What does it take in terms of assets, abilities, and/or income for you to consider them wealthy?

  • Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Which kind of rich do you mean? The ‘this person is truly wealthy but it’s not unreasonable’ or ‘this person is unacceptably rich and should have their money taken away if not worse’?

    The former can be somewhere around…$10,000,000 or so. Lower the older the person is really (cause I consider rich versus remaining expected lifespan), so maybe even as low as $6,000,000 for someone who’s currently 40.

    The latter where it’s simply unacceptable for people to have that much I’d start the cutoff around $400,000,000 or so.

    And slight sidenote on the unacceptable levels: Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos both are so unacceptably wealthy that they could make one person a day wealthy by my $10,000,000 standard…every day…for 100 years…before running out (and that’s assuming they stopped accruing money at the beginning of this)…and still be unacceptably wealthy to a crazy degree.

    Oh and all my numbers are assuming no additional income and definitely no interest or investment (but also assuming the money remains the same value it has today).

  • Mango@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    If literally running around in a warehouse full of 20 dollar bills collecting all you can with your hands and unlimited bags makes less money, there’s no fucking way your actual work is producing so much value.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Nobody wants to give a hard number?

    I’ll say six million dollars earning ~5%/year. That’s $300k/yr before taxes. Assuming long-term investments, that’s 15% gains tax, so take $45k for taxes (fed), no idea what state will be because they’re all different, so just round it down to $250k year income in your pocket.

    $250k/yr isn’t a lot of money…(I can hear the wtf’s…just hang on)…out of that has to come all your expenses including medical insurance in the US, your mortgage, car payments, etc.

    This is not “fuck you” money. This is living an upper middle class lifestyle. You’ll have nice cars but not crazy nice. A decent house but not a mansion. You can tweak it a little this way or that depending on the CoL of where you live, but not a lot. Yeah, you can earn more in interest, but I was being conservative.

    You’re rich because you don’t have to lift a finger to enjoy it, and you have the time to enjoy it.

    Want closer to fuck you money with the above conditions? Try $20 million in the investments at 5%. That’ll get you a million a year before tax.

    • Caveman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      I agree my threshold is a bit lower and roughly comes out as getting 100k a year before tax so $2m.

      • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        Everyone is going to have different lifestyle wants. My low number might be too low for many, they might think living more lavishly would be more “rich”. I figured my numbers are adequate to live a moderate lifestyle and have no serious money worries. No Ferraris, of course, but a top trim level Honda no problem or a good BMW with some budgeting.

        The real luxury is not having to work.

  • Jourei@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    Someone who has everything they could possibly need and no bad debt. Does not need to be rich.

  • SomGye@dormi.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    Being able to not worry about food, gas, standard bills and actually have something in savings

    • dosaki@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      It’s sad that affording basic necessities and having a bit of a financial cushion is considered rich.

      • SomGye@dormi.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 days ago

        It is indeed. Everyone I personally know is struggling and hoping for better days while working a ton.

  • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    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.

      • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        I think people should have luxury, just not to the extent that it starts hurting society as a while. Like with Jeff Bezos’s behaviour.

        • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          There’s an enormous gap between grandma living month to month on her pension cheque and Jeff Bezos money. Grandma doesn’t work though so you could say she’s “coasting” even if she relies on the senior discount at the grocery store to get by.

          There’s also a lot of people who have a lot of wealth (in the form of land, buildings, equipment) yet can’t afford to stop working, such as farmers. The UK government is going after these folks aggressively and they’re very unhappy. We could be seeing a strike by farmers in the new year where they simply stop delivering food to market.

          • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Yep, Bezos is hurting a lot of people in his pursuit of wealth though. Granda gets to enjoy her extra time in her way.

            And yep, some people have plenty of assets to work with. But that doesn’t make you wealthy per se. You provided some good examples of that.

            They’re not wealthy. At least not in the way I consider wealth, which was the question.

            • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 days ago

              I’m confused. Here was your original comment:

              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, to me, includes grandmas who live off their pension cheque as “coasting off what you’ve got.” Did you not intend for that interpretation?

              • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 day ago

                I do, building up a pension over your life is a luxury I think people deserve. I do count those grandma’s as wealthy. But that doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing, I think people should be able to retire.

    • pound_heap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      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

      • DeadWorldWalking@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Working class people contribute to society.

        The rich are parasites.

        That’s the difference.

        And no, telling people what to do is not real labor. Rent seeking is not real labor.

      • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 days ago

        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.

  • kalkulat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    If you could retire and have enough to keep you comfortably housed and insured until you’re 90, that’s wealth enough.

  • theherk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    Access to a warm fire to dance around, food and libations, and friends to share them with.

  • RBWells@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    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.

  • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    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.

  • Bear@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    Wealth is the feeling of having all your needs met and being satisfied with life in a stable and permanent way.

  • Th3D3k0y@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    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.