Reply to Do you consider a net worth of 2.5 million "rich?"

Forum Index » Money and Finances

Reply to "Do you consider a net worth of 2.5 million "rich?""

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I think you need to exclude retirement and college savings (if any).  Presumably retirement isn't cpsomethi g you'd dip into now.  I (not "we"...just my part) have almost a million in retirement alone.  I don't count that.  Like you, I don't include real estate equity in the calculation...and we have 6 homes and a 1/4th ownership interest in an office bldg.  then you ask about the amount remaining, could that sustain you forever if you never worked?  No...so in my opinion you aren't rich. If one of you has needs long term care in your 80's you'd have nothing left in your 90s.  If you divorced, you'd have half of that..,and 1.25 million isn't life sustaining.  We have more than you do and don't consider ourselves rich.  Just keep plugging along...[/quote]

[b]So you don't feel rich because your money is in retirement accounts and you own 6 houses and part of an office building? Now wealth only counts if it is in a bank account, not an investment of any sort? [/b] I get that people are uncomfortable labeling themselves rich, maybe because it feels like "rich" people are supposed to be charitable or philanthropic, or maybe the rap videos and movies have you thinking rich means helicopters and 50 foot yachts. You own 6 houses. You are rich. No, you aren't Bill Gates or Oprah, but 99% of American would gladly trade your place for theirs.

As far as OP - you are rich. You have more at 38 than nearly all Americans will when they retire (if they retire). You could stop working now and be okay. You wouldn't be living a champagne and caviar lifestyle, but 75k/year goes a long way, especially if you are truly frugal. You could do at 38 what most won't be able to do at 60 or 70.  Doesn't matter that it makes you uncomfortable, doesn't matter that you know people who have more, doesn't matter if you aren't satisfied and want more.[/quote]

If it isn't money I'm touching anytime soon (real estate equity + retirement accounts), I don't consider it part of my immediate liquidity.  It is like saying I'm going to be on easy street (future tense) when I inherit sometime in the future.   Yes, retirement/real estate equity will be received at some point, but I don't consider it when looking at current assets).  I have plenty of liquidity (without retirement/equity in real estate) but would it sustain me for life without lifting a finger again?  No.  Would it sustain me if I became ill and not another dime came in other than social security + some disability income?  No.  I don't consider 2.5 million for TWO people who will probably live for another 50 years enough.  Therefore, I wouldn't say the OP is rich.  It is a different question if she asked if she was better off than most...yes.  Also, we don't know her debt load.  That makes a HUGE difference.  We have a low debt load - which helps us to continue acquiring savings.  We also live a very low key lifestyle (millionaire next door types).  If I don't consider myself rich, I don't consider her rich.  I'm not saying that in a snotty way - just truthfully.  Now...if she was 85 years old and had $2.5 million, I'd feel completely differently so long as it wasn't illiquid (real estate).[/quote]

her net is 2.5 mil, so her debt load is irrelevant.
also, i find it funny that all these milionaire next door types estimg tuna cans in the present find millions of dollars insufficient to sustain them later in life.[/quote]

I know she said her net is 2.5 mil, but you have no idea what her DEBTS are.  For example, if she owes VISA $45,000 and owes student loans and has a high mortgage or many mortgages, or owes family members back, etc., then that is certainly a factor to consider.   (T[b]he $2.5 million won't last as long if it is being used[/b]).  Also, as for your last sentence, you're assuming she'll have that $2.5 million later in life.  My grandmother needed round the clock care (Altzheimer's) for years.  It was $15/hour x 24 hours/day x 52 weeks/year, not including housing, food, utilities, medical care, taxi fees, etc.  You figure out how long that goes if you elect to live at home as long as possible - or your spouse does.  See if that changes your perspective...[/quote]

But it is not 2.5 that is being used... if her net is 2.5 mil, than she has more on hand with some debt. Though I doubt she has much debt.

As for your grandma, the care you described can be obtained much chepaer. It wouldn't be the same level of care, but certianly there are people with Altzheimers who are actual middle class. Your goal in life might be to make sure you would have an aboslute best care for 30 years of Altzheimer's, but that just like saying you are not rich because you can't afford a 747.[/quote]

Her care WAS good, but I don't consider $15/hour to be the "best" care.  That is what a babysitter makes.  [/quote]

she was serviced at home around the clock. i had illness in the family and after a few weeks, we realized we had to cut hourly care (especially during nights). what you did was wasteful and can be done with much less. it's not only millionaires who get sick, you know; there are millions of people with alzheimers in the USA.

and if you are worried about long term disability, with your resources you could certainly purchase insurance without as much as noticing. i am amazed that you are actually arguing here that you are not rich because if you got sick, you would be homeless or something. what about the rest of the usa?[/quote]

She was a wanderer and woke several times in the middle of the night and was found on the streets.  She also called 911/the police frequently during the day, thought others were trying to kill her,etc.  having round the clock care wasn't wasteful.  She could then-qualify for long term care (post diagnosis) and u less you have less than 2k of assets, the govt.wont cover (facility) coverage which would be inappropriate considering she had her own assets.  I don't find it wasteful at all.  It was HER money and she should have spent it for HER comfort while alive...not to mention safety.  Show mea long term care policy who will insure a 92 year old woman....[/quote]

She was certainly entitled to spend her money as she wished. However, if she really spent over 3 mil on her care, then she was in fact rich. Whether the way she spent the money was necessary is irrelevant, the fact is, she had 3+ mil to spend the way she pleased and that made her different frm 99.5% of Americans. That in itself makes one rich.[/quote]

True...but she had the money in her 90s and that's my point.  OP wouldn't have millions in her 90s unless she continues to save and amass wealth.[/quote]

your grandma was rich at 90, OP is rich right now. doesn't mean she will be rich 30 years from now, but 'rich' is not a permanent feature of life. just like poor people can become rich (and then poor again!), rich people can become poor or middle class. doesn't detract from the fact that at some point in their lives they were rich.[/quote]

I consider rich being set for life.  She isn't set for life, so I don't consider her rich.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics