Are you considering youself rich?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DH and I consider ourselves rich yes, though we would never phrase it that way. Our great-great-grandchildren will never have to work. We know we are outrageously lucky.

At least someone here admits to being wealthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH and I consider ourselves rich yes, though we would never phrase it that way. Our great-great-grandchildren will never have to work. We know we are outrageously lucky.

At least someone here admits to being wealthy.

Because that poster is clearly truly wealthy. Making 1M/yr and having a mortgage on a 2m home isn't wealthy in the sense one should define wealth -- the wealthy don't have to work, don't have to budget, and don't have to second-guess a damn thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH and I consider ourselves rich yes, though we would never phrase it that way. Our great-great-grandchildren will never have to work. We know we are outrageously lucky.

At least someone here admits to being wealthy.

Because that poster is clearly truly wealthy. Making 1M/yr and having a mortgage on a 2m home isn't wealthy in the sense one should define wealth -- the wealthy don't have to work, don't have to budget, and don't have to second-guess a damn thing.

this is stupid. by that definition, an entertainer isn't wealthy even if they earn $10 million a year, if they own a $20 million home in Santa Barbara with a mortgage, and have to plan because their career will probably only last 5-10 years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH and I consider ourselves rich yes, though we would never phrase it that way. Our great-great-grandchildren will never have to work. We know we are outrageously lucky.

At least someone here admits to being wealthy.

There are very, very few people in this position anywhere in the country, much less on DCUM. Of course this person is rich. COME ON.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH and I consider ourselves rich yes, though we would never phrase it that way. Our great-great-grandchildren will never have to work. We know we are outrageously lucky.

At least someone here admits to being wealthy.

Because that poster is clearly truly wealthy. Making 1M/yr and having a mortgage on a 2m home isn't wealthy in the sense one should define wealth -- the wealthy don't have to work, don't have to budget, and don't have to second-guess a damn thing.

this is stupid. by that definition, an entertainer isn't wealthy even if they earn $10 million a year, if they own a $20 million home in Santa Barbara with a mortgage, and have to plan because their career will probably only last 5-10 years?

How many entertainers and sports figures, not to mention lottery winners, go bankrupt? There is great offensive game, earning a lot, and then there is great defensive game - keeping a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH and I consider ourselves rich yes, though we would never phrase it that way. Our great-great-grandchildren will never have to work. We know we are outrageously lucky.

At least someone here admits to being wealthy.

Because that poster is clearly truly wealthy. Making 1M/yr and having a mortgage on a 2m home isn't wealthy in the sense one should define wealth -- the wealthy don't have to work, don't have to budget, and don't have to second-guess a damn thing.

this is stupid. by that definition, an entertainer isn't wealthy even if they earn $10 million a year, if they own a $20 million home in Santa Barbara with a mortgage, and have to plan because their career will probably only last 5-10 years?

How many entertainers and sports figures, not to mention lottery winners, go bankrupt? There is great offensive game, earning a lot, and then there is great defensive game - keeping a lot.

So would you say someone who earns $10 million a year for 5-10 years isn't wealthy, because of the possibility they might blow it all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH and I consider ourselves rich yes, though we would never phrase it that way. Our great-great-grandchildren will never have to work. We know we are outrageously lucky.

At least someone here admits to being wealthy.

Because that poster is clearly truly wealthy. Making 1M/yr and having a mortgage on a 2m home isn't wealthy in the sense one should define wealth -- the wealthy don't have to work, don't have to budget, and don't have to second-guess a damn thing.

this is stupid. by that definition, an entertainer isn't wealthy even if they earn $10 million a year, if they own a $20 million home in Santa Barbara with a mortgage, and have to plan because their career will probably only last 5-10 years?

That's precisely it. The vast majority of entertainers and sports figures are rich. They don't have wealth, they have riches-it flows through their hands like water and requires continuous replenishing. Wealth sustains itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH and I consider ourselves rich yes, though we would never phrase it that way. Our great-great-grandchildren will never have to work. We know we are outrageously lucky.

At least someone here admits to being wealthy.

Because that poster is clearly truly wealthy. Making 1M/yr and having a mortgage on a 2m home isn't wealthy in the sense one should define wealth -- the wealthy don't have to work, don't have to budget, and don't have to second-guess a damn thing.

this is stupid. by that definition, an entertainer isn't wealthy even if they earn $10 million a year, if they own a $20 million home in Santa Barbara with a mortgage, and have to plan because their career will probably only last 5-10 years?

That's precisely it. The vast majority of entertainers and sports figures are rich. They don't have wealth, they have riches-it flows through their hands like water and requires continuous replenishing. Wealth sustains itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: in the sense one should define wealth -- the wealthy don't have to work.

If I don't have to work because my husband makes enough money to provide for the family, but my husband has to work - does that mean I'm wealthy while my DH is not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH and I consider ourselves rich yes, though we would never phrase it that way. Our great-great-grandchildren will never have to work. We know we are outrageously lucky.

At least someone here admits to being wealthy.

Perhaps it could also be said luck has nothing to do with it, but it is in fact an active subversion of capitalism and the American way altogether. The productive value of vast inherited wealth is highly questionable and indeed questioned by some of America's most substantial self-made billionaires. A landed gentry or de facto nobility was certainly very much counter to the vision of this country's founders. All the lionizing about old money on DCUM seems patently absurd.

Some food for thought: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-12/how-wal-mart-s-waltons-maintain-their-billionaire-fortune-taxes.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: in the sense one should define wealth -- the wealthy don't have to work.

If I don't have to work because my husband makes enough money to provide for the family, but my husband has to work - does that mean I'm wealthy while my DH is not?

No, you are not rich. You are a master and he is a slave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: in the sense one should define wealth -- the wealthy don't have to work.

If I don't have to work because my husband makes enough money to provide for the family, but my husband has to work - does that mean I'm wealthy while my DH is not?

No, you are not rich. You are a master and he is a slave.

Or it means you better hope you don't get divorced