Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

I replied earlier. We have Apple stock. No rental properties or real estate apart from the house we live in.

BS....sorry but at that income you wouldn't have been able to purchase enough stock long ago where it would have made that big of a difference...

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.

2.5M provides 80 - 120k/yr if done right. That is hardly wealthy.

You need to figure out how much money do you need to create a stream of income that allows you to live freely and not worry about money.

In many instances, 300k - 500k would allow people to live fairly freely and not worry to much about money. Travel, treating the kids, etc. That requires about $10M liquid.

If your definition of wealthy means having the money to generate enough passive income to not work at all in a VHCOL area, cover $80K per year for all of your kids to go to college, and allow your husband enough spending money to satisfy his mistresses and cocaine habit, then you are right.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

I replied earlier. We have Apple stock. No rental properties or real estate apart from the house we live in.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

2.5M provides 80 - 120k/yr if done right. That is hardly wealthy.

You need to figure out how much money do you need to create a stream of income that allows you to live freely and not worry about money.

In many instances, 300k - 500k would allow people to live fairly freely and not worry to much about money. Travel, treating the kids, etc. That requires about $10M liquid.

If your definition of wealthy means having the money to generate enough passive income to not work at all in a VHCOL area, cover $80K per year for all of your kids to go to college, and allow your husband enough spending money to satisfy his mistresses and cocaine habit, then you are right.

DP. That IS the definition of wealth! If yours had been the first post, this thread would have been over long ago.

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.

2.5M provides 80 - 120k/yr if done right. That is hardly wealthy.

You need to figure out how much money do you need to create a stream of income that allows you to live freely and not worry about money.

In many instances, 300k - 500k would allow people to live fairly freely and not worry to much about money. Travel, treating the kids, etc. That requires about $10M liquid.

If your definition of wealthy means having the money to generate enough passive income to not work at all in a VHCOL area, cover $80K per year for all of your kids to go to college, and allow your husband enough spending money to satisfy his mistresses and cocaine habit, then you are right.

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.

2.5M provides 80 - 120k/yr if done right. That is hardly wealthy.

You need to figure out how much money do you need to create a stream of income that allows you to live freely and not worry about money.

In many instances, 300k - 500k would allow people to live fairly freely and not worry to much about money. Travel, treating the kids, etc. That requires about $10M liquid.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP.. because wealthy people can quit working and not put a dent in their lifestyle. If you are under 59, and all your money is in retirement accounts and you quite your job, what will you live on? You can certainly pull the money out early and pay a penalty but that eats into your funds, depleting it faster.

IMO wealthy means you can stop working and still live the same type of lifestyle.

I have $3mil, I can retire now, but I wouldn't be able to have the same lifestyle. I'd have to budget a lot more.

Anonymous wrote:What meg worth constitutes wealthy around here?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

I replied earlier. We have Apple stock. No rental properties or real estate apart from the house we live in.

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.

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

Anonymous wrote:

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?