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.
I'm thinking, it ain't a real million unless it's an after tax million.
That makes a big difference on my deferred compensation and annuity accounts. I have about 8 years before I have to worry about required minimum distributions (RMD). Of the $4000 a month I am pulling out of deferred compensation, I am withholding $1400 for federal and state taxes. That may be too much; I'll see after I do my 2018 taxes.
I have sold stocks in my parent's trust upon my broker's recommendation (GE for one), but there have been substantial capital gains taxes as a result. When my mother dies, the remaining stocks can be sold without the capital gains taxes. The new base value will be at the time of her death.
No taxes or RMD for my Roth IRA, however. My part-time post-retirement job allowed me to put $6500 into it this year.
How long do you have to have a million dollars to be counted.
I had a bit more than a million once counting my 401K. Most of the rest was the proceeds from selling our house in California. We were renting a house. We had a million plus a little for five or six months. Does that count?
And yes, it really does not go that far. By 2010 our net worth was probably a negative number, since we bought a home which then proceeded to lose 65% of its value, and lost several hundred thousand from 401K in the 2008 crash.
Oh yes, I remember your tag line from an earlier post. "Geoff [or fill in name of choice] never works again" fund. I love it. I think everyone needs to work towards just that. Doesn't matter if you want to retire or get forced into it.
It's not just a "fund". It's a restructuring so my "Geoff never works again" cash flow fully funds my lifestyle. I applied the shrink ray to a lot of things 10 years ago at the onset of the Great Recession as I was turning 50. At age 60 1/2, I probably wouldn't have to change any of my current lifestyle much if I stop working.
Millionaire, in my opinion, is defined as a person or married couple with a total net worth at or exceeding $1,000,000. This includes any 401(K), investments, real estate, or other assets.
When I acquired a net worth of $1 million, I started reading that in order to be a millionaire, you had to have $1 million in net assets not including your residence. When I reached that milestone, I started reading that you had to have $1 million in investments in order to be a millionaire. Now that I reached that milestone, I have not yet read about the bar being raised again.
However, I did read an article about 401k accounts of $1 million or more. That eliminates those of us who assets are other than a 401k.
I've never really understood the "million not including your residence" part. Why should that matter? Yes, you have to live somewhere, but let's say that hypothetically you have a $300K house free and clear and $800K in an investment account, but you're still working and making a really solid income, let's just say for the sake of argument $7,000/month before taxes, you don't HAVE to live in a fully paid off house, you could rent an apartment that's really nice in almost every U.S. city for $2,000/month and live just fine while now being a "true millionaire" because you sold your house, even accounting for the agent commission to sell your house and any other costs associated. I just think it's kind of an asinine line to draw in the sand.
I can understand the reasoning more if we're talking about someone who has $100K in investments and a $900K house they own free and clear in, say, SF where that's not a crazy house and they couldn't easily "downgrade," I guess, though it's still a bit silly.
I know the original quote was with the B, but it reminds me to paraphrase, "A million here, a million there, pretty soon you have some real money."
Your home is most definitely part of your networth. If that is the purpose (which is how you traditionally count millionaires) it makes sense to always count the equity in your home. If you are wondering how many liquid millionaires there are in the US then you should only count liquid/invested assets.
I tally up both my networth and my investments every month.
My NW includes:
Liquid investment value
Home equity
HSA accounts
529 accounts
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,351 posts, read 8,569,440 times
Reputation: 16698
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzourah2006
Your home is most definitely part of your networth. If that is the purpose (which is how you traditionally count millionaires) it makes sense to always count the equity in your home. If you are wondering how many liquid millionaires there are in the US then you should only count liquid/invested assets.
I tally up both my networth and my investments every month.
My NW includes:
Liquid investment value
Home equity
HSA accounts
529 accounts
My investment value includes:
401ks
Roth IRAs
Brokerage accounts
So having real estate is not liquid? Thus as a liquid millionaire I fail miserably.
Net worth fine you look good , the real estate counts . But for setting a retirement income you have far less until the house is sold . Other wise if it is a rental the rent is counted like social security ,an annuity ,a pension etc ..
It all depends what you are adding it all up for
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.
