Do you consider a net worth of 2.5 million "rich?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you need to exclude retirement and college savings (if any). Presumably retirement isn't cpsomethi g you'd dip into now. I (not "we"...just my part) have almost a million in retirement alone. I don't count that. Like you, I don't include real estate equity in the calculation...and we have 6 homes and a 1/4th ownership interest in an office bldg. then you ask about the amount remaining, could that sustain you forever if you never worked? No...so in my opinion you aren't rich. If one of you has needs long term care in your 80's you'd have nothing left in your 90s. If you divorced, you'd have half of that..,and 1.25 million isn't life sustaining. We have more than you do and don't consider ourselves rich. Just keep plugging along...

So you don't feel rich because your money is in retirement accounts and you own 6 houses and part of an office building? Now wealth only counts if it is in a bank account, not an investment of any sort? I get that people are uncomfortable labeling themselves rich, maybe because it feels like "rich" people are supposed to be charitable or philanthropic, or maybe the rap videos and movies have you thinking rich means helicopters and 50 foot yachts. You own 6 houses. You are rich. No, you aren't Bill Gates or Oprah, but 99% of American would gladly trade your place for theirs.

As far as OP - you are rich. You have more at 38 than nearly all Americans will when they retire (if they retire). You could stop working now and be okay. You wouldn't be living a champagne and caviar lifestyle, but 75k/year goes a long way, especially if you are truly frugal. You could do at 38 what most won't be able to do at 60 or 70. Doesn't matter that it makes you uncomfortable, doesn't matter that you know people who have more, doesn't matter if you aren't satisfied and want more.

If it isn't money I'm touching anytime soon (real estate equity + retirement accounts), I don't consider it part of my immediate liquidity. It is like saying I'm going to be on easy street (future tense) when I inherit sometime in the future. Yes, retirement/real estate equity will be received at some point, but I don't consider it when looking at current assets). I have plenty of liquidity (without retirement/equity in real estate) but would it sustain me for life without lifting a finger again? No. Would it sustain me if I became ill and not another dime came in other than social security + some disability income? No. I don't consider 2.5 million for TWO people who will probably live for another 50 years enough. Therefore, I wouldn't say the OP is rich. It is a different question if she asked if she was better off than most...yes. Also, we don't know her debt load. That makes a HUGE difference. We have a low debt load - which helps us to continue acquiring savings. We also live a very low key lifestyle (millionaire next door types). If I don't consider myself rich, I don't consider her rich. I'm not saying that in a snotty way - just truthfully. Now...if she was 85 years old and had $2.5 million, I'd feel completely differently so long as it wasn't illiquid (real estate).

her net is 2.5 mil, so her debt load is irrelevant.
also, i find it funny that all these milionaire next door types estimg tuna cans in the present find millions of dollars insufficient to sustain them later in life.

I know she said her net is 2.5 mil, but you have no idea what her DEBTS are. For example, if she owes VISA $45,000 and owes student loans and has a high mortgage or many mortgages, or owes family members back, etc., then that is certainly a factor to consider. (The $2.5 million won't last as long if it is being used). Also, as for your last sentence, you're assuming she'll have that $2.5 million later in life. My grandmother needed round the clock care (Altzheimer's) for years. It was $15/hour x 24 hours/day x 52 weeks/year, not including housing, food, utilities, medical care, taxi fees, etc. You figure out how long that goes if you elect to live at home as long as possible - or your spouse does. See if that changes your perspective...

But it is not 2.5 that is being used... if her net is 2.5 mil, than she has more on hand with some debt. Though I doubt she has much debt.

As for your grandma, the care you described can be obtained much chepaer. It wouldn't be the same level of care, but certianly there are people with Altzheimers who are actual middle class. Your goal in life might be to make sure you would have an aboslute best care for 30 years of Altzheimer's, but that just like saying you are not rich because you can't afford a 747.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you need to exclude retirement and college savings (if any). Presumably retirement isn't cpsomethi g you'd dip into now. I (not "we"...just my part) have almost a million in retirement alone. I don't count that. Like you, I don't include real estate equity in the calculation...and we have 6 homes and a 1/4th ownership interest in an office bldg. then you ask about the amount remaining, could that sustain you forever if you never worked? No...so in my opinion you aren't rich. If one of you has needs long term care in your 80's you'd have nothing left in your 90s. If you divorced, you'd have half of that..,and 1.25 million isn't life sustaining. We have more than you do and don't consider ourselves rich. Just keep plugging along...

So you don't feel rich because your money is in retirement accounts and you own 6 houses and part of an office building? Now wealth only counts if it is in a bank account, not an investment of any sort? I get that people are uncomfortable labeling themselves rich, maybe because it feels like "rich" people are supposed to be charitable or philanthropic, or maybe the rap videos and movies have you thinking rich means helicopters and 50 foot yachts. You own 6 houses. You are rich. No, you aren't Bill Gates or Oprah, but 99% of American would gladly trade your place for theirs.

