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.
Interesting. Because the net worth of the 1% is 6.8 million and up. Do you mean top 10%?
Like I said. The last time a million put you in the .1% was probably WW2.
No, I meant the Top 0.1%. You can classify affluence by a couple of different variables, you can use annual income, you can use total assets, or you can use net worth. Usually they aren't all on the same consistent level depending upon how the household's finances are organized.
For example, they might have $1.2 million collectively coming into a household with 7 total people in the household with 5 actually working and producing. But let's say those 5 also have debt of totaling $500,000 from Medical School or something, and also maybe ex-wives taking $300,000 a year in lifetime alimony, then they might have a total of 10 kids that costs about $200,000 a year to take care of, then on top of that maybe they aren't saving/investing the rest of their monies but spending it on depreciating assets.
So if you went by Net Worth and Total Assets, you wouldn't have a total clear picture just as if you went just on the total amount of income coming in.
So a person's TOTAL financial picture really should be their report card, but from a general standpoint when looking at the "Affluent" you should use the following variables from my study which can be in Net Worth OR Annual Income OR Assets:
No, I meant the Top 0.1%. You can classify affluence by a couple of different variables, you can use annual income, you can use total assets, or you can use net worth. Usually they aren't all on the same consistent level depending upon how the household's finances are organized.
For example, they might have $1.2 million collectively coming into a household with 7 total people in the household with 5 actually working and producing. But let's say those 5 also have debt of totaling $500,000 from Medical School or something, and also maybe ex-wives taking $300,000 a year in lifetime alimony, then they might have a total of 10 kids that costs about $200,000 a year to take care of, then on top of that maybe they aren't saving/investing the rest of their monies but spending it on depreciating assets.
So if you went by Net Worth and Total Assets, you wouldn't have a total clear picture just as if you went just on the total amount of income coming in.
So a person's TOTAL financial picture really should be their report card, but from a general standpoint when looking at the "Affluent" you should use the following variables from my study which can be in Net Worth OR Annual Income OR Assets:
#1.) Household (2 Or More Workers)
-> The Top 0.1%
$1 million and up
-> The Top 1%
$400,000 - $900,000
-> The Top 3%
$250,000 - $350,000
-> The Top 5%
$160,000 - $220,000
-> The Top 10% - 12%
$100,000 - $150,000
#2.) Individuals Only (1 Person Household)
-> Top 0.1%
$500,000
-> The Top 1%
$250,000 - $450,000
-> The Top 3%
$120,000 - $220,000
-> The Top 5%
$90,000 - $110,000
-> The Top 12%
$50,000 - $80,000
I clearly said "net worth" many times in this thread.
Income is a whole different animal.
As your net worth goes higher and higher your income begins to matter less and less. Eventually there's no real reason to work anymore.
To you guys talking about these 0% Car Loans, what was the total package? Did you have any additional fees, did the car's purchase price cost MORE than the general buying area, etc.? There's obviously a Catch somewhere, come on guys, a Bank nor a Dealer can give you a FREE LOAN because the act of even Underwriting and Administering the loan costs money so it can't be given for FREE.
Trolling much? If it's not that impressive than it would be like a high school diploma which is EASY to obtain and 80% plus of the population would have it.
A household with a million dollars plus in assets is in the Top 0.1% in the United States. If you add in the WORLD it gets even more better than that, but let's just focus on the US. Your household would be better than 99.9% of all other households in the Country and you are saying that's not impressive?
Yeah, you are Trolling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jotucker99
No, I meant the Top 0.1%. You can classify affluence by a couple of different variables, you can use annual income, you can use total assets, or you can use net worth. Usually they aren't all on the same consistent level depending upon how the household's finances are organized.
For example, they might have $1.2 million collectively coming into a household with 7 total people in the household with 5 actually working and producing. But let's say those 5 also have debt of totaling $500,000 from Medical School or something, and also maybe ex-wives taking $300,000 a year in lifetime alimony, then they might have a total of 10 kids that costs about $200,000 a year to take care of, then on top of that maybe they aren't saving/investing the rest of their monies but spending it on depreciating assets.
So if you went by Net Worth and Total Assets, you wouldn't have a total clear picture just as if you went just on the total amount of income coming in.
