People with $5M+ NW, why do you still choose to work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because we want $10m to retire.

Why? Give us an outline of your retirement plans and why you need that much to achieve them, then explain why those plans are so important and desirable that they're worth giving up more of your prime years working to achieve them. I'm genuinely curious. After all, time is limited--for all of us.

You know the answer, you will inevitably hear how people love their jobs and how boring their lives will become without working. If you make crazy money and love what you do, why not? This is the answer usually given. Is this completely made up internet slop or does it have a dose of reality? I know there are some people for whom it's true, especially when they can set their hours, work part time and don't feel like they are missing on life, time with family, travel, exercise, friendships, etc. (because they have to spend most of their waking hours at a job and commuting).

I can’t speak for others but this was true for me. I sold a company in my 40s and could’ve retired. I honestly never considered it. I liked working, was good at it and worked another +20 years. I admit that I lost some appetite for risk taking and turned down some opportunities that would’ve had me working even harder. I don’t think that my eventual retirement date was much impacted by my NW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I quit my teaching job when we hit $5m. I just couldn't put in another 5 years. We pay out of pocket for insurance for 3, while my DH is on Medicare.

Your DH is old enough for medicare and you still have TWO kids on your health insurance?? Wow.

Can't kids be on health insurance until 26 or something? When can you get Medicare? 62? 65? It doesn't seem that bad to me.

65. And yes, 26. So youngest age is 39 to become that parent.

It's not too bad for a man, but is a pretty bad idea for a woman.

whatever. i had my kid at 47. it's fine. happier to have had them late than not at all. we're only at $3M liquid net, so will probably work for another decade or so.

Except having a kid at age 47 means a significantly higher chance of health issues for the kid. Anything over 35 means an increased risk, but over 40 is much higher. So yeah, it's not really the best idea to have a kid at 40+

Despite anyones feelings on it, it is decidedly and scientifically a terrible idea. Women's bodies are entering menopause at those ages. You dont have the biological ability to give the needed energy to raising young children. It is a choice you can make, but the downsides should be loudly communicated. And financial and corporate institutions should discourage it (or at least not encourage it). Medicaid age adults should not have dependents that need Healthcare coverage.

You clearly speak from a position of ignorance/intent to troll.

Medicaid is income is need based and Medicare is a benefit you earn for use as you age.

The rest is just one big MYOB.

Someone asked a question, people answered with their reasons and were attacked as not good enough by an unknown metric.

I love a productive conversation, this antagonistic BS not so much.

Actually, when someone has a kid at 40+, said kid has developmental issues and disabilities, it is everyone's business, because it is our tax dollars that are required to help fund care for that kid.
And yes statistically someone who has a baby at 40+ has a significantly higher risk of having a variety of those issues and for those issues to be more severe in the kid. We don't live in a vacuum, society has to pay for all of these ideas. So perhaps it is time to realize, not everything that is possible to achieve scientifically is actually a good idea to pursue.
And yes, having a kid at 43 means you are 67 when they finish college. Hard to help a kid attend college if you are forced into early retirement and didn't save well

The poster you are responding to here.

I had my children at 40 and 43, neither are disabled, both are quite gifted and attending top universities on their own merit and we are full pay and doing fine. They are smart, funny, caring, athletic, creative and healthy. You are ignorant and can GFY.

Obviously it's not 100% going to happen. but the chances are much higher. If they had issues, you shouldn't expect the taxpayers to fund it all, especially when you chose to have kids at a much later point in life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s weird that so many are working for generational wealth. Future generations will not know you or care about you, and your money will be gone quicker than you can imagine.

Not trying to be a jerk, but every wealth study shows that large inheritances are quickly separated and spent by indulged kids who didn’t work for the money, don’t understand how to make it, and feel undermined by it.

Think about it: if most people work because it’s a necessity and later because they’re good at something, a big inheritance just stops many from even trying.

This isn’t to say that you can’t help your kids, but doing everything for them and your grandchildren before they even try isn’t really a gift; it’s about you showing them how great you are.

We have two children. One will blow through the inheritance and the other will save every penny of it. I like the idea of the one who spends to at least have a home that’s paid for. They make enough to support themselves but spend every extra dollar they have. The saver will end up with a nice home and create even more generational wealth. Raised them the same but boy did they turn out differently.

