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

[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.

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

Why?  Do you think I hang out with trailer trash or something?

[Syt]

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.

EuroMillion lottery is at 100 million € this weekend.

[citizen k]

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

Volunteer for non-profit/charity org.

[Alcibiades]

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.

I could retire at 23 on 2 million dollars quite easily.

Home for say 300k in the midwest is quite large, say five cars over the next 50 years, thats 200,000.  Taxes on the house maybe 50-70,000. Discretionary spending including food maybe 40-50,000 a year.

Invest cautiously receiving 5-7% on 1 million over that period....and you can outlive that fairly easily. 

[DGuller]

If you buy an inflation-adjusted annuity today for $2 mil, with 5% growth rate, and 3% inflation adjustment, you'll start with approximately $50,000 payment per year.

[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.

I could retire at 23 on 2 million dollars quite easily.

Home for say 300k in the midwest is quite large, say five cars over the next 50 years, thats 200,000.  Taxes on the house maybe 50-70,000. Discretionary spending including food maybe 40-50,000 a year.

Invest cautiously receiving 5-7% on 1 million over that period....and you can outlive that fairly easily. 

5-7% might be too agressive, and inflation would eat away at that amount.  $50-$70k per year might be enough now, but is unlikely to be enough in 30 years.

[alfred russel]

It takes a lot of money to not have to worry about working for a living, to travel without being treated like cattle, to send your kids to the best schools, to live in a good sized home at a good location, and to have people take care of trivial tasks for you (laundry, cooking and cleaning, etc). $7 million doesn't seems about right. You can say you don't need all those things to be wealthy, but it would be close to a standard in previous eras.

[Barrister]

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

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

But working at a job because you enjoy it is different from working at a job because you have to.

[alfred russel]

If you buy an inflation-adjusted annuity today for $2 mil, with 5% growth rate, and 3% inflation adjustment, you'll start with approximately $50,000 payment per year.

Which, inflation adjusted, is enough for Alci to live on comfortably. But it is hardly wealthy.

[Malthus]

Heh, I was thinking the other day that the term "millionaire" is essentially meaningless. Lots of people have more than $1 million in assets, and that doesn't make them anything like rich.

Though if you exclude real estate and retirement savings accounts, that does change things. Most people have most of their wealth tied up in those two things.

[Barrister]

Heh, I was thinking the other day that the term "millionaire" is essentially meaningless. Lots of people have more than $1 million in assets, and that doesn't make them anything like rich.

Though if you exclude real estate and retirement savings accounts, that does change things. Most people have most of their wealth tied up in those two things.

The article talked about "investable assets".  That would exclude your home, but would include restirement savings accounts.

Yeah, my new house was bought for almost a half million dollars.  And I'm still surprised how ordinary a house I got for such a large sum of money (to my thinking).

[Malthus]

Heh, I was thinking the other day that the term "millionaire" is essentially meaningless. Lots of people have more than $1 million in assets, and that doesn't make them anything like rich.

Though if you exclude real estate and retirement savings accounts, that does change things. Most people have most of their wealth tied up in those two things.

The article talked about "investable assets".  That would exclude your home, but would include restirement savings accounts.

Yeah, my new house was bought for almost a half million dollars.  And I'm still surprised how ordinary a house I got for such a large sum of money (to my thinking).

According to the article in the OP:

Respondents had at least $1 million in investable assets, excluding any real estate or retirement accounts.

That would make "millionaires" considerably rarer. If "millionaire" meant simply someone owning a million dollars in assets, they are common as shit - practically every upper-middle-class home-owner in a major city lacking a significant mortgage would probably be a "millionaire". When houses cost $700,000, it isn't hard to do.

[Rasputin]

Heh, I was thinking the other day that the term "millionaire" is essentially meaningless. Lots of people have more than $1 million in assets, and that doesn't make them anything like rich.

Though if you exclude real estate and retirement savings accounts, that does change things. Most people have most of their wealth tied up in those two things.

correct

the reality too is that paper millions are meaningless because their value can swing wildly with market forces

for instance, someone could easily have had a million dollar net worth in early 2007 and find themselves in a negative net worth position today with no change in asset mix

[Razgovory]

My God!  McCain was right!

[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.

Why?  Do you think I hang out with trailer trash or something?