Can you define wealth?
Jan 27th 2011, 11:22 pm
#92
Fighting my corner
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 11,948
Re: Can you define wealth?
Jan 27th 2011, 11:29 pm
#93
High in the Dandenongs
Joined: Apr 2003
Location: Listening to Puffing Billy
Posts: 9,183
Jan 27th 2011, 11:54 pm
#94
Fighting my corner
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 11,948
Re: Can you define wealth?
Not sure the cooking sherry will last that long!
Jan 28th 2011, 8:50 am
#95
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 88
Re: Can you define wealth?
On the radio this morning, a guy on the talkback called about the flood levy. I only heard a small extract of the call that was replayed but it sounded that he was against the levy. His point was that his family would pay an extra $2,000 in tax even though they had already donated $1,000 (which is very generous I might add 
). The radio host (Jon Faine for those in Melbourne) pointed out that if they were going to pay $2,000, that meant they were on at least $200,000 per annum. The guy's answer was "yes, but we're not wealthy"
So the question I asked myself is "at what point do you consider yourself wealthy?"
To me, wealth (and I am talking about monetary wealth here, not emotional) is a combination of assets and disposable cash.
Personal example: We are a family of 4, one main income earner on $130-140k per year (although I've just started working 2 days a week so I now contribute a minute amount
), with a largish mortgage ($450,000
), some credit card debt, non-existent savings. We have no disposable cash by the end of the pay period, and we are struggling to save. I'm not complaining, just stating facts. We are working to change our spending habits, but the above is what our current situation is. I wouldn't say we are wealthy, but we are certainly not poor. We still manage to pay the bills, we can buy what we need most of the time, and sometimes what we want but not necessarily need
.
I know everybody's idea of wealth is different and I wonder whether our perceptions of wealth get distorted. If you are on over $100k a year, are you wealthy? If you are on over $200k, are you wealthy? Or does it depend on your personal circumstances, such as the size of your mortgage, your car loans, etc.
*start rant*
TBH, if somebody on $200k/year came to me and told me they are not wealthy because they are repaying a $1.5 million on the house, $100k on a Porsche Cayenne (hate that car
), and the private school fees, I'd be a bit peed off. In my opinion, they are wealthy and have just chosen to spend their money on expensive cars! Their choice, but don't come and tell me you're not wealthy!
*rant over*
So, wonderful people of BE, what is wealth? Is there a minimum amount of monetary wealth (assets and income combined) that makes you wealthy? Or is it all relative?
). The radio host (Jon Faine for those in Melbourne) pointed out that if they were going to pay $2,000, that meant they were on at least $200,000 per annum. The guy's answer was "yes, but we're not wealthy"So the question I asked myself is "at what point do you consider yourself wealthy?"
To me, wealth (and I am talking about monetary wealth here, not emotional) is a combination of assets and disposable cash.
Personal example: We are a family of 4, one main income earner on $130-140k per year (although I've just started working 2 days a week so I now contribute a minute amount
), with a largish mortgage ($450,000), some credit card debt, non-existent savings. We have no disposable cash by the end of the pay period, and we are struggling to save. I'm not complaining, just stating facts. We are working to change our spending habits, but the above is what our current situation is. I wouldn't say we are wealthy, but we are certainly not poor. We still manage to pay the bills, we can buy what we need most of the time, and sometimes what we want but not necessarily need.I know everybody's idea of wealth is different and I wonder whether our perceptions of wealth get distorted. If you are on over $100k a year, are you wealthy? If you are on over $200k, are you wealthy? Or does it depend on your personal circumstances, such as the size of your mortgage, your car loans, etc.
*start rant*
TBH, if somebody on $200k/year came to me and told me they are not wealthy because they are repaying a $1.5 million on the house, $100k on a Porsche Cayenne (hate that car
), and the private school fees, I'd be a bit peed off. In my opinion, they are wealthy and have just chosen to spend their money on expensive cars! Their choice, but don't come and tell me you're not wealthy!*rant over*
So, wonderful people of BE, what is wealth? Is there a minimum amount of monetary wealth (assets and income combined) that makes you wealthy? Or is it all relative?
My parents bought a house in 1970 (in England) for 5000 GBP. My dad, an accountant, would have earned on average 1500-2000 GBP a year in the 70s, (according to a little internet research). So his mortgage, and income for family of four kids, would have been very doable. He had a used car. We had all the BASICS. We weren't poor, but lower middle class. There was also a lot of free stuff in the 70s in England: free schooling through University, child benefits, school milk! We also ate very simply (meat and 2 veg) and never ate out... One bottle of Coke did the whole family once a week -- now the same size is for one person for a snack!
So there are a few of things there: reasonable housing costs, food costs, and not having a lot of things, and more help from the government -- in the past. We had the council estate on one side or our street and posh houses on the other.The posh people appeared "wealthy" to me: bigger house, private school, a new car.
Today, people want a lot of things. And life is expensive. In San Francisco I now earn over 100K (USD) and would still not be able to buy a house on my own -- as well as save money, pay for health etc. (But if I earned that salary in Idaho I would be wealthy -- but who wants to live there, and who would get that salary there?
) There''s no way I would buy a house rather than have that money going into savings and bills.So salaries are not keeping up with basic human needs - housing, education, health (these things are through the roof in US) . But also people buy a lot more crap now: multiple cars, TVs, fancy cell phone plans, cable TV plans... They don't save, and they use credit cards.
