What's your definition of a wealthy person? Sure, Bezos is rich, but where do you put the threshold?
What's your definition of a wealthy person? Sure, Bezos is rich, but where do you put the threshold?
What does it take in terms of assets, abilities, and/or income for you to consider them wealthy?
You're viewing a single thread.
Of course, rich is a relative descriptor, like tall or heavy, some people are richer than others.
I would call anyone who doesn't need to work in order to live (i.e. who can live off investments and interest) rich.
This is apt, because I know people who earn six figures but work 60 hours a week and are living paycheck to paycheck. They're not poor, but they're not rich.
A 6 figure salary while living in midwestern USA or elsewhere with low CoL is very different from living in most areas along the coast.
I would call anyone who doesn't need to work in order to live (i.e. who can live off investments and interest) rich.
Some caveats I would add: (1) Excluding receivers of pensions and/or other benefits.
(2) Without moving to a different country. I could retire today, if I moved to a low cost of living country.For (2), in that country, you would be rich.
Sorry for linking back to the R word. But FIRE comes to mind with your post
Are old retirees rich, then? I wouldn't consider that accurate.
If you're not pulling in upper 6 figures from those investments, you're still not rich.
If I ever manage to earn ~3000 euros (my current net salary) a month from just investments and interest, I will definitely consider myself rich. There may still be richer people than me even in that scenario, which is why I wrote that "rich" is a relative descriptor.
That’s a totally obtainable goal!
For everyone? Do you really believe that?
Everyone? No.
Anyone? Maybe.
If you max out your ROTH IRA every year until retirement that is possible (for the US). Yes, I believe one can easily save and invest in index funds. Based on compound interest with a return rate of 3-7% one could expect 450,000-1.05 mil after 35 years of working. That’s 583$ post tax dollars a month.
Post kids it’s been more difficult but I even picked up an extra job to make sure I can max out my retirement investments.
For everyone? Absolutely not. It is obtainable though. Even half of that per month would result in similarly good returns. The problem is investment education. Reminds me of my local communist reading group who to my surprise didn’t know anything about investing even though capital is like their whole thing.
Max contributions to a ROTH IRA is $7,000. Most people don't have an extra $7,000 lying around. If you do, chances are you're already in the top 10%.
I would still say that’s not true… I probably make half as much as you but I just try to be extremely frugal… just saying it’s doable
I do make maximum contributions, but I also have two kids with college funds and a mortgage that I'm paying down. We're comfortable, and I consider myself extremely fortunate for the life I've built for myself.
Unfortunately, it took me a while to pay off college debts, and then the 2008 crash wiped out a lot of our savings. I don't expect to ever have enough saved to actually retire.
For everyone, right? Nobody works everyone just collects their 3k
For most of us reading this it is an obtainable retirement income. On the world stage if you can read this you are probably rich. A little bit of savings can get you 3k inflation adjusted once you reach "old age".
A little bit of savings? How much would you need to save per month?
Of course on the world stage this varies per country but I agree that a big of savings can get you there by retirement, especially if done early.
In China a common goal is to save 140k USD then invest it and retire by one’s mid 30s living a simple life.
That would be achievable in the US as well - 140k US saved and living a "simple life". Those some people who try it go back to work in a few years because it turns out they value a more complex life. YMMV.
Relax. If you max out your ROTH IRA every year until retirement that is possible (for the US).
Old retirees that don't need to work to live are rich, yes. If they can afford their rent and food and healthcare, they are doing better than 90% of humans on Earth.
No. Not being destitute doesn't automatically make you rich. Things are not black and white. There's a wide spectrum that is very flat until you get to the top 0.1%.
Bring in the top 10% doesn't mean much when the different between top 99 and top 90 is multiple orders of magnitude larger than top 90 to top 10.
If your definition of "destitute" is having to work for a paycheck, you and I are not on the same page.