At what net worth are you considered wealthy ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would say a liquid net worth of at least 1 million outside of retirement and housing. That amount of money gives a lot of flexibility.

I hear this a lot, what is the obsession with “liquid” assets outside of retirement accounts? If I have $5M in retirement accounts and my primary home that simply doesn’t count?

DP.. because wealthy people can quit working and not put a dent in their lifestyle. If you are under 59, and all your money is in retirement accounts and you quite your job, what will you live on? You can certainly pull the money out early and pay a penalty but that eats into your funds, depleting it faster.

IMO wealthy means you can stop working and still live the same type of lifestyle.

I have $3mil, I can retire now, but I wouldn't be able to have the same lifestyle. I'd have to budget a lot more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an <100K income and >10M in assets. We live frugally, since there is no spending of capital. I suggest you bear in mind that there are as many financial situations as there are people and that initial appearances can be deceiving.

So your wealth is tied to your primary residence? No rental property?

I replied earlier. We have Apple stock. No rental properties or real estate apart from the house we live in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an <100K income and >10M in assets. We live frugally, since there is no spending of capital. I suggest you bear in mind that there are as many financial situations as there are people and that initial appearances can be deceiving.

So your wealth is tied to your primary residence? No rental property?

I replied earlier. We have Apple stock. No rental properties or real estate apart from the house we live in.

And it's not family money. We invested when we were young, that's all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What meg worth constitutes wealthy around here?

What a strange question. Are you looking for validation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would say a liquid net worth of at least 1 million outside of retirement and housing. That amount of money gives a lot of flexibility.

I hear this a lot, what is the obsession with “liquid” assets outside of retirement accounts? If I have $5M in retirement accounts and my primary home that simply doesn’t count?

DP.. because wealthy people can quit working and not put a dent in their lifestyle. If you are under 59, and all your money is in retirement accounts and you quite your job, what will you live on? You can certainly pull the money out early and pay a penalty but that eats into your funds, depleting it faster.

IMO wealthy means you can stop working and still live the same type of lifestyle.

I have $3mil, I can retire now, but I wouldn't be able to have the same lifestyle. I'd have to budget a lot more.

A home is an asset but most people live in their home. I don't even think about my home equity. Sure it bumps up my net worth but what am I going to do with that money? I have no intention of selling my home. Could I tap into it if needed, yes; but there are often better ways to obtain lines of credit. People put way too much weight on home equity. My kids will inherit the house and sell it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$10M for a household. $3M for a forever single person with no kids.

Answers like this are so stupid. According to Kiplinger's, a NW of $2.5M puts you in the top 2% of all households. So by this PP's logic, a lot of the top 2% wealthiest households in the country aren't "wealthy."

https://www.kiplinger.com/personal-finance/605075/are-you-rich#:~:text=People%20with%20the%20top%201,The%20top%2010%25%20had%20%24854%2C900.

2.5M provides 80 - 120k/yr if done right. That is hardly wealthy.

You need to figure out how much money do you need to create a stream of income that allows you to live freely and not worry about money.

In many instances, 300k - 500k would allow people to live fairly freely and not worry to much about money. Travel, treating the kids, etc. That requires about $10M liquid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$10M for a household. $3M for a forever single person with no kids.

Answers like this are so stupid. According to Kiplinger's, a NW of $2.5M puts you in the top 2% of all households. So by this PP's logic, a lot of the top 2% wealthiest households in the country aren't "wealthy."

https://www.kiplinger.com/personal-finance/605075/are-you-rich#:~:text=People%20with%20the%20top%201,The%20top%2010%25%20had%20%24854%2C900.

2.5M provides 80 - 120k/yr if done right. That is hardly wealthy.

You need to figure out how much money do you need to create a stream of income that allows you to live freely and not worry about money.

In many instances, 300k - 500k would allow people to live fairly freely and not worry to much about money. Travel, treating the kids, etc. That requires about $10M liquid.

If your definition of wealthy means having the money to generate enough passive income to not work at all in a VHCOL area, cover $80K per year for all of your kids to go to college, and allow your husband enough spending money to satisfy his mistresses and cocaine habit, then you are right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$10M for a household. $3M for a forever single person with no kids.

Answers like this are so stupid. According to Kiplinger's, a NW of $2.5M puts you in the top 2% of all households. So by this PP's logic, a lot of the top 2% wealthiest households in the country aren't "wealthy."

https://www.kiplinger.com/personal-finance/605075/are-you-rich#:~:text=People%20with%20the%20top%201,The%20top%2010%25%20had%20%24854%2C900.

