What defines "super rich"?

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Super rich meaning one doesn't have to work for the rest of his or her life and still live a comfortable lifestyle.

I say $20M

[Link]

Super rich meaning one doesn't have to work for the rest of his or her life and still live a comfortable lifestyle.

I say $20M

It depends.  If you are in your 30s with no wife, children, debts you could easily get by on a fraction of that depending on where you choose to live.

Super rich>merely doesn't have to work for the rest of his or her life and still live a comfortable lifestyle

Unless of course

live a comfortable lifestyle=Bentley

[tpfkaw]

Several hundred million is probably the minimum where you could have someone else handle your investments and you don't have to worry about them.

[Wonkish1]

I'm not going to get into this, but just point one one thing.

Somewhere between a 3.5%-4%+ inflation withdrawal rate is the range of the commonly accepted highest withdrawal rate you can make without being at risk of depleting the entire asset base over 30+ years.

So in the case of $2 million and a 3.5% plus inflation withdrawal rate your looking at about $70k in year 1. $72K in year 2. $74k in year 3. $76.5k in year 4, etc.

$20 million would be $700k in year 1. $720k in year 2. $740k in year 3, etc.

$40 million would be $1.4m in year 1. $1.44m in year 2. $1.48m in year 3, etc.

But ultimately rich is subjective. And super is subjective. A comfortable living is subjective. So you can't answer the question.

[opebo]

But ultimately rich is subjective. And super is subjective. A comfortable living is subjective. So you can't answer the question.

Actually the question is better understood as referring to a position in a power hierarchy, Wonkish.  It is rather similar to being a duke or a count in the preceding power hierarchy.

[All Along The Watchtower]

If the majority of your income comes from long-term capital gains, dividends, and other forms of non-salaried compensation, chances are, you're pretty damn rich.


Or, you could just say net worth of over $2 million. I dunno.

[Wonkish1]

If the majority of your income comes from long-term capital gains, dividends, and other forms of non-salaried compensation, chances are, you're pretty damn rich.


Or, you could just say net worth of over $2 million. I dunno.

That's not how it works. People don't tap their investment pool while they are working. You see quite a lot of people even low income that retire at age 65 with $1-2 million in their portfolios or still to this day DB pensions that are valued at about that much. So they go from all work income to all retirement distributions hence the reason why I provided the standard withdrawal rate.

Net worth is really, really, really, really age dependent. It has so much to do with compound interest and the length of years someone has been making contributions. So $2 million at age 30 is a ton. $2 million at age 65 is actually not that uncommon at all.

But if we are talking about portfolios of people at age 65 here and told me to pick a number that Liberals would find acceptable based on what traditionally passes for the income of the rich I would say its at least $5 million in investable assets. And when you try saying super rich in terms of net worth at age 65 I would personally say at least $40 million, but if I was a liberal in my profession I don't see how you could possibly say a number under $10 million for super rich.

Now if we were talking age 30 I would say $1 million is rich and ~$8 million is super rich.

That is how much age matters.

[phk]

Whatever you want it to define.

[opebo]

That's not how it works. People don't tap their investment pool while they are working.

Net worth is really, really, really, really age dependent. It has so much to do with compound interest and the length of years someone has been making contributions. So $2 million at age 30 is a ton. $2 million at age 65 is actually not that uncommon at all.

Um... Wonk, the super rich never 'work' and none of their family members have worked in generations.  It is a leisure class you see, for whom others toil.  To imagine a rich toiling is as absurd as to imagine a serf on a yacht wearing a cravat.

[Wonkish1]

That's not how it works. People don't tap their investment pool while they are working.

Net worth is really, really, really, really age dependent. It has so much to do with compound interest and the length of years someone has been making contributions. So $2 million at age 30 is a ton. $2 million at age 65 is actually not that uncommon at all.

Um... Wonk, the super rich never 'work' and none of their family members have worked in generations.  It is a leisure class you see, for whom others toil.  To imagine a rich toiling is as absurd as to imagine a serf on a yacht wearing a cravat.

If that's how you want to define super rich than you are definitely north of $100 million held by daddy which will be divided up a few ways between the kids.

