Even many high-earning Americans don't feel wealthy. Here's why
But a significant salary hasn't translated to big account balances for some of these consumers — which experts have dubbed "HENRYs," or "high earners, not rich yet."
Rising costs, debt and lifestyle creep can leave them feeling stuck, experts say. Nearly two-thirds, or 62%, of people with salaries over $300,000 a year struggle with credit card debt, a new survey from BHG Financial found. Other reports have found many six-figure earners still live paycheck to paycheck.
"Earning doesn't actually make you feel rich; spending it does," said Sabrina Romanoff, a clinical psychologist. "If most people spent 99% of their paycheck, they'd feel quite rich. And it's the paradox here. When we're in accumulation mode, it's very difficult to feel rich."
More from Personal Finance:Trump's 'big beautiful bill' created a new student loan plan: What to knowAffordable Care Act health plan enrollees could face 'subsidy cliff' in 2026Trump's 'big beautiful bill' includes these 2025 tax changes
Americans say they would need to make $520,000 a year, on average, to feel rich, according to a 2024 Bankrate survey.
The more money people earn, the more they say they need to feel comfortable. Americans making under $50,000 said they needed an average $157,000 a year to live comfortably, while those making at least $100,000 said they would need $246,000.
Marie Incontrera, 39, worked as a professional composer, bandleader and pianist before launching her virtual assistant business in 2016. She then expanded her business during the pandemic into a digital marketing consulting agency.
The career pivot has multiplied her income. Incontrera anticipates her business' revenue for 2025 to be around $1.4 million. She expects to take an owner's draw of $300,000 to $400,000 this year.
"I had a pretty successful career as a musician through most of my 20s," Incontrera told CNBC. "But the thing they don't tell you about having a career as a musician in music school is that you can be playing Carnegie Hall, which I was, and I was making $15,000 a year."
Despite her income going from $15,000 to $300,000 per year, Incontrera still doesn't feel rich.
"I would have thought back then that the amount of money that I have in the bank right now, I would be rich, right? I would have just thought, 'Oh, yeah, she's made it' ... and I don't feel that way," she said. "I have more money anxiety, almost, now than I ever did in my 20s."
"I feel very lucky. I feel privileged, but I do not feel rich," Incontrera said. "I know that I am on a hamster wheel with my business. I actually really love the hamster wheel. I love what I do, but I also realize that I can't stop."
That's not unusual, experts say.
"It can be pretty easy for someone to feel like, I'm making really good money, but I don't have a lot of discretionary income," said Kamila Elliott, CEO of wealth management firm Collective Wealth Partners in Atlanta, and member of the CNBC Financial Advisor Council.
"One of the things I focus on with my clients is a budget should be a representation of your values," Elliott said. "The issue is you can't value everything ... You have to pick maybe one or two things where you're going to focus your discretionary spending and then take that extra and reroute that to savings so you can start feeling rich."
Watch the video above to learn how spending habits can leave even high earners feeling like they're on a never-ending hamster wheel.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Trump's 'big beautiful bill,' other changes benefit accounts for individuals with disabilities
Brandon Dickerson collapsed in his Louisiana home in March 2022, after suffering from a ruptured brain aneurysm. The sudden burst of a blood vessel caused bleeding in his brain. The former line haul driver went into a coma, and when he woke up, he had severe functional limitations. "His cognitive skills and communication skills are limited," Geneva Dickerson, Brandon's older sister and caregiver, recently told CNBC. Brandon, now 34, lives in a traumatic brain injury nursing home in Queens, New York. "We are able to have limited conversation. He's starting to say sentences now, which is great." Brandon's improved speech gives Geneva hope. She is now looking into new benefits available for tax-advantaged savings accounts that may help cover therapy to support his progress. Recent legislation, including President Donald Trump's "big beautiful bill," contains provisions that bolster the use of so-called Achieving a Better Life Experience, or ABLE, accounts. These tax-advantaged accounts are designed to help eligible individuals with disabilities save and invest money without jeopardizing their eligibility for certain government benefits, such as Medicaid, Social Security Disability Insurance, and Supplemental Security Income. "ABLE accounts allow for savings and contributions from family and friends, serving as a supplement when other benefits are insufficient," said Mary Morris, CEO of Commonwealth Savers, a Virginia-based organization that manages tax-advantaged 529 education savings and ABLE programs. Here's how ABLE accounts work, and what changes are in store. A federal law created the ABLE program in 2014. Like 529 education savings plans, ABLE accounts are managed by states. Forty-six states and Washington, D.C., currently offer ABLE programs, and many state plans are open to outside residents. The Virginia-based plan ABLEnow, for example, is open to residents in every state. Saving in these accounts will not adversely impact government benefits. Up to $100,000 of savings in an ABLE account is not counted toward the SSI resource limit. And any amount of ABLE savings up to the ABLE plan's limit won't count as a resource for other government benefits, including SSDI, Medicare, or Medicaid. ABLE accounts grow tax-free with no federal or state income tax on withdrawals for qualifying expenses, as long as the funds are used for disability-related costs, including housing, transportation, and healthcare. There are generally no income limits to contribute to an ABLE account for an eligible