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

[Anonymous]

Hey OP- read this post and STFUF.
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/339709.page

BETTER YET, spend some time volunteering this Thanksgiving at a shelter or soup kitchen. Have you no gratitude for your trust fund?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here- FWIW, our HH income is around 200k. We got very lucky by buying our first home in 2000, which appreciated tremendously during the real estate boom. We also bought and sold a few properties with minimal down payments within 5 years. That's how we were able to accumulate our assets. All along, we've been savers, maxing out retirement/401k every year. We're definitely not dual income big law, as some might have predicted.

Your net worth is security but you are not wealthy. Since the accumulation was not from salaries then be very careful. 2.5 m doesn't generate enough investment income to live a middle class life style.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here- FWIW, our HH income is around 200k. We got very lucky by buying our first home in 2000, which appreciated tremendously during the real estate boom. We also bought and sold a few properties with minimal down payments within 5 years. That's how we were able to accumulate our assets. All along, we've been savers, maxing out retirement/401k every year. We're definitely not dual income big law, as some might have predicted.

Your net worth is security but you are not wealthy. Since the accumulation was not from salaries then be very careful. 2.5 m doesn't generate enough investment income to live a middle class life style.

$2.5M isnt jack. Its barely enough for a decent house, much less a vacation home. You need $10M for retirement at a minimum.

[Anonymous]

I do not consider that rich. We have more than that (not including retirement or real estate) and I don't consider us "rich." To be rich I would say you'd be in the upper class. OP is in the higher middle class range. She could not stop working NOW and survive through life without trouble. Right now she is not rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do not consider that rich. We have more than that (not including retirement or real estate) and I don't consider us "rich." To be rich I would say you'd be in the upper class. OP is in the higher middle class range. She could not stop working NOW and survive through life without trouble. Right now she is not rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do not consider that rich. We have more than that (not including retirement or real estate) and I don't consider us "rich." To be rich I would say you'd be in the upper class. OP is in the higher middle class range. She could not stop working NOW and survive through life without trouble. Right now she is not rich.

just shut up. if you have more than $2.5 million, not including retirement or real estate, you are rich, and it's embarassing, to say the least, to argue otherwise.

[Anonymous]

what i learned through this 12 pages is that many rich people are dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not consider that rich. We have more than that (not including retirement or real estate) and I don't consider us "rich." To be rich I would say you'd be in the upper class. OP is in the higher middle class range. She could not stop working NOW and survive through life without trouble. Right now she is not rich.

just shut up. if you have more than $2.5 million, not including retirement or real estate, you are rich, and it's embarassing, to say the least, to argue otherwise.

Gotcha - your opinion is the only one. Sorry, I was a little slow on the uptake. It is like defining "smart" or "pretty" or "happy" or "successful". They are abstract enough that each person will have his/her own subjective slant on what the definition would be. MY definition is this isn't rich for two people at that age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not consider that rich. We have more than that (not including retirement or real estate) and I don't consider us "rich." To be rich I would say you'd be in the upper class. OP is in the higher middle class range. She could not stop working NOW and survive through life without trouble. Right now she is not rich.

just shut up. if you have more than $2.5 million, not including retirement or real estate, you are rich, and it's embarassing, to say the least, to argue otherwise.

Gotcha - your opinion is the only one. Sorry, I was a little slow on the uptake. It is like defining "smart" or "pretty" or "happy" or "successful". They are abstract enough that each person will have his/her own subjective slant on what the definition would be. MY definition is this isn't rich for two people at that age.

No, her opinion is not the only one (raises hand).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here- FWIW, our HH income is around 200k. We got very lucky by buying our first home in 2000, which appreciated tremendously during the real estate boom. We also bought and sold a few properties with minimal down payments within 5 years. That's how we were able to accumulate our assets. All along, we've been savers, maxing out retirement/401k every year. We're definitely not dual income big law, as some might have predicted.

Your net worth is security but you are not wealthy. Since the accumulation was not from salaries then be very careful. 2.5 m doesn't generate enough investment income to live a middle class life style.

$2.5M isnt jack. Its barely enough for a decent house, much less a vacation home. You need $10M for retirement at a minimum.

No, you are definitely NOT rich by DC area standards. BigLaw, bigDoc and others makes $1.5M each and every year. So, even after taxes, they have $2.5M after several years. And how do they spend it? $1.4-$1.7M for the home. 20-30K each year for private school, per kid. $25K minimum on vacations. Luxury cars x2 @ 65 each. College at $250K per child. Second home $1M- 1.2M. Summer camp $10k each child. 40K nanny/ housekeeper. (full time) Expenses $10K month....That is not counting toys such as boats, collectable cars, horses, ect ect.

[Anonymous]

...but if you are frugal and leave this area, yes, you are very comfortable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do not consider that rich. We have more than that (not including retirement or real estate) and I don't consider us "rich." To be rich I would say you'd be in the upper class. OP is in the higher middle class range. She could not stop working NOW and survive through life without trouble. Right now she is not rich.

sigh...us also. Inflation is a b***th. For our parents, it would have been a lot more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:what i learned through this 12 pages is that many rich people are dumb.

Essentially, if one doesn't agree with your OPINION, he/she is dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not consider that rich. We have more than that (not including retirement or real estate) and I don't consider us "rich." To be rich I would say you'd be in the upper class. OP is in the higher middle class range. She could not stop working NOW and survive through life without trouble. Right now she is not rich.

just shut up. if you have more than $2.5 million, not including retirement or real estate, you are rich, and it's embarassing, to say the least, to argue otherwise.

Gotcha - your opinion is the only one. Sorry, I was a little slow on the uptake. It is like defining "smart" or "pretty" or "happy" or "successful". They are abstract enough that each person will have his/her own subjective slant on what the definition would be. MY definition is this isn't rich for two people at that age.

No, its not like defining smart or happy because wealth is very easy to measure and compare. The argument is just where to draw the line, with rich people here insisting that it should be drawn at something like top 0.001% because that would, in their minds, allow for such specific luxuries such as vacation homes, immediate retirement, grandchilden not having to work etc etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what i learned through this 12 pages is that many rich people are dumb.

Essentially, if one doesn't agree with your OPINION, he/she is dumb.

No. But if one is consistenly confusing lifestyle choices and wealth and/or treating the concept of 'being rich" as somehow intrinsically impervious to time, and does so even after being given multiple explanations and counter-examples, he is dumb.