Net worth Poll

[RetiredGypsy]

So in deciding whether or not to include your $1.25 pair of Goodwill sandals or your Social Security check into your net worth, is this actually changing anything about how you're living or feel about anything? That is, unless you're doing Step Whatever from Your Money Or Your Life?

 

[HFWR]

Good to hear you're not one of those "swing voters"

Heh. Being in Texas, if I vote Republican, I'm lost in the crowd. If I vote Democrat, I'm lost in the noise...

If they change my SS in the next few years, I'll deal with it. But I'm not one of the "rich", by any stretch, so I can probably sneak in unnoticed...

 

[Moemg]

Well...technically speaking ...I didn't include my other halfs net worth either. It would not have changed the bucket..although it would have raised us inside the bucket.

Same for me !

 

[kcowan]

Me too but I think I already made the point that the bucket was too large in the first place. If a factor of two makes no difference, what the hell?

 

[sheehs1]

Me too but I think I already made the point that the bucket was too large in the first place. If a factor of two makes no difference, what the hell?

Agree...but not sure I'd vote in a poll ...that wouldn't leave everyone here guessing to some degree.

 

[BTravlin]

I believe the OP missed an obvious answer for today's economy:

1. Underwater

As to that other poll, I might suggest another option there as well.

8. Needs to be medicinally jump started in order to be accurately measured.

 

[nivek]

You are all cracking me up. I think there must be a correlation between wit and early retiree types.

My wife is probably wondering what I'm laughing about.

 

[73ss454]

Yes, we are an odd bunch.

 

[Bimmerbill]

Wow, 100 to 250K is the lowest option? Isn't that better than 95% of the US population?

 

[Westernskies]

Wow, 100 to 250K is the lowest option? Isn't that better than 95% of the US population?

...the lumpen proletariat probably isn't eligible to vote in an ER poll.

 

[kumquat]

The people in the lower ranges are probably either too young or to "poor" to consider ER. What is this board called?

 

[observer]

Sorry to see so many silly and inane responses to what I think is a serious poll.

I'm interested in where many of us stand, but never liked Net Worth as a guage of financial survivability into retirement. It includes one's home, and you have to live someplace for shelter. Also, many have homes with excessive value yet don't have sufficient retirement savings. So to combine both isn't a good measure of sucessful retirement ability in my opinion.

 

[obgyn65]

+1

Sorry to see so many silly and inane responses to what I think is a serious poll.

 

[kcowan]

I'm interested in where many of us stand, but never liked Net Worth as a guage of financial survivability into retirement. It includes one's home, and you have to live someplace for shelter. Also, many have homes with excessive value yet don't have sufficient retirement savings. So to combine both isn't a good measure of sucessful retirement ability in my opinion.

Yes this has been debated numerous times. Often houses are bigger than needed. Sometimes second homes are included. DB pensions are not included. etc.

 

[rescueme]

Often houses are bigger than needed.

But always =/> than wanted ...

 

[Danmar]

Clearly(in my view) the relevant net worth would be excluding personal use real estate but including NPV of pensions. I would personally exclude SS as this is somewhat uncertain(I am told), relatively small, and generally not a differentiating factor for people with reasonable NW's. Also, you should raise the max category and provide more granularity for lower amounts.

 

[NW-Bound]

Sorry to see so many silly and inane responses to what I think is a serious poll.

If by silly, you mean the sexual innuendos and even explicit comments, then yes, many old-timers here like to intersperse those into any thread. I was a bit taken aback at first, but have learned to go with the flow.

Also, many have homes with excessive value yet don't have sufficient retirement savings. So to combine both isn't a good measure of sucessful retirement ability in my opinion.

This subject has come up many times in past threads. You will need to do a search for them. As I remember, most respondents reported houses as a small percentage of their net worth. Speaking for myself, my two houses are currently about 25% of my net worth.