As far as OP - you are rich. You have more at 38 than nearly all Americans will when they retire (if they retire). You could stop working now and be okay. You wouldn't be living a champagne and caviar lifestyle, but 75k/year goes a long way, especially if you are truly frugal. You could do at 38 what most won't be able to do at 60 or 70. Doesn't matter that it makes you uncomfortable, doesn't matter that you know people who have more, doesn't matter if you aren't satisfied and want more.

If it isn't money I'm touching anytime soon (real estate equity + retirement accounts), I don't consider it part of my immediate liquidity. It is like saying I'm going to be on easy street (future tense) when I inherit sometime in the future. Yes, retirement/real estate equity will be received at some point, but I don't consider it when looking at current assets). I have plenty of liquidity (without retirement/equity in real estate) but would it sustain me for life without lifting a finger again? No. Would it sustain me if I became ill and not another dime came in other than social security + some disability income? No. I don't consider 2.5 million for TWO people who will probably live for another 50 years enough. Therefore, I wouldn't say the OP is rich. It is a different question if she asked if she was better off than most...yes. Also, we don't know her debt load. That makes a HUGE difference. We have a low debt load - which helps us to continue acquiring savings. We also live a very low key lifestyle (millionaire next door types). If I don't consider myself rich, I don't consider her rich. I'm not saying that in a snotty way - just truthfully. Now...if she was 85 years old and had $2.5 million, I'd feel completely differently so long as it wasn't illiquid (real estate).

Huh? If you are truly living the "middle class lifestyel", social securitiy plus disability plus a few millions plus real estate and retirement accounts should sustain you just fine.

See above - re: my grandmother who had Alzheimer's. She was paying over $130k/year just for her home health care. That didn't include her regular living expenses (food, mortgage/rent, insurance, utilities, etc.) If your spouse went through the need for long term home health care and you didn't have insurance to cover it, you'd deplete your entire net worth and you may be reliant on your children/family despite your "millions".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you need to exclude retirement and college savings (if any). Presumably retirement isn't cpsomethi g you'd dip into now. I (not "we"...just my part) have almost a million in retirement alone. I don't count that. Like you, I don't include real estate equity in the calculation...and we have 6 homes and a 1/4th ownership interest in an office bldg. then you ask about the amount remaining, could that sustain you forever if you never worked? No...so in my opinion you aren't rich. If one of you has needs long term care in your 80's you'd have nothing left in your 90s. If you divorced, you'd have half of that..,and 1.25 million isn't life sustaining. We have more than you do and don't consider ourselves rich. Just keep plugging along...

So you don't feel rich because your money is in retirement accounts and you own 6 houses and part of an office building? Now wealth only counts if it is in a bank account, not an investment of any sort? I get that people are uncomfortable labeling themselves rich, maybe because it feels like "rich" people are supposed to be charitable or philanthropic, or maybe the rap videos and movies have you thinking rich means helicopters and 50 foot yachts. You own 6 houses. You are rich. No, you aren't Bill Gates or Oprah, but 99% of American would gladly trade your place for theirs.

As far as OP - you are rich. You have more at 38 than nearly all Americans will when they retire (if they retire). You could stop working now and be okay. You wouldn't be living a champagne and caviar lifestyle, but 75k/year goes a long way, especially if you are truly frugal. You could do at 38 what most won't be able to do at 60 or 70. Doesn't matter that it makes you uncomfortable, doesn't matter that you know people who have more, doesn't matter if you aren't satisfied and want more.

If it isn't money I'm touching anytime soon (real estate equity + retirement accounts), I don't consider it part of my immediate liquidity. It is like saying I'm going to be on easy street (future tense) when I inherit sometime in the future. Yes, retirement/real estate equity will be received at some point, but I don't consider it when looking at current assets). I have plenty of liquidity (without retirement/equity in real estate) but would it sustain me for life without lifting a finger again? No. Would it sustain me if I became ill and not another dime came in other than social security + some disability income? No. I don't consider 2.5 million for TWO people who will probably live for another 50 years enough. Therefore, I wouldn't say the OP is rich. It is a different question if she asked if she was better off than most...yes. Also, we don't know her debt load. That makes a HUGE difference. We have a low debt load - which helps us to continue acquiring savings. We also live a very low key lifestyle (millionaire next door types). If I don't consider myself rich, I don't consider her rich. I'm not saying that in a snotty way - just truthfully. Now...if she was 85 years old and had $2.5 million, I'd feel completely differently so long as it wasn't illiquid (real estate).

her net is 2.5 mil, so her debt load is irrelevant.
also, i find it funny that all these milionaire next door types estimg tuna cans in the present find millions of dollars insufficient to sustain them later in life.

