Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Does having a million dollars still qualify as rich?


Riggo-toni

Does millionaire automatically qualify as rich  

48 members have voted

  1. 1. Does having an even $1 million make you rich



Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, China said:

In 1985, the typical male breadwinner could cover those costs and still have 22 weeks of pay left for everything else a family wants and needs, such as food, clothing, entertainment and savings. Today, the typical salary doesn’t even cover the four basics.

Yeah, I can confirm this. Not sure about the 22 weeks part. In 1985 I was making $29.5k/yr with a wife & son to support. That's $70.7k in 2020 money. Our brand new house in suburban Richmond cost $65k ($155.8k in 2020) with 5% down. We weren't rich but we had money to pay for the basics plus a new car. I was able to save max money in my 401k. My wife worked 10-15 hrs/wk @ $7.50/hr. Vacation was a week at the in-laws at the beach. 

 

Gas, electricity, water, food (most) are all higher than 1985 prices. Oh, and so are health & auto insurance. And you can't buy a new $155k house anywhere in the Richmond area in 2020. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the emphasis on "houshold income" has blurred several long-run trends over the last 2 generations.... 

 

 

 

a huge percentage (if not most?) of the increase in household income between 1960s and around 2000 was driven by women entering the workforce

 

 

 

prior to this time american families were getting richer because individuals were getting paid more (both overall productivity gains, and increasing share of labor percentage of the overall pie.  plus progressive tax rates, and spending programs)

 

 

 women entering the workforce

 

 

 

See the source image

 

from 35% in 19500 to 60% in 2000

 

however... women entering the work force topped out in 2000.. and has actually declined slightly since.    

 

the huge number of women entering the workrorce has masked another trend... men leaving the workforce

 

See the source image

 

specifically... men with less education (primarily).   if you have training...it is worth your while to stay in the workforce... if you do not???   the trade-off versus collecting disability is a much harder sell.  

 

and this is particularly true in "trump country"   (which is not surprising, because it is the poorest parts of the country).

 

https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fchuckdevore%2Ffiles%2F2015%2F07%2FLawsuit-climate-and-disability-Forbes.jpg   

WV, Miss, Ark, Ala.... have SIGNIFICANTLY higher proportions of their populations collecting disability (this is both because it is UNHEALTHY to be poor... and because the tradeoff from not working is much less significant if you would be poor either way)....

 

 

taken together (the maxing out -and even decreasing - of women labor force participation , and the decrease in poor people participation has led to:

 

 

See the source image

 

 

workers really have been getting pinched for a loooong time (since the nixon years).. but women entering the workforce has helped mask it IF YOU HAVE A TWO INCOME HOUSEHOLD 

 

so again.. the poor are screwed again---- because they have seen marriage rates plummet and divorce rates skyrocket during that same period (the rate of divorce for college educated people hasn't increased since the early 80s

 

casselman-feature-marriage-4.png

 

 

 

bottom line... this is the opposite side of the massive and rapid accumulation owealth in the upper 2% of the country since 1970 (that accelerated rapidly under reagan and again under trump)... the other 90% of the country has been getting less for a LONG time.  it was masked by working harder.... but that can only be effective for so long.    

 

 

increasing regressive tax policies and the stripping of social programs has led to a massive shift of wealth and income from the bottom 75% of the country to the top 2%.     class warfare at its finest.      

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but ...back to the question of the thread:

 

if you have $1/4 million at retirement age  ($250k) ... you are richer than  half of the country (according to the fed)

 

See the source image

 

 

 

so $1 million is looking pretty elite.     

 

but you are also WAYYYYYYYYYY less than average.     for those of you that remember scew and kurtosis... this means that the data set is very lumpy.. and has HUGE tails   (there is NOTHING in the lower tail and gabizillions in the upper tail)

 

you need 487 THOUSAND families each with ZERO net worth ...just to counter Jeff bezos and bring the average back down to $250k per household.    

 

do that again for Bill Gates

 

again for zuckerberg ....  you get the idea... 

 

 

 

to that end... according to zillow... the median house value in DC is over 600k.   If you are home-owner in this area.  you are rich compared to the median  (unless you are over leveraged) , but still poor compared to the average.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, hail2skins said:

Question of curiousity: for those near retirement age currently, how much money per month do you expect to live on? This can include money from pensions, SS, and 401k.

 

Live or enjoy life on? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, hail2skins said:

Question of curiousity: for those near retirement age currently, how much money per month do you expect to live on? This can include money from pensions, SS, and 401k.

