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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this thread clearly shows that most people think $2.5 million is rich and set for life.

Most people could happily live the rest of their lives with this. Especially if they are willing to move. Working is optional, not required.

Some people say this is not enough. Those people probably want expensive homes, private school, luxury vacations, etc. etc.

So the final answer is that this is rich for most people, but not all.

Well, we have spent over $300,000 the past 15 years just on childcare and taxes related to childcare. Most people would consider that very expensive. Are we rich just because we did that?

Yes.

[Anonymous]

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

What I've learned is that many people without much money do not differentiate between rich because someone worked for their money and those who did/do not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you can stop working and live off your investment income and they draw 450K a year you are rich.

Right and you certainly can't do that on $2.5 million.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this thread clearly shows that most people think $2.5 million is rich and set for life.

Most people could happily live the rest of their lives with this. Especially if they are willing to move. Working is optional, not required.

Some people say this is not enough. Those people probably want expensive homes, private school, luxury vacations, etc. etc.

So the final answer is that this is rich for most people, but not all.

Well, we have spent over $300,000 the past 15 years just on childcare and taxes related to childcare. Most people would consider that very expensive. Are we rich just because we did that?

Yes.

But we no longer have that money.

[Anonymous]

So what is your argument? You don't have any money left because you... Spent it? Ooookay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this thread clearly shows that most people think $2.5 million is rich and set for life.

Most people could happily live the rest of their lives with this. Especially if they are willing to move. Working is optional, not required.

Some people say this is not enough. Those people probably want expensive homes, private school, luxury vacations, etc. etc.

So the final answer is that this is rich for most people, but not all.

Well, we have spent over $300,000 the past 15 years just on childcare and taxes related to childcare. Most people would consider that very expensive. Are we rich just because we did that?

Yes.

But we no longer have that money.

Depending in how much you have now, you were either rich at the time and are no more, or you are still rich.

[Anonymous]

And you presumably made a lot more over the time that you needed that childcare, or it wouldn't have been worth spending that money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what is your argument? You don't have any money left because you... Spent it? Ooookay.

The idea appears to be, if you can spend your money, then you are not rich. This, despite numerous examples of people squandering tens of millions of dollars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, to argue that some who has more money than the average family (you know the real middle class, the ones in the middle) will earn over the course of their entire lives is dumb. Just like it is dumb to assert that everyone who is between the 15% living in poverty and 0.001 with jets and boats is somehow one big middle class.

I would agree that the .0001% with the jets and boats are NOT in the middle class. I think it is far more gray than most of you (without the wad of dough) think. Just because it is far more than most average families will have doesn't make it meet MY definition of rich. Hello - MY opinion. I am not dissing yours; don't diss mine.

2.5 million is not just more than the average family will ever HAVE, it is more than they will even EARN or MAKE. Meaning even if they didn't pay any taxes (payroll, fed, state), didn't have any expenses, and never spent a dime they would still never touch that amount of money.

No, not true. The median household income is 50,233. Assuming 45 years working starting at age 20, that's over $2.25 million. If the family never spent anything, presumably they would put that money in a bank account. If they are paid $4,186 monthly and can average even a meager 3% interest, they would have $4.6M when they reached age 65.

If they wanted to have $2.5M to retire on, all they need is to invest $2,246.92 per month for 45 years at 3% (which again, is pretty conservative). So a family that earns the median income can reach $2.5M in 45 years and still have $1,939 per month to spend on food, taxes, etc.

HHI from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Household_income
Compound interest calculation from here: http://investor.gov/tools/calculators/compound-interest-calculator

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this thread clearly shows that most people think $2.5 million is rich and set for life.

Most people could happily live the rest of their lives with this. Especially if they are willing to move. Working is optional, not required.

Some people say this is not enough. Those people probably want expensive homes, private school, luxury vacations, etc. etc.

So the final answer is that this is rich for most people, but not all.

But most people don't graduate from high school with straight As, go to a top public or private university, go to grad school. How can you compare what someone who barely graduated from high school thinks is "rich" with someone who's done certain things designed to help make money? If I went to law school and made no more than $75K a year, max, for my whole career, how is that "rich"?

Huh? What does getting As and going to grad school has to do with anything? Everyone understands what having 3 mil in a bank means, regardless of whether they have any clue about how one gets to it (not that there is a single path...). Also, nobody here argued that HHI of 75k makes one rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you can stop working and live off your investment income and they draw 450K a year you are rich.

Winner

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

What I've learned is that many people without much money do not differentiate between rich because someone worked for their money and those who did/do not.

Right. Perhaps thats because that distinction is entirely irrelevant for this discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this thread clearly shows that most people think $2.5 million is rich and set for life.

Most people could happily live the rest of their lives with this. Especially if they are willing to move. Working is optional, not required.

Some people say this is not enough. Those people probably want expensive homes, private school, luxury vacations, etc. etc.
So the final answer is that this is rich for most people, but not all.

Well, we have spent over $300,000 the past 15 years just on childcare and taxes related to childcare. Most people would consider that very expensive. Are we rich just because we did that?

Yes.

It isn't that I'm saying it isn't "enough" - I'm saying it isn't rich. And FWIW, my kids are in public schools, we have a moderate home, moderate vehicles, we do spend a lot on vacations but otherwise are very thrifty/cheap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this thread clearly shows that most people think $2.5 million is rich and set for life.

Most people could happily live the rest of their lives with this. Especially if they are willing to move. Working is optional, not required.

Some people say this is not enough. Those people probably want expensive homes, private school, luxury vacations, etc. etc.
So the final answer is that this is rich for most people, but not all.

Well, we have spent over $300,000 the past 15 years just on childcare and taxes related to childcare. Most people would consider that very expensive. Are we rich just because we did that?

Yes.

It isn't that I'm saying it isn't "enough" - I'm saying it isn't rich. And FWIW, my kids are in public schools, we have a moderate home, moderate vehicles, we do spend a lot on vacations but otherwise are very thrifty/cheap.

How you spend your money is irrelevant. If you have boatloads of money that you could spend, even if you dont spend a single dime, you are rich. If you in fact spent the money you might or might not be rich anymore. One would think that people with so much money would understand such basic notions.

[Anonymous]

If you can stop working and live off your investment income and they draw 450K a year you are rich.

You'd have to have $11,250,000 in the bank to get this.

This thread highlights our financial illiteracy and shows why we need to keep talking about money.

Why is money such an emotional topic? It's just numbers! It it because the US society measures success with $$?