I know she said her net is 2.5 mil, but you have no idea what her DEBTS are. For example, if she owes VISA $45,000 and owes student loans and has a high mortgage or many mortgages, or owes family members back, etc., then that is certainly a factor to consider. (The $2.5 million won't last as long if it is being used). Also, as for your last sentence, you're assuming she'll have that $2.5 million later in life. My grandmother needed round the clock care (Altzheimer's) for years. It was $15/hour x 24 hours/day x 52 weeks/year, not including housing, food, utilities, medical care, taxi fees, etc. You figure out how long that goes if you elect to live at home as long as possible - or your spouse does. See if that changes your perspective...

But it is not 2.5 that is being used... if her net is 2.5 mil, than she has more on hand with some debt. Though I doubt she has much debt.

As for your grandma, the care you described can be obtained much chepaer. It wouldn't be the same level of care, but certianly there are people with Altzheimers who are actual middle class. Your goal in life might be to make sure you would have an aboslute best care for 30 years of Altzheimer's, but that just like saying you are not rich because you can't afford a 747.

Her care WAS good, but I don't consider $15/hour to be the "best" care. That is what a babysitter makes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you need to exclude retirement and college savings (if any). Presumably retirement isn't cpsomethi g you'd dip into now. I (not "we"...just my part) have almost a million in retirement alone. I don't count that. Like you, I don't include real estate equity in the calculation...and we have 6 homes and a 1/4th ownership interest in an office bldg. then you ask about the amount remaining, could that sustain you forever if you never worked? No...so in my opinion you aren't rich. If one of you has needs long term care in your 80's you'd have nothing left in your 90s. If you divorced, you'd have half of that..,and 1.25 million isn't life sustaining. We have more than you do and don't consider ourselves rich. Just keep plugging along...

So you don't feel rich because your money is in retirement accounts and you own 6 houses and part of an office building? Now wealth only counts if it is in a bank account, not an investment of any sort? I get that people are uncomfortable labeling themselves rich, maybe because it feels like "rich" people are supposed to be charitable or philanthropic, or maybe the rap videos and movies have you thinking rich means helicopters and 50 foot yachts. You own 6 houses. You are rich. No, you aren't Bill Gates or Oprah, but 99% of American would gladly trade your place for theirs.

As far as OP - you are rich. You have more at 38 than nearly all Americans will when they retire (if they retire). You could stop working now and be okay. You wouldn't be living a champagne and caviar lifestyle, but 75k/year goes a long way, especially if you are truly frugal. You could do at 38 what most won't be able to do at 60 or 70. Doesn't matter that it makes you uncomfortable, doesn't matter that you know people who have more, doesn't matter if you aren't satisfied and want more.

If it isn't money I'm touching anytime soon (real estate equity + retirement accounts), I don't consider it part of my immediate liquidity. It is like saying I'm going to be on easy street (future tense) when I inherit sometime in the future. Yes, retirement/real estate equity will be received at some point, but I don't consider it when looking at current assets). I have plenty of liquidity (without retirement/equity in real estate) but would it sustain me for life without lifting a finger again? No. Would it sustain me if I became ill and not another dime came in other than social security + some disability income? No. I don't consider 2.5 million for TWO people who will probably live for another 50 years enough. Therefore, I wouldn't say the OP is rich. It is a different question if she asked if she was better off than most...yes. Also, we don't know her debt load. That makes a HUGE difference. We have a low debt load - which helps us to continue acquiring savings. We also live a very low key lifestyle (millionaire next door types). If I don't consider myself rich, I don't consider her rich. I'm not saying that in a snotty way - just truthfully. Now...if she was 85 years old and had $2.5 million, I'd feel completely differently so long as it wasn't illiquid (real estate).

her net is 2.5 mil, so her debt load is irrelevant.
also, i find it funny that all these milionaire next door types estimg tuna cans in the present find millions of dollars insufficient to sustain them later in life.

I know she said her net is 2.5 mil, but you have no idea what her DEBTS are. For example, if she owes VISA $45,000 and owes student loans and has a high mortgage or many mortgages, or owes family members back, etc., then that is certainly a factor to consider. (The $2.5 million won't last as long if it is being used). Also, as for your last sentence, you're assuming she'll have that $2.5 million later in life. My grandmother needed round the clock care (Altzheimer's) for years. It was $15/hour x 24 hours/day x 52 weeks/year, not including housing, food, utilities, medical care, taxi fees, etc. You figure out how long that goes if you elect to live at home as long as possible - or your spouse does. See if that changes your perspective...

But it is not 2.5 that is being used... if her net is 2.5 mil, than she has more on hand with some debt. Though I doubt she has much debt.

As for your grandma, the care you described can be obtained much chepaer. It wouldn't be the same level of care, but certianly there are people with Altzheimers who are actual middle class. Your goal in life might be to make sure you would have an aboslute best care for 30 years of Altzheimer's, but that just like saying you are not rich because you can't afford a 747.

