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.
This makes no sense and is purely your opinion not fact
It's the internet. Where is is written that posts on message boards are supposed to make sense or be supported in any way by facts?
In 2016, "millionaire" at age 65 if you don't have a defined benefit pension from your public sector job is a modest middle class retirement. That's assuming that your personal balance sheet that adds up to $1 million is mostly your house and your 401(k)/IRA accounts. Between your Social Security check and IRA/401(k) distributions, you can live in your middle class house or a downsized version of it, drive a late model middle class car, and afford some modest middle class activities like moderate restaurants a few days per week.
In 2016, "millionaire" at age 65 if you don't have a defined benefit pension from your public sector job is a modest middle class retirement.
Exactly. The word today that means in the popular imagination what the word "millionaire" used to mean 100+ years ago is "billionaire." AKA "so stinkin' rich there's simply no way to spend all that money!"
Exactly. The word today that means in the popular imagination what the word "millionaire" used to mean 100+ years ago is "billionaire." AKA "so stinkin' rich there's simply no way to spend all that money!"
According to the inflation calculator $1M in 1900 is only $26.8M today after adjusting for inflation. Good amount, but not $1000M which is what a billionaire is.
According to the inflation calculator $1M in 1900 is only $26.8M today after adjusting for inflation. Good amount, but not $1000M which is what a billionaire is.
Yeah, but the word "multimillionaire" includes the under 10 million crowd (most of whom only have 2 million or so), which is too low, and most people have never heard of the term "decamillionaire," so that's not an adequate substitute word, either. They do know "billionaire," though, and associate it with fabulous wealth, so it's probably the common word that best encapsulates the old meaning (namely, really rich) of "millionaire."
The word today that means in the popular imagination what the word "millionaire" used to mean 100+ years ago is "billionaire."
Wrong. If you look up the fortunes of the wealthy in the 1790s - early 1900s, they would be considered wealthy today, without adjusting for inflation. In other words, even back then, the wealthy didn't have 1 million, they had many millions.
Millionaire has always been short-hand for wealthy, but it hasn't been top 1% or something like billionaire since maybe the 1600s. As a more concrete example, it's difficult to convert old currency to modern dollars, but Chris Columbus' trip in 1492 cost 2million maravedis , of which he personally put up 1/4, when yearly earnings for an average worker would be like 100 maravedis a year.
It makes no sense that a million dollars in 1960 stretched a lot further than it does today? I think everyone would agree on that.
No it actually makes perfect sense
Quote:
Are you misinterpreting what I said?
Not at all you said being a millionaire represented you could spend a million dollars freely and that it could be done with only having a million. Well that's simply not true, if I spent everything I had ie a million I couldn't freely spend it or id be broke. I understood what you said and it made no sense which is why I commented in the first place
Not at all you said being a millionaire represented you could spend a million dollars freely and that it could be done with only having a million. Well that's simply not true, if I spent everything I had ie a million I couldn't freely spend it or id be broke. I understood what you said and it made no sense which is why I commented in the first place
I see. I guess my statement was sort of vague, spending freely needs to be defined, obviously not talking about buying 10 houses and a 100 foot yacht and a new car every other week.
But you do agree with my main point it sounds like.
I see. I guess my statement was sort of vague, spending freely needs to be defined, obviously not talking about buying 10 houses and a 100 foot yacht and a new car every other week.
But you do agree with my main point it sounds like.
I think most of us disagree with your main point. $1 million invested in a rational way means you can probably spend about $40K per year. That's barely middle class cash flow. For a retiree, that $40K plus a Social Security check is fairly comfortable if you also own a home free & clear that doesn't eat you alive with property taxes and operating costs. You also probably don't want to retire at age 62 with the lowest possible Social Security check. I look at this math every day. For most of us, that $1 million is mostly 401(k)/IRA where the distributions are taxable at the 25% tax bracket so it spends like $30K. If you live in a state with a state income tax, it's worse than that.
I think most of us disagree with your main point. $1 million invested in a rational way means you can probably spend about $40K per year. That's barely middle class cash flow. For a retiree, that $40K plus a Social Security check is fairly comfortable if you also own a home free & clear that doesn't eat you alive with property taxes and operating costs. You also probably don't want to retire at age 62 with the lowest possible Social Security check. I look at this math every day. For most of us, that $1 million is mostly 401(k)/IRA where the distributions are taxable at the 25% tax bracket so it spends like $30K. If you live in a state with a state income tax, it's worse than that.
My point is not that $1 or $2 million saved for retirement will set up a fairly comfortable retirement. Which I agree with assuming you are also drawing social security and have all major debts paid off like a home mortgage. My point is $1 million saved or even $2 or $3 million saved will not leave a retirement of luxury.
People associate the term millionaire with more than just fairly comfortable lifestyle. It is associated with a lifestyle of luxury. $2 or $3 million saved at the age of 55 will not provide that.
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.
