Rich, Super rich, middle class? Definitions please

We read in this forum tag names that mean different things to different people.

I am lucky enough to have friends through motor sport, charity fundraising, Real Estate and development. It’s fascinating to hear others definitions of these problems.

Please let me know what you think.

I say there is no real upper class amongst Working Australians. I notice in events like Targa and Charity Events that the billionaires, the ordinary guys, the paid attendees and the back of the packers enjoy each other’s company with respect and interest.

I think that generally as Aussies, the rich are anyone that has more than you, regardless of debt, the poor are those that have less than you regardless of assets.

I have always liked Robert Kiyosaki’s definition.
RICH. $1 million per annum income exclusive of money worked for.
SUPER RICH. $1 million per month income exclusive of money worked for.

My favourite definition of poor is by Douglas Adams RIP, from The Hitchhikers Guide to The Galaxy. (TIC)

POOR. Nobody is poor. Nobody worth mentioning, that is.

 

Net or gross?

 

I only read the book. I didn’t write it. But obviously taxation depends on the person and the country. So Taxable income it would be.

 

I suppose the 'poorest' person I've skied with described himself as a philanthropist. Does that qualify?

 

Douglas Adams for the Win!

I also love his thoughts on deadlines..."I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by..."

 

I watched the attached YouTube's when I got to the world richest teenages the presenter made a comment about wealth
It was not to spend but to preserve for the next generation.

 

Poor - can spell Medicare
Middle class - can spell University
Rich - can spell Yacht
Super Rich - I wouldn't know

 

In my experience.
Poor - Can spell University
Middle - Can spell Yacht
Rich - Pay others to spell for them
Super Rich- Cant spell at all

 

Class - is it even about money?

that aside, in terms of income sources is one way of looking at it. anyone who works for an employed living and additionally without the income of that living could not meet their ongoing commitments (e.g keep their roof over their head by paying a morgtage) is by definition working class.

This encompasses most people who feel they are middle class, they are in fact working class with middle class aspirations.

Middle class people work too but have flexibility over how much they work and may often have paid off their PPOR.

Upper class people are completely independently weathty and do not need to undertake employed work to sustain theirs and their childrens lifestyle.

 

I don’t know.
Many billionaires seem normal and go to work every day

Harry Triguboff
Gerry Harvey
Bing Lee family
Khatter Family
Cotton growers out Moree way
Big station owners.
Most Real Estate Rich and big time property developers

 

There is definitely a wide spectrum of interpretation, for me rich is:

• A roof over my head
• Food on the table
• Good health
• access to education

Anything else is just material chaff.

 

To me all these classification are only about money, being financially rich. On the other hand I prefer to be wealthy, wealthy implies to me many aspects, such as health, longevity, family and close friends to share wealth and time with, time, spirituality.
So being Super rich will not make you happy if you lack those other wealth qualities, I would rather live in a tent with my family than in a Mac-Mansion all alone. Or what's the point of all the money if you cannot take care of your body, imagine not being able to move around?
Many such examples hopefully make sense why money alone will not make you happy. Hence why some may seem to have less and yet feel happier, perhaps it is their attitude towards life?
On funny note:
Middle Class: Conform
Rich: Pretend to conform
Super Rich: Don't conform

 

Ah class. It's not straight forward and isn't just about your bank account. It also includes your upbringing, education. current social groups and of course your level of wealth. It's not really ever clear cut or clearly defined.

For example; if you have no money, no assets, are 35 years old and still work in a bar. But you went to high school at Geelong Grammar, your dad is a partner at a top tier law firm and you went to Melbourne Uni and your best mate is a surgeon... Then no, you're not working class, you are still upper middle class. Likewise, just because you are earning $300k a year doesn't mean you're upper middle class.

In that sense, the idea of class is a difficult thing to escape. It is imprinted onto you at a young age and often shapes the way you see the world and the way you travel along within it.

 

The Poor - have Centrelink on speed dial.
The Middle - sick of giving money to the 'poor'.
The Rich - Couldn't give a **** what the poor and middle are up to.

 

I like your illustration very much. Even though I agree in what you said personally I would classify this as perception or attitude or status class. How do we perceive or classify hence judge others? I would perceive that 35 year old as 'entitled middle class'. No offense intended, but how can this person's life style be paid for if not by those from his middle class backgrounds being present.
Reading, 'The Millionaire Next Door', it is quite evident how such middle class people become subsidized by their family, grand parents paying for private schooling or holidays, parents helping out with deposits, or with investments or paying memberships, etc...
I suppose the danger lies in their 35 year old's ego thinking he is really middle class, yet perceiving say someone living in outer suburbs who did not attend private schools and now earning $300K as not middle class....?
So status or class system, would be a perception but I think the discussion was only implied towards money alone as comparison. I don't know I may be wrong in my understanding but that is how I interpreted it.
Many wealthy Russians in London cannot brake the status barrier just because of the money, yet if you are in the noble family you can become ostracized, so yes not everything is just about having money. Hence class system, certainly is open to many interpretations and is very evident in our lives whether we notice it or not.
Just few days ago I was watching Evita and was comparing the seating, wondering how much were the tickets for the balconies. Or travelling on first or business class, some airlines now have separate entries for these clients as opposed to economy class. There are many such examples in our society, but I hope many don't compare to those they cannot afford instead they compare how fortunate they are now because of their other values, being kind and giving, like having health, great family, wonderful friends, time, or longevity, all those things I had mentioned before!

 

Yep, and the unemployed 35 yo is much more likely to be sitting in those balcony seats due to circumstance than the guy who has a trucking business that pulls in $300k a year.

 

I will take that as your opinion only as how do you know that, how do you know if the trucking business person is not sitting there?
Looking around the demographic age seemed much older than 35 year old. If he is unemployed who buys the ticket if the family passes away, and assuming he spends away the inheritance, what then?
I wish him all the best, as I don't try to judge who seats there, I just look at my life and am thankful that all my family and close friends were watching this play together.
I always will look for positive when others perceive it as negative, if you know what I mean?

 

I'm not sure I follow your point. These people are not real and only serve to illustrate my point. Nevertheless, as I originally stated, the concept of class is not easily defined or quantifiable.