Top one percent

[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.

Agreed. Especially further skewed with pareto/extreme value distributions in the tail

[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.

I was in the top 1 percent by income and now I’m in the top 1 percent by net worth and I’m not working. Trust me - it’s more fun when it’s net worth.

[Anonymous]

There are a lot of people who make $1 million a year who don’t have a net worth of $10 million. There are plenty of people who make $500k a year and have a net worth of $10 million or more. It really is all about net worth. Ours is well into eight figures which is crazy but it took many years of very good income but very good saving and investing. Save early and invest smartly can beat a few years of big salaries.

[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?

No. You don’t understand the first thing about dividends and interest. Most large fortunes are in land, industries and stocks. Not in CDs. Very few stocks give generous dividends, and as an investor who seeks capital growth, it would a very bad idea to seek stocks bearing the most dividends. They’re on opposite sides!

So most high net worth individuals do not reap the crazy dollars in income from that capital that you think they do.

I know. I am in that sphere.

[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.

“FinancialSamurai” needs remedial math instruction.

[Anonymous]

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

Exactly. DH and I are in our late 20s with only $225K HHI, no family money, and a NW of $8.7M. We’ve been wildly successful in the market. I guess not everyone is able to transcend to our spiritual plane of existence.

[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?

No. You don’t understand the first thing about dividends and interest. Most large fortunes are in land, industries and stocks. Not in CDs. Very few stocks give generous dividends, and as an investor who seeks capital growth, it would a very bad idea to seek stocks bearing the most dividends. They’re on opposite sides!

So most high net worth individuals do not reap the crazy dollars in income from that capital that you think they do.

I know. I am in that sphere.

Actually I do and there are plenty of good stocks and funds paying fairly good dividends. A stock like VYM has shown very good capital appreciation and if one had been investing in an ETF like this say starting 10-15 years ago you would have received significant capital appreciation and be at like a 10% dividend yield if reinvesting all the dividends.

Land is not a great investment, so not sure where that came from.

Nobody mentioned CDs.

[Anonymous]

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

There are dozens of us! Dozens!

LOL there has to be at least like 50 of us who haven't amassed a NW of $100M!

[Anonymous]

Lol no. Im 35 and dont work in big law or investment banking, so slow and steady is the going to be the name of my game…

[Anonymous]

When I’m top 4% nationally in HHI but top 10% in the DC area… feels poor man

[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.

Your position is that when calculating your net worth, you have to factor in all taxes required to access the money? So in addition to income taxes for 401ks, you facot in capital gains taxes for taxable accounts? And also taxes and fees on the sale of a home, including realtor fees, recording taxes, etc.?

That makes a certain amount of sense, but no one does that.

And finally - who cares? Calculating your net worth is meaningless. It's not used for anything. It's just an ego-driven exercise. You may as well engage in a d**K measuring contest - although in your case, I'm guessing we know why you wouldn't welcome those kind of comparisons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If that's the case, you need a lesson in basic math. That you're in the top 1% doesn't provide any additional security. If your expenses outpace the annual income you generate in retirement, then you may be in trouble. If they don't you're fine. That's the same for anyone, no matter if they are in the top 1%, top 20%, etc.

[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.

Fascinating. Your kids and spouse *may* be worse off (or maybe not), but why do you think society as a whole would be worse off?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your position is that when calculating your net worth, you have to factor in all taxes required to access the money? So in addition to income taxes for 401ks, you facot in capital gains taxes for taxable accounts? And also taxes and fees on the sale of a home, including realtor fees, recording taxes, etc.?

That makes a certain amount of sense, but no one does that.

And finally - who cares? Calculating your net worth is meaningless. It's not used for anything. It's just an ego-driven exercise. You may as well engage in a d**K measuring contest - although in your case, I'm guessing we know why you wouldn't welcome those kind of comparisons.

If you calculate net worth as a proxy for the size of your estate, it is not meaningless. It's important for estate planning, especially if you are in a state with an inheritance tax.

[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.

“FinancialSamurai” needs remedial math instruction.

Yes, as much as you need remedial communication with manners.