Being “a millionaire” is outdated. There are plenty of people who are both millionaires and working class. Because the US doesn’t do pensions anymore, people have to invest in 401(k)s and the like. It’s pretty likely that someone can hit $1m through a combination of a retirement fund and a house, but still be working class. In fact, you can be a millionaire on paper but still be vulnerable to homelessness, especially if you’re at an age where you can no longer work.
It’s certainly possible to retire on $1m, but it’s not going to be a lavish lifestyle if you’re playing it safe with your retirement fund. If you want to live near family, or if you have any medical issues, or if you might need to support someone else, it might really be impossible to retire with only $1m.
Agreed. I’m actually pretty close to being a millionaire “on paper,” since my house is worth $600k and I’ve got about $100k in retirement. But the house is mortgaged, and I can’t touch the retirement for another 25 years. If I had three very good months, I could probably just barely become a millionaire. But if I had three moderately bad months, I would likely default on my mortgage.
Replace the "m"s with "b"s in the OP, and this is spot on.
If your $600k house isn’t paid off yet, you don’t get to count its full value towards your net worth, so you might not be as close to $1m as you say. If it is fully paid off, then you shouldn’t have a mortgage to worry about.
But, 3 really bad months could mean a tree fell on your fully paid-off house. It could mean a family member without good health insurance has a medical emergency and you feel like you have to help pay.
It just seems to me that something like $10m makes John Rogers’ point much better. If this is a class war, $1 million dollar millionaires really are in the same class as anybody else who works. I don’t know quite where the dividing line is. Clearly billionaires are in a whole different class. Same with $100m-aires. $10m is almost certainly set for life. What about $3m? $2m? Maybe age comes into it. How long do you have to make it last, and can you still find a job if you need one? $1m net worth at 25 is different from $1m at 65. $1m at 90 probably puts you back in the “set for life” camp, just because “life” is not likely to last much longer.
Yeah, we poor folks would have to do that, but rich people live on fractional reserve income and stuff, and they never subtract their liabilities from their assets when reporting their wealth. I’m okay with fudging the numbers for the point.
Definitely agree that $10m is the new bar for this.
A millionaire is still never have to work again money. Its not life of luxury never working again, but its easily a comfortable life of never working again. £500k or so is probably roughly the starting point of never work again but living very frugally.
The fact you’re using pounds instead of dollars says you’re probably talking about having 1 million pounds and living in the UK rather than the US.
1 million pounds is still a lot more than 1 million dollars, despite Brexit. In addition, if you live in the UK you’re covered by the NHS so none of your million has to go towards health care / health insurance. The cost of living is also lower in the UK than the US. So, as long as you don’t try to live in London you can get by with a lot less money.
The point is, John Rogers was trying to draw a distinction between two extremes. On one end you’re homeless and extremely desperate. On the other end, you’re a millionaire and are set for life. At this point, $1m USD in the USA really isn’t “set for life” anymore. Someone hitting age 65 with no pension and a total net worth of $1m is really still in the same “class” as the people who work 9-5 every day. They shop in the same stores, have to budget very carefully, worry about the price of gas, etc.
Rule of thumb for a retirement portfolio is to withdraw 4% per year. 4% of $1M is $40k. People survive on 40k/year, but you’d be considered pretty low income in most areas.
Big point being that in the US we have many cost of living expenses that the UK does not (or rather, you get it via your taxes)
Being “a millionaire” is outdated. There are plenty of people who are both millionaires and working class. Because the US doesn’t do pensions anymore, people have to invest in 401(k)s and the like. It’s pretty likely that someone can hit $1m through a combination of a retirement fund and a house, but still be working class. In fact, you can be a millionaire on paper but still be vulnerable to homelessness, especially if you’re at an age where you can no longer work.
It’s certainly possible to retire on $1m, but it’s not going to be a lavish lifestyle if you’re playing it safe with your retirement fund. If you want to live near family, or if you have any medical issues, or if you might need to support someone else, it might really be impossible to retire with only $1m.
Agreed. I’m actually pretty close to being a millionaire “on paper,” since my house is worth $600k and I’ve got about $100k in retirement. But the house is mortgaged, and I can’t touch the retirement for another 25 years. If I had three very good months, I could probably just barely become a millionaire. But if I had three moderately bad months, I would likely default on my mortgage.
Replace the "m"s with "b"s in the OP, and this is spot on.
Edit: no, not “bonths.” Y’all know what I mean.
That’s not how net worth works…
If you have a mortgage, that offsets it and your net worth would only include the equity you hold.
Rich people do that sort of funny math all the time when stating their wealth, though. It’s all fake and made up.
If your house is mortgaged, you would have to subtract that mortgage from the calculation, would you not?
Rich people ignore their debt when making their wealth calculations all the time. I’m just following suit.
If your $600k house isn’t paid off yet, you don’t get to count its full value towards your net worth, so you might not be as close to $1m as you say. If it is fully paid off, then you shouldn’t have a mortgage to worry about.
But, 3 really bad months could mean a tree fell on your fully paid-off house. It could mean a family member without good health insurance has a medical emergency and you feel like you have to help pay.
It just seems to me that something like $10m makes John Rogers’ point much better. If this is a class war, $1 million dollar millionaires really are in the same class as anybody else who works. I don’t know quite where the dividing line is. Clearly billionaires are in a whole different class. Same with $100m-aires. $10m is almost certainly set for life. What about $3m? $2m? Maybe age comes into it. How long do you have to make it last, and can you still find a job if you need one? $1m net worth at 25 is different from $1m at 65. $1m at 90 probably puts you back in the “set for life” camp, just because “life” is not likely to last much longer.
Yeah, we poor folks would have to do that, but rich people live on fractional reserve income and stuff, and they never subtract their liabilities from their assets when reporting their wealth. I’m okay with fudging the numbers for the point.
Definitely agree that $10m is the new bar for this.
Being hobeless?
Oof, allergy season, eh? I get it.
Hobosexual, when you partner up for the housing situation rather than for romance/love.
That’s a fantastic word. I’ll take that, thank you.
A millionaire is still never have to work again money. Its not life of luxury never working again, but its easily a comfortable life of never working again. £500k or so is probably roughly the starting point of never work again but living very frugally.
The fact you’re using pounds instead of dollars says you’re probably talking about having 1 million pounds and living in the UK rather than the US.
1 million pounds is still a lot more than 1 million dollars, despite Brexit. In addition, if you live in the UK you’re covered by the NHS so none of your million has to go towards health care / health insurance. The cost of living is also lower in the UK than the US. So, as long as you don’t try to live in London you can get by with a lot less money.
The point is, John Rogers was trying to draw a distinction between two extremes. On one end you’re homeless and extremely desperate. On the other end, you’re a millionaire and are set for life. At this point, $1m USD in the USA really isn’t “set for life” anymore. Someone hitting age 65 with no pension and a total net worth of $1m is really still in the same “class” as the people who work 9-5 every day. They shop in the same stores, have to budget very carefully, worry about the price of gas, etc.
Rule of thumb for a retirement portfolio is to withdraw 4% per year. 4% of $1M is $40k. People survive on 40k/year, but you’d be considered pretty low income in most areas.
Big point being that in the US we have many cost of living expenses that the UK does not (or rather, you get it via your taxes)