Her care WAS good, but I don't consider $15/hour to be the "best" care. That is what a babysitter makes.

she was serviced at home around the clock. i had illness in the family and after a few weeks, we realized we had to cut hourly care (especially during nights). what you did was wasteful and can be done with much less. it's not only millionaires who get sick, you know; there are millions of people with alzheimers in the USA.

and if you are worried about long term disability, with your resources you could certainly purchase insurance without as much as noticing. i am amazed that you are actually arguing here that you are not rich because if you got sick, you would be homeless or something. what about the rest of the usa?

[Anonymous]

I cannot bring myself to read these pages and pages of postings on the frivolous question of whether a net worth of $2,500,000 makes you rich.

The answer, OP, to either your humble brag or clueless inquiry is "yes". You are wealthy, wealthier in fact, than most every other person in this country and certainly in this world. If someone were to submit this thread to the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, or the Louisville Courier-Journal, the readers of those papers would probably be dismayed to know that the citizens of our capital, on whose shoulders so many important decisions, legislation, and policy-making rests, live in such a bubble of comfort and affluent competitiveness, so out of touch with most people.

I will share this story so that you can appreciate your wealth even more. Several months ago, I attended my volunteer day at an organization that provides the very poorest children in our surrounding communities with essentials for home and school, socks and underwear, soap and shampoo, hairbrushes and toothbrushes, books and backpacks, uniforms and coats. One little 3d grade girl put on her jumper and twirled around in delight as she told us "my mother will be so happy, she always wanted me to have one of these but we could not buy it." Another 2d or 3d grade child, a severely handicapped-at-birth girl who was partially blind, wore hearing aids, walked with crutches, and could speak very little, broke into applause and an enormous smile when we fitted her with a brand new, white polo shirt. It is very humbling and completely emotional when someone to whom the world has given so little, and who fate has dealt such a very difficult hand, is so appreciative of a little thing like a new shirt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you need to exclude retirement and college savings (if any). Presumably retirement isn't cpsomethi g you'd dip into now. I (not "we"...just my part) have almost a million in retirement alone. I don't count that. Like you, I don't include real estate equity in the calculation...and we have 6 homes and a 1/4th ownership interest in an office bldg. then you ask about the amount remaining, could that sustain you forever if you never worked? No...so in my opinion you aren't rich. If one of you has needs long term care in your 80's you'd have nothing left in your 90s. If you divorced, you'd have half of that..,and 1.25 million isn't life sustaining. We have more than you do and don't consider ourselves rich. Just keep plugging along...

So you don't feel rich because your money is in retirement accounts and you own 6 houses and part of an office building? Now wealth only counts if it is in a bank account, not an investment of any sort? I get that people are uncomfortable labeling themselves rich, maybe because it feels like "rich" people are supposed to be charitable or philanthropic, or maybe the rap videos and movies have you thinking rich means helicopters and 50 foot yachts. You own 6 houses. You are rich. No, you aren't Bill Gates or Oprah, but 99% of American would gladly trade your place for theirs.

As far as OP - you are rich. You have more at 38 than nearly all Americans will when they retire (if they retire). You could stop working now and be okay. You wouldn't be living a champagne and caviar lifestyle, but 75k/year goes a long way, especially if you are truly frugal. You could do at 38 what most won't be able to do at 60 or 70. Doesn't matter that it makes you uncomfortable, doesn't matter that you know people who have more, doesn't matter if you aren't satisfied and want more.

If it isn't money I'm touching anytime soon (real estate equity + retirement accounts), I don't consider it part of my immediate liquidity. It is like saying I'm going to be on easy street (future tense) when I inherit sometime in the future. Yes, retirement/real estate equity will be received at some point, but I don't consider it when looking at current assets). I have plenty of liquidity (without retirement/equity in real estate) but would it sustain me for life without lifting a finger again? No. Would it sustain me if I became ill and not another dime came in other than social security + some disability income? No. I don't consider 2.5 million for TWO people who will probably live for another 50 years enough. Therefore, I wouldn't say the OP is rich. It is a different question if she asked if she was better off than most...yes. Also, we don't know her debt load. That makes a HUGE difference. We have a low debt load - which helps us to continue acquiring savings. We also live a very low key lifestyle (millionaire next door types). If I don't consider myself rich, I don't consider her rich. I'm not saying that in a snotty way - just truthfully. Now...if she was 85 years old and had $2.5 million, I'd feel completely differently so long as it wasn't illiquid (real estate).

her net is 2.5 mil, so her debt load is irrelevant.
also, i find it funny that all these milionaire next door types estimg tuna cans in the present find millions of dollars insufficient to sustain them later in life.

