Top one percent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Top 1% by net worth is kinda a pointless metric. It will mechanically include retired people, CEOs, and people with lots of real estate. For purposes of the “working” middle class (this includes DCUM frequent flyers like lawyers doctors etc that must work for a living), percentile by household income is much more valuable

It's not so pointless. Makes me feel better about an upcoming retirement knowing we are in the top 1% of net worth with some room to spare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM: always giving me something to strive for.

Just curious, how do you calculate your net worth?

Simple: all assets minus liabilities.

Except you always get jealous people who insist that you have to count your 401k only AFTER taxes, which is silly.

Why is that silly or why would that imply jealously? It’s clearly in the definition of net worth – assets minus liabilities. Traditional 401(k)s allow you to *defer* your tax liability, not eliminate it. Otherwise, $1 million in a Roth account would be no more valuable than $1 million in a traditional 401(k).

Now, if you want to talk about silly, look at the idiots who don’t consider home equity an asset in net worth calculation because “yOu alWaYS hAvE tO lIVe sOmEwHEre!” Apparently, they don’t understand the concept of imputed rent and that if someone did not have a paid-off house, they would need significantly more investments to be able to cover monthly rent payments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting..

I always believed the Fed Reserve numbers. The real 1% might be twice what you think it is or half... that's a big difference.

https://www.financialsamurai.com/obtaining-a-top-1-net-worth-easier-than-ever/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20October%202023,wouldn%27t%20provide%20false%20information.

According to this, $5.8 million in the study is the threshold for 1st percentile for individuals, not households.

Double that to $11.6 million for a household.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting..

I always believed the Fed Reserve numbers. The real 1% might be twice what you think it is or half... that's a big difference.

https://www.financialsamurai.com/obtaining-a-top-1-net-worth-easier-than-ever/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20October%202023,wouldn%27t%20provide%20false%20information.

According to this, $5.8 million in the study is the threshold for 1st percentile for individuals, not households.

Double that to $11.6 million for a household.

Lol it’s you again. And you’re wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting..

I always believed the Fed Reserve numbers. The real 1% might be twice what you think it is or half... that's a big difference.

https://www.financialsamurai.com/obtaining-a-top-1-net-worth-easier-than-ever/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20October%202023,wouldn%27t%20provide%20false%20information.

According to this, $5.8 million in the study is the threshold for 1st percentile for individuals, not households.

Double that to $11.6 million for a household.

Lol it’s you again. And you’re wrong.

Hmmm...not sure what you mean by again as that was my first post in this thread. Also not sure why you think what I stated was wrong.

The Financial Samurai article states:

"To hold a top 1% net worth in America, according to Knight Frank, a person in 2024 must have a net worth of at least $5.8 million. This amount is at least $7.2 million lower than what the Federal Reserve believes is required to be in the top 1% net worth in America [i.e., Federal Reserve says $13 million]....

"Perhaps the difference in top one percent figures lies in the Federal Reserve calculating the net worth of families, whereas Knight Frank calculates the net worth of individuals. After all, two individuals generally have a larger combined net worth than one individual. If a family consists of more than two individuals working from the Fed’s perspective, then the discrepancy between the data would be even larger."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting..

I always believed the Fed Reserve numbers. The real 1% might be twice what you think it is or half... that's a big difference.

https://www.financialsamurai.com/obtaining-a-top-1-net-worth-easier-than-ever/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20October%202023,wouldn%27t%20provide%20false%20information.

According to this, $5.8 million in the study is the threshold for 1st percentile for individuals, not households.

Double that to $11.6 million for a household.

Lol it’s you again. And you’re wrong.

Hmmm...not sure what you mean by again as that was my first post in this thread. Also not sure why you think what I stated was wrong.

The Financial Samurai article states:

"To hold a top 1% net worth in America, according to Knight Frank, a person in 2024 must have a net worth of at least $5.8 million. This amount is at least $7.2 million lower than what the Federal Reserve believes is required to be in the top 1% net worth in America [i.e., Federal Reserve says $13 million]....

"Perhaps the difference in top one percent figures lies in the Federal Reserve calculating the net worth of families, whereas Knight Frank calculates the net worth of individuals. After all, two individuals generally have a larger combined net worth than one individual. If a family consists of more than two individuals working from the Fed’s perspective, then the discrepancy between the data would be even larger."

I think you're right. Not so many can be top 1% or it would be top 10%

[Anonymous]

Yes, thanks to investing starting from a young age.

[Anonymous]

1M here at 29

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting..

I always believed the Fed Reserve numbers. The real 1% might be twice what you think it is or half... that's a big difference.

https://www.financialsamurai.com/obtaining-a-top-1-net-worth-easier-than-ever/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20October%202023,wouldn%27t%20provide%20false%20information.

Seems that you have a comprehension issue. Those numbers are “mean net worth “ among top 1%, top 1%…, not the thresholds to qualify.

I love that OP does not even understand this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not even close, I'm one of the DCUM poors.

There are dozens of us! Dozens!

LOL - Tobias Fünke

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:5.8 million?
We have that in our 50s with only 300s HHI, no family money, can’t believe that’s 1%

+1

I think a lot of people do not save money regularly and also like to spend a lot of money. I have amassed a lot without a high income simply because I do not have a penchant for spending and learned to invest early.

No, you’re just out of touch with the other 99%

This is why “tax the rich” applies to most of dcum. Regardless of how much you deny it.

[Anonymous]

No, but I am in the top one percent of books read last year, so I feel good about that! Priorities...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:5.8 million is still DCUM poor. You need at least 10 million to even be comfortable. That gives 400k a year which is middle class, barely.

I hope this is sarcasm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You need at least $5.8 million.

I’m there. Are you?

https://www.businessinsider.com/top-1-percent-wealth-richest-countries-united-states-monaco-luxembourg-2024-2?amp

You are a pimple on Jeff Bezos's behind. The top 1 percent isn't as exclusive a group as you think it is, especially in high COL areas like DC, New York, LA, San Francisco, etc.

But good for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a poor. Only 1.2 million NW.

Same here and it was hard work getting there as a DCUM poor