What do you consider rich?

[mesquite_magic]

Kind of an offshoot of the Rich Have Passion thread, but a bit different. I thought it deserved it’s own thread. If I put this in the wrong place please feel free to move it.

My SIL is a nice person. She works hard and her husband works hard. They have nice things to show for it, a beautiful house in a nice area, two expensive car,nice clothes, ect…For some reason she feels she has to justify her lifestyle to me. I always tell her, “whatever makes you happy…”

Dh and I live a considerably different lifestyle. Dh has worked his way up in the mental health field. We live in a mid to low income area, and we own second-hand cars. I’m a work at home mom (home daycare) so that I can be home with the kids. I don’t justify my lifestyle, simply because it works for me. I also don’t judge work outside the home moms. I was one once. I know that all three WOHM, WAHM, and Stay At Home Moms work hard in different ways. Let’s face it, WOHMs are my bread and butter too.

So what do I think is rich? For me it’s enjoying my life, where I am, right now. Yeah, a little extra money would come in handy, but money doesn’t always make you happy. I’ve been very poor as in working below minimum wage, living on walfare, poor. I never thought of myself as poor, though. My kids were well cared for. I had a roof over my head and food on the table. Sure it was a struggle sometimes, but we were still happy. To me, that’s what rich is.

Kim

 

[jfallaw]

I agree. I consider my self rich in that I have a home, transportation, a loving family, a job I enjoy, and Godly friends. Of course I wouldn’t mind more money, a better car, etc., but even that would not make me feel richer- just more secure. If we have God in our lives and the realization that He is there no matter what, I think that makes us rich.

 

[vern_humphrey]

To be rich is to be free.

If you are living the life you want to live, you are rich. Someone else with ten times the material wealth may not be living the life that would make him happy – and therefore cannot be called rich.

I suggest that “poor” is best defined as “unable to support yourself (and your family).”

I want to move people from being recipients of charity to givers of charity. I want everyone to be rich – that is, to have a comfortable, happy life, without having to worry where the next rent payment is coming from.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…So what do I think is rich? For me it’s enjoying my life, where I am, right now. Yeah, a little extra money would come in handy, but money doesn’t always make you happy. I’ve been very poor as in working below minimum wage, living on walfare, poor. I never thought of myself as poor, though. My kids were well cared for. I had a roof over my head and food on the table. Sure it was a struggle sometimes, but we were still happy. To me, that’s what rich is.

Kim

More and more Economists are writing on the subject “good health” is a key form of resources and wealth! If you look at the medical bills of a (insert what you like) 60 year old with serious health problems you quickly see he can spend more in one year than he could save in a life time. Worse yet after spending that money he is usually not back to health but delaying premature death while in bad health. So the Economists are saying you can not use savings to obtain health. Health is in and of itself a form of resources. You are on the right track so take dh for a walk several times a week.

 

[BlestOne]

I was richest when I had absolutely no money… because I needed God and I trusted God and he did not fail me. I had my kids and my house… no job, no husband, no income… but I had my faith and I had my kids… I was the richest woman on earth!!! Earthly riches aren’t a means of salvation… they are a hindrance to it as far as I am concerned.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

To be rich is to live a Christ centered life. “Where your treasure is, is where your heart will be.”

Henry David Thoreau once said;

“the true cost of a thing, is how much life you have to sacrifice to obtain it.”

You have to evaluate what price you’re paying for what you have.

Jim

 

[vern_humphrey]

To be rich is to live a Christ centered life. “Where your treasure is, is where your heart will be.”

Or more precisely, to be rich is to be able to life a Christ-centered life.

It is no accident that monasteries are economic communities, with the monks or sisters working to support the community.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Or more precisely, to be rich is to be able to life a Christ-centered life.

It is no accident that monasteries are economic communities, with the monks or sisters working to support the community.

There is no reason anyone would not be able to live a Christ centered life. Its not restricted to those who live in monasteries and convents. In fact, even a wealthy person can live a Christ centered life. I don’t recall the saint’s name, but she was of Royalty.

Jim

 

[vern_humphrey]

There is no reason anyone would not be able to live a Christ centered life. Its not restricted to those who live in monasteries and convents. In fact, even a wealthy person can live a Christ centered life. I don’t recall the saint’s name, but she was of Royalty.

