Anonymous wrote:$10M for a household. $3M for a forever single person with no kids.

+1 We are in our 50s, two kids, have $3.3M NW, including our house. No way are we "wealthy". We aren't struggling, but we aren't wealthy, either. In our industry, we would be lucky to still be working by age 60, so have been planning on retirement by late 50s. Given that, $3M is not wealthy, especially because healthcare costs are insane.

The problem is lifestyle creep.

Everyone thinks that just having X amount more money will help ease all their issues. But you can see it on here. People whose HHI is $500k and feeling "squeezed". Why? They have huge houses and expensive lives.

So no one ever feels rich until they are uber uber wealthy, because otherwise they just raise their spending habits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$10M for a household. $3M for a forever single person with no kids.

Answers like this are so stupid. According to Kiplinger's, a NW of $2.5M puts you in the top 2% of all households. So by this PP's logic, a lot of the top 2% wealthiest households in the country aren't "wealthy."

https://www.kiplinger.com/personal-finance/605075/are-you-rich#:~:text=People%20with%20the%20top%201,The%20top%2010%25%20had%20%24854%2C900.

I would never suggest that 2% of everyone in America is wealthy.

Exactly how does having more money and assets than 98 percent of the country not make you wealthy? "The top 2 percent" could probably be a literal definition of "the very wealthy," even if people here think $2.5 million is a small fortune at best, because they have no idea how much more money they have than most of their fellow Americans.

The gap between 98 and the top is enormous. 98 percentile is great, but doesn’t allow for what people consider a “wealthy” lifestyle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$10M for a household. $3M for a forever single person with no kids.

Answers like this are so stupid. According to Kiplinger's, a NW of $2.5M puts you in the top 2% of all households. So by this PP's logic, a lot of the top 2% wealthiest households in the country aren't "wealthy."

https://www.kiplinger.com/personal-finance/605075/are-you-rich#:~:text=People%20with%20the%20top%201,The%20top%2010%25%20had%20%24854%2C900.

I would never suggest that 2% of everyone in America is wealthy.

Exactly how does having more money and assets than 98 percent of the country not make you wealthy? "The top 2 percent" could probably be a literal definition of "the very wealthy," even if people here think $2.5 million is a small fortune at best, because they have no idea how much more money they have than most of their fellow Americans.

Anonymous wrote:I am $3M at 40. When DCUM discusses HHI, we’re barely middle class ($250k). When we talk about net worth, then I’m borderline wealthy.

$250k is not “barely middle class” by any definition; DCUM discussions about this are just operating from false premises.

If you have a positive net worth you are above average in the us and probably in the DC area.

I think there are even greater multiples between the bottom 1% (entry level 1%) and say the top 10% of the 1%

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$10M for a household. $3M for a forever single person with no kids.

Answers like this are so stupid. According to Kiplinger's, a NW of $2.5M puts you in the top 2% of all households. So by this PP's logic, a lot of the top 2% wealthiest households in the country aren't "wealthy."

https://www.kiplinger.com/personal-finance/605075/are-you-rich#:~:text=People%20with%20the%20top%201,The%20top%2010%25%20had%20%24854%2C900.

I would never suggest that 2% of everyone in America is wealthy.

Oh yeah, I forgot that according to DCUM, being in the top 2% just means upper middle class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$10M for a household. $3M for a forever single person with no kids.

Answers like this are so stupid. According to Kiplinger's, a NW of $2.5M puts you in the top 2% of all households. So by this PP's logic, a lot of the top 2% wealthiest households in the country aren't "wealthy."

https://www.kiplinger.com/personal-finance/605075/are-you-rich#:~:text=People%20with%20the%20top%201,The%20top%2010%25%20had%20%24854%2C900.

I would never suggest that 2% of everyone in America is wealthy.

There’s something really wrong when the difference between the top 1% and the top 2% is a factor of 4 or more.

Anonymous wrote:I would say a liquid net worth of at least 1 million outside of retirement and housing. That amount of money gives a lot of flexibility.

I hear this a lot, what is the obsession with “liquid” assets outside of retirement accounts? If I have $5M in retirement accounts and my primary home that simply doesn’t count?

I would say a liquid net worth of at least 1 million outside of retirement and housing. That amount of money gives a lot of flexibility.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an <100K income and >10M in assets. We live frugally, since there is no spending of capital. I suggest you bear in mind that there are as many financial situations as there are people and that initial appearances can be deceiving.

How on earth did you achieve that level of NW? We are also sub-100K and have a NW of 2.5M. I thought we were doing pretty well lol.

Generational wealth or inheritance of real estate is my guess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$10M for a household. $3M for a forever single person with no kids.

Answers like this are so stupid. According to Kiplinger's, a NW of $2.5M puts you in the top 2% of all households. So by this PP's logic, a lot of the top 2% wealthiest households in the country aren't "wealthy."

https://www.kiplinger.com/personal-finance/605075/are-you-rich#:~:text=People%20with%20the%20top%201,The%20top%2010%25%20had%20%24854%2C900.

I would never suggest that 2% of everyone in America is wealthy.

Anonymous wrote:$10M for a household. $3M for a forever single person with no kids.

Answers like this are so stupid. According to Kiplinger's, a NW of $2.5M puts you in the top 2% of all households. So by this PP's logic, a lot of the top 2% wealthiest households in the country aren't "wealthy."

https://www.kiplinger.com/personal-finance/605075/are-you-rich#:~:text=People%20with%20the%20top%201,The%20top%2010%25%20had%20%24854%2C900.

Anonymous wrote:We have an <100K income and >10M in assets. We live frugally, since there is no spending of capital. I suggest you bear in mind that there are as many financial situations as there are people and that initial appearances can be deceiving.

So your wealth is tied to your primary residence? No rental property?