2.5M provides 80 - 120k/yr if done right. That is hardly wealthy.

You need to figure out how much money do you need to create a stream of income that allows you to live freely and not worry about money.

In many instances, 300k - 500k would allow people to live fairly freely and not worry to much about money. Travel, treating the kids, etc. That requires about $10M liquid.

If your definition of wealthy means having the money to generate enough passive income to not work at all in a VHCOL area, cover $80K per year for all of your kids to go to college, and allow your husband enough spending money to satisfy his mistresses and cocaine habit, then you are right.

DP. That IS the definition of wealth! If yours had been the first post, this thread would have been over long ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$10M for a household. $3M for a forever single person with no kids.

Answers like this are so stupid. According to Kiplinger's, a NW of $2.5M puts you in the top 2% of all households. So by this PP's logic, a lot of the top 2% wealthiest households in the country aren't "wealthy."

https://www.kiplinger.com/personal-finance/605075/are-you-rich#:~:text=People%20with%20the%20top%201,The%20top%2010%25%20had%20%24854%2C900.

2.5M provides 80 - 120k/yr if done right. That is hardly wealthy.

You need to figure out how much money do you need to create a stream of income that allows you to live freely and not worry about money.

In many instances, 300k - 500k would allow people to live fairly freely and not worry to much about money. Travel, treating the kids, etc. That requires about $10M liquid.

If your definition of wealthy means having the money to generate enough passive income to not work at all in a VHCOL area, cover $80K per year for all of your kids to go to college, and allow your husband enough spending money to satisfy his mistresses and cocaine habit, then you are right.

DP. That IS the definition of wealth! If yours had been the first post, this thread would have been over long ago.

NP, agreeing with this. For me, wealthy means you can stop working now, and not have to worry about anything. That includes being able to live in a HCOL without compromising quality of life, paid for education for kids, travel as much as your heart desires, etc. For me, that starts at roughly 10M.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an <100K income and >10M in assets. We live frugally, since there is no spending of capital. I suggest you bear in mind that there are as many financial situations as there are people and that initial appearances can be deceiving.

So your wealth is tied to your primary residence? No rental property?

I replied earlier. We have Apple stock. No rental properties or real estate apart from the house we live in.

BS....sorry but at that income you wouldn't have been able to purchase enough stock long ago where it would have made that big of a difference...

[Anonymous]

8 million (not including primary residence)

[Anonymous]

For all of you starting you can get X income from Y asset value -- what are your assumptions? I'm seeing implied 4% dividend yields and in some cases 5% -- where are you getting that yield?

[Anonymous]

When you stop reading DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$10M for a household. $3M for a forever single person with no kids.

Answers like this are so stupid. According to Kiplinger's, a NW of $2.5M puts you in the top 2% of all households. So by this PP's logic, a lot of the top 2% wealthiest households in the country aren't "wealthy."

https://www.kiplinger.com/personal-finance/605075/are-you-rich#:~:text=People%20with%20the%20top%201,The%20top%2010%25%20had%20%24854%2C900.

2.5M provides 80 - 120k/yr if done right. That is hardly wealthy.

You need to figure out how much money do you need to create a stream of income that allows you to live freely and not worry about money.

In many instances, 300k - 500k would allow people to live fairly freely and not worry to much about money. Travel, treating the kids, etc. That requires about $10M liquid.

If your definition of wealthy means having the money to generate enough passive income to not work at all in a VHCOL area, cover $80K per year for all of your kids to go to college, and allow your husband enough spending money to satisfy his mistresses and cocaine habit, then you are right.

That's exactly what it means..

Retiring on 2.5M in Richmond is quite comfortable but the 100k it provides won't go very far..and you'll be thinking about money forever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an <100K income and >10M in assets. We live frugally, since there is no spending of capital. I suggest you bear in mind that there are as many financial situations as there are people and that initial appearances can be deceiving.

So your wealth is tied to your primary residence? No rental property?

I replied earlier. We have Apple stock. No rental properties or real estate apart from the house we live in.

BS....sorry but at that income you wouldn't have been able to purchase enough stock long ago where it would have made that big of a difference...

25 years ago it was 25 cents a share. You could have invested $15-20k back then and be at $10 million now. This information is freely available. Some people are older than you are.