I know she said her net is 2.5 mil, but you have no idea what her DEBTS are. For example, if she owes VISA $45,000 and owes student loans and has a high mortgage or many mortgages, or owes family members back, etc., then that is certainly a factor to consider. (The $2.5 million won't last as long if it is being used). Also, as for your last sentence, you're assuming she'll have that $2.5 million later in life. My grandmother needed round the clock care (Altzheimer's) for years. It was $15/hour x 24 hours/day x 52 weeks/year, not including housing, food, utilities, medical care, taxi fees, etc. You figure out how long that goes if you elect to live at home as long as possible - or your spouse does. See if that changes your perspective...

But it is not 2.5 that is being used... if her net is 2.5 mil, than she has more on hand with some debt. Though I doubt she has much debt.

As for your grandma, the care you described can be obtained much chepaer. It wouldn't be the same level of care, but certianly there are people with Altzheimers who are actual middle class. Your goal in life might be to make sure you would have an aboslute best care for 30 years of Altzheimer's, but that just like saying you are not rich because you can't afford a 747.

Her care WAS good, but I don't consider $15/hour to be the "best" care. That is what a babysitter makes.

she was serviced at home around the clock. i had illness in the family and after a few weeks, we realized we had to cut hourly care (especially during nights). what you did was wasteful and can be done with much less. it's not only millionaires who get sick, you know; there are millions of people with alzheimers in the USA.

and if you are worried about long term disability, with your resources you could certainly purchase insurance without as much as noticing. i am amazed that you are actually arguing here that you are not rich because if you got sick, you would be homeless or something. what about the rest of the usa?

She was a wanderer and woke several times in the middle of the night and was found on the streets. She also called 911/the police frequently during the day, thought others were trying to kill her,etc. having round the clock care wasn't wasteful. She could then-qualify for long term care (post diagnosis) and u less you have less than 2k of assets, the govt.wont cover (facility) coverage which would be inappropriate considering she had her own assets. I don't find it wasteful at all. It was HER money and she should have spent it for HER comfort while alive...not to mention safety. Show mea long term care policy who will insure a 92 year old woman....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you need to exclude retirement and college savings (if any). Presumably retirement isn't cpsomethi g you'd dip into now. I (not "we"...just my part) have almost a million in retirement alone. I don't count that. Like you, I don't include real estate equity in the calculation...and we have 6 homes and a 1/4th ownership interest in an office bldg. then you ask about the amount remaining, could that sustain you forever if you never worked? No...so in my opinion you aren't rich. If one of you has needs long term care in your 80's you'd have nothing left in your 90s. If you divorced, you'd have half of that..,and 1.25 million isn't life sustaining. We have more than you do and don't consider ourselves rich. Just keep plugging along...

So you don't feel rich because your money is in retirement accounts and you own 6 houses and part of an office building? Now wealth only counts if it is in a bank account, not an investment of any sort? I get that people are uncomfortable labeling themselves rich, maybe because it feels like "rich" people are supposed to be charitable or philanthropic, or maybe the rap videos and movies have you thinking rich means helicopters and 50 foot yachts. You own 6 houses. You are rich. No, you aren't Bill Gates or Oprah, but 99% of American would gladly trade your place for theirs.

As far as OP - you are rich. You have more at 38 than nearly all Americans will when they retire (if they retire). You could stop working now and be okay. You wouldn't be living a champagne and caviar lifestyle, but 75k/year goes a long way, especially if you are truly frugal. You could do at 38 what most won't be able to do at 60 or 70. Doesn't matter that it makes you uncomfortable, doesn't matter that you know people who have more, doesn't matter if you aren't satisfied and want more.

If it isn't money I'm touching anytime soon (real estate equity + retirement accounts), I don't consider it part of my immediate liquidity. It is like saying I'm going to be on easy street (future tense) when I inherit sometime in the future. Yes, retirement/real estate equity will be received at some point, but I don't consider it when looking at current assets). I have plenty of liquidity (without retirement/equity in real estate) but would it sustain me for life without lifting a finger again? No. Would it sustain me if I became ill and not another dime came in other than social security + some disability income? No. I don't consider 2.5 million for TWO people who will probably live for another 50 years enough. Therefore, I wouldn't say the OP is rich. It is a different question if she asked if she was better off than most...yes. Also, we don't know her debt load. That makes a HUGE difference. We have a low debt load - which helps us to continue acquiring savings. We also live a very low key lifestyle (millionaire next door types). If I don't consider myself rich, I don't consider her rich. I'm not saying that in a snotty way - just truthfully. Now...if she was 85 years old and had $2.5 million, I'd feel completely differently so long as it wasn't illiquid (real estate).

her net is 2.5 mil, so her debt load is irrelevant.
also, i find it funny that all these milionaire next door types estimg tuna cans in the present find millions of dollars insufficient to sustain them later in life.