 

I don't see my lifestyle changing so about $10k on average in today's money after healthcare insurance & costs. Mortgage is 0 so $10k is for everything else outside of healthcare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, twa said:

 

Live or enjoy life on? 

TWA, say its "enjoy life on." 

 

For Corcaigh and China, have you actually budgeted that, like how that would break down across all the spending categories (home, travel, food, insurance, taxes, probably other things I'm missing)?  I'm just curious about what people say. I'm striving to at least not have a mortgage or to at least be in a position where I can pay cash for a place if I desire (say, if I want to rent for 6-12 months in an area to decide whether I like it). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, hail2skins said:

TWA, say its "enjoy life on." 

 

 

 

about 5k to enjoy, but about 10k to be travel happy.

 

the years left is the tricky part projecting, as is health .....which matters more than money.

 

I could easily retire now but not in the manner I'd prefer

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Corcaigh said:

 

I don't see my lifestyle changing so about $10k on average in today's money after healthcare insurance & costs. Mortgage is 0 so $10k is for everything else outside of healthcare.

 

8 hours ago, China said:

 

Same here.

 

That's a ****-ton of money without a mortgage! And outside of healthcare you'll spend $10k/mth? You'll be eating bon-bons & grapes out of multiple servants hands at that rate. 

 

Without paying for healthcare & a mortgage (assuming you don't own vacation homes) it shouldn't be anywhere near $10k. I'll bet if you put pencil to paper it will be $3000-4000/mth*. Tack on $100/day for eating out every night & it's $6000-7000/mth.

 

*Caveat - property tax rate/value will obviously impact this. Taxes in RVA are $0.87 per $100.

 

Edit: Additional taxes will obviously impact this - i.e., short/long term capital gains, IRA withdrawls, pension income, dividend income, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked at 2019 and the number for us was actually $8500 per month on average. But that is taking out major purchases such as cars and furniture, investments, home renovation, and helping out kids with their lives. There is some charitable donations in the $8500 number. Vacations too, but nothing crazy ... typically we rent decent houses rather than hotel/flights.

 

Our dogs live like kings, is the most likely explanation. New pet stores pick their location so that they are within walking distance of our home. 


Given cars, home improvement etc, I think $10k per month is not far off.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also say probably half of that is taxes.  Estimated federal and state tax payments, real estate taxes, personal property taxes, etc.  Not to mention things like insurance (homeowners, flood, life).  You are correct that the day to day living expenses don't add up to $10K per month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, China said:

I would also say probably half of that is taxes.  Estimated federal and state tax payments, real estate taxes, personal property taxes, etc.  Not to mention things like insurance (homeowners, flood, life).  You are correct that the day to day living expenses don't add up to $10K per month.

 

yeah, that is why so many choose to live as expats or nomadic, the more ya have the more it takes to keep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Corcaigh said:

 

I don't see my lifestyle changing so about $10k on average in today's money after healthcare insurance & costs. Mortgage is 0 so $10k is for everything else outside of healthcare.

 

13 hours ago, China said:

 

Same here.

 

4 hours ago, EmirOfShmo said:

 

 

That's a ****-ton of money without a mortgage! And outside of healthcare you'll spend $10k/mth? You'll be eating bon-bons & grapes out of multiple servants hands at that rate. 

 

Without paying for healthcare & a mortgage (assuming you don't own vacation homes) it shouldn't be anywhere near $10k. I'll bet if you put pencil to paper it will be $3000-4000/mth*. Tack on $100/day for eating out every night & it's $6000-7000/mth.

 

*Caveat - property tax rate/value will obviously impact this. Taxes in RVA are $0.87 per $100.

 

Edit: Additional taxes will obviously impact this - i.e., short/long term capital gains, IRA withdrawls, pension income, dividend income, etc. 

 

 

i think i should be able to live really comfortably on way less than i make now ... because i save a ton.   (So i currently live as though i make a lot less than i do)   

 

I max out the TSP (federal employee 401k)   PLUS the over 50 catch-up gezzer-boost); and max out the roths (and the geezer catch-up) for both me and my wife (she is stay-at-home mom now);  plus plow $1000/ month into 529 accounts (the college savings accounts) for 3 daughters.

