Washingtonians say $3 million = "wealthy", $720K = comfortable"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sad to find out that at 190k in hhi I am poor.

Damn!

Lol I find it sad that you and others misunderstood the article, which is discussing NW, not HHI.

[Anonymous]

So nobody actually goes to links here?

[Anonymous]

So, in a few years, when I retire, I can take my 2 mil in 401K + 500K home equity, and move elsewhere and be rich?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, in a few years, when I retire, I can take my 2 mil in 401K + 500K home equity, and move elsewhere and be rich?

yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, in a few years, when I retire, I can take my 2 mil in 401K + 500K home equity, and move elsewhere and be rich?

This should not come as a surprise to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The article is talking about net worth, right? But some of the PPs are referencing household income.

I can understand the confusion when the article itself conflates the two: "households grossing at least $1 million in assets" ...

Very diplomatic, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, in a few years, when I retire, I can take my 2 mil in 401K + 500K home equity, and move elsewhere and be rich?

I mean, I think you're being tongue in cheek here... but, yes. Of course you could be rich with $2.5M NW in many many parts of the world.

[Anonymous]

The numbers look about right to me.

If you thought this was household income, well, um, I sure hope reading comprehension isn't a big element of your profession.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is NET WORTH people.

I think the people responding have no idea what Net Worth means. The numbers cited are totally reasonable and I doubt they'd vary much across any urban/suburban population in America.

Wealthy means you have flexibility to do what you want in life (i.e., not work for the man). How much do you need to do that and maintain an comfortable upper middle class existence? About $3 million. Minimum. Shocker!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

The 'wealthy' net worth number seems low at $3M. Likewise the comfortable amount seems sort of low.

[Anonymous]

Oh nice. We are wealthy! News to me. lololo

I would have said wealthy starts at net worth of > 5 million.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 'wealthy' net worth number seems low at $3M. Likewise the comfortable amount seems sort of low.

I agree. We have a net worth slightly above 3M and I would definitely NOT say we are wealthy but we are comfortable. We don't have to worry about money as much as other people do. But we aren't lavish in our spending by any means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, in a few years, when I retire, I can take my 2 mil in 401K + 500K home equity, and move elsewhere and be rich?

What? No. 2.5M at retirement age is nothing to write home about. That has to last you another 20-30 years. Nursing home alone will run you 6 figures and aren't covered by most insurance programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, in a few years, when I retire, I can take my 2 mil in 401K + 500K home equity, and move elsewhere and be rich?

I mean, I think you're being tongue in cheek here... but, yes. Of course you could be rich with $2.5M NW in many many parts of the world.

depends on age. NW of 2.5M at 35? Not bad. Not wealthy but not bad. At 55? It's middle class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, in a few years, when I retire, I can take my 2 mil in 401K + 500K home equity, and move elsewhere and be rich?

I mean, I think you're being tongue in cheek here... but, yes. Of course you could be rich with $2.5M NW in many many parts of the world.

depends on age. NW of 2.5M at 35? Not bad. Not wealthy but not bad. At 55? It's middle class.

Sort of agree with this because I always look at what you could earn without touching principle.

at $2.5M you are looking at $75k of taxable income. When you are 35 a lot of that money is in pretax accounts - nobody is retiring at 35 with $2.5M but you are on a very good arc at that point.