I know she said her net is 2.5 mil, but you have no idea what her DEBTS are. For example, if she owes VISA $45,000 and owes student loans and has a high mortgage or many mortgages, or owes family members back, etc., then that is certainly a factor to consider. (The $2.5 million won't last as long if it is being used). Also, as for your last sentence, you're assuming she'll have that $2.5 million later in life. My grandmother needed round the clock care (Altzheimer's) for years. It was $15/hour x 24 hours/day x 52 weeks/year, not including housing, food, utilities, medical care, taxi fees, etc. You figure out how long that goes if you elect to live at home as long as possible - or your spouse does. See if that changes your perspective...

But it is not 2.5 that is being used... if her net is 2.5 mil, than she has more on hand with some debt. Though I doubt she has much debt.

As for your grandma, the care you described can be obtained much chepaer. It wouldn't be the same level of care, but certianly there are people with Altzheimers who are actual middle class. Your goal in life might be to make sure you would have an aboslute best care for 30 years of Altzheimer's, but that just like saying you are not rich because you can't afford a 747.

Her care WAS good, but I don't consider $15/hour to be the "best" care. That is what a babysitter makes.

she was serviced at home around the clock. i had illness in the family and after a few weeks, we realized we had to cut hourly care (especially during nights). what you did was wasteful and can be done with much less. it's not only millionaires who get sick, you know; there are millions of people with alzheimers in the USA.

and if you are worried about long term disability, with your resources you could certainly purchase insurance without as much as noticing. i am amazed that you are actually arguing here that you are not rich because if you got sick, you would be homeless or something. what about the rest of the usa?

She was a wanderer and woke several times in the middle of the night and was found on the streets. She also called 911/the police frequently during the day, thought others were trying to kill her,etc. having round the clock care wasn't wasteful. She could then-qualify for long term care (post diagnosis) and u less you have less than 2k of assets, the govt.wont cover (facility) coverage which would be inappropriate considering she had her own assets. I don't find it wasteful at all. It was HER money and she should have spent it for HER comfort while alive...not to mention safety. Show mea long term care policy who will insure a 92 year old woman....

She was certainly entitled to spend her money as she wished. However, if she really spent over 3 mil on her care, then she was in fact rich. Whether the way she spent the money was necessary is irrelevant, the fact is, she had 3+ mil to spend the way she pleased and that made her different frm 99.5% of Americans. That in itself makes one rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you need to exclude retirement and college savings (if any). Presumably retirement isn't cpsomethi g you'd dip into now. I (not "we"...just my part) have almost a million in retirement alone. I don't count that. Like you, I don't include real estate equity in the calculation...and we have 6 homes and a 1/4th ownership interest in an office bldg. then you ask about the amount remaining, could that sustain you forever if you never worked? No...so in my opinion you aren't rich. If one of you has needs long term care in your 80's you'd have nothing left in your 90s. If you divorced, you'd have half of that..,and 1.25 million isn't life sustaining. We have more than you do and don't consider ourselves rich. Just keep plugging along...

So you don't feel rich because your money is in retirement accounts and you own 6 houses and part of an office building? Now wealth only counts if it is in a bank account, not an investment of any sort? I get that people are uncomfortable labeling themselves rich, maybe because it feels like "rich" people are supposed to be charitable or philanthropic, or maybe the rap videos and movies have you thinking rich means helicopters and 50 foot yachts. You own 6 houses. You are rich. No, you aren't Bill Gates or Oprah, but 99% of American would gladly trade your place for theirs.

As far as OP - you are rich. You have more at 38 than nearly all Americans will when they retire (if they retire). You could stop working now and be okay. You wouldn't be living a champagne and caviar lifestyle, but 75k/year goes a long way, especially if you are truly frugal. You could do at 38 what most won't be able to do at 60 or 70. Doesn't matter that it makes you uncomfortable, doesn't matter that you know people who have more, doesn't matter if you aren't satisfied and want more.

If it isn't money I'm touching anytime soon (real estate equity + retirement accounts), I don't consider it part of my immediate liquidity. It is like saying I'm going to be on easy street (future tense) when I inherit sometime in the future. Yes, retirement/real estate equity will be received at some point, but I don't consider it when looking at current assets). I have plenty of liquidity (without retirement/equity in real estate) but would it sustain me for life without lifting a finger again? No. Would it sustain me if I became ill and not another dime came in other than social security + some disability income? No. I don't consider 2.5 million for TWO people who will probably live for another 50 years enough. Therefore, I wouldn't say the OP is rich. It is a different question if she asked if she was better off than most...yes. Also, we don't know her debt load. That makes a HUGE difference. We have a low debt load - which helps us to continue acquiring savings. We also live a very low key lifestyle (millionaire next door types). If I don't consider myself rich, I don't consider her rich. I'm not saying that in a snotty way - just truthfully. Now...if she was 85 years old and had $2.5 million, I'd feel completely differently so long as it wasn't illiquid (real estate).

her net is 2.5 mil, so her debt load is irrelevant.
also, i find it funny that all these milionaire next door types estimg tuna cans in the present find millions of dollars insufficient to sustain them later in life.

