What does it take in terms of assets, abilities, and/or income for you to consider them wealthy?
Which kind of rich do you mean? The ‘this person is truly wealthy but it’s not unreasonable’ or ‘this person is unacceptably rich and should have their money taken away if not worse’?
The former can be somewhere around…$10,000,000 or so. Lower the older the person is really (cause I consider rich versus remaining expected lifespan), so maybe even as low as $6,000,000 for someone who’s currently 40.
The latter where it’s simply unacceptable for people to have that much I’d start the cutoff around $400,000,000 or so.
And slight sidenote on the unacceptable levels: Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos both are so unacceptably wealthy that they could make one person a day wealthy by my $10,000,000 standard…every day…for 100 years…before running out (and that’s assuming they stopped accruing money at the beginning of this)…and still be unacceptably wealthy to a crazy degree.
Oh and all my numbers are assuming no additional income and definitely no interest or investment (but also assuming the money remains the same value it has today).
I guess what would it take for you to look at yourself and conclude that you’re rich?
For me, given my age and all…five million.
Nobody wants to give a hard number?
I’ll say six million dollars earning ~5%/year. That’s $300k/yr before taxes. Assuming long-term investments, that’s 15% gains tax, so take $45k for taxes (fed), no idea what state will be because they’re all different, so just round it down to $250k year income in your pocket.
$250k/yr isn’t a lot of money…(I can hear the wtf’s…just hang on)…out of that has to come all your expenses including medical insurance in the US, your mortgage, car payments, etc.
This is not “fuck you” money. This is living an upper middle class lifestyle. You’ll have nice cars but not crazy nice. A decent house but not a mansion. You can tweak it a little this way or that depending on the CoL of where you live, but not a lot. Yeah, you can earn more in interest, but I was being conservative.
You’re rich because you don’t have to lift a finger to enjoy it, and you have the time to enjoy it.
Want closer to fuck you money with the above conditions? Try $20 million in the investments at 5%. That’ll get you a million a year before tax.
I agree my threshold is a bit lower and roughly comes out as getting 100k a year before tax so $2m.
Everyone is going to have different lifestyle wants. My low number might be too low for many, they might think living more lavishly would be more “rich”. I figured my numbers are adequate to live a moderate lifestyle and have no serious money worries. No Ferraris, of course, but a top trim level Honda no problem or a good BMW with some budgeting.
The real luxury is not having to work.
If literally running around in a warehouse full of 20 dollar bills collecting all you can with your hands and unlimited bags makes less money, there’s no fucking way your actual work is producing so much value.
Wealth is anything beyond having the necessities of life covered.
If you can afford a reasonable home, your bills, food, any dependents, eating out once a week, hobbies, taking a holiday or two per year, and contributing to your retirement then you’re living comfortably.
Anything beyond that is wealth, it allows you to splash out on luxury products, luxury holidays etc.
Some people may never realise they’re wealthy because they live excessively and believe that’s the norm, ie payments for an overpriced car, spending excessively on hobbies etc
not having to work and still get to live comfortably and afford most of the things you desire
When you could stop working and just coast off of what you’ve got till you die. At that point, making more is a luxury.
So you don’t think people should ever be able to retire?
I think people should have luxury, just not to the extent that it starts hurting society as a while. Like with Jeff Bezos’s behaviour.
There’s an enormous gap between grandma living month to month on her pension cheque and Jeff Bezos money. Grandma doesn’t work though so you could say she’s “coasting” even if she relies on the senior discount at the grocery store to get by.
There’s also a lot of people who have a lot of wealth (in the form of land, buildings, equipment) yet can’t afford to stop working, such as farmers. The UK government is going after these folks aggressively and they’re very unhappy. We could be seeing a strike by farmers in the new year where they simply stop delivering food to market.
That’s a really good answer, wealth comes with options
Well, luxury and rich are closely related terms, aren’t they? I think what you described is a financial independence.
I’d add that if you can support your desired level of luxurity for yourself and your family without working anymore - that’s being rich.
Edit: I misread the original question, which was asking about wealthy, not rich. Still, I think my answer applies
Working class people contribute to society.
The rich are parasites.
That’s the difference.
And no, telling people what to do is not real labor. Rent seeking is not real labor.
That is not what I’m describing, no. I am specifying that it’s about having enough wealth that you can stop working.
Having a job, investments, being a landlord, freelancing etc. Those are all ways to achieve financial independence. But none of those allow you to stop doing any of them.
If you could retire and have enough to keep you comfortably housed and insured until you’re 90, that’s wealth enough.
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.
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.
For me, being wealthy would mean that if they never intentionally earned another penny for the rest of their life, that would not prevent them from doing anything that they wanted to do within reason.
For normal people that would mean between two and five million dollars in liquid assets available to them.
Being able to not worry about food, gas, standard bills and actually have something in savings
It’s sad that affording basic necessities and having a bit of a financial cushion is considered rich.
It is indeed. Everyone I personally know is struggling and hoping for better days while working a ton.
Someone who has everything they could possibly need and no bad debt. Does not need to be rich.
There are two thresholds that matter: “rich” is where you no longer have to really think much about money on a day to day basis, and “wealthy” is where you no longer have to work for a living. Both thresholds depend on your expenses and the lifestyle you’re looking for, I guess
I liked it back when the aristocracy was just called the “leisure” class. At least they didn’t spend their time playing at being an executive and pretending they earned what they have.
Second house is immediately qualifying.
Second?
I know where you’re coming from, but my mortgage-having peers are often little better off than I am. Though I suppose neither of us technically own a house.
My definition for myself to be rich is:
I have enough money that I can pay someone(s) yearly wage to manipulate my wealth into enough money to cover their salary and then some.
