How rich is rich?

[^_^ 5,021]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- How much money do you need to feel rich?

Wealth is a subjective concept, but one thing is universal in most definitions: being able to live a comfortable life without having to work.

"I'd like to have enough money so my family and I wouldn't have to work anymore or worry about the necessities, and maybe travel a bit," said Deborah Veale, a Southern California resident visiting New York City.

Veale said she'd need about $10 million to consider herself set.

One woman from Seattle put it at a "couple thousand dollars a month." Another from New York City wanted a billion (although she'd still fly coach.)

Experts peg the figure to be somewhere around $2 to $12 million in savings.

On the high end of that range, a single person living in an expensive part of the country (say, New York City), wanting to retire at 35 would need at least $300,000 a year to feel rich, according to Steven Kaye, president of Watchung, N.J.-based wealth management firm American Economic Planning Group. He based that number on real-life figures his clients tell him they need.

A yearly income of $300,000 would allow for taxes, a $3,800-a-month apartment (the average price in Manhattan), and a monthly spending allowance of around twelve grand, he said. Not too bad, especially since you could do this all without a pesky job.

To generate $300,000 a year beginning at age 35, you'd need a nest egg of just under $12 million. That assumes a conservative investment portfolio generating a return of 5% a year, an inflation rate of 2.5% a year and Social Security benefits of $25,000 a year starting at age 62.

Over time, the shape of your nest egg would resemble a bell curve, growing in the early years, and then declining as inflation required you to withdraw more money to maintain a lifestyle equivalent to $300,000 in 2010. The $12 million would finally dwindle to $934 when you turned 100.

If you live in a low cost part of the country, $100,000 a year should be enough, said Kaye. In that case, you would need savings of about $4 million to retire at 35.

But if you're willing to stay in the workforce until age 65, a mere $2 million would be enough.

Jon Duncan, a financial planner at Tacoma, Wash.-based Seneschal Advisors, gave numbers similar to Kaye's, and agreed that for most people, the figure would be somewhere in the multi-millions.

"I'm from an era when we'd talk about millionaires and say 'Whoa, he's got it made for life,'" said Duncan. "But that's not the case anymore."

Indeed, few experts think a million is enough to quit your day job.

"Don't retire at 35," he advised this reporter, "you'll need a ton of money."

"Income relates to lifestyle," he said. "Wealth relates to balance sheets."

http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/09/news/economy/wealth/index.htm

[Jenn! 918]

If you would no longer be considered "rich" if you moved to a different part of the country, I'd argue you were never rich to begin with.

[^_^ 5,021]

If you would no longer be considered "rich" if you moved to a different part of the country, I'd argue you were never rich to begin with.

Interesting point. How about a different part of the world?

[Jenn! 918]

Interesting point. How about a different part of the world?

Sure, I think there's a lot more disparity in lifestyle and cost of living when you look at "developing countries" vs the US than within the US.

That said, I don't think I'd be rich no matter where I moved in the world - unless I could take my job at its current pay with me.

[^_^ 5,021]

That said, I don't think I'd be rich no matter where I moved in the world - unless I could take my job at its current pay with me.

Sure, but the author says if you have to work to sustain your lifestyle, you're not rich.

[HeatDeath 431]

Arnold Schwarzenegger is worth 800 million dollars. That much money, at low-moderate levels of interest [i.e. 9% percent] generates enough interest that you can spend $200,000 every day, for the rest of your life, and never touch the principal.

That, my friends, is what it means to be rich

Edited August 9, 2010 by HeatDeath

[^_^ 5,021]

Arnold Schwarzenegger is worth 800 million dollars. That much money, at checking-account levels of interest[i.e. tiny fractions of a percent] generates enough interest that you can spend $200,000 every day, for the rest of your life, and never touch the principal.

That, my friends, is what it means to be rich

The only difference between your definition of rich and the authors is that the author does not require not touching the principal.

[Jenn! 918]

Sure, but the author says if you have to work to sustain your lifestyle, you're not rich.

I would only need to work for a year or two, then retire.

Maybe I'll ask my company about telecommuting from Mauritania.

[^_^ 5,021]

I would only need to work for a year or two, then retire.

Maybe I'll ask my company about telecommuting from Mauritania.

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

Sure, but the author says if you have to work to sustain your lifestyle, you're not rich.

What if you work part time? Not rich.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The people making more money than me (or the generic you) are rich. I am just another poor ####### looking for a handout.

[Amby 490]

I wonder how much money I spend each year

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The people making more money than me (or the generic you) are rich. I am just another poor ####### looking for a handout.

Trickle Down Economics still resonates for you, eh?

[Jenn! 918]

I wonder how much money I spend each year

If you don't know, you're either rich or poor.

[lostinblue 1,989]

being able to live a comfortable life without having to work.......People on welfare.