I know she said her net is 2.5 mil, but you have no idea what her DEBTS are. For example, if she owes VISA $45,000 and owes student loans and has a high mortgage or many mortgages, or owes family members back, etc., then that is certainly a factor to consider. (The $2.5 million won't last as long if it is being used). Also, as for your last sentence, you're assuming she'll have that $2.5 million later in life. My grandmother needed round the clock care (Altzheimer's) for years. It was $15/hour x 24 hours/day x 52 weeks/year, not including housing, food, utilities, medical care, taxi fees, etc. You figure out how long that goes if you elect to live at home as long as possible - or your spouse does. See if that changes your perspective...

But it is not 2.5 that is being used... if her net is 2.5 mil, than she has more on hand with some debt. Though I doubt she has much debt.

As for your grandma, the care you described can be obtained much chepaer. It wouldn't be the same level of care, but certianly there are people with Altzheimers who are actual middle class. Your goal in life might be to make sure you would have an aboslute best care for 30 years of Altzheimer's, but that just like saying you are not rich because you can't afford a 747.

Her care WAS good, but I don't consider $15/hour to be the "best" care. That is what a babysitter makes.

she was serviced at home around the clock. i had illness in the family and after a few weeks, we realized we had to cut hourly care (especially during nights). what you did was wasteful and can be done with much less. it's not only millionaires who get sick, you know; there are millions of people with alzheimers in the USA.

and if you are worried about long term disability, with your resources you could certainly purchase insurance without as much as noticing. i am amazed that you are actually arguing here that you are not rich because if you got sick, you would be homeless or something. what about the rest of the usa?

She was a wanderer and woke several times in the middle of the night and was found on the streets. She also called 911/the police frequently during the day, thought others were trying to kill her,etc. having round the clock care wasn't wasteful. She could then-qualify for long term care (post diagnosis) and u less you have less than 2k of assets, the govt.wont cover (facility) coverage which would be inappropriate considering she had her own assets. I don't find it wasteful at all. It was HER money and she should have spent it for HER comfort while alive...not to mention safety. Show mea long term care policy who will insure a 92 year old woman....

She was certainly entitled to spend her money as she wished. However, if she really spent over 3 mil on her care, then she was in fact rich. Whether the way she spent the money was necessary is irrelevant, the fact is, she had 3+ mil to spend the way she pleased and that made her different frm 99.5% of Americans. That in itself makes one rich.

True...but she had the money in her 90s and that's my point. OP wouldn't have millions in her 90s unless she continues to save and amass wealth.

[Anonymous]

$2.5 M net worth, excluding the house, is great. Clearly OP is doing better than the vast majority of people in this country. But is she rich, or wealthy? That depends on how you measure.

Compared to the average person in the U.S., OP is in the top 1%. She's doing $2.4M better than the average person, whose net worth is about $70K. So rich compared to the average person, clearly. But a couple with 450K in their 401k and something other than negative equity is also pretty rich compared to the average $70K person. So that can't define rich overall.

Is she champagne bubble bath and limousine rich? No.
$2.5 M is about the minimum one would need to retire with a decent income. If you could get a 6% return, that would be $150,000 per year. That's good, and if she could get 10% it would be $250K per year. That would be quite good, but it's not the kind of money that gets you Ferraris and a villa in France. Also, these kinds of returns are difficult to get without incurring significant risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I cannot bring myself to read these pages and pages of postings on the frivolous question of whether a net worth of $2,500,000 makes you rich.

The answer, OP, to either your humble brag or clueless inquiry is "yes". You are wealthy, wealthier in fact, than most every other person in this country and certainly in this world. If someone were to submit this thread to the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, or the Louisville Courier-Journal, the readers of those papers would probably be dismayed to know that the citizens of our capital, on whose shoulders so many important decisions, legislation, and policy-making rests, live in such a bubble of comfort and affluent competitiveness, so out of touch with most people.

I will share this story so that you can appreciate your wealth even more. Several months ago, I attended my volunteer day at an organization that provides the very poorest children in our surrounding communities with essentials for home and school, socks and underwear, soap and shampoo, hairbrushes and toothbrushes, books and backpacks, uniforms and coats. One little 3d grade girl put on her jumper and twirled around in delight as she told us "my mother will be so happy, she always wanted me to have one of these but we could not buy it." Another 2d or 3d grade child, a severely handicapped-at-birth girl who was partially blind, wore hearing aids, walked with crutches, and could speak very little, broke into applause and an enormous smile when we fitted her with a brand new, white polo shirt. It is very humbling and completely emotional when someone to whom the world has given so little, and who fate has dealt such a very difficult hand, is so appreciative of a little thing like a new shirt.

