^ I know plenty of folks with more than 2 Million in assets they don’t consider themselves wealthy, maybe they consider themselves safe, but not wealthy.
2M is definitely in a good situation but there are so many factors. I wouldn't really consider it 'wealth' until $5M+ in assets, NOT counting their home. Homes are so inflated in value in many areas it just can't follow the same logic of 20 years ago.
Again, this doesn't mean that 2M isn't a lot. I'm honestly used to thinking of true wealth as 100M+. Not to be confused with well off/rich.
Counting boats, cars, motorcycles and planes, my youngest brother has over 3 million in toys, without counting houses and assets. He just turned 60 and went back to work because spending while not working made him feel poor. He must be 10-20x richer than me and always worries about money. I never worry about money because we were poor when I was young, but I had a great childhood, so I do not equate happiness with money. As a result, I worry less about money and feel wealthier than he does. It's all perspective, but to me rich means at a bare minimum, 10 million in low-risk assets. Under my definition I will never be rich, even though I will always feel blessed.
Mike Tyson earned around $400 million in his career and filed bankruptcy
NBA player Antoine Walker earned over $100 million and went broke
And so on and so on
Yet I was watching an episode of Andy Griffith and there was an actress that caught my eye so looked her up. She only appeared in 5 or 6 different episodes of various 1960’s TVs shows before she retired from retiring. Her net worth was listed at $2 million
I used to do that. If I just get my net worth up to X, then that would be great. Then once you reach that number, you want more. Two years ago, I thought I was maybe 5 years from retiring. Now that inflation is back, I'm not so sure I'm gonna have enough 5 years from now. When I retire, I have no intention of sitting around and. watching Judge Judy. I'm probably going to spend more when I have time to spend it.
I'll agree with skibum's level. $10MM net worth is probably RICH level. I'll probably get there, but will that still be RICH when I do reach it ?
As others; I would not count the house one is living in for the most part since one still needs a place to live; but 2nd and 3rd houses can def be counted as a liquid asset - and to a certain extent perhaps one should also not count a 401K as much since that is often retirement $$$.
As others - I would consider $10-million+ rich - of course one can live very comfortable w/ much less but only having a million or two one still has to worry about making sure their $$$ lasts as long as one does (and one does not know how long that will be); and w/ just 1M or 2M one also is more susceptible to economic and market downturns.
So yeah - a couple of mil means one should be pretty-comfortable and not have to worry too-much but it feels as 10M provides a much bigger and sufficient cushion.
@ Warrior. I'm kind of in the same boat as you. About 18 months ago, I had a different thought about when I might retire than I do now. I will see how it goes in the next couple of years before I set a definite date on retirement.
For myself, I define wealthy as being able to live my desired lifestyle without needing to work. In other words, able to live off your savings/portfolio/resources instead of having a job. That's a sliding scale obviously. If that lifestyle includes having three houses, multiple sports cars, buying $500 bottles of wine frequently, etc. then it's going to require a heck of a lot of money. A more modest lifestyle can be achieved with a lot less.
If I was 50 ys/o and wanted to retire, I'd feel a lot more easy about it having 10M in the back (stocks; savings; etc) vs just 1M or 2M or even 5M - not saying it can't be done w/ less than 10M, just that I would not feel as secure
One definition of wealth is having more money than you’ll ever need. I’ve known lots of people who made $500,000 per year and struggled to get by. I’ve known lots of people who made $100,000 and lived very comfortably. The difference between them was mostly how much they felt the need to impress other people.
Don't forget you add SS income to what you draw down from your funds, (currently the max is a bit over 4K monthly if you wait until age 70 to claim your benefits) I haven't claimed yet, I will once I turn seventy and I will file for my benefits looking for the max I'm eligible for, I am getting Medicare and that is a tremendous savings.
As others have said the larger your portfolio the more secure you will be in retirement, but honestly 2 Million isn't enough to feel secure, even though it is a nice starting point.
I'll throw out a couple of "data points" for your Enlightenment :
1) I recall a web article ~ 3 years ago (can't find a link, but it was on the internet so it MUST be true).Article said that one needed to have $5.5 M in "investable assets" (assets outside of your primary residence) to be considered wealthy. Probably would be $6.5 M today due to inflation.
2) In a 1994 Playboy Interview (may have taken place in 1993 for 1994 publication) David Geffen ( a billionaire) tells how he made his 1st $10M at age 30 in late 1972. He characterized that figure as "fuck you money". That $10M benchmark in 1972 would probably be $60M today factored for inflation. Sorry Papi, you'll have to jack up your per word review fee to get there.
I wonder if Donald Trump has ever wanked. His grandfather was a pimp, so maybe sex workers where hired to attend to him as soon as he grew his first pube. Which leads to the question, how rich do you need to be so that you can hire a sex worker for your minor son, without needed to worry about statutory rape charges. Probably the threshold was much lower when Donald was a teenager.