Have you talked to your estate lawyer about this? There are ways you could structure the inheritance to make it so the spender can't blow it all. Like, say he only gets the income from the trust until a certain age after which he can only take a certain amount of principal out per age, or give him the ability to disperse the income but put a corporate or other independent trustee in charge of the principal distributions.

+1

With a trust, you can document how it can be used, and ensure it's not wasted away. Even put what it can and cannot be used for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I quit my teaching job when we hit $5m. I just couldn't put in another 5 years. We pay out of pocket for insurance for 3, while my DH is on Medicare.

Your DH is old enough for medicare and you still have TWO kids on your health insurance?? Wow.

Can't kids be on health insurance until 26 or something? When can you get Medicare? 62? 65? It doesn't seem that bad to me.

65. And yes, 26. So youngest age is 39 to become that parent.

It's not too bad for a man, but is a pretty bad idea for a woman.

whatever. i had my kid at 47. it's fine. happier to have had them late than not at all. we're only at $3M liquid net, so will probably work for another decade or so.

Except having a kid at age 47 means a significantly higher chance of health issues for the kid. Anything over 35 means an increased risk, but over 40 is much higher. So yeah, it's not really the best idea to have a kid at 40+

Despite anyones feelings on it, it is decidedly and scientifically a terrible idea. Women's bodies are entering menopause at those ages. You dont have the biological ability to give the needed energy to raising young children. It is a choice you can make, but the downsides should be loudly communicated. And financial and corporate institutions should discourage it (or at least not encourage it). Medicaid age adults should not have dependents that need Healthcare coverage.

You clearly speak from a position of ignorance/intent to troll.

Medicaid is income is need based and Medicare is a benefit you earn for use as you age.

The rest is just one big MYOB.

Someone asked a question, people answered with their reasons and were attacked as not good enough by an unknown metric.

I love a productive conversation, this antagonistic BS not so much.

Actually, when someone has a kid at 40+, said kid has developmental issues and disabilities, it is everyone's business, because it is our tax dollars that are required to help fund care for that kid.
And yes statistically someone who has a baby at 40+ has a significantly higher risk of having a variety of those issues and for those issues to be more severe in the kid. We don't live in a vacuum, society has to pay for all of these ideas. So perhaps it is time to realize, not everything that is possible to achieve scientifically is actually a good idea to pursue.
And yes, having a kid at 43 means you are 67 when they finish college. Hard to help a kid attend college if you are forced into early retirement and didn't save well

We froze our embryos in our early 30s like smarties.

Good plan!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People want luxury, that’s it. You can retire on $5M just fine even with kids, but folks who earn enough to make 5 mil at a young age are accustomed to a certain standard of living that would be hard to guarantee on a mere 150k/yr or whatever.

You can easily blow 20-30k on a single international trip if you travel in style with a family. You can do that if you have 5 mil with an 800k HHI but not with 5 mil and $0 HHI.

This. If you keep the same lifestyle that your earnings that got your this NW provided you will not make it. You have to scale down. A lot. People don't like to scale down because it feels like downward mobility and dealing with lack-of-money problems. It's also stressful when you think you don't have financial security and you may have to go back to work in old age when your options are severely limited. Inflation eats up a lot, and cost for everything basic goes up. This leaves no space for anything nice.

And who wants to scale down at age 40/45? That is why people keep working at jobs they are good at and pay well. So by 55/60 they can retire and dont' need to scale back

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s weird that so many are working for generational wealth. Future generations will not know you or care about you, and your money will be gone quicker than you can imagine.

Not trying to be a jerk, but every wealth study shows that large inheritances are quickly separated and spent by indulged kids who didn’t work for the money, don’t understand how to make it, and feel undermined by it.

Think about it: if most people work because it’s a necessity and later because they’re good at something, a big inheritance just stops many from even trying.

This isn’t to say that you can’t help your kids, but doing everything for them and your grandchildren before they even try isn’t really a gift; it’s about you showing them how great you are.

