Does everyone here have millions saved?

[NW-Bound]

If your state did not expand Medicaid then the plan will not work. The new MAGI based Medicaid in the expansion is based solely on income, with no resource test. Non expanded states have the old Medicaid, which only kicks in once almost all resources have been spent down, and your income is minimal. You basically have to be destitute to get it.

Now, I understand why some states, mine included, refused to expand Medicaid. They said they could not afford it. The money for Medicaid does not all come from the Fed, and the states have to pitch in.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

Directed at the quote above... not all people who have saved a lot spend a lot. The old book "the millionaire next door" examined a sub culture of those people who save quite a bit, but have restrained their consumption. I would not generalize that people who have saved a lot really have high consumption rates. Often people increase their life style with increasing income.

My household fits this quote from TMND: "What are three words that profile the affluent? Frugal, frugal, frugal." In his books he also said most MNDs love their jobs, so this forum in general might attract a different kind of subset.

 

[jim584672]

Now, I understand why some states, mine included, refused to expand Medicaid. They said they could not afford it. The money for Medicaid does not all come from the Fed, and the states have to pitch in.

"Specifically, the federal government will assume 100 percent of the Medicaid costs of covering newly eligible individuals for the first three years that the expansion is in effect (2014-2016).[2] Federal support will then phase down slightly over the following several years, and by 2020 (and for all subsequent years), the federal government will pay 90 percent of the costs of covering these individuals. According to CBO, between 2014 and 2022, the federal government will pay $931 billion of the cost of the Medicaid expansion, while states will pay roughly $73 billion, or 7 percent "

 

[GTFan]

Medicaid is a program run by states, so a California resident qualifies for Medi-Cal. That program is unlikely to include a network of health care providers in other states, although it may cover emergency medical needs out of state.

Exactly, Medicaid qualifications vary from state to state and here in GA it is not a plan you want to be on anyway due to limited doctor access. Much better to stay above 100% FPL and get a nicely subsidized, reduced max OOP Silver plan.

 

[ejman]

Its interesting to see the enormous variation from state to state in the percentage of doctors that accept medicaid - 40% in NJ to 99% in WY. All states is 69%
Study: Nearly A Third Of Doctors Won’t See New Medicaid Patients | Kaiser Health News

 

[shasta]

Millions? What is this the 80's? ;p

 

[Independent]

My household fits this quote from TMND: "What are three words that profile the affluent? Frugal, frugal, frugal." In his books he also said most MNDs love their jobs, so this forum in general might attract a different kind of subset.

This topic is always confusing due to uncertain definitions.

What does "affluent" mean? Suppose it's a net worth of $500,000 (including a house) at age 65 for a married couple. I can imagine that median income people can get there by being "frugal".

Or, does it mean top 1%? According to one source, the threshold for getting into the 1% by wealth is $8.4 million. I don't think that median earners are going to cross that line by saving.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/measuring-the-top-1-by-wealth-not-income/?_r=0

 

[harley]

Maybe all the claims of millions made in the stock market just aren't true, like this one - EXCLUSIVE: New York Mag’s Boy Genius Investor Made It All Up | New York Observer

 

[daylatedollarshort]

This topic is always confusing due to uncertain definitions.

What does "affluent" mean? Suppose it's a net worth of $500,000 (including a house) at age 65 for a married couple. I can imagine that median income people can get there by being "frugal".

Or, does it mean top 1%? According to one source, the threshold for getting into the 1% by wealth is $8.4 million. I don't think that median earners are going to cross that line by saving.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/measuring-the-top-1-by-wealth-not-income/?_r=0

In terms of the book, the authors define the group they are referring to: "We have an average household net worth of $3.7 million. Of course, some of our cohorts have accumulated much more. Nearly 6 percent have a net worth of over $10 million. Again, these people skew our average upward. The typical (median, or 50th percentile) millionaire household has a net worth of $1.6 million." (1996 copyright edition)

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html

 

[daylatedollarshort]

Maybe all the claims of millions made in the stock market just aren't true, like this one - EXCLUSIVE: New York Mag’s Boy Genius Investor Made It All Up | New York Observer

Stories like this make fact checked articles with less outrageous figures so boring and hum drum.

 

[RunningBum]

Maybe all the claims of millions made in the stock market just aren't true, like this one - EXCLUSIVE: New York Mag’s Boy Genius Investor Made It All Up | New York Observer

That's too funny. I almost posted a link to the original story but I had my doubts and didn't feel like trying to verify. Seemed wayyy too much to be true.

 

[NW-Bound]

Maybe all the claims of millions made in the stock market just aren't true, like this one - EXCLUSIVE: New York Mag’s Boy Genius Investor Made It All Up | New York Observer

Two boys claimed to make $72 million from the stock market! Even though it was a hoax, it reeks of the stock mania of the 2000 all over again.

My TV has not been turned on for months, and subscribing to no magazines, I missed out on these stories. Else, I would have sold all my stocks. If that did not ring the bell about the market top, what would?

