I don't think you understand the concept of wealth and income from an economics perspective.

When person B has $10,000 he is wealthier than person A.

If person B spends $10,000 he is losing wealth. Depending on how he spends his 10,000, this may result in an overall net gain in his wealth (i.e., an investment, like buying a house) or an overall net loss to his wealth (i.e. a purchase, like buying a car, since cars depreciate).

Your wealth is an overall assessment of what you have accumulated. Your wealth is the sum of your current position + (revenue - expenses). Note that your current position can be negative regardless of how many cars, boats and homes you are entitled to use at the moment. This is the situation of many, many Americans at this time.

Your income, on the other hand, is simply the revenue. A relatively tiny part of the equation.

So it is entirely true that you can have a high income and little to no wealth. While it might seem silly to you from the perspective of someone that is looking at the use of possessions, depreciating or overly-leveraged positions make the statement a perfectly normal thing to say.

You might envy the house, but if that house is unable to be leveraged because more is owed to the bank than it is worth, it is actually a net loss when trying to determine wealth. A renter is actually better off than this homeowner.

Once you understand this, you'll realize that even with a low income, maximizing wealth creation opportunities is what pays off in the end.

Remember that we're talking about recurring income streams. You get to start over with a new $10k each month. It's silly to argue about how the $10k/month is grown or spent. It's still several thousand dollars a month more than someone below the poverty line! We don't need to dig much deeper than that -- the differences are pretty clear -- but for reasons that I think are obvious, a lot of people making that much want to focus on how poor they feel after they've spent the money.

"Once you understand this, you'll realize that even with a low income, maximizing wealth creation opportunities is what pays off in the end."

This is another one of those silly things that people with large incomes say a lot. People making minimum wage will never, ever, ever be able to save at a rate high enough to make any sort of difference. Parables about hard work and austerity are fun, but they miss the point.

And besides, you're just completely missing the point. Of course you'll be poor if you blow all your money. Who said otherwise? The point is that it's pretty silly to say at the beginning of each month, "I'm struggling just as much as everybody else" based on the fact that you're about to spend all that you've earned on luxury goods and services.

Your attitude is both ignorant and defeatist.

Let's keep in mind here that you were the one that introduced a "good/bad" evaluation into the discussion with your comparison of people against each other. I made no such comparison. I'm not choosing to critique a person's life choices, I'm simply explaining how wealth and income, although correlated, are not the same thing.

You are equating both "lots of stuff" and "lots of income" with wealth, and that is an improper view of the matter.

It's silly to argue about how the $10k/month is grown or spent.

Except that this balance between the products of the equation will make all the difference in the world to the end result - wealth. What is irrelevant is the dollar amount. What matters is how the equation is balanced.

It's still several thousand dollars a month more than someone below the poverty line!

While true, this is largely irrelevant to this overall picture. The equation remains. We can address a minimum expense expectation overall as a society, but that's a different topic, and we have already established some hard lines. The basic fact is that if your income is less than your expenses, you are becoming less wealthy. What the person next door is doing is not important. Wealth is not a zero sum game! The neighbour having a ferrari does not detract from your ability to earn an extra $10K. It doesn't matter to you at all, really. If he is complaining because he cannot afford that expense, he has the same issue as the person that is complaining they can't buy an xbox.

People making minimum wage will never, ever, ever be able to save at a rate high enough to make any sort of difference.

I hate this bullshit. Why? Because I did it, and I came from far worse circumstances than 70-80% of the people that have this defeatist attitude.

That's that bit about investment I was mentioning. I won't lie, it isn't easy to live on minimum wage. It's even harder to work at that level where you are deemed "taxable" but can't really afford anything. That's why you invest. You look to change the numbers in the equation to create a situation where you can build wealth. You put yourself in a position where you earn more and spend less, and then you do that for a decent period of time.

you're about to spend all that you've earned on luxury goods and services.

What's a luxury? Your shoes? Your beer? Your cigarettes? Your fast food lunch? Your Honda? Your cable tv? Your boat? Your house? Your Ferrari? Your private jet? Your island? This is entirely dependent on perspective, and thus, for the most part, irrelevant.

In reality, the poor overspend just as foolishly as the middle class and rich do. Only the nature and amount of the luxuries change. Not being able to afford a pack of smokes or cable TV is exactly the same as not being able to afford a boat or a second car. Either way, you can't afford it, so if you want to enjoy these things, you need to get yourself into a position where you can afford it.

It's meaningless and unproductive to compare a person overextending themselves on their McMansion to a person overextending themselves on McNuggets. The solution is the same - adjust the equation. EVERYONE can adjust the equation. EVERYONE can live cheaper than they do right now. EVERYONE can earn more than they do right now. The only difference between us all is that some of us will sacrifice to achieve these goals and some of us won't. Regrettably, one thing the poor do share is that most of them fall into the latter.

And that's where I remind you that I'm not a total douche and won't be following Ron Paul of the ideological cliff. Social programs and safety nets are tremendously important. It is essential that as many people as possible are allowed to find themselves in a position where effort and sacrifice are rewarded. It's essential that as many people as possible understand what I just said to be a viable path. Personally, if you are American, I feel there is work to be done in your nation in this respect. For me as a Canadian, I think we've more than covered off this level of support. Anything further is up to the people in the mirrors.

I appreciate your lengthy response, but this is all hand-waving. I don't know why you're trying so hard to prove that there's no difference between someone with a high income and someone with a low one. But here we are.