We have two children. One will blow through the inheritance and the other will save every penny of it. I like the idea of the one who spends to at least have a home that’s paid for. They make enough to support themselves but spend every extra dollar they have. The saver will end up with a nice home and create even more generational wealth. Raised them the same but boy did they turn out differently.

Have you talked to your estate lawyer about this? There are ways you could structure the inheritance to make it so the spender can't blow it all. Like, say he only gets the income from the trust until a certain age after which he can only take a certain amount of principal out per age, or give him the ability to disperse the income but put a corporate or other independent trustee in charge of the principal distributions.

+1

With a trust, you can document how it can be used, and ensure it's not wasted away. Even put what it can and cannot be used for.

You can, but you need to have a trustee you trust a lot to manage this for many years. It is much more complex than just giving the money to children, it costs money, there are tax consequences, etc. Most people should try to control the future less from the grave. My parent left a single complex instruction in their will to generation skip an asset, and it means that I have to maintain a trust ownership for the rest of my life jointly with siblings. It's going to cost money and time, and I have to work with the other trust holders on every decision and deal with taxes separately. It definitely complicates holding these assets more than the parent probably thought it would.

[Anonymous]

Depends what you want. I'm still working for pay, but I think a lot about whether it's worth it in terms of interest, impact, and intellectual stimulation. DH went from 70 hours a week to a few hours of consulting. He does it to stay engaged.

We are late 40s. Kids still in school. Not sure we could fully retire, because we are young enough there are many unknowns where we could need more than we have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I quit my teaching job when we hit $5m. I just couldn't put in another 5 years. We pay out of pocket for insurance for 3, while my DH is on Medicare.

Your DH is old enough for medicare and you still have TWO kids on your health insurance?? Wow.

Can't kids be on health insurance until 26 or something? When can you get Medicare? 62? 65? It doesn't seem that bad to me.

65. And yes, 26. So youngest age is 39 to become that parent.

It's not too bad for a man, but is a pretty bad idea for a woman.

whatever. i had my kid at 47. it's fine. happier to have had them late than not at all. we're only at $3M liquid net, so will probably work for another decade or so.

Except having a kid at age 47 means a significantly higher chance of health issues for the kid. Anything over 35 means an increased risk, but over 40 is much higher. So yeah, it's not really the best idea to have a kid at 40+

Can you imagine saying this to someone in real life? That they shouldn’t have had their already-born children so late?

I have said something similar to friends in real life. A good friend was trying for her first in her 40s. We talked about how difficult it would be to raise that child and how not getting pregnant may be a blessing. She did get pregnant and baby and she are healthy. And she is also aware of the potential struggles that younger moms dont face. Her parents were older and both passed when she was in college, so its surprising to me that she made this choice knowing she will likely die before they reach full adult age.

You see posts on here all the time about women who are exhausted, suffering health issues, having marital problems, having life problems and then it comes out that they are 49 and have a 3 year old and its like, well yeah, duh. Your life stage is not compatible to being a mother of young kids. With lots of money you can alleviate the struggle. But it should be discussed and explained. Women in their 40s should generally not be encouraged to give birth.

I know this is off topic, sorry OP!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I quit my teaching job when we hit $5m. I just couldn't put in another 5 years. We pay out of pocket for insurance for 3, while my DH is on Medicare.

Your DH is old enough for medicare and you still have TWO kids on your health insurance?? Wow.

Can't kids be on health insurance until 26 or something? When can you get Medicare? 62? 65? It doesn't seem that bad to me.

65. And yes, 26. So youngest age is 39 to become that parent.

It's not too bad for a man, but is a pretty bad idea for a woman.

whatever. i had my kid at 47. it's fine. happier to have had them late than not at all. we're only at $3M liquid net, so will probably work for another decade or so.

Except having a kid at age 47 means a significantly higher chance of health issues for the kid. Anything over 35 means an increased risk, but over 40 is much higher. So yeah, it's not really the best idea to have a kid at 40+

Can you imagine saying this to someone in real life? That they shouldn’t have had their already-born children so late?