Jim

I once had a discussion with Hank Arender, who had just won the first United States parachute championship. We were talking about maneuvering in free-fall, and Hand said, “So a man can actually fly.” Then he thought about it a bit and added, “But he has a high stall speed and a steep glide angle.”

Then he thought about it a bit more and said, “That’s why we use parachutes.”

A man who is dying of hunger and thirst can live a Christ-centered life – but not for long. That’s why monasteries are economic communities.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I once had a discussion with Hank Arender, who had just won the first United States parachute championship. We were talking about maneuvering in free-fall, and Hand said, “So a man can actually fly.” Then he thought about it a bit and added, “But he has a high stall speed and a steep glide angle.”

Then he thought about it a bit more and said, “That’s why we use parachutes.”

A man who is dying of hunger and thirst can live a Christ-centered life – but not for long. That’s why monasteries are economic communities.

I guess I don’t understand your point.

Jim

 

[a_priori]

There’s an old cliche that says the measure of rich and poor is a function of how much one needs. No matter your income, if you need a lot you’re poor, if you need less, you are relatively rich.

It’s a lot more complicated than this obviously.

I read somewhere recently (please forgive the lack of attribution) that if one has a net worth of over $500,000, they are in the top 1% of people on earth. That’s rich and it applies to a lot of people who can still find things to complain about. It’s all relative.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I guess I don’t understand your point.

Jim

I guess you don’t.

 

[Sagefrakrobatik]

i think i have a modest income. Its all circumstantial i mean my financial needs are going to be different than a mother with four children Notwithstanding it is important to learn how to budget your money effectively no matter your income level. I remeber going grocery shopping and spending 20 bucks for four items. Learn to be a conscientious consumer. Read for entertainment rather than go to the movies and dinner. Shop at your local farmers market…plant your own garden.

 

[Nonix4]

I think it’s all relative. I was working with a woman in an English as a Second Language program. I picked her up and dropped her off most of the times that her husband refused to deliver her to the library to meet with me. One day we stopped back at my house to retrieve something I needed and she said I was rich.

There are many times we have to finagle to pay an unexpected expense, just like everyone else. We are retired and hubby got a full time job to make expenses. It’s all relative.

I guess that’s why I got involved with St. Vincent de Paul. We meet the poor in their homes and see the face of Christ in each of them. A nice quiet way to make a major impact that most of the world doesn’t know about.

 

[Pug]

I want to say that to be rich is to have things like clean water and sanitation. To be rich is to have varied, nutritious food every day and some time of silence and peace to eat and pray. Another type of wealth is to have family, children, sisters, grandparents, etc. Or to have eyes to read and see the world, or health. I think some people that we consider poor (like a person in a monastery) can be very rich.

But I agree that one can have treasure in heaven and not have these things.

Matthew 13:44 "The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid again; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.

 

[catholicbuckeye]

Kind of an offshoot of the Rich Have Passion thread, but a bit different. I thought it deserved it’s own thread. If I put this in the wrong place please feel free to move it.

My SIL is a nice person. She works hard and her husband works hard. They have nice things to show for it, a beautiful house in a nice area, two expensive car,nice clothes, ect…For some reason she feels she has to justify her lifestyle to me. I always tell her, “whatever makes you happy…”

Dh and I live a considerably different lifestyle. Dh has worked his way up in the mental health field. We live in a mid to low income area, and we own second-hand cars. I’m a work at home mom (home daycare) so that I can be home with the kids. I don’t justify my lifestyle, simply because it works for me. I also don’t judge work outside the home moms. I was one once. I know that all three WOHM, WAHM, and Stay At Home Moms work hard in different ways. Let’s face it, WOHMs are my bread and butter too.

So what do I think is rich? For me it’s enjoying my life, where I am, right now. Yeah, a little extra money would come in handy, but money doesn’t always make you happy. I’ve been very poor as in working below minimum wage, living on walfare, poor. I never thought of myself as poor, though. My kids were well cared for. I had a roof over my head and food on the table. Sure it was a struggle sometimes, but we were still happy. To me, that’s what rich is.

Kim

I agree! Well put!

 

[Minnesota_Mary]

There’s an old cliche that says the measure of rich and poor is a function of how much one needs. No matter your income, if you need a lot you’re poor, if you need less, you are relatively rich.

It’s a lot more complicated than this obviously.

I read somewhere recently (please forgive the lack of attribution) that if one has a net worth of over $500,000, they are in the top 1% of people on earth. That’s rich and it applies to a lot of people who can still find things to complain about. It’s all relative.