 

[Sarah in SC]

Let me chime in my vote for the silly and frivolous responses to the poll--way more interesting than the debates! But then again, I am here for the entertainment!

Frivolous Lumpen Proletariat Unite!

 

[rescueme]

If by silly, you mean the sexual innuendos and even explicit comments, then yes, many old-timers here like to intersperse those into any thread. I was a bit taken aback at first, but have learned to go with the flow.

As one of those "old pharts" (who throws out a "nonsense" answer to a poll, sometimes), I'll just say that I've found that as you age, some "measurements" mean less. What's your tax rate? How much do you spend on "X"? How many times in a week do you "get it on" with your ...significant other (be it male, female, or some animal).

It doesn’t matter. As long as you have enough that you (and the people you are responsible for) have enough to live in the manner they wish, any "excess" means little, IMHO.

In the accumulation years, these questions were important - or so I thought. As you age (and assuming you meet your target - whatever it is), they mean much, much less.

And then you get such responses as I sometimes give.

 

[hakuna matata]

Sorry to see so many silly and inane responses to what I think is a serious poll.

Really? You think this or any public poll on Networth is worth the electrons you are reading? First off it isn't scientific, and it is on the internet and the responses are limited to those who choose to answer, who may or may not choose to answer truthfully. Issues dealing with money such as Networth have a strong emotional component to them, and some people are just too private to 'put it out there' even when the poll is anonymous. So the results given in said poll are dubious at best so serious answers aren't really that important in my opinion.

Finally the only measure you need is relative to your own life in my opinion. Who cares if someone my age has $200k or $2M? The person who has $200k may only need $200 a month from his retirement fund to live the life he wants, whereas the $2M guy might need to $40k a month so his isn't enough. So what does knowing that number help you understand? Obviously you view it different, but I don't see where truly knowing how much someone else has really has any bearing on the amount I have for my retirement.

 

[calmloki]

You know, it all depends on your point of view.

http://i.imgur.com/6ZoRu.gif

 

[chinaco]

S... but never liked Net Worth as a guage of financial survivability into retirement. It includes one's home, and you have to live someplace for shelter. Also, many have homes with excessive value yet don't have sufficient retirement savings. So to combine both isn't a good measure of sucessful retirement ability in my opinion.

Since everyone is in different places financially, I am not sure there would be a good illustration unless the complete balance sheet where shown.

There is often a similar debate about income due in the future (e.g., pensions and SS).


$1MM 401k with no pension is not the same as $1MM 401k with a $75k/yr (pension + SS)!

 

[NW-Bound]

I just re-read this thread as it was referenced by Alan in another thread, and this brings back memories.

Was it my imagination, but we all sounded so happy then, and the posts were lively. Could it be because the market was well in its recovery then, and we felt that the 2008-2009 recession was safely past?

Anyway, looking at the poll result, I am still in the same bracket. Not that it matters. I've got my health to worry about now, and I am not even 60. Have not touched cognac, or even beer or wine in several months.

 

[Huston55]

I just re-read this thread as it was referenced by Alan in another thread, and this brings back memories.

Was it my imagination, but we all sounded so happy then, and the posts were lively. Could it be because the market was well in its recovery then, and we felt that the 2008-2009 recession was safely past?

Anyway, looking at the poll result, I am still in the same bracket. Not that it matters. I've got my health to worry about now, and I am not even 60. Have not touched cognac, or even beer or wine in several months.

Well, no wonder you were happier back then!

I'm enjoying a Boddington's now and getting "all happied up" as my Aussie friends would say.

 

[NW-Bound]

Wow! Either you are perceptive, or I am getting more feeble-minded, but that could be the simple cause.

I have been abstaining from alcohol, because oxycodone has Tylenol, and that does not mix with booze (I only took it for less than 1 week though). There are other medical reasons too for me not to drink, and in fact I have not had the taste for it.

However, I am currently at the stage where it should not be harmful for me to have a glass of wine at dinner. I shall have it today.