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.
When I say net worth that does not include your home.
It only includes cash, stocks, funds, etc.....
If you have $10,000,000 net worth and $500,000 yearly cash flow ( could be from Options trading or a business) do you think anything beyond that is excessive?
First, if your basis on that $10 Million is zero, after tax that $10 Million is worth considerably less.
Second, even if your basis on that $10 Million is $10 Million (no cap gains tax when you liquidate equities to access any of it), you are far from wealthy. No Gulfstream V, no $10 Million vacation home in Deer Valley, etc.
If you ratchet it up to, say, $100 Million with $5 Million/year, then after that you could downshift.
When I say net worth that does not include your home.
It only includes cash, stocks, funds, etc.....
If you have $10,000,000 net worth and $500,000 yearly cash flow ( could be from Options trading or a business) do you think anything beyond that is excessive?
Depends who it is and what they do with it. Actors and sports stars often seem broke in short order and to not have paid taxes often. Others create wealth for country by investing it.
Only on C-D would someone say ten million is not wealthy. One hundred million isn't the wealth of one billion, but ten million and up is wealthy.
Most people use their own idea of wealthy when answering these questions instead of statistics. A net worth of $10 million puts you at about the .5 percentile (approximate, too lazy to look up the exact stat) in the USA. It would put you at an even higher percentile if your using net worth of all individuals on the planet. If people don't consider being richer then 99.5% of people as wealthy I don't know what else to tell them.
If your definition of wealthy is "enough money that I dont have to work" then 1 Million is wealthy as long as your tastes arent too extravagant. Its all about your debt and preferred lifestyle. Do you want a Gulfstream? House on the ocean? A fleet of cars? If so then your definition of wealthy is different than someone that just wants to live in their paid off 250k house and to travel around the world, you can do that with a mill in the portfolio.
Now me personally I would be happy with 5 Million, that would give me enough for a canal front home in my area on the Intracoastal and enough money that I couldnt spend it all with my current spending habits.
A very well known financial personality borrows a term from nuclear reactions to describe what ought to be the goal for retirement planning -- Critical Mass | atomicarchive.comThe amount of a fissionable material's critical mass depends on several factors; the shape of the material, its composition and density, and the level of purity.
I tend to agree with the theoretical open-endedness of such a target. If some one has financial holdings that "self replenish" regardless of how things go then you can continue to live your chosen lifestyle indefinitely.
As a practical matter it is extremely rare for this to really happen -- people decide to "treat" themselves with something like a special vacation house or exotic car or yacht and these things end up being "money eating machines" that destroy the self-sustaining features one may have 'baked in" to their portfolio.
I know dozens of people, both men and women, that have gotten into relationships after retirement that swallowed up huge portions of what was supposed to be a "self sustaining retirement income", to say nothing of the funds eaten up by lawyers...
I also know a depressingly large number of folks that have ended up supporting adult children, in-laws, parents and all kinds of extended family that just did not have the sense of responsibility / foresight as folks that planned out what to do with their earnings.
It is also depressing how quickly even relatively healthy folks with issues like mobility can end up needing very costly assistance as they age, to say nothing of the insanely costly care required of folks with more serious health issues...
To be sure all these issues really are unpredictable -- there are some folks that never face any these things and get hit by a bus the day after they "hang up the spurs". Other folks live to a ripe old age in near perfect health, with family equally prosperous / healthy. Most competent financial planners advice folks to make a fair assessment of their own health and their tolerance to "say no" to those looking for a handout and plan accordingly.
Alternatively? Get a job in state like Illinois where folks can use their relationship to political dynasties to get a pension that is bottomless income for life, far exceeding BOTH what they ever put into the system OR even what they ever earned -- Citizens for Reasonable And Fair Taxes: State lawmakers' pension jackpot
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.