I have said something similar to friends in real life. A good friend was trying for her first in her 40s. We talked about how difficult it would be to raise that child and how not getting pregnant may be a blessing. She did get pregnant and baby and she are healthy. And she is also aware of the potential struggles that younger moms dont face. Her parents were older and both passed when she was in college, so its surprising to me that she made this choice knowing she will likely die before they reach full adult age.

You see posts on here all the time about women who are exhausted, suffering health issues, having marital problems, having life problems and then it comes out that they are 49 and have a 3 year old and its like, well yeah, duh. Your life stage is not compatible to being a mother of young kids. With lots of money you can alleviate the struggle. But it should be discussed and explained. Women in their 40s should generally not be encouraged to give birth.

I know this is off topic, sorry OP!

You sound jealous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I quit my teaching job when we hit $5m. I just couldn't put in another 5 years. We pay out of pocket for insurance for 3, while my DH is on Medicare.

Your DH is old enough for medicare and you still have TWO kids on your health insurance?? Wow.

Can't kids be on health insurance until 26 or something? When can you get Medicare? 62? 65? It doesn't seem that bad to me.

65. And yes, 26. So youngest age is 39 to become that parent.

It's not too bad for a man, but is a pretty bad idea for a woman.

whatever. i had my kid at 47. it's fine. happier to have had them late than not at all. we're only at $3M liquid net, so will probably work for another decade or so.

Except having a kid at age 47 means a significantly higher chance of health issues for the kid. Anything over 35 means an increased risk, but over 40 is much higher. So yeah, it's not really the best idea to have a kid at 40+

Can you imagine saying this to someone in real life? That they shouldn’t have had their already-born children so late?

I have said something similar to friends in real life. A good friend was trying for her first in her 40s. We talked about how difficult it would be to raise that child and how not getting pregnant may be a blessing. She did get pregnant and baby and she are healthy. And she is also aware of the potential struggles that younger moms dont face. Her parents were older and both passed when she was in college, so its surprising to me that she made this choice knowing she will likely die before they reach full adult age.

You see posts on here all the time about women who are exhausted, suffering health issues, having marital problems, having life problems and then it comes out that they are 49 and have a 3 year old and its like, well yeah, duh. Your life stage is not compatible to being a mother of young kids. With lots of money you can alleviate the struggle. But it should be discussed and explained. Women in their 40s should generally not be encouraged to give birth.

I know this is off topic, sorry OP!

You sound jealous.

The science overwhelmingly supports PPs position at population levels but their humanity should keep them from harping on a point that is (1) irrelevant to the topic at hand and (2) clearly painful for a number of PPs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I quit my teaching job when we hit $5m. I just couldn't put in another 5 years. We pay out of pocket for insurance for 3, while my DH is on Medicare.

Your DH is old enough for medicare and you still have TWO kids on your health insurance?? Wow.

Can't kids be on health insurance until 26 or something? When can you get Medicare? 62? 65? It doesn't seem that bad to me.

65. And yes, 26. So youngest age is 39 to become that parent.

It's not too bad for a man, but is a pretty bad idea for a woman.

whatever. i had my kid at 47. it's fine. happier to have had them late than not at all. we're only at $3M liquid net, so will probably work for another decade or so.

Except having a kid at age 47 means a significantly higher chance of health issues for the kid. Anything over 35 means an increased risk, but over 40 is much higher. So yeah, it's not really the best idea to have a kid at 40+

Can you imagine saying this to someone in real life? That they shouldn’t have had their already-born children so late?

I have said something similar to friends in real life. A good friend was trying for her first in her 40s. We talked about how difficult it would be to raise that child and how not getting pregnant may be a blessing. She did get pregnant and baby and she are healthy. And she is also aware of the potential struggles that younger moms dont face. Her parents were older and both passed when she was in college, so its surprising to me that she made this choice knowing she will likely die before they reach full adult age.

You see posts on here all the time about women who are exhausted, suffering health issues, having marital problems, having life problems and then it comes out that they are 49 and have a 3 year old and its like, well yeah, duh. Your life stage is not compatible to being a mother of young kids. With lots of money you can alleviate the struggle. But it should be discussed and explained. Women in their 40s should generally not be encouraged to give birth.

I know this is off topic, sorry OP!

You sound jealous.