Yes it is all relative. I am close to 60 years of age. My mother is 90 and still going strong. If my net worth were $500,000 that would mean that I am rich by some people’s beliefs. Chances are that my $500,000 will need to not only last but grow in order to sustain me until I die which could be over 30 years from now.

If I invest that money in CD’s paying 5% that means that I would receive $25,000 a year to live on in retirement. That is $2,083 per month before taxes. Then if you take out taxes, health insurance, utilities, food, clothing, shelter expenses, etc. the money is pretty much all used up. CD’s do not keep pace with inflation, so in 30 years, after yearly cost of living increases due to inflation, that $500,000 will be worth a fraction of what it is in today’s real dollars. The $25,000 a month would not keep up with inflation either. I would need to invest that money in something that would not only pay me a dividend or interest but also would give me a bump up in the value of the investment to keep up with inflation.

I also forgot to mention that if part of the $500,000 net worth is invested in a home, there will be much less cash to invest, so one’s monthly income could be significantly less, and of course there would be real estate taxes in addition to income taxes and sales taxes.

So really, $500,000 is not all that much, unless you are young and are willing to take a risk and invest it in something that will grow in value to sustain you. Easier said than done. A $500,000 net worth is not really very much when you analyze it.

For some people the definition of “rich” is “anyone who has more than they have.”

God helps those who help themselves. “Work as if you are going to live forever, and pray as if you will die tomorrow.” And save, save, save, and invest wisely. MN Mary:thumbsup:

 

[stinkcat_14]

Actually, I think if someone had $500,000 at age 60, we could still argue that they were very rich, especially if they lived in the US. First of all, somebody who was healthy could still work for at least 10 years. The money that they earn from their job, plus any investment earning will likely add up to more than most people earn. For example, in 2005, the median household income in the U.S. was $46,000 per year. So if our mythical person earned 5% on the CD’s and $10 per hour (about $20,000 per year) they would be roughly at the median.

Now, suppose that this person had $300,000 of their wealth in their house. This wouldn’t change their income, just their consumption. By owning your house free and clear, you get your housing for a lower out of pocket cost than if you rented. For example, suppose my house would rent for $2,000 per month, but costs me $750 per month in property taxes and maintenance. By owning my home free and clear I am profiting by $1,250 per month, plus any appreciation on the house. It is a form of income, just an in kind form of income. I would always have the option of selling the house and moving into a small apartment if I wanted to access my housing wealth.

Finally, in the US, our 60 year old would have access to the social security system when they reach the appropriate age. This is another form of wealth that has to be measured.

So by any standard, a 60 year old with $500,000 is quite rich.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Now, suppose that this person had $300,000 of their wealth in their house. This wouldn’t change their income, just their consumption.

Actually, it would change their income – since a home is what is called “unrealized wealth.” You get money from it only when you sell it.

By owning your house free and clear, you get your housing for a lower out of pocket cost than if you rented. For example, suppose my house would rent for $2,000 per month, but costs me $750 per month in property taxes and maintenance. By owning my home free and clear I am profiting by $1,250 per month, plus any appreciation on the house. It is a form of income, just an in kind form of income.

It’s reduced expenses, not income.

I would always have the option of selling the house and moving into a small apartment if I wanted to access my housing wealth.

Yes – when (and if) you sell and (if) you realize a profit, then you can convert unrealized wealth to income.

Finally, in the US, our 60 year old would have access to the social security system when they reach the appropriate age. This is another form of wealth that has to be measured.

But not very much wealth. If you were able to keep your FICA taxes (and the “employer’s contribution” – which is your money, you earn it), you would have somewhere between 5 and 10 times as you will get from Social Security.

So by any standard, a 60 year old with $500,000 is quite rich.

Perhaps compared to people in other countries. But in the US, that person would still have to struggle to make ends meet.

 

[stinkcat_14]

It’s reduced expenses, not income.

Income can be received in two forms, either as cash, or as goods and services. Someone who owns their house free and clear is receiving in-kind income in the form of imputed rent, which is defined here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_rent

When economists measure income, we are looking at real purchasing power, not the nominal income that people report, because it is purchasing power that is the crucial measure of economic welbeing. In my previous example, the household who owns their house free and clear has $1250 more in purchasing power than someone who rents (and doesn’t have the $300,000 invested elsewhere). Because their purchasing power is higher, their real income is higher, it is just not all in cash.