Someone in the trades today makes enough money to vacation in Hawaii, eat fresh food flown in from other countries, use their phone to contact anyone in the world, and drive a car that can go 80 miles an hour. The richest man in the world in the year 1900 could afford none of these things.
I think ultimately everyone will have their own definition of wealth. There are probably billions of people who'd see someone who's always got $ for their next meal as wealthy.
Everyone has a different opinion of wealthy and it certainly would matter what part of the country you live in.
When I have someone to pay my bills, fix my cars, drive me around, make my meals and do my shopping I guess that would make me wealthy in my eyes, and I don't think any of that is happening anytime soon.
IMO "wealthy" is the ability to live comfortably, without financial worry and without work + the ability to leave enough to the next couple generations so they don't have to work. Basically, "fuck you" money.
In the US, health care makes it complicated to define wealth. If you stop working, you don't have access to group health insurance. Have to rely on the ACA to keep individual health insurance from getting crazy expensive. Seems like a huge gamble to me.
“ The difference between them was mostly how much they felt the need to impress other people. “
This is a great point - I know several people living in big houses, driving brand new expensive cars, and are one paycheck away from it all collapsing because they max themselves out.
Then there’s others that live modestly and it would shock most people if you knew how much money these people having sitting in the bank. Most of these people aren’t scrimping on life, they just don’t feel the need to “wave their dick” to everyone “aka” flaunt their wealth so to speak.
I think the number is difficult to determine - as it is entirely dependent on a person’s spending.
I’d say about $10 million is rich. But, there are folks who don’t control their spending and who would run through that money and end up in debt.
I have heard stories of lottery winners who have pissed away their winnings - and who are worse off after - than they were before.
I think the average person would be good if they had $10 million - as they could just put that in a bank (and not take on any risky investments) and live off that amount for likely 50 years.
I would have to have $7 million dollars in net assets today to consider myself "rich". I might only need to have $5 million dollars in net assets today, if my primary residence was in tax friendly states like TN, GA, and FL. And then $10 million in net assets today, if my primary residence was in CA, NJ, MA, CT, and NY (not including NYC). Add another $5 million plus for the poison pill of NYC.
While I am not "rich" by my own standard today - I stand a good chance at being comfortable money and asset wise until my last breath. That wasn't always the case and for that I am grateful.
If u have $10 million and spend $100,000 annually it would take you 100 years to draw it down assuming it never made a dime of returns/gains - this would be a pretty-good standard of living if one didn't have a mortgage but of course you'd be living upper-middle-class vs a rich lifestyle
The rule of thumb is that you can spend 4%-5% of your assets each year forever. Decide how much you need to live on each year and multiply by 20. That’s the Fuck You Money figure.
And to think some of these athletes make around 40-million PER YEAR and in some sports it's fully-guaranteed not to mentioned endorsements - of course most don't make that but the ones that do it's way past fuck-you-money
"... According to a report from Sportico, James has earned a total of $330 million in playing salary since being drafted in 2003. Coupled with his $700 million in earnings from endorsement deals, merchandise, licensing and his media business, his total career earnings have reached the $1 billion mark ..."
The money that many top pro athletes make is crazy - I agree. But, they seem to develop crazy spending habits too - and they can run through a few million in a year - on items that don’t retain value. So, I can see it being an easy come - easy go situation.
When I see a former top athlete doing stupid commercials many years after they retire - I think they likely blew through their money and they need to make some more. Seeing Joe Montana doing Papa Johns commercials and Guinness commercials - or Mugsy Bogues and Clyde Drexler doing Ceasars commercials - tells me they might need some quick cash.
In terms of entertainers - Tag Team and their scoop there it is commercial tells me they needed money bad!
That movie isn't that old, but for me the number is somewhat north of 2.5 million. I can't peg it, but I know if I stopped earning today I'd blow through 2.5 million long before I was dead.
@heaving the difference may be you want your descendants to be financially independent. That's hard. Suppose you have two kids. You're assets have to generate enough income so 4 people (when you include your spouse) can live large. PLUS, enough income to double your assets in inflation-adjusted $ when it comes time to transfer your wealth to your kids. And I think, at least in recent times, living large inflation has been much higher than the CPI, because real estate inflation is much higher.
Yet another good reason to not have kids. Or a spouse. Better to stick with spouses du jur in strip clubs.
Wealth is relative. If you were debt-free and had $2 million liquid, you could be the wealthiest man in the trailer park. Take that money to a third world country and you're a king. Go to Manhattan NY and you're living in less than 1000 sq feet.
Third world countries have lots of people richer than I am. India has 700,000 millionaires (2021 net worth in USD).
And practically everybody in India has had more income this year than I have. I've had a 7% loss from January 1 to yesterday, so anybody with zero is way ahead of me.
My wife and I could easily enjoy life on a combined 75k income a year with no assets. Wealth to me is spending time with people you want to spend time with. Rather go hiking with her and eat peanut butter bread, than bareback the single hottest woman on earth. If you cannot understand why I feel bad for you.