Where did you read jealousy? I'm PP and had my last child at age 30. I am now close to retirement and empty nest at nearing 50. Live is great. I feel bad for women who didnt have children younger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I quit my teaching job when we hit $5m. I just couldn't put in another 5 years. We pay out of pocket for insurance for 3, while my DH is on Medicare.

Your DH is old enough for medicare and you still have TWO kids on your health insurance?? Wow.

Can't kids be on health insurance until 26 or something? When can you get Medicare? 62? 65? It doesn't seem that bad to me.

65. And yes, 26. So youngest age is 39 to become that parent.

It's not too bad for a man, but is a pretty bad idea for a woman.

whatever. i had my kid at 47. it's fine. happier to have had them late than not at all. we're only at $3M liquid net, so will probably work for another decade or so.

Except having a kid at age 47 means a significantly higher chance of health issues for the kid. Anything over 35 means an increased risk, but over 40 is much higher. So yeah, it's not really the best idea to have a kid at 40+

Can you imagine saying this to someone in real life? That they shouldn’t have had their already-born children so late?

I have said something similar to friends in real life. A good friend was trying for her first in her 40s. We talked about how difficult it would be to raise that child and how not getting pregnant may be a blessing. She did get pregnant and baby and she are healthy. And she is also aware of the potential struggles that younger moms dont face. Her parents were older and both passed when she was in college, so its surprising to me that she made this choice knowing she will likely die before they reach full adult age.

You see posts on here all the time about women who are exhausted, suffering health issues, having marital problems, having life problems and then it comes out that they are 49 and have a 3 year old and its like, well yeah, duh. Your life stage is not compatible to being a mother of young kids. With lots of money you can alleviate the struggle. But it should be discussed and explained. Women in their 40s should generally not be encouraged to give birth.

I know this is off topic, sorry OP!

You sound jealous.

Where did you read jealousy? I'm PP and had my last child at age 30. I am now close to retirement and empty nest at nearing 50. Live is great. I feel bad for women who didnt have children younger.

Jealous and possibly drunk.

[Anonymous]

We have $4M but we have a 9th grader and 6th grader and I'm not yet 50. I will work at least until I'm 57 or 60. A lot will depend on how much we pay for college and if we sell our house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s weird that so many are working for generational wealth. Future generations will not know you or care about you, and your money will be gone quicker than you can imagine.

Not trying to be a jerk, but every wealth study shows that large inheritances are quickly separated and spent by indulged kids who didn’t work for the money, don’t understand how to make it, and feel undermined by it.

Think about it: if most people work because it’s a necessity and later because they’re good at something, a big inheritance just stops many from even trying.

This isn’t to say that you can’t help your kids, but doing everything for them and your grandchildren before they even try isn’t really a gift; it’s about you showing them how great you are.

We have two children. One will blow through the inheritance and the other will save every penny of it. I like the idea of the one who spends to at least have a home that’s paid for. They make enough to support themselves but spend every extra dollar they have. The saver will end up with a nice home and create even more generational wealth. Raised them the same but boy did they turn out differently.

Have you talked to your estate lawyer about this? There are ways you could structure the inheritance to make it so the spender can't blow it all. Like, say he only gets the income from the trust until a certain age after which he can only take a certain amount of principal out per age, or give him the ability to disperse the income but put a corporate or other independent trustee in charge of the principal distributions.

+1

With a trust, you can document how it can be used, and ensure it's not wasted away. Even put what it can and cannot be used for.

You can, but you need to have a trustee you trust a lot to manage this for many years. It is much more complex than just giving the money to children, it costs money, there are tax consequences, etc. Most people should try to control the future less from the grave. My parent left a single complex instruction in their will to generation skip an asset, and it means that I have to maintain a trust ownership for the rest of my life jointly with siblings. It's going to cost money and time, and I have to work with the other trust holders on every decision and deal with taxes separately. It definitely complicates holding these assets more than the parent probably thought it would.

Just as she had agency to make a decision, so do you. You can relinquish it.

[Anonymous]

I am so so sad to be one of these posters because I used to be one of the gawkers. But with 3 kids, and college to pay for, annd inflation we are working for a good while longer. I’ve decided to try to enjoy life while working.