U.S. millionaires say $7 million not enough to be rich

[garbon]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_fidelity_survey

A million dollars ain't what it used to be.

More than four out of ten American millionaires say they do not feel rich. Indeed many would need to have at least $7.5 million in order to feel they were truly rich, according to a Fidelity Investments survey.

Some 42 percent of the more than 1,000 millionaires surveyed by Fidelity said they did not feel wealthy. Respondents had at least $1 million in investable assets, excluding any real estate or retirement accounts.

"Every person in the survey is wealthy," said Sanjiv Mirchandani, president of National Financial, a unit of Fidelity. "But they are still worried about outliving their assets."

The average age of respondents was 56 years old with a mean of $3.5 million of investable assets. The threshold for "rich" rose with age.

"They compare themselves to their peer group ... and they are also thinking about the long period they will have in retirement and want more assets" to fund their lifestyle, said Michael Durbin, president of Fidelity Institutional Wealth Services.

Still, millionaires are slightly more optimistic now than they were in 2009, when 46 percent did not feel wealthy.

Respondents were also more optimistic about the U.S. economy. While they thought the current U.S. economy remained very weak, they think it will improve by the end of this year.

Fidelity noted the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans hold more than 55 percent of the nation's wealth.

[Brazen]

I'd be happy to sacrifice my standards to see if there was any way I could possibly live a millionaire's lifestyle on a mere $3.5 million.

[Josquius]

hmm, I guess I can see the thinking.
You've 50 million- money is no object, as long as you don't go TOO mad you can just buy whatever and live very comfortably.
7 million-a few ferraris, a boat and a mansion and you've eaten up half your money. You have to pay attention to money quite a bit more.

Of course, they really shouldn't complain.

[DGuller]

US rich lose all perspective; film at 11. 

[garbon]

Of course, they really shouldn't complain.

What are you supposed to do when a survey asks you how you feel?

[KRonn]

What is the country coming to; even the wealthy are feeling the tough times!   

[DGuller]

Then again, it's not really surprising.  Once you're wealthy enough to satisfy all your needs, all the money on top of it is used to satisfy the need for status.  Whether you have $2 million or $2 billion, what's driving you is being richer than your other rich friends.  That's one of the reasons why progressive taxation makes sense; after a certain point, money doesn't buy you happiness, but below a certain point, lack of money definitely gets you unhappiness.

[MadImmortalMan]

Then again, it's not really surprising.  Once you're wealthy enough to satisfy all your needs, all the money on top of it is used to satisfy the need for status.  Whether you have $2 million or $2 billion, what's driving you is being richer than your other rich friends.  That's one of the reasons why progressive taxation makes sense; after a certain point, money doesn't buy you happiness, but below a certain point, lack of money definitely gets you unhappiness.

That level is apparently 7.5 million.

[Valmy]

To make that much money you usually have to live in cities like NY and Chicago and yeah a condo costs a million dollars over there.  I can see how you might feel you have not quite made it even with a few million.

[DGuller]

Then again, it's not really surprising.  Once you're wealthy enough to satisfy all your needs, all the money on top of it is used to satisfy the need for status.  Whether you have $2 million or $2 billion, what's driving you is being richer than your other rich friends.  That's one of the reasons why progressive taxation makes sense; after a certain point, money doesn't buy you happiness, but below a certain point, lack of money definitely gets you unhappiness.

That level is apparently 7.5 million.

It's probably way lower than that.  It's at 7.5 million now because that's where the special point in the distribution is, after decades of the rich getting richer.  If somehow all the rich people lost half their wealth, that point would probably be pretty close to 3.75 million.

[MadImmortalMan]

Yeah, I bet it depends a lot on where they live.

[garbon]

Then again, it's not really surprising.  Once you're wealthy enough to satisfy all your needs, all the money on top of it is used to satisfy the need for status.  Whether you have $2 million or $2 billion, what's driving you is being richer than your other rich friends.  That's one of the reasons why progressive taxation makes sense; after a certain point, money doesn't buy you happiness, but below a certain point, lack of money definitely gets you unhappiness.

I'm not surprised that DGuller is well aware of how the rich operate.

[Barrister]

It actually sounds reasonable to me if you look at the criteria of being "rish" they used, which is enough money to not fear outliving your assets, and excluding real estate.

I know if I was handed a million dollars tomorrow it would not change my life substantially.  It's not enough money I could retire on.  Two million probably wouldn't do it either.

But $7.5 mil?  Maybe that is the tipping point when I'd no longer have to worry about work.

[Grey Fox]

I wouldn't quit my job at 1 mil either.

I'm not 30. What am I suppose to do with my time?

[Cecil]

I seem to recall something similar to what DGuller says when there was a discussion regarding bonuses for CEOs and other top level executives over here. Turns out that even if the guy didnt need the money one iota the bonus still mattered as a symbol of status as long as others where getting theirs. And the absolute size of the bonus was rather unimportant, it was the relative size of it in comparison to what other CEOs where getting that really mattered.