Top one percent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't understand why you would factor after-tax value of NW for a 401k. I mean, it's not like you pay some lump-sum Capital Gains tax on it once you start withdrawing. You pay ordinary income on the withdrawals, and of course you can decide to only take the mandatory minimums.

[Anonymous]

I saw this article and was surprised by it. I always thought of "top 1%" as being defined by income. We are top 1% by income ($1M) but not assets. We're in our 40s and have been at this income level for only a couple of years, so we're on our way to being top 1% for assets too - I'd say within the next five years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw this article and was surprised by it. I always thought of "top 1%" as being defined by income. We are top 1% by income ($1M) but not assets. We're in our 40s and have been at this income level for only a couple of years, so we're on our way to being top 1% for assets too - I'd say within the next five years.

You can calculate the top 1% either way--by income or by net worth. There are many who fall into the top 1% for one but not the other. Maybe the most telling number would be those who fall into both.

[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.

They are different numbers. I don't have a comprehension issue. You do have a kindness issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Just curious, how do you calculate your net worth?

If you died tomorrow, would society be better or worse off?

Worse, since I'm a stay at home mother.

You should mean - worse because you're a good parent. Seriously, it doesn't matter if you stay home or not. Raising the next generation is the biggest impact most people on this board will have for better or worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Honestly it's silly because you are literally splitting an arbitrary hair. But if it give you pleasure to do so - go for it!

Clearly you think you are very smart and get pleasure out of insulting strangers, which is just wierd to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, it's not that people don't understand these differences - it's that they use these numbers as a guide - rule of thumb - so the slight variations dont really matter too much. Most people aren't using them in a penis measuring competition they way you are.

[Anonymous]

Let’s get back to more meaningful topics. Is there a market for 401k futures that I can use to estimate the present value of my 401k?

[Anonymous]

By this report

https://dqydj.com/top-one-percent-united-states/

For most of us, I think it's easier to qualify for Top 1% based on HHI, although relatively late in career. Networth is more tricky, as it depends on what risks you took in the market and if you got lucky with family money, real estate and individual stocks

1. The top one percent of household net worth starts at $13,666,778.

2. $591,550 is the cutoff for a top 1% household income in the United States in 2023. For a single earner, the cutoff is $407,500.

[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.

Yes, I get that. The Fed Reserve number is $9.7 for household, which if one assumes that every household has 2 adult earners (not a great assumption) it's $4.8M. I have to assume that the Fed Res should have better numbers than a British company, or at least more realistic tax numbers. I think HHNW is probably better metric than individual, since decisions and investments are normally done that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:By this report

https://dqydj.com/top-one-percent-united-states/

For most of us, I think it's easier to qualify for Top 1% based on HHI, although relatively late in career. Networth is more tricky, as it depends on what risks you took in the market and if you got lucky with family money, real estate and individual stocks

1. The top one percent of household net worth starts at $13,666,778.

2. $591,550 is the cutoff for a top 1% household income in the United States in 2023. For a single earner, the cutoff is $407,500.

These two figures seem odd to me. Either the $13.7MM is too high or the the $592k is too low.

I mean, if the top 1% of HHs have a $13.7MM NW, just the annual dividends and interest on that $13.7MM could almost = $592k. So assuming those $13.7MM NW households are still working, wouldn't their income be far above $592k?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By this report

https://dqydj.com/top-one-percent-united-states/

For most of us, I think it's easier to qualify for Top 1% based on HHI, although relatively late in career. Networth is more tricky, as it depends on what risks you took in the market and if you got lucky with family money, real estate and individual stocks

1. The top one percent of household net worth starts at $13,666,778.

2. $591,550 is the cutoff for a top 1% household income in the United States in 2023. For a single earner, the cutoff is $407,500.

These two figures seem odd to me. Either the $13.7MM is too high or the the $592k is too low.

I mean, if the top 1% of HHs have a $13.7MM NW, just the annual dividends and interest on that $13.7MM could almost = $592k. So assuming those $13.7MM NW households are still working, wouldn't their income be far above $592k?

I think the difference might be wealth transfer between generations. For example, if a high earner say top 2% amounts $7M networth (reasonable) on their own then inherits $5M later in life 50+ then they become that 1%. Their kids don't become that until later in life too. These numbers make more sense if you look at the distribution by age.

[Anonymous]

The top net worth threshold seems a bit silly as it is going to be mostly old folks who have had their whole life to acquire wealth. You'll get a very different answer for top 1% net worth for those aged 30-40.

[Anonymous]

Hmmmm that can't be. We have that much in savings/investments but only make $350k salary, which DCUM says is middle class/slightly upper middle. I thought top 1% had to do with yearly income

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By this report

https://dqydj.com/top-one-percent-united-states/

For most of us, I think it's easier to qualify for Top 1% based on HHI, although relatively late in career. Networth is more tricky, as it depends on what risks you took in the market and if you got lucky with family money, real estate and individual stocks

1. The top one percent of household net worth starts at $13,666,778.

2. $591,550 is the cutoff for a top 1% household income in the United States in 2023. For a single earner, the cutoff is $407,500.

These two figures seem odd to me. Either the $13.7MM is too high or the the $592k is too low.

I mean, if the top 1% of HHs have a $13.7MM NW, just the annual dividends and interest on that $13.7MM could almost = $592k. So assuming those $13.7MM NW households are still working, wouldn't their income be far above $592k?

I think the difference might be wealth transfer between generations. For example, if a high earner say top 2% amounts $7M networth (reasonable) on their own then inherits $5M later in life 50+ then they become that 1%. Their kids don't become that until later in life too. These numbers make more sense if you look at the distribution by age.

I get it...but won't the income generated by that extra $6.7MM, plus the $7MM, plus the 50+ everyday income put them probably above $592k?

Yeah, I get that $13.7MM could all be in growth stocks or it's all in tax-advantaged accounts I guess.

Like I said, it just seems odd that you need $13.7MM to be in the top 1% by NW, but only $592k to be in top 1% by income. That is why PP's numbers of $5.8MM NW seem more realistic to me, as that more closely aligns with a $592k annual HHI.