1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is "wealthy?" Most millionaires say they're not

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Donny in his element, Jul 29, 2013.

  1. Donny in his element

    Donny in his element Well-Known Member


    Amused, but not surprised by this finding. I'd be interested in reading the rationalization of this thinking. What constitutes "wealthy?"
  2. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    I don't think $1 million is wealthy. I don't have $1 million, but even if I did, my wife and I would still have to generate income. You can't just put your feet up on $1 million, and I think most people describe "wealth" as having enough money that you don't ever have to worry about getting more. Using the 4 percent rule for retirees, you can only draw out $40,000 a year on a $1 million nest-egg.

    Now, $4 million? $5 million? Sure. Even if you aren't working, you can pay yourself an annual $150-200K and never touch the principal. But $1 million isn't wealthy.
  3. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    The rational was stated in the excerpt you quoted.
  4. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    Yup. "Millionaire" now and "millionaire" 50 years ago are two drastically different things.

    When I was in ninth grade (1974-'75) I remember having an Urban Studies class and one of the projects involved thinking about your future and what you wanted to do in life. I seriously thought if I could just do something where I made $20,000 a year I'd have a great life. By the time I was an adult, that was entry-level (my starting salary in my first full-time job).

    The thinking years ago was that if you had $1 million and could get a 4% return in a savings account you'd have $40K a year and never have to touch the principle. Today, good luck on getting anywhere near 4% return without risking losses on the principle.
  5. FusilliJerry

    FusilliJerry Member

    I know it when I see it.
  6. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Just using U.S. government CPI figures (and the measurement has been changed more times than I could possibly count to deliberately underestimate the rate of inflation). ... $1 million in 1963 (50 years ago) is equivalent to $7,630,849.67 today. It's likely equivalent to much more than that. A million dollars really ain't what it used to be.
  7. Those who made $150K in 1963 were definitely struggling to make ends meet.
  8. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    Considering that a 50 year old modest 3 bedroom detached house in Toronto would cost you about $900K makes being a millionaire a slightly moot point.
  9. HandsomeHarley

    HandsomeHarley Well-Known Member

    To the 69 percent of millionaires who don't think they're wealthy,

    I say FUCK YOU.

    What a fuckin' joke. This country has become so delusional.

    To me, if you make $100,000 a year, as an individual, you're wealthy. If you make $1 million, you're fucking rich, I don't care who you are.

    Fuckers would probably blow their brains out if any of them had to change places with any of us.
  10. 93Devil

    93Devil Well-Known Member

    Wealthy gives out the paycheck. Rich cashes the paycheck.
  11. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    Ask Mike Tyson what no restraints on spending did for him. You CAN piss away $300 million.
  12. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    $100,000 a year really is not that much, not if you want to buy a house anywhere on either coast (or in a lot of major metro areas in between) and if you also assume other expenses like car payments. A $500,000 mortgage would cost about $3,200 a month in PITI, which would be 38 percent of income for a person making $100,000. It would be dicey for that person to qualify for such a loan and definitely a month-to-month chore to make it work.

    That isn't a wealthy person. It isn't a poor person and it isn't someone we should feel sorry for by any means, but it sure as hell isn't a wealthy person.

    As I noted before, too, $1 million is not a sufficient nest-egg for a "wealthy" retirement. More than most people have, yes. But not wealthy.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page