Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
so, if someone makes $250,000 sitting at home and someone else makes $250,000 by going in to a job every day, the first man is richer by your definition?
It is about probabilities in the real world.
A 50 year old man who has enough wealth (several million dollars) to generate $250,000 a year from it has likely been very frugal most of his life, has paid off his home, has no loans or debts, is financially independent and can retire whenever he wants to.
By contrast, a 50 year old man who must work to make $250,000 a year has likely been a big spender most of his life, has a large mortgage on his home, is drowning in loans and debts, has inadequate savings and cannot possibly retire and maintain anything close to his current lifestyle.
Given a choice, I would much rather be the first one.
A 50 year old man who has enough wealth (several million dollars) to generate $250,000 a year from it has likely been very frugal most of his life, has paid off his home, has no loans or debts, is financially independent and can retire whenever he wants to.
By contrast, a 50 year old man who must work to make $250,000 a year has likely been a big spender most of his life, has a large mortgage on his home, is drowning in loans and debts, has inadequate savings and cannot possibly retire and maintain anything close to his current lifestyle.
Given a choice, I would much rather be the first one.
Choice 1 is being rich to me. Build wealth first, then make wealth work for me.
A 50 year old man who has enough wealth (several million dollars) to generate $250,000 a year from it has likely been very frugal most of his life, has paid off his home, has no loans or debts, is financially independent and can retire whenever he wants to.
By contrast, a 50 year old man who must work to make $250,000 a year has likely been a big spender most of his life, has a large mortgage on his home, is drowning in loans and debts, has inadequate savings and cannot possibly retire and maintain anything close to his current lifestyle.
Given a choice, I would much rather be the first one.
Well no doubt, but now you are adding all sorts of extras to the scenario that wasn't there before. Sure, if you tack on being a big spender, large mortgage, drowning in loans and debts, and inadequate savings, then given the choice ANYONE would pick Option 1. That is a VERY different statement than simply "If someone makes that 250k a year without having to work a single day, then that is rich to me." You added a lot of anecdotal contingency to Option 2 that is all negative that wasn't in your original post. Two completely different scenarios :P
To go back to your original statement for a 1:1 comparison: if someone has no loans, no mortgage, plenty of savings and makes $250,000 a year working, are they less rich than a person making $250,000 who doesn't work in the same scenario? I am not asking which you would rather BE, but instead is one less rich than the other? I say no, and that is what you originally alluded to.
To go back to your original statement for a 1:1 comparison: if someone has no loans, no mortgage, plenty of savings and makes $250,000 a year working, are they less rich than a person making $250,000 who doesn't work in the same scenario? I am not asking which you would rather BE, but instead is one less rich than the other? I say no, and that is what you originally alluded to.
uh yes they are less rich. The man that depends on income from working is less rich than the one that has built wealth that provides the income.
Ah but the one who doesn't work will spend much more money on hobbies and things to occupy his/her time.
lol, this is your argument? Really? I'm not trying to be rude but I have to say you have a lot to learn. Instead of spending time on the computer read a few basic financial books. Learn the difference between wealth and income. Learn about how the rich view money as apposed to how the poor and the middle class view and use money.
And whatever you do, don't vote until you understand more about life and money. If you do, you will just be a politicians fool, um I mean tool.
lol, this is your argument? Really? I'm not trying to be rude but I have to say you have a lot to learn. Instead of spending time on the computer read a few basic financial books. Learn the difference between wealth and income. Learn about how the rich view money as apposed to how the poor and the middle class view and use money.
And whatever you do, don't vote until you understand more about life and money. If you do, you will just be a politicians fool, um I mean tool.
I have never know how Younglisa7 EVER gets time to post.....and God love her.... the posts she takes time for are widely enjoyed by many CD posters.
However.....maybe you could educate me on how the rich view money.
uh yes they are less rich. The man that depends on income from working is less rich than the one that has built wealth that provides the income.
Aha, but see, the original post didn't state that Guy #1 DIDN'T "depend" on the income. It just stated that they didn't have to WORK for it and made it sitting at home. Based on that statement alone, how do we know that Guy #1 still doesn't "depend" on the income?
My argument was that it was too simple of a statement. One man making a passive $250,000 income and one person working to provide a $250,000 income is too broad and too little information. In order to make ANY judgement on whether the person sitting at home is rich or more-rich than someone else, you/we have to add our own anecdotes to quantify or expand on the statement. By the statement alone ["If someone makes that 250k a year without having to work a single day, then that is rich to me."], I could not judge whether that person is rich or not. Just because they sit at home doesn't mean they don't depend on it or don't spend it all.
Because of all that, I was merely making a jest with BigCityDreamer because they were brushing too broad of a stroke. The original statement cannot be justified or disputed without adding information in that wasn't in the original post. In order to back up the opinion of the $250,000 passive income being rich, one has to invent an imaginary backstory (such as the person living carefree and not depending on the income, while someone else could easily use the backstory that they spend it all and depend on it even though it is passive/residual)..
I believe what BigCityDreamer MEANT to say was that "If someone makes [a passive/residual income] without having to work a single day [and can live comfortably with their wants and needs without depending on any extra income], then that is rich to me."
You can't always tell someone if someone is rich. I know people whose grandparents founded large companies. You would know the last names. The stocks trade on the NYSE. But from all outside appearances, they're just normal people. You would never know that they're worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
