Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
not sure why the preoccupation with the top 1% or Warren Buffett. I'm sure they're not preoccupied with the rest of us.
Warren and I don't know each other. However, Warren has advocated that my taxes should be raised, my estate should be taxed, and that my estate should go to some foundation instead of next-of-kin. I find these beliefs to be concerning.
not sure why the preoccupation with the top 1% or Warren Buffett. I'm sure they're not preoccupied with the rest of us.
It's actually quite remarkable how little per capita wealth meets the lower threshold of the 1%. To reach truly substantial wealth, where one does indeed become disconnected with the vicissitudes and worries of "normal" people, one must climb quite a bit further up the ladder. Maybe .1%? Putting this in historical context, the aristocracy was always small... probably also 1% of the population, maybe 0.1%... similar proportions to what we find today.
Without making any personal claim, one supposes, that the first thing that happens upon reaching $5M, is desire to double it, to $10M... and from $10M, to $20M, and so forth. How could it be otherwise? But whereas a highly compensated W2 employee might reach $5M through mix of aggressive savings and reliance on the good old S&P 500, patiently waiting for a couple of decades... to reach the next doubling, and the next, is more about investment prowess, than effectiveness at the office. Something to think about, for 1%'ers who wish to become 0.1%'ers.
It's actually quite remarkable how little per capita wealth meets the lower threshold of the 1%. To reach truly substantial wealth, where one does indeed become disconnected with the vicissitudes and worries of "normal" people, one must climb quite a bit further up the ladder. Maybe .1%? Putting this in historical context, the aristocracy was always small... probably also 1% of the population, maybe 0.1%... similar proportions to what we find today.
Without making any personal claim, one supposes, that the first thing that happens upon reaching $5M, is desire to double it, to $10M... and from $10M, to $20M, and so forth. How could it be otherwise? But whereas a highly compensated W2 employee might reach $5M through mix of aggressive savings and reliance on the good old S&P 500, patiently waiting for a couple of decades... to reach the next doubling, and the next, is more about investment prowess, than effectiveness at the office. Something to think about, for 1%'ers who wish to become 0.1%'ers.
Once I reached critical mass I had no desire to double it. Why should I. I will likely die with more than I retired with because you hit a point where you are overfunded and can’t spend it fast enough without waste.
We donate a lot, travel a lot, have a nice house, some land, two new cars, eat and drink well. The desire for money was there all through my 20’s, 30’s, 40’s, but once I hit my 50’s. It was time to checkout. Yes, I likely left millions behind if I would have worked into my 60’s, but money can’t buy time.
One percent is over 34 million people, it seems unlikely to think that many people were making over 5.8 million.
Our median household income is only $74,580.
Monaco, at 12.8 Million has only 341,238,363 people but their median household income is $186,080 in US dollars.
Your math is wrong and it's net worth, not annual income.
Check out some salaries for state workers esp UC system in medical professions and some academic professions in Orange and Los Angeles counties. Check out transparent CA salaries. Some are very well paid.
There are 3 million people in Orange County.
Not all of them are neurosurgeons or provosts at UCI.
Once I reached critical mass I had no desire to double it. Why should I. I will likely die with more than I retired with because you hit a point where you are overfunded and can’t spend it fast enough without waste. ....
It's highly subjective, of course, but my view is that the ultimate purpose of money, is the making of more money. Its growth self-justifies, its spending self-condemns. Were I to have $100B, my first thought would be either how to minimize the tax-costs of stewarding it, or how to grow it to $200B. I'd still be thrilled to receive and to use a 20%-off coupon for a hamburger at Denny's.
Last edited by ohio_peasant; 03-13-2024 at 03:03 PM..
It's highly subjective, of course, but my view is that the ultimate purpose of money, is the making of more money. Its growth self-justifies, its spending self-condemns. Were I to have $100B, my first thought would be either how to minimize the tax-costs of stewarding it, or how to grow it to $200B. I'd still be thrilled to receive and to use a 20%-off coupon for a hamburger at Denny's.
I think when you have real, life changing money, when you grew up without, your focus wouldn’t be to double it, but rather enjoy it.
I hope you have the opportunity to put yourself in the position of making that decision someday.
I guess in my mind, top 1% of wealth or top 1% of household income is just that. The top 1% in the US and will find more esp in the Bay Area and Southern California. It does not surprise me.
The problem for the "wealthy " is a lot of it is tied up in real estate, and they are surrounded by other people who have expensive real estate. They need to pay people around them more. Those $20 McDonald's meals are not in a small town in Kentucky.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.