Thank you for this post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get all the angst here- OP is rich, but not wealthy . They're upper middle class people amortizing their lifestyle over their lifespan, with no expectation of leaving generational wealth beyond their kids unless they decide to ratchet down expenses in retirement.

I am also rich, but to a much lesser extent- middle class with a nest egg that will allow a middle class lifestyle during retirement. The only thing our kids will likely get is some house equity.

My parents are not rich, middle class but reliant on current income and thus will have to work longer or ratchet down to a lower middle class lifestyle upon retirement. They will be comfortable, continue renting, not have to worry about food, but they won't have much disposable income and will leave nothing behind.

My grandmother was middle class, but poor. After she was no longer able to work, my parents and their siblings supported her til she passed away.

My Aunt and Uncle are wealthy upper middle class. They possess assets such that they could maintain that lifestyle without working. Their heirs could maintain that lifestyle without working, but it would end there. However, the wealth could last indefinitely should each generation work at maintaining it.

The upper class in this country are those with wealth that requires no personal work to maintain over generations.

The only thing I quibble with is your description of your parents. How can they be comfortable if they don't even own a house? How much ratcheting down can they do?

[Anonymous]

I will share this story so that you can appreciate your wealth even more. Several months ago, I attended my volunteer day at an organization that provides the very poorest children in our surrounding communities with essentials for home and school, socks and underwear, soap and shampoo, hairbrushes and toothbrushes, books and backpacks, uniforms and coats. One little 3d grade girl put on her jumper and twirled around in delight as she told us "my mother will be so happy, she always wanted me to have one of these but we could not buy it." Another 2d or 3d grade child, a severely handicapped-at-birth girl who was partially blind, wore hearing aids, walked with crutches, and could speak very little, broke into applause and an enormous smile when we fitted her with a brand new, white polo shirt. It is very humbling and completely emotional when someone to whom the world has given so little, and who fate has dealt such a very difficult hand, is so appreciative of a little thing like a new shirt.

How about posting on some other thread? The sanctimonious I-give-to-charities'- look at ME thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get all the angst here- OP is rich, but not wealthy . They're upper middle class people amortizing their lifestyle over their lifespan, with no expectation of leaving generational wealth beyond their kids unless they decide to ratchet down expenses in retirement.

I am also rich, but to a much lesser extent- middle class with a nest egg that will allow a middle class lifestyle during retirement. The only thing our kids will likely get is some house equity.

My parents are not rich, middle class but reliant on current income and thus will have to work longer or ratchet down to a lower middle class lifestyle upon retirement. They will be comfortable, continue renting, not have to worry about food, but they won't have much disposable income and will leave nothing behind.

My grandmother was middle class, but poor. After she was no longer able to work, my parents and their siblings supported her til she passed away.

My Aunt and Uncle are wealthy upper middle class. They possess assets such that they could maintain that lifestyle without working. Their heirs could maintain that lifestyle without working, but it would end there. However, the wealth could last indefinitely should each generation work at maintaining it.

The upper class in this country are those with wealth that requires no personal work to maintain over generations.

Which denies the existence of an upper class completely. Any amount of wealth can be squandered.

This entire thread has been so very revealing about the greed that colors the glasses worn by the DC area wealthy. People who are among the wealthiest in the world, the wealthiest in the country, who deny their wealth because they can't have every expensive trinket that crosses their line of sight. It is truly astonishing.

That's because we work very hard at difficult jobs and define our existences by work. If it doesn't buy us everything we want, we feel the sacrifices aren't worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I broke 20k a year, I felt rich. $2.5mil? I'd retire to Thailand and never work again in my life.

I guess you don't have kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I promise I'm not trying to be offensive. It's just that around here, and it seems especially on DCUM, there's a tremendous amount of wealth. I'm not saying I'm not, but with 3 small kids, we're planing to keep on working for the next 20 years, at least. We still have expenses to cover that investment income doesn't cover. The point is, it seems like wealth is everywhere here.

It is not rich. Rich would mean that, in addition to being able to stop working and live off of your investments, you could also send those 3 small kids to whatever school you would chose through college (and maybe even grad school). Well, you would spend down most of your money just to put 3 small kids through private school. Assume $30k+ per child for even 10 years. That's almost 1mm right there and you haven't even paid for college yet. Sad as it sounds, you are comfortable, not rich.

OP here again. Your response summarizes my point. Even though we're not planning on private schools for our kids, we definitely watch our spending carefully. On paper, we may seem "rich" to many people, but in reality, we're living a middle class lifestyle. I appreciate everyone's perspectives.

I am wondering what kind of lifestyle we must be living, then, having many times less money?

Working poor? Having no expectation of ever being able to retire, or to contribute meaningfully to the expense of your childrens' college educations?

Huh? I can retire right now (at 40) by merely moving back to my home country (which is thriving). College education there is basically free.

You don't, because _______________?