 

[Major Tom]

My TV has not been turned on for months, and subscribing to no magazines, I missed out on these stories. Else, I would have sold all my stocks. If that did not ring the bell about the market top, what would?

You can relax. When these types of stories start circulating, it most likely means we have another couple of years of this kind of craziness. Party on

I hope.......

 

[Danmar]

If someone has lived a narrow life, how could he or she know the range of possibilities? If you have been a C level executive, or high pension government worker, you know what all your friends and work mates do. And don't forget, at least in the case of men, if you have money, your intended life-style had better not be below what your wife intends, or poof! there it goes. Just look at Harold Hamm, whose wifey is dissatisfied with a billion dollar payment and is suing for more. I know most of these situations, (well not high pension government workers). I also know the lives of many middle aged and old people who have basically no money, but lives that are great for them-living in an attractive city, in age restricted subsidized housing. They are not going to get lonesome, they are not going to be stuck out somewhere when illness or disability make daily living difficult, if they want a smoke they buy an umbrella and go outside to a nearby park and puff with other addictees. I walk by a group of them every day. Like everyone else they have concerns and sorrows, but they do not seem to stress so heavily over the picayune things that are so common on this forum. Ha

Good post( as always). The key is being satisfied with what you end up with. A lot if self absorption evident here.

 

[Lakewood90712]

Millions? What is this the 80's? ;p

Ok , then

 

[nash031]

Not yet! But getting there...

 

[mickeyd]

Who said "The first million is the hardest to make."? It's true.

 

[Car-Guy]

Who said "The first million is the hardest to make."? It's true.

It sure was for me. It took me ~50 years to accumulate my first million. The rest was easy by comparison.

 

[Hermit]

Who said "The first million is the hardest to make."? It's true.

It took me 'till ~ 60. But at 30 we spent our last $200 for a set of very small diamond earrings my beautiful new bride right after we returned from our honeymoon. At 36 I spent what was in savings for a really nice (used) Yamaha Venture Royale. DW was not too happy at the moment, but we had some great memories including a trip across the country on Highway 50. At age 40 we had our first kidlet and I decided it was time to get serious about savings. Maxed out the 401K. After a while it just added up.

 

[mathjak107]

It sure was for me. It took me ~50 years to accumulate my first million. The rest was easy by comparison.

same here ,50 years for the first and tripled in the next 12 years. the deals i entered into got bigger annd bigger and so did the payoff. i was lucky enough to have partnered up with one of the countries most succesful real estate mogals.

he passed away last month but we sold off what was left in our partnership last march in a landmark deal here in nyc. i was very lucky to have such a brilliant investor as a partner..

 

[H2ODude]

Here in the USA, anyone can be a millionaire.

Anyone can be but we ALL can't be! If everyone tried, the economy would crash! We need all the fools spending there money on the silly things that drive the market.

 

[almost there]

My neighbor might not have a dime in the bank, but retired with a city Gov. pension of $150k per yr. Another may have 2 yrs. living expense in the bank but rentals that provide a livable income. Just a note that everyone does not live on dividends, a rising stock market or CD interest to live. But it does seem to be what the modern world / media wants you to think. You need X million in your IRA to retire. There is more than one way to skin a cat. I have about a 4 prong approach, not one is all that huge, but combined I have a feeling it will work.


I may have got the question wrong. Does everyone here have millions saved?
What does that mean? Net worth or in a Savings account? )

 

[bingybear]

I may have got the question wrong. Does everyone here have millions saved?
What does that mean? Net worth or in a Savings account? )

I'm sure different people have differing answers to your question.

I would think for the purpose of these boards it would be net worth minus your retirement house (assuming you're not going to sell it), minus day to day assets that your not going to sell (day use cars, clothes, etc). I would add in an equivalent factor for pensions and the like.

That should kind of give even footing.

I think it is easier to just count your investible assets. But that would include rental property and the like. When it comes to assets for retirement, it does seem right to see what one can leverage (use) to produce the money one needs to live on.

 

[eta2020]

My neighbor might not have a dime in the bank, but retired with a city Gov. pension of $150k per yr. Another may have 2 yrs. living expense in the bank but rentals that provide a livable income. Just a note that everyone does not live on dividends, a rising stock market or CD interest to live. But it does seem to be what the modern world / media wants you to think. You need X million in your IRA to retire. There is more than one way to skin a cat. I have about a 4 prong approach, not one is all that huge, but combined I have a feeling it will work.


I may have got the question wrong. Does everyone here have millions saved?
What does that mean? Net worth or in a Savings account? )

150k a year? He must had been a mayor of some big city. Not many people get this kind of the pension. I think having Government pension of 150k is much much rarer then having 3-5 Million in investments.

But I would prefer 3-5 million, because one can not inherit pension.

 

[almost there]

City mgr. med sized city of 70k. Welcome to the coast of So Cal.
Public records are public. 250k / yr. Am guessing on the CalPERS pension.
Just an example. I am now happy living on a 3rd of that. It was fun to cut back. No problem.