a lifelong basis, below the poverty line.
Poverty really differs based on regional COLA. I would not count on lifelong poverty. Even among the wealthiest, many recent studies show that people rotate up and down the income scale substantially based on their stage in life often tied to age
- See all 4 commentsHide extra comments
Wayne Brown says
Do you think middle class as time goes by shrank? Thanks for commenting.
Ari Lamstein says
Thank you for that, I personally think that status by educational achievement by the household head should be included plus of course income (household).
Mom Kat says
ib radmasters says
Thanks for commenting ib :-)