So a person's TOTAL financial picture really should be their report card, but from a general standpoint when looking at the "Affluent" you should use the following variables from my study which can be in Net Worth OR Annual Income OR Assets:
#1.) Household (2 Or More Workers)
-> The Top 0.1%
$1 million and up
-> The Top 1%
$400,000 - $900,000
-> The Top 3%
$250,000 - $350,000
-> The Top 5%
$160,000 - $220,000
-> The Top 10% - 12%
$100,000 - $150,000
#2.) Individuals Only (1 Person Household)
-> Top 0.1%
$500,000
-> The Top 1%
$250,000 - $450,000
-> The Top 3%
$120,000 - $220,000
-> The Top 5%
$90,000 - $110,000
-> The Top 12%
$50,000 - $80,000
You said assets yourself. You're arguing with a straw man. Just stop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jotucker99
To you guys talking about these 0% Car Loans, what was the total package? Did you have any additional fees, did the car's purchase price cost MORE than the general buying area, etc.? There's obviously a Catch somewhere, come on guys, a Bank nor a Dealer can give you a FREE LOAN because the act of even Underwriting and Administering the loan costs money so it can't be given for FREE.
You said 0% without mentioning any contingencies. You too are arguing with a straw man. Just stop.
I clearly said "net worth" many times in this thread.
Income is a whole different animal.
Well, like I said you can't use Net Worth to determine Affluence alone, you have to look at the total picture. For example, Business Owners on here would know what I'm talking about when Lenders calculate the DTI for Financing.
When Business Owners do their taxes, the objective is to deduct EVERYTHING and use as many legal tax strategies as possible to pay as little taxes as possible. But the DTI calculation would take the final slashed taxable income number (after all those tax strategies are done) to use to determine your "income" when that's as FAR away from your actual income as you can get.
So just as how the DTI calculation is flawed, many Net Worth calculations are flawed, I've seen some not even include ALL of your assets in the calculation.
What I do is focus on a TOTAL approach to Financial Efficiency. This means:
- Making as much annual income as possible.
- Paying as little in taxes as possible.
- Being as Minimalist as possible and spending as little as possible (which includes not having kids and surely not having some FAT HAG housewife who will later divorce me and get alimony), while still having a good quality of life in a Suburb, in a low cost of living area.
- Being MGTOW and Going My Own Way
- Investing to get the best total annual returns on high risk and low risk investments annually
- Stacking up assets
This MIGHT NOT include paying off all of your Debts right away. For example, if you have a loan for $25,000 with a 2% annual rate for 10 years, why do you need to pay that off tomorrow for? Why not let that go out and keep your cashflow in hand?
I think your GOAL should be to have a certain amount STACKED in assets (savings and investments) to where you can go without working for a certain period of time and LIVE off those stacked assets. I say once you get to a 7 - 10 year period where you can go without working and live off those STACKED assets you are seriously kicking A$$ in the world
Well, like I said you can't use Net Worth to determine Affluence alone, you have to look at the total picture. For example, Business Owners on here would know what I'm talking about when Lenders calculate the DTI for Financing.
When Business Owners do their taxes, the objective is to deduct EVERYTHING and use as many legal tax strategies as possible to pay as little taxes as possible. But the DTI calculation would take the final slashed taxable income number (after all those tax strategies are done) to use to determine your "income" when that's as FAR away from your actual income as you can get.
So just as how the DTI calculation is flawed, many Net Worth calculations are flawed, I've seen some not even include ALL of your assets in the calculation.
What I do is focus on a TOTAL approach to Financial Efficiency. This means:
- Making as much annual income as possible.
- Paying as little in taxes as possible.
- Being as Minimalist as possible and spending as little as possible (which includes not having kids and surely not having some FAT HAG housewife who will later divorce me and get alimony)
- Being MGTOW and Going My Own Way
- Investing to get the best total annual returns on high risk and low risk investments annually
- Stacking up assets
This MIGHT NOT include paying off all of your Debts right away. For example, if you have a loan for $25,000 with a 2% annual rate for 10 years, why do you need to pay that off tomorrow for? Why not let that go out and keep your cashflow in hand?
I think your GOAL should be to have a certain amount STACKED in assets (savings and investments) to where you can go without working for a certain period of time and LIVE off those stacked assets. I say once you get to a 7 - 10 year period where you can go without working and live off those STACKED assets you are seriously kicking A$$ in the world
Let me explain why net worth is important.
Let's assume someone is making 50k a year. He somehow invests most of his money.
As time goes on his net worth rises to 1 million. Now he is making 50k plus 50k just from the interest on his investments if he's getting a 5% return. If he continues to save and work his income from investments will continue to outperform his income. He could easily retire or continue to work and improve his standard of living for when he does finally decide to call it quits.
What's wrong with someone who has a net worth of 50-300+k living in a multigenerational household?
Nothing's wrong with it per se. It's just that most people (Americans, at least) don't do it if they don't have to.
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.
?