I keep it pretty simple, have everything I need, and rent and take the bus. I like to save a lot for things I want to do, but have some nice basics like furniture and nice clothes. I've paid off most debt except graduate degree. It's a big thing for me to have the freedom to leave my job, or travel -- not have too much STUFF weighing me down, be they things, or banks, or ATT!
I hate to be tied down by stuff actually... Anyway, I would say I'm comfortable, that's all.
Wealthy to me would be if I had a house mostly paid off, good salary, plus savings, no debt. And feel taken care of into old age, health and quality of life wise. -- That's all
--
Jan 28th 2011, 10:33 am
#97
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,442
Re: Can you define wealth?
$200K is nothing these days. That's a good professional salary. Most of the guys I place into jobs have average salaries of around the $130 - $150K, $200 - $300K for contractors. I remember that being a millionaire meant you were filthy rich. Now you have to be a billionaire.
Jan 28th 2011, 10:36 am
#98
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,442
Re: Can you define wealth?
It's impossible to have a house mostly paid off and no debt because a mortgage is debt.
Jan 28th 2011, 11:33 am
#99
Fighting my corner
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 11,948
Re: Can you define wealth?
Jan 28th 2011, 12:32 pm
#101
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jun 2008
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 5,461
Re: Can you define wealth?
It seems to me that the cost of housing, and the basics, is now totally out of proportion to one's income. (I live in the USA).
My parents bought a house in 1970 (in England) for 5000 GBP. My dad, an accountant, would have earned on average 1500-2000 GBP a year in the 70s, (according to a little internet research). So his mortgage, and income for family of four kids, would have been very doable. He had a used car. We had all the BASICS. We weren't poor, but lower middle class. There was also a lot of free stuff in the 70s in England: free schooling through University, child benefits, school milk! We also ate very simply (meat and 2 veg) and never ate out... One bottle of Coke did the whole family once a week -- now the same size is for one person for a snack!
So there are a few of things there: reasonable housing costs, food costs, and not having a lot of things, and more help from the government -- in the past. We had the council estate on one side or our street and posh houses on the other.The posh people appeared "wealthy" to me: bigger house, private school, a new car.
Today, people want a lot of things. And life is expensive. In San Francisco I now earn over 100K (USD) and would still not be able to buy a house on my own -- as well as save money, pay for health etc. (But if I earned that salary in Idaho I would be wealthy -- but who wants to live there, and who would get that salary there? ) There''s no way I would buy a house rather than have that money going into savings and bills.
So salaries are not keeping up with basic human needs - housing, education, health (these things are through the roof in US) . But also people buy a lot more crap now: multiple cars, TVs, fancy cell phone plans, cable TV plans... They don't save, and they use credit cards.
I keep it pretty simple, have everything I need, and rent and take the bus. I like to save a lot for things I want to do, but have some nice basics like furniture and nice clothes. I've paid off most debt except graduate degree. It's a big thing for me to have the freedom to leave my job, or travel -- not have too much STUFF weighing me down, be they things, or banks, or ATT!
I hate to be tied down by stuff actually... Anyway, I would say I'm comfortable, that's all.
Wealthy to me would be if I had a house mostly paid off, good salary, plus savings, no debt. And feel taken care of into old age, health and quality of life wise. -- That's all --
My parents bought a house in 1970 (in England) for 5000 GBP. My dad, an accountant, would have earned on average 1500-2000 GBP a year in the 70s, (according to a little internet research). So his mortgage, and income for family of four kids, would have been very doable. He had a used car. We had all the BASICS. We weren't poor, but lower middle class. There was also a lot of free stuff in the 70s in England: free schooling through University, child benefits, school milk! We also ate very simply (meat and 2 veg) and never ate out... One bottle of Coke did the whole family once a week -- now the same size is for one person for a snack!
So there are a few of things there: reasonable housing costs, food costs, and not having a lot of things, and more help from the government -- in the past. We had the council estate on one side or our street and posh houses on the other.The posh people appeared "wealthy" to me: bigger house, private school, a new car.
Today, people want a lot of things. And life is expensive. In San Francisco I now earn over 100K (USD) and would still not be able to buy a house on my own -- as well as save money, pay for health etc. (But if I earned that salary in Idaho I would be wealthy -- but who wants to live there, and who would get that salary there?
) There''s no way I would buy a house rather than have that money going into savings and bills.So salaries are not keeping up with basic human needs - housing, education, health (these things are through the roof in US) . But also people buy a lot more crap now: multiple cars, TVs, fancy cell phone plans, cable TV plans... They don't save, and they use credit cards.
I keep it pretty simple, have everything I need, and rent and take the bus. I like to save a lot for things I want to do, but have some nice basics like furniture and nice clothes. I've paid off most debt except graduate degree. It's a big thing for me to have the freedom to leave my job, or travel -- not have too much STUFF weighing me down, be they things, or banks, or ATT!
I hate to be tied down by stuff actually... Anyway, I would say I'm comfortable, that's all.
Wealthy to me would be if I had a house mostly paid off, good salary, plus savings, no debt. And feel taken care of into old age, health and quality of life wise. -- That's all
--
Jan 28th 2011, 1:38 pm
#103
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: SE suburbs,Vic
Posts: 828
Re: Can you define wealth?
Wealth is something that gets you a house in a 'good' suburb of Melbourne and a LandRover for the country.
