What does it take in terms of assets, abilities, and/or income for you to consider them wealthy?
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.
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
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.
Someone who has everything they could possibly need and no bad debt. Does not need to be rich.
If you could retire and have enough to keep you comfortably housed and insured until you’re 90, that’s wealth enough.
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.
Access to a warm fire to dance around, food and libations, and friends to share them with.
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.
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.
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.
Sorry for linking back to the R word. But FIRE comes to mind with your post
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.
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.
That’s a totally obtainable goal!
For everyone? Do you really believe that?
Everyone? No.
Anyone? Maybe.
If you max out your ROTH IRA every year until retirement that is possible (for the US). Yes, I believe one can easily save and invest in index funds. Based on compound interest with a return rate of 3-7% one could expect 450,000-1.05 mil after 35 years of working. That’s 583$ post tax dollars a month.
Post kids it’s been more difficult but I even picked up an extra job to make sure I can max out my retirement investments.
For everyone? Absolutely not. It is obtainable though. Even half of that per month would result in similarly good returns. The problem is investment education. Reminds me of my local communist reading group who to my surprise didn’t know anything about investing even though capital is like their whole thing.
Max contributions to a ROTH IRA is $7,000. Most people don’t have an extra $7,000 lying around. If you do, chances are you’re already in the top 10%.
I would still say that’s not true… I probably make half as much as you but I just try to be extremely frugal… just saying it’s doable
For everyone, right? Nobody works everyone just collects their 3k
For most of us reading this it is an obtainable retirement income. On the world stage if you can read this you are probably rich. A little bit of savings can get you 3k inflation adjusted once you reach “old age”.
A little bit of savings? How much would you need to save per month?
Of course on the world stage this varies per country but I agree that a big of savings can get you there by retirement, especially if done early.
In China a common goal is to save 140k USD then invest it and retire by one’s mid 30s living a simple life.
That would be achievable in the US as well - 140k US saved and living a “simple life”. Those some people who try it go back to work in a few years because it turns out they value a more complex life. YMMV.
Relax. If you max out your ROTH IRA every year until retirement that is possible (for the US).
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.
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.
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 was about to type something very similar, but switching words. “Wealthy” to me implies having enough wealth to not really worry. “Rich” makes me think of Lamborghinis and yachts and mountains of cocaine.
I’d be a slight exception… I’m VERY MUCH not rich but I never think about money. I can’t afford a house and I would really love to have my own house…. I don’t buy many things, but when I do, I don’t think about it. I put everything on a credit card that gives me money back and I pay it off every month. I used to put 5USD of gurl in my car, and now I’m very thankful that I don’t think about filling my entire tank or going out for sushi.
Maybe someday I’ll have a house.
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.
Anyone who can forego any form of future income and live off their current wealth for the rest of their life in relative luxury/comfort.
Wealth is the feeling of having all your needs met and being satisfied with life in a stable and permanent way.
It’s always “wealthier than us”, isn’t it?
But I’d say whenever you have no money worries, that’s wealthy. Like you could retire today if you wanted and not just survive but buy a new car or house if you wanted to, go on a long vacation, anything that just needs money to do is within your reach. Never have to say no simply because of money. That is what I define as wealth (financial wealth) and it’s different amounts in different places.
The tiers for me are: Doesn’t worry about money -> Doesn’t work -> Can afford a US senator to protect money. There are not titles for this kind of thing.
