Wealthometer !!!!!

[frayne]

Copied from another thread but thought it would be interesting to see where people fall in the range of wealth. I would almost bet most on this forum are in the top 10%.

Wealthometer: How Does Your Houshold Wealth Compare? | The Big Picture

 

[aja8888]

92% per our two person household. I guess that's good.

The wealth tax simulator seems meaningless and is confusing to use (at least to me).

 

[NW-Bound]

Copied from another thread but thought it would be interesting to see where people fall in the range of wealth. I would almost bet most on this forum are in the top 10%.

Wealthometer: How Does Your Houshold Wealth Compare? | The Big Picture

Well, where are you at?

 

[martyb]

I wasn't sure exactly how to figure the value of my 2 pensions so I just used the annual amount x 25. That's probably not right, huh?

 

[Donzo]

95....but I won't feel that rich til both my kids are done with college! Hopefully in 2 years, they are doing great, I am very proud. It's worth every cent as long as they find jobs

 

[frayne]

I wasn't sure exactly how to figure the value of my 2 pensions so I just used the annual amount x 25. That's probably not right, huh?

I have no idea.

 

[frayne]

Well, where are you at?

Top 6%, not that it really means much. Don't consider myself wealthy except in friends, family and health. The irony is that one catastrophic event, be it financial or health wise could turn the tables in a heartbeat.

OK, your turn NW

 

[rothlev]

In order to get down to the 50% marker for a two person household you need to have 0 assets, and own only $25,000 in monetary wealth.

I don't know where they got there numbers from , but I guess since there is no age breakdown, that accounts somewhat for the low wealth numbers.

 

[aim-high]

92% per our two person household. I guess that's good.

The wealth tax simulator seems meaningless and is confusing to use (at least to me).

Basically what it is doing is trying to get people used to the idea that they can tax wealth and redistribute it to others who don't have it. A [-]capital[/-] idea!

Many people who have ER'd by LBYM and risk would enjoy paying a "wealth" tax (not on income, not on gains, but on assets) and it would be redistributed to those who weren't so fortunate.

 

[razztazz]

Top 4%. For my pension I divided it by .037. That comports with a 100% safe withdrawal rate. There's probably more than one way to skin that cat but it won'y change your position by much. Top 5%, top 4% ... whatever

 

[aim-high]

An single person who ER'd in her 40's through hard work and diligent savings has a $1.5M net worth. She is in the top 3%. With an SWR of 3% that is $45K a year. Not very wealthy cash flow, but enough. A wealth tax for being in the top 3% is just what she needs.

 

[Amethyst]

Where should a woman on public assistance fall on the "wealthometer", if she has no assets and is getting all basic needs paid for by others: housing, medical care, food stamps. Not saying public assistance is wrong, just suggesting that it creates a type of "wealth."

Amethyst

 

[Totoro]

Basically what it is doing is trying to get people used to the idea that they can tax wealth and redistribute it to others who don't have it. A [-]capital[/-] idea!

The next menu says it all:

How would you tax wealth, it asks. Maximum threshold below which no tax is due is $1M .. I want it to be at $3M, and include pension benefits, SS benefits and real estate in the calculation. Yes my friends, that is also wealth, especially when it's COLA'd.

I am all for fairness and redistributing above a certain level, but not willing to give up my own money because others were wasteful and unable to balance a checkbook while I was living quite frugal.

 

[nash031]

92% for 2 person household as well!

 

[NW-Bound]

OK, your turn NW

If I did not have to share with DW, I would be in the 99%. But with assets divided by two, I get downgraded. That's all I want to share.

Well, to be fair, her 401K is 30% of our portfolio, and she contributed to the purchase of the homes too.

My wife will surely survive me, and she will get to claim the top 1% status.

PS. I do not think they count SS. Hmm... Would that not boost up my bragging right?

 

[adrift]

Where should a woman on public assistance fall on the "wealthometer", if she has no assets and is getting all basic needs paid for by others: housing, medical care, food stamps. Not saying public assistance is wrong, just suggesting that it creates a type of "wealth."

Amethyst

That varies greatly depending on if she has children and where she lives.
Assuming two children, Table 2 shows a wage equivalent by state.

For 2013, it ranges from $60,590 in Hawaii down to $11,150 in Idaho.

 

[Chuckanut]

but not willing to give up my own money because others were wasteful and unable to balance a checkbook while I was living quite frugal.

+1

People I knew who drove sports cars, frequented happy hour after work, ate breakfast out often, etc. may now be poorer than I, but, am I not also poorer than them in that I did not get to experience these pleasures during my younger days?

It's one thing to help a person who is down and out through not fault of his own. It's another to subsidize a person's past high standard of living.

 

[David1961]

Interesting. Top 4% for me. I wonder if they have a similar calculation that considers your age? I imagine if I were compared to folks in my age group, I'd be lower.

 

[Totoro]

Interesting. Top 4% for me. I wonder if they have a similar calculation that considers your age? I imagine if I were compared to folks in my age group, I'd be lower.

Try this one

A Look at Household Net Worth and Household Income By Age Group from the 2010 Survey of Consumer Finances

 

[David1961]

Thanks, Totoro!

 

[Walt34]

It's one thing to help a person who is down and out through not fault of his own. It's another to subsidize a person's past high standard of living.

I have a real problem with that too.

Wonder where they get these numbers from? If I put in the raw numbers for our assets for the two of us it spits out 85. If I use the pension income to (very roughly) estimate a number that it would take to generate, we're at 99. Sadly, I'm quite certain we are not in the 1%.

 

[Totoro]

Forgot about this one too:

Global Rich List

I removed it from my bookmarks because I do not want to focus myself on what other people have or haven't done.

 

[ER Fireball]

Choices

+1

People I knew who drove sports cars, frequented happy hour after work, ate breakfast out often, etc. may now be poorer than I, but, am I not also poorer than them in that I did not get to experience these pleasures during my younger days?

Here is another way of looking at it. In the late 70s, early 80s, I bought personal computers. Something I was interested in. My first one was $1400, my second system a couple years later was $3400. If I had put the money into Apple stock instead of buying the computers, it would be worth somewhere around $900,000.

Woulda Coulda Shoulda.

The challenge with looking backwards is that you have the opportunity to cherry pick the alternatives. I have had chance meetings with folks in obscure places that came back several years later to present a business opportunity which was very beneficial. Time spent socializing or playing golf may be what put a few of today's high-roller business folks in the position to climb the ladder.

I know folks that have wasted their money, (my opinion), but have lots of pictures on the walls. I also know folks that have pinched every nickle and saved and invested. And now they can't let go of it to slow down, retire, and enjoy things. But, that is their choice.

How much is enough. That is a very personal question that many will struggle with.

97%, 2 people. Depending on how the auction sale goes...

Retired MegaCorp. Working at a University and farming. Love my job(s).

 

[kcowan]

2% counting net present value of pensions for 2 of us, not counting any non-RE possessions.

 

[Meadbh]

99th percentile for one person. No pensions to count.