 

that right there is $5000/month in "spending"... that will go away when i am no longer saving.      When you  also take away the paycheck deductions (my portion, not employer matching) for Social Security, for pension .. and for the mortgage that got paid off this year... suddenly my paycheck looks a helluva lot bigger :) 

 

 

but... on what i quoted above..... yeah... mortgage is moving to zero, but property taxes is sky high, and  doubled in the last 15 or so years  (it went up ..ALOT before the housing crisis (because the value went up...first word problems :)) , then went up DURING the housing crisis (because the rate went up , when the value went down:( )   then went up again way above what it was earlier, as it recovered its previous value.  rate is  well over 1%/year now . ...............................................    and i can;t begin to try to guestimate healthcare costs.    non Federal workers think the Federal pension is super generous .. but it really isn;t that huge anymore (1% per year of service, and i only started working here after i was 35--- so it will be about 20-25%?  i'd LIKE it to be smaller, rather than bigger, if possible!  

 

 

In my case pension plus SS should cover a fairly good portion of he "getting by" amount.   savings are hopefully going to be gravy on top of that... that allows for a more enjoyable time. 

 

 

(but again... healthcare.   for everybody, if you are not hit by a truck (or otherwise die suddenly) you can expect 90% of your total lifetime healthcare expenses to suddenly hit in the last 2 or so years of your life.  Its basically impossible to budget for that, you just have to hope that society has recognized this fact, and has a compassionate societal answer to this harsh reality, and accept that your poor children will have a lot of **** to deal with on TOP of the fact that their parents are dying...when their parents are dying.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think perhaps a decent goal would be for a couple in retirement to live within that 12 percent tax bracket as long as they can.  I figure in 2020 that the 24K standard deduction puts one at around 105K total income to stay within that 12 pct bracket, and that probably equates to close to $7K per month after fed/state taxes and health insurance are taken out. 

 

Last year I ran across the blog esimoney.com that has some good entries, including interviews with retirees who break down what they spend their money on.  They also have interviews with folks who have a million in worth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/14/2020 at 12:52 PM, Corcaigh said:

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/14/the-net-worth-of-the-average-american-family.html

 

This no doubt includes home equity, so another survey shows 80% of American families are living paycheck to paycheck.

 

 

 

I think the description of "living paycheck to paycheck" takes on a bad connotation. I consider myself living paycheck to paycheck...after my rent, utilities, child support, etc. I typically spend nearly all of what I have in my checking account before I get paid again. Sometimes I don't, but I typically do. However, I fund my retirement each month, have a $25-30K savings account, and some investments that make the future look pretty comfortable. 

 

But, I'm paycheck to paycheck...I don't automatically get to stash $500-1,000 each month to grow my savings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I think the description of "living paycheck to paycheck" takes on a bad connotation. I consider myself living paycheck to paycheck...after my rent, utilities, child support, etc. I typically spend nearly all of what I have in my checking account before I get paid again. Sometimes I don't, but I typically do. However, I fund my retirement each month, have a $25-30K savings account, and some investments that make the future look pretty comfortable. 

 

But, I'm paycheck to paycheck...I don't automatically get to stash $500-1,000 each month to grow my savings.

 

i don;t think most consider that to be living paycheck-to-paycheck.... which is usually having your expenses eat up your paycheck WITHOUT you having any to put into retirement/savings.

 

i think having the automatic withdrawals into all the long-run savings you need, etc, and THEN living to paycheck to paycheck is an ideal way to get to the long run.   It lets you basically "pretend that you don't have" those savings, and puts some urgency on budgeting within the payperiod within a framework WITHOUT that money (versus than actually trying to budget that money repeatedly every payperiod -- where it will ALWAYS be the first item dropped from the budget)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah ... if you are funding retirement in a meaningful way you are doing better than living paycheck to paycheck. Better to sock it away now and let it grow for as long as possible. If life circumstances change you can always take your foot of the gas on retirement saving but what you invested will keep compounding.

 

 

One topic we've yet to discuss in this thread ... it's also important to ensure your pet trust is properly funded.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/barbaramarquand/2015/12/01/provide-for-pet-after-death-insurance-trust

 

"Pet trusts got a dubious reputation after hotel heiress Leona Helmsley left $12 million in trust for her white Maltese, Trouble, and nothing to two of her four grandchildren. A year after Helmsley died in 2007, a judge reduced the dog’s trust to $2 million. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kosher Ham said:

If you have two kids that go to college.... Costing you most of that million. That's not even close to rich. 

 

...if you pay for the school experience. 

Counterpoint:

 

If you can afford to pay for your 2 kids to go to college, you're rich. Just because that's how you chose to spend your money, doesn't mean you're not rich compared to the people that can't afford to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...