“If you were debt-free and had $2 million liquid, you could be the wealthiest man in the trailer park.”
I actually had a relative do that for many years during retirement. He was definitely a multi-millionaire but he and his wife lived in a trailer park for retirees. I never asked why, but they seemed happy.
I would say that you have enough to live the way you want and to do things as you want. But this might often involve working as long as you live, in the way you want.
I have no intent of ever retiring. I don't even like the idea.
^ Shailynn has got his eyes set on restarting Robert Tilton's Prosperity Ministry, and with Juice as his wing man. Problem is though, his mom does not like Juice and some of the things he wants to do.
58 comments
Jes sayin
Again, this doesn't mean that 2M isn't a lot. I'm honestly used to thinking of true wealth as 100M+. Not to be confused with well off/rich.
NBA player Antoine Walker earned over $100 million and went broke
And so on and so on
Yet I was watching an episode of Andy Griffith and there was an actress that caught my eye so looked her up. She only appeared in 5 or 6 different episodes of various 1960’s TVs shows before she retired from retiring. Her net worth was listed at $2 million
Riddle me this
I'll agree with skibum's level. $10MM net worth is probably RICH level. I'll probably get there, but will that still be RICH when I do reach it ?
As others - I would consider $10-million+ rich - of course one can live very comfortable w/ much less but only having a million or two one still has to worry about making sure their $$$ lasts as long as one does (and one does not know how long that will be); and w/ just 1M or 2M one also is more susceptible to economic and market downturns.
So yeah - a couple of mil means one should be pretty-comfortable and not have to worry too-much but it feels as 10M provides a much bigger and sufficient cushion.
Right now I'm "well enough off" that I can live my preferred lifestyle, occasionally splurge, and not worry.
As others have said the larger your portfolio the more secure you will be in retirement, but honestly 2 Million isn't enough to feel secure, even though it is a nice starting point.
1) I recall a web article ~ 3 years ago (can't find a link, but it was on the internet so it MUST be true).Article said that one needed to have $5.5 M in "investable assets" (assets outside of your primary residence) to be considered wealthy. Probably would be $6.5 M today due to inflation.
2) In a 1994 Playboy Interview (may have taken place in 1993 for 1994 publication) David Geffen ( a billionaire) tells how he made his 1st $10M at age 30 in late 1972. He characterized that figure as "fuck you money". That $10M benchmark in 1972 would probably be $60M today factored for inflation. Sorry Papi, you'll have to jack up your per word review fee to get there.
When I have someone to pay my bills, fix my cars, drive me around, make my meals and do my shopping I guess that would make me wealthy in my eyes, and I don't think any of that is happening anytime soon.
This is a great point - I know several people living in big houses, driving brand new expensive cars, and are one paycheck away from it all collapsing because they max themselves out.
Then there’s others that live modestly and it would shock most people if you knew how much money these people having sitting in the bank. Most of these people aren’t scrimping on life, they just don’t feel the need to “wave their dick” to everyone “aka” flaunt their wealth so to speak.
I’d say about $10 million is rich. But, there are folks who don’t control their spending and who would run through that money and end up in debt.
I have heard stories of lottery winners who have pissed away their winnings - and who are worse off after - than they were before.
I think the average person would be good if they had $10 million - as they could just put that in a bank (and not take on any risky investments) and live off that amount for likely 50 years.
While I am not "rich" by my own standard today - I stand a good chance at being comfortable money and asset wise until my last breath. That wasn't always the case and for that I am grateful.
https://afrotech.com/nba-lebron-james-bi…
When I see a former top athlete doing stupid commercials many years after they retire - I think they likely blew through their money and they need to make some more. Seeing Joe Montana doing Papa Johns commercials and Guinness commercials - or Mugsy Bogues and Clyde Drexler doing Ceasars commercials - tells me they might need some quick cash.
In terms of entertainers - Tag Team and their scoop there it is commercial tells me they needed money bad!
That movie isn't that old, but for me the number is somewhat north of 2.5 million. I can't peg it, but I know if I stopped earning today I'd blow through 2.5 million long before I was dead.
Yet another good reason to not have kids. Or a spouse. Better to stick with spouses du jur in strip clubs.
Wealth is relative. If you were debt-free and had $2 million liquid, you could be the wealthiest man in the trailer park. Take that money to a third world country and you're a king. Go to Manhattan NY and you're living in less than 1000 sq feet.
And practically everybody in India has had more income this year than I have. I've had a 7% loss from January 1 to yesterday, so anybody with zero is way ahead of me.
Wankers.
Tell thatvto to #RichKidsOfInstagram
I actually had a relative do that for many years during retirement. He was definitely a multi-millionaire but he and his wife lived in a trailer park for retirees. I never asked why, but they seemed happy.
I would say that you have enough to live the way you want and to do things as you want. But this might often involve working as long as you live, in the way you want.
I have no intent of ever retiring. I don't even like the idea.
SJG
SJG