So many bad arguments going on here.

First, the $250k figure would not be gross. It would be Adjusted gross. Keep in mind that interest on your student loans and interest on your obscene mortgages are not included.

Now more importantly, there are a number of posters arguing that you can make $250,000 per year with no assets. While that's true for a lottery winner, almost anyone with a salary of $250,000 or more per year will have a very significant asset: an education. "Oh but it's not an asset because it's not tradable." Bullshit. It's economically the same as an annuity.

Assuming your job is worth $250,000 per year including bonuses, and you expect a 3% raise per year, just offsetting inflation, and you expect to work for 20 more years, the riskless scenario would indicate that your job is worth $5,000,000 in current dollars. There's a risk that you'll lose your job, sure. But annuities and bonds also have a risk of default. From an economic standpoint, your salary is an illiquid amortized asset.

If you get laid off from your cushy job, you are NOT in the same situation as a librarian making $40k per year that also gets laid off. You have an additional asset to trade that the librarian hasn't, EXPERIENCE.

A suggestion to posters making Econ 101 arguments: enroll in Econ 102 as soon as possible.

1. you're wrong on the student loan interest. (that's well past the cap where you get to claim it). as well, Manhattan households of only 250K probably are renting...no mortgage interest deduction.

2. you also have to account for the relative risk of default.

To second what thefool75 said, you're starting to lose the student-loan interest deduction before you reach the national median income. Median income in the pricey cities mentioned in the article disqualifies you completely for that deduction. This was a particular disappointment for me, because in the same year that student-loan interest became deductible, I made JUST enough money to disqualify me from writing off a penny of it. I wouldn't trade that income for the deduction, mind you, but it still annoyed me.

While I hadn't seen it stated that the $250k figure bandied about since Obama gave his reasonable answer to the "what's rich?" question, it does make sense. After all, that's the number on which the taxes are calculated, not the gross.

Re: Obama's original statement... I believe he said that at $250k/year, you're "doing pretty well" rather than "you're rich." I realize that's a nuanced answer to the question, and Americans have great difficulty with nuance, but it's a damned sight better than "Oh, I don't know, say $5 million?" from the candidate who owns too many houses to count.

Point conceded on the student loan interest. Otherwise, I stand behind my argument.

And fool75, as much as New Yorkers hate to hear it, the GW and the Verazanno do not define the edges of the world.

right. "pretty well" is a reasonable statement about 250K in most situations...no one should be disputing that. I'd even say that 250K might well be rich in Des Moines.

you also lose the mortgage deduction expense at $1,000,000 worth of loans (1.1 if you're not in AMT). So a new york condo at $2m, with 1.8m financed, offers the same mortgage deduction as a $1.2m castle in Houston with 1m leverage.