beneficiary. However, the beneficiary must receive SSDI or SSI benefits, or have a physician's statement that says the onset of the disability started before age 26. Starting January 1, 2026, the ABLE Age Adjustment Act will increase age eligibility requirements from age 26 to 46, allowing millions more people to qualify. About 8 million people currently qualify for ABLE accounts, with assets totaling about $2.5 billion, as of March 2025, according to Paul Curley, executive director at ISS Market Intelligence, a data provider for the financial services industry. The number of assets and accounts is expected to increase by about 50% next year, he said, with an estimated 15 million people becoming eligible due to their age. "This is a game changer," said Charlie Massimo, a financial advisor and senior vice president at Wealth Enhancement Group in Long Island, New York. He is also the father of two 25-year-old sons with autism. "For the first time, millions of Americans with disabilities will have access to the same kind of tax-advantaged wealth-building accounts most families already have." Commonwealth Savers' Morris said the wider age range "captures those young adults where a lot of debilitating illnesses really happen," including multiple sclerosis, post-traumatic stress disorder, stroke, and certain neurological issues. Plus, at least one million more veterans could now qualify for an ABLE account, experts say. The "big beautiful" tax and spending package that Trump signed in early July will also make permanent several tax advantages from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that could help make ABLE accounts more attractive to savers. The annual contribution limit for ABLE accounts is based on the annual gift tax exclusion, which is $19,000 per recipient in 2025 and will likely increase with inflation in future years, experts say. A severely disabled worker may be able to contribute more than the annual limit if they or their employer is not making certain retirement plan contributions. The amount they can contribute is determined by the state that manages the plan and, in part, depends on their compensation. Under the legislation's terms, assets from a 529 college savings plan can be rolled over into an ABLE account. "Let's say you save for college for your son or daughter's entire life, you have $100,000 or $200,000 in there, and now they have a disability later in life," Massimo said. "Now you can really roll over the entire amount and then still put an additional $19,000 in for the annual gifting into an ABLE account." For low-income savers, contributors to an ABLE account may be eligible for the saver's credit, a tax break typically available to those who save for retirement. Starting in 2027, the annual contribution eligible for the Saver's Credit will increase from $2,000 to $2,100, with a maximum tax credit of $1,050. Geneva Dickerson said she'll look into the tax advantages of ABLE accounts, but she is now focused on building funds to open an ABLE account for Brandon, to provide her brother with the services he needs to progress. "His insurance doesn't cover speech therapy," she said. "It's out of the budget. But I think with an account like the ABLE account, he can use those funds to pay for more speech therapy or for more physical therapy if the insurance doesn't cover it."
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Trump Was Right About Coca Cola. But Replacing Corn Syrup with Sugar Won't Be Cheap—or Easy
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Coca‑Cola recently announced it will launch a new soft drink made with cane sugar in the United States this fall, a quiet confirmation of what President Donald Trump loudly teased on social media days earlier. Trump claimed he convinced Coca‑Cola to bring back "real" sugar. Whatever is true or fabricated, the move is nonetheless real. And it's revealing. The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement was a large piece of Trump's coalition last year. This will be seen as another win. But while cane sugar may be coming back into our cans or bottles, it won't come cheap. This isn't just a product tweak. It's a flashpoint in a decades-long battle over U.S. food policy; one that's left our food supply warped by subsidies, protected markets, and artificially cheap corn. A bottle of Coca-Cola imported from Mexico is displayed on a table on July 17, 2025, in Austin, Texas. A bottle of Coca-Cola imported from Mexico is displayed on a table on July 17, 2025, in Austin, the last 50 years, America has made it easier, and cheaper, for companies to use high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Through generous subsidies, guaranteed price supports and ethanol mandates, the federal government made corn the king of American agriculture. The result: HFCS replaced sugar in sodas by the mid-1980s, not because it was healthier or tastier, but because it was profitable. For many families, especially those navigating corn allergies, these policy choices aren't abstract. They make grocery shopping and dining out a daily challenge. Meanwhile, sugar, particularly cane sugar, was moving in the opposite direction. Since the 1934 Sugar Act, the U.S. has propped up domestic sugar prices through a rigid mix of tariffs, import quotas, and price guarantees. Today, these policies still function under a system of tariff-rate quotas: a small amount of sugar can be imported cheaply, but any excess triggers crushing tariffs. That's why U.S. sugar routinely costs 50 percent to 100 percent more than world prices. These mismatched policies built the industrial food system we live in today, one where the cheapest ingredients aren't always the best ones, but the ones most politically favored. Coca‑Cola's move to add a cane sugar variant isn't just a marketing play. It's a test of consumer demand, public perception, and logistical feasibility in an ecosystem where corn is subsidized and sugar is protected. If Americans embrace this sugar-sweetened version, it could signal a slow unraveling of the status quo, or at least force policymakers to confront the costs baked into it. But it won't