[Torie]

5M to 10M, depending on the circumstances. One way to look at it, is what is the number that causes one to have reached "critical mass," to wit the amount that the odds are very high that you will never need another dime of earned income during the balance of your life, even if you live to 90. To me that is "rich."  "Super rich" is just one of those amorphous concepts, I suppose a number so high that you simply cannot spend it all on personal consumption no matter how hard you try, unless you just gamble it away or something. That might be in the 100M range and above. It is not a very useful concept.

[Link]

5M to 10M, depending on the circumstances. One way to look at it, is what is the number the causes one to have reached "critical mass," to wit the amount that the odds are very high that you will never need another dime of earned income during the balance of your life, even if you live to 90. To me that is "rich."

Someone that is consistently earning $300K/yr is rich by any definition of the word.  They are not middle class.  You are about to start a WAR in this thread.

[Link]

Several hundred million is probably the minimum where you could have someone else handle your investments and you don't have to worry about them.

Ahhh... A troll comment from another one of our adolescents.  I guess we can assume you've never worked a full time job and been financially responsible for a household?  Anyone who has actually had a real job and paid real bills knows that if you have several hundred million dollars you would not, "have someone else handle your investments and you don't have to worry about them."  Where do you kids get this stuff?  Ever heard of Bernie Madoff?

[Wonkish1]

Anyone who has actually had a real job and paid real bills knows that if you have several hundred million dollars you would not, "have someone else handle your investments and you don't have to worry about them."  Where do you kids get this stuff?  Ever heard of Bernie Madoff?

Actually practically all of them don't worry about it all that much unless they are in finance and investing themselves. If your at several hundred million almost all of them don't just use one person its a lot of people they personally meet with on occasion and that includes at least 1 attorney, 1 wealth manager, 1 accountant, etc.(usually many of each) and those people can each play a roll in picking numerous funds, hedge funds, alternative assets, limited partnerships, mutual funds, and direct money management. That means the average wealthy person worth several hundred million has many people that report to them and diversified risk over hundreds more people than that. They are less worried of a Madoff(while they obviously are going to try to avoid it) and more worried about something systemic.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Lack of morals?

[opebo]

Lack of morals?

Well, I also haven't any of those (and I don't think I'm the only poor like that), but I haven't the power to victimize anyone.   Sigh.

[Yelnoc]

If you got a million, you're rolling in it.

[Wonkish1]

If you got a million, you're rolling in it.

At retirement $1 million isn't a ton at all. That is about $35k a year adjusted for inflation for the rest of your life.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Lack of morals?

Destructive, sociopathic behavior as well.

[Yelnoc]

If you got a million, you're rolling in it.

At retirement $1 million isn't a ton at all. That is about $35k a year adjusted for inflation for the rest of your life.

I know people who support a family of four on that.  $1 million is super-rich.

[Wonkish1]

If you got a million, you're rolling in it.

At retirement $1 million isn't a ton at all. That is about $35k a year adjusted for inflation for the rest of your life.

I know people who support a family of four on that.  $1 million is super-rich.

You think $35k a year plus inflation is super rich? We aren't talking about income here we are talking about wealth(net worth) maybe you didn't know that. Low income workers can build $1 million in net worth by 65 relatively easily.

[Torie]

5M to 10M, depending on the circumstances. One way to look at it, is what is the number the causes one to have reached "critical mass," to wit the amount that the odds are very high that you will never need another dime of earned income during the balance of your life, even if you live to 90. To me that is "rich."

Someone that is consistently earning $300K/yr is rich by any definition of the word.  They are not middle class.  You are about to start a WAR in this thread.

You would be amazed at the volatility of earned income levels from year to year, particularly in the upper income precincts. Few are professionals so secure and well regarded that they can just punch out 400K year after year for a couple of decades. But the "rich" can as it were, because it comes from their existing financial stash. So it really is two entirely different concepts, but factoring in the value of human capital into your net worth calculation (a number subject to change, because it is subject to risk with a discount rate based on that and time), is always an important and actually rather fascinating exercise from a number of standpoints.

[phk]

High amount of non-labor income is the solution.

[opebo]

High amount of non-labor income is the solution.

Well, after all, it is still 'labor income' - just someone else's labor. 

[Gustaf]

High amount of non-labor income is the solution.

Well, after all, it is still 'labor income' - just someone else's labor. 

This quite neatly sums up your complete lack of knowledge.

Anyway, super rich seems like a very vague and subjective term. I'd think of it as something like not having to work and thus live off of capital. And do so at a rich level at that.