Studies already show people feel rich based upon the income bracket if those in their social circle. So if I have 10 million but most people I know have 100 million I will not feel wealthy. If I have 5 million and most of my friends are making mid 6 figures I will feel rich and be satisfied. Also after 100 million it all becomes irrelevant imo

Ok, first to the moron saying 10MM to walk away. GTFO, that is absurd.

Anonymous wrote:I'm 37 with $2M. We earn a combined $220k. In some ways, I feel rich, because our annual living expenses are barely over the 3% that the $2M could reliably generate in perpetuity.

I think $5M will be very comfortable, and $10M will feel "rich."

How do you have 2M making 220K? You living in a box? Oh let me guess, trust fund or an inheritance? Otherwise Im gonna go ahead and call BS.

Right - if you are rich and you work it is because you want to, not because you have to.

Why do you think rich should not be confused with independently wealthy? That would be l actually my definition of rich. If you have to work with a nice cushion you are well off, no? Of course, only financially speaking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal thought is a NW of around $10M.


at $10M, you could put your money away, and earn 3%, or around $300K a year which buys you a very nice lifestyle without touching principle.


To me, rich is not needing to work, or working because you want to. If you are still working, still saving, you might be a high earner, might be affluent, but you still have goals and bills to pay so you aren't rich - even if you are well on your way.

I would agree with this - maybe it could go as low as 5-6 mil. Anyone who is 30-50 years old and has 2-3 million still has to work (although can probably cut back to a cush job that just covers expenses).

That's excessive. It takes a LONG time to get to a few M.

Yes!

Dcum confuses rich with independently wealthy. And dcum is completely incapable of comprehending the difference between middle class and rich.

Rich people still have to work. They just have a lot more money to buy stuff.

I'm 37 with $2M. We earn a combined $220k. In some ways, I feel rich, because our annual living expenses are barely over the 3% that the $2M could reliably generate in perpetuity.

I think $5M will be very comfortable, and $10M will feel "rich."

Anonymous wrote:My personal thought is a NW of around $10M.


at $10M, you could put your money away, and earn 3%, or around $300K a year which buys you a very nice lifestyle without touching principle.


To me, rich is not needing to work, or working because you want to. If you are still working, still saving, you might be a high earner, might be affluent, but you still have goals and bills to pay so you aren't rich - even if you are well on your way.

Agree. I would say that an income of $1.0 million a year after a few years seems pretty rich and if you're spending it all, you're an idiot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal thought is a NW of around $10M.


at $10M, you could put your money away, and earn 3%, or around $300K a year which buys you a very nice lifestyle without touching principle.


To me, rich is not needing to work, or working because you want to. If you are still working, still saving, you might be a high earner, might be affluent, but you still have goals and bills to pay so you aren't rich - even if you are well on your way.

I would agree with this - maybe it could go as low as 5-6 mil. Anyone who is 30-50 years old and has 2-3 million still has to work (although can probably cut back to a cush job that just covers expenses).

That's excessive. It takes a LONG time to get to a few M.

Anonymous wrote:My personal thought is a NW of around $10M.


at $10M, you could put your money away, and earn 3%, or around $300K a year which buys you a very nice lifestyle without touching principle.


To me, rich is not needing to work, or working because you want to. If you are still working, still saving, you might be a high earner, might be affluent, but you still have goals and bills to pay so you aren't rich - even if you are well on your way.

I would agree with this - maybe it could go as low as 5-6 mil. Anyone who is 30-50 years old and has 2-3 million still has to work (although can probably cut back to a cush job that just covers expenses).

It all depends, of course, but IMO you can go with a lot less than $10M.

I (we) have $4M+ in savings/investments (over 30x my annual earnings when I retired 3 yrs ago at 58), $800k in home equity, relatively small debt ($250k on a $1.3M house, could pay it off tomorrow but no need with such a low interest rate on it now), and $50k/yr in retirement pay.

Don't have to work, don't have to scrimp, can buy what we want (we aren't Drumpf-ish glitz whores), etc.

With investment income and DW's income (modest) we're @ $150-180k/yr. income and not touching principal.

Yes, $10M would be nicer but we consider ourselves incredibly lucky.

My personal thought is a NW of around $10M.


at $10M, you could put your money away, and earn 3%, or around $300K a year which buys you a very nice lifestyle without touching principle.


To me, rich is not needing to work, or working because you want to. If you are still working, still saving, you might be a high earner, might be affluent, but you still have goals and bills to pay so you aren't rich - even if you are well on your way.

This. Everyone is going to post that rich is a level or three above where they are now even if they are already filthy rich. DCUM is like Shawshank. Didn't you hear? Everybody in here is middle class.

You're not going to get what you want out of this post, unless what you want is to stir controversy. You will get posts ranging from no one but Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are rich so if you can't use $100 bills as kindling you're "struggling to get by" to anyone who has a roof over their head and food in their belly is living like a king.

For myself, I think having 6 - 1 yr of living expenses in liquid (or easily liquidizable) assets makes you quite well-off. Rich is maybe a few years, so I guess $500K. I'm not including savings in retirement-specific vehicles, though I guess maybe I should.

Before anyone accuses me of not understanding the plight of people who work 70 hours/week to earn their mid-six-figure salary while still struggling with 4 kids in private school, I am extremely wealthy by the above standard (and have a HHI that exceeds the savings standard I mentioned). I don't live a particularly lavish lifestyle, but I know very few people can afford the luxuries we have. I would love to be in a position where I didn't have to think about money at all, but I think rich starts well before that.

$10 million is our walk away number.

Is a net worth of $1mil, excluding property, rich?

How about $2 mil? $3m? $4m?

We'd probably all agree that $5m plus is rich right?


Brought to you by all the posters who say "$1 mil isn't what it used to be."


Excluding property because that always gets controversial. Lets just talk about cash plus equities and bonds.