be simple. Sugar is more expensive, and Coca‑Cola knows it. Analysts estimate the switch could add hundreds of millions of dollars to its ingredient costs if scaled broadly. Domestic cane sugar supply is limited, concentrated in Florida and Louisiana. And the moment a company tries to import more, it slams into tariff walls. That, and the fact that its harvest season is short, is not a recipe for scale. Still, the public appetite is real. A MarketWatch survey found three out of four Coke drinkers prefer cane sugar to HFCS. They want what they remember from childhood, or what they've tasted in imported Mexican Coke. But until policy shifts, this new sugar-sweetened soda is likely to remain a high-end option, not the new norm. So Trump and MAHA friends may have gotten the headline and the shift in the right direction, but the real story is policy. And that will be a bigger lift. If we want more real sugar in our foods, or if we want market forces to shape food production instead of government favoritism, we need to rethink how we regulate both corn and sugar. That means ending distortions on both sides: winding down corn subsidies while phasing out sugar protections. Until then, our choices at the grocery store will continue to be shaped more by Washington than by what we actually want to eat or drink. Brett Kittredge is the director of marketing and communications at the Georgia Public Policy Foundation. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Trump Accounts 'Backdoor Way' to Privatize Social Security: Scott Bessent
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said new investment savings accounts for young Americans could help privatize Social Security. Speaking at an event hosted by right-wing news outlet Breitbart on Wednesday, Bessent described the president's new "Trump accounts"—which offer a one-time $1,000 government contribution paid into a special account—as a "backdoor for privatizing Social Security." Social Security—often referred to as the "third rail" of American politics due to its fundamental importance—is a federally administered social insurance system that pays out benefits, mostly for retired and disabled Americans. The comments have sparked fierce reaction from Social Security advocacy groups and Democratic lawmakers. What Did Bessent Say? "But in a way, it is a backdoor for privatizing Social Security," Bessent said at the event. "Like, Social Security is a defined benefit plan paid out that—to the extent that if all of a sudden these accounts grow, and you have in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for your retirement—then that's a game changer too." He later clarified in a post on X that the new accounts "are an additive benefit for future generations, which will supplement the sanctity of Social Security's guaranteed payments." He added: "This is not an either-or question: our Administration is committed to protecting Social Security and to making sure seniors have more money." A Treasury Department spokesperson told Newsweek via email: "Trump Accounts are an additive government program that work in conjunction with Social Security to broaden and increase the savings and wealth of Americans. Social Security is a critical safety net for Americans and always will be. This Administration has not just fought tirelessly for seniors but is also fighting for the next generation. Under President Trump's leadership, more Americans will reap the benefits of our booming economy than ever before." U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent speaks during a ceremony for U.S. National Day at the World Expo 2025 on July 19, 2025, in Osaka, Japan. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent speaks during a ceremony for U.S. National Day at the World Expo 2025 on July 19, 2025, in Osaka, Japan. Tomohiro Ohsumi/GETTY What Are Trump Accounts? The accounts, which are seeded with a $1,000 contribution from the federal government, let parents of children born during 2025 through 2028 contribute up to $5,000 annually for each child, with additional contributions allowed from employers. The money must be invested in portfolios linked to U.S. stock indexes, following a structure similar to individual retirement accounts. Withdrawals are penalty-free after age 59½, or earlier if used to pay for college costs or a first home purchase. They were signed into law as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, President Donald Trump's sweeping domestic spending legislation. Reaction There has been no shortage of reaction to Bessent's comments, particularly from groups that advocate for the preservation of Social Security benefits and retired and/or disabled Americans. "That is a terrible idea," said Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works. "Unlike private savings, Social Security is a guaranteed earned benefit that you can't outlive. It has stood strong through wars, recessions, and pandemics. The American people have a message for Trump and Bessent: Keep Wall Street's hands off our Social Security!" "President Trump should promptly denounce Treasury Secretary Bessent's promotion of a 'backdoor' way to privatize Social Security," Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, adding that the American people "do not want their hard-earned Social Security benefits handed over to Wall Street." Democratic lawmakers also seized on Bessent's comments. "Like every Republican administration going back multiple generations, Trump and his billionaire cabinet want to privatize Social Security to give their Wall Street buddies a payday," Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden said. "This would be a disaster for seniors and for all Americans who will rely on Social Security for a dignified retirement, and it's a guarantee that Republicans would follow up privatization with brutal cuts that would drive vulnerable people into destitution." Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed said on X that privatizing Social Security would turn it "from a dependable safety net to a risky profit center for moneyed special interests at the expense of everyday Americans."
