Surprising Net Worth Number

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by R Wood I could live on $80K a year but choose to live on no more than $30K a year. So I guess I would be classified as VERY LOW INCOME. When are these journalists ever going to get the FACT that it is EXPENSES that drive the train NOT INCOME.

Print journalists aren’t stupid. A financial journalist is like a health writer, she must write to her audience. That audience has a short attention span, and at best they are reading to confirm whatever bias they already have in place, or stoke a lingering fear, or whatever. What they are not doing is trying to understand unfamiliar concepts.

Ha

[Martha]

Clements writes for the WSJ. I'll bet many readers have a high income but not big savings. Saying a million dollars ain't what it used to be is relevant to that audience, who may expect to spend $100,000 a year.

[newguy88]

But if you and your wife worked for 30+ years and will both be gettin SS of about 25K combined would that not average about 1 million with the 250 average?

[MasterBlaster]

Oh please. Spare us about how deserving you are.

It's bad enough that we have to pay way over the going rate for government services.

[runnerr]

sorry

[Sam]

No problem. I'm glad we clear that up.

[lazygood4nothinbum]

"9.5 million people held at least $1 million in financial assets -- excluding the value of their primary homes -- in 2006, up from 8.7 million in 2005, according to the 11th annual World Wealth Report compiled by Merrill Lynch & Co. and consulting firm Capgemini Group."~~recent associated press report

given approximately 6.5 billion people in the world, millionaires still rank at--and frankly, it's been a long time since 10th grade so i don't even know if i can do the math--what is that between 1/8th & 1/4 of 1% of the world population?

sounds pretty damned rich to me.

[roadkill]

I posted this link a while ago......Global Rich List

[Sam]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadkill I posted this link a while ago......Global Rich List

Interesting...

$200,001/year = Top 0.001% (1 out of 100,000. Highest possible rating)
$47,500/year = Top 1% (4.75% of 1 million)
$9,000/year = Top 13% (USA poverty level for one person)
$850/year = Top 50% (Yes, this is the median world wide income!)

$365/year = Top 91% (Poverty level for most 3rd world countries. $1/day/person). Another way to look at this last number is: 9% of the world population (or 585,000,000) is still living on less than $1/day! Somewhat interesting also is that a nest egg of $9,125 (USA poverty) would generate this income for life.

[Helen]

Federal employee here. I've been thinking about this for a while. The government is slow to react to a changing society. Things are getting too far out of whack in terms of the benefits of government vs. the private sector. Gone are the days of pensions at most corporations. Yet even under the newer FERs system the pensions are still quite generous.

I don't think the imbalance is healthy. I also don't think it's fair to retro change the promised benefits. I don't know what the short term solution is.

I do see trouble ahead with the national debt, medicare, social security and defined benefit plans payout to the aging population.

[Bikerdude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helen Federal employee here. I've been thinking about this for a while. The government is slow to react to a changing society. Things are getting too far out of whack in terms of the benefits of government vs. the private sector. Gone are the days of pensions at most corporations. Yet even under the newer FERs system the pensions are still quite generous.

I agree with this. No point blaming the current Federal employee's (and I don't think anyone really is) for what we and the politicians have given them. I say “we” because it's us that elect the people who make the deals at the Federal and State levels.

No question cola pensions and free health care have to go. And it will go once we tell the politicians that it has to go. The issue here is that an increasing number of people depend on the government (Sate & Federal) for their income and as a voting block they are very powerful and getting more so. The danger is that they will unintentionally kill the "goose" (meaning the private sector) to keep their benefits.

[TromboneAl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadkill I posted this link a while ago......Global Rich List

That site is based on income. I my income, which, being retired, is zero.

poorest.jpg

How embarrassing -- I find that I am the very poorest person among the whole population of the world!

[mickeyd]

Quote:

That site is based on income.

Retirement income is not income?

[dex]

You know it isn't all about how much money you have that makes you wealthy. Think about where we are in history.
Ceasar didn't have the clean water that we get from our taps.
Queen Elizabeth didn't have the entertainment we have for free from radio and television
President Roosevelt didn't have the roads we have today.
The kings and queens from history could not even imagine the things the common person has today to make their life comfortable.
Just a thought.

[accountingsucks]

Having a net worth of $250K or less is irrelevant if you have a sweet pension plan. I would much rather have a $250K NW and a defined benefit plan at retirement that provided a reasonable GUARANTEED income with COLA's every year than having a $1M NW.

[dex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by accountingsucks Having a net worth of $250K or less is irrelevant if you have a sweet pension plan. I would much rather have a $250K NW and a defined benefit plan at retirement that provided a reasonable GUARANTEED income with COLA's every year than having a $1M NW.

Very true. I don't have a pension - only Social Security and my savings. I have to manage my savings to meet my financial needs - a big worry.
If I had less of a net worth but a good government pension with COLA I would feel better off than I am today.

[mickeyd]

$5,000,000 is the new $1,000,000.

[bosco]

Well, heck, if we can't afford to pay all those pensioners with our hard-earned tax dollars because none of them ever did anything that benefit us (please don't drive over any bridges in Alaska or ride the ferries if you believe that, btw--if you do, then you should gladly help fund my pension), then I think inheritances should be the next to go.

After all, the inheritors did nothing to earn the money. And we as tax payers have to make up that lost income that those selfish opportunistic lazy people get. After all, they did LESS than even those lazy pensioners to earn the money.

Obviously, I'm being sarcastic. But I do think the stone-throwing is based on unjustified generalities and is somewhat mean-spirited. How much effort did it take for those stock-market gains? Maybe you shouldn't be able to keep those gains because you didn't do enough to get them. Oh, that's right. You took risk. Well guess what--so did pensioners. If you don't believe that, read the news. If you don't think working decades only to have promised income being taken away seriously discussed isn't risk--then what is it?

[mickeyd]

Quote:

And it will go once we tell the politicians that it has to go. The issue here is that an increasing number of people depend on the government (Sate & Federal) for their income and as a voting block they are very powerful and getting more so.

Didn't Congres just vote themselves a $4K raise? Did any "voting block" ask them why?

[kcowan]

Any benefit needs to be moved to a self-funding model. The problem with universal benefits is that they are not properly funded and will inevitably self-destruct. Copayments and deductibles are the only way to manage the escalating costs.

Put the pension plan for Congressmen onto the same basis as SS. They are both public. Why should they be different? This will ensure that SS recipients are treated fairly (or equally unfairly). Same with public servants.