U.S. millionaires population expanded by 8% in 2010

Yeah, but...

In the prior year of 2008, the millionaire population plunged 27%.

I guess I am one of the new millionaires. Let me tell you how I got there. !2 years ago I built with my own hands[not contracted out] my own home. I spent 150k. Taxable value is now about 300k. I work as a maintenance man, my wife is an independant insurance agent. We have three kids from 9-15. Together we make less than 100k. We have two used cars the newest is 9yrs old. We have no debt. We have managed to save up our 401ks for 30 yrs in mutual funds. We only have basic cell phone service, no texting no data. We eat at home and take .lunches to work. We do not have a big screen lcd tv, cable, top end computer, or the latest fashion. We shop at Walmart and consignment shops. We do not use credit for anything. Our vactions are frugal, and we limit frivolous spending. We give over ten percent of our income to our local church. Our net worth is about 1.2 mil. Our investment broker says we are better off than most that make 5 times this amount because of our lifestle. A million dollars ain't what it used to be folks! We still struggle to put fuel in our cars, and a little in our savings. Becoming a millionaire is not about what you make it is about what you spend and save.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

reply to post by dolphinfan


Wait. You seem to be contradicting yourself from an earlier thread. Weren't you trying to make the argument that teachers were fabulously wealthy, for (so you claim) having exactly what you just described your parents - who are "not rich" - as having?

Originally posted by reluctantpawn
I guess I am one of the new millionaires. Let me tell you how I got there. !2 years ago I built with my own hands[not contracted out] my own home. I spent 150k. Taxable value is now about 300k. I work as a maintenance man, my wife is an independant insurance agent. We have three kids from 9-15. Together we make less than 100k. We have two used cars the newest is 9yrs old. We have no debt. We have managed to save up our 401ks for 30 yrs in mutual funds. We only have basic cell phone service, no texting no data. We eat at home and take .lunches to work. We do not have a big screen lcd tv, cable, top end computer, or the latest fashion. We shop at Walmart and consignment shops. We do not use credit for anything. Our vactions are frugal, and we limit frivolous spending. We give over ten percent of our income to our local church. Our net worth is about 1.2 mil. Our investment broker says we are better off than most that make 5 times this amount because of our lifestle. A million dollars ain't what it used to be folks! We still struggle to put fuel in our cars, and a little in our savings. Becoming a millionaire is not about what you make it is about what you spend and save.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

That's exactly what I am saying. Those that held onto their assets, those that saved and have no debt, those will be the new millionaires, or even middle class. It's the natural order of things when a crash or dip happens. It was evident in the Great Depression, those that held their head above water became the new middle and upper classes, those that fell into debt and/or lost their assets had a harder time pulling themselves up to get their head above water again. It's to be expected that things would turn out this way. It s a sort of financial "survival of the fittest" in some respects.

reply to post by ldyserenity


Most people really do not understand how interest really works

.07 on a 200k home loan = $14,000
.10 on a 20 k car loan= $2000
.15 on a 10k credit card = $1500

total interest paid $17,500.00

invested at .05 = $875.00

total for one year 18,375.00

you are looking at around 200k saved over a ten year period.
Interest then becomes around 10k a year
after another 10 years you have well over 500k in savings.
This is just from interest saved by paying cash for a home and automobile.
This does not count on money saved through a 401K

From this standpoint alone I have to admit I really am not a good saver!

That is the whole problem with the American economy! We spend more than we earn.

My problem is that when hyperinflation hits I will be wiped out and have to start over again, unless I am shrewd and make investments which will increase at the rate of inflation or better!

Most people would rather sit around and cry Oh Me! than dig their way out of their own mess.

It doesn't take smarts, a college education, or money, It only takes patience, and frugality, to make it .

respectfully

reluctantpawn

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


I'm not contradicting myself. My entire point is that the report is bogus. They are counting paper wealth and that a million dollars in today's terms, in light of how net worth is calculated is not a ton of money.

As far as the millionaire teacher, I stand by my comments. A teacher who, as I said before makes $60K/year and puts 30 years into the job comes out with a $45K/year pension. That is a $900K annuity, assuming that the person lives for another 20 years. That does not account for pension associated medical benefits, social security nor any other savings/investments they might have. Take those factors and add in a home or the equity of a home and you are easily over $1M of net worth.

I can almost guarantee that everyone on this site knows a millionaire and is probably neighbors with one. Now you might never know it because simply because they have a networth of $1M does not enable them to live a lavish lifestyle, but in terms of this report they are millionaires non the less.

I hang out with an older gent at my local. He has been a letter carrier for 30 years. He is a multi-millionaire. How? He bought a number of acres for next to nothing in the 70s and has subdivided it and sold off parcels. He lives lean, still works at the PO and yes, has a net worth of $3-5M. There are way more of these folks around than you think.

Net worth does not equal income

Originally posted by ldyserenity
How does this point to class warfare again? I think the OP was just stating two sectors are growing the top...millionaires, and the bottom...poverty level. This doesn't sound to me at all like he's saying it is class warfare???

Class warfare is setting one part of society against another. In this case, the OP has started several threads trying to get people to hate "the rich" by demonizing them. You know those same people that provide most of the jobs Americans have.

Originally posted by maybereal11
You should try that some time.

And so should you.

By that I mean looking at the bigger picture.

The OP has started several threads along this line - including another one today about the "low tax burden for the rich" - all with the same goal, which is to demonize the so-called "rich". In other words, promoting class warfare, which is SOP going back to Marx.

Those of us with a view of the bigger picture also understand that the "rich" are more often the people giving the rest of us jobs than they are the few people you read about that are jet-setting around.

My other point is that if you drive around the CA Bay Area, you can find tons of "millionaires" - just because they own a house that has appreciated beyond all sense. And I'm not talking about mansions. When I lived there my very modest 1500 sq ft 3 bedroom house was worth close to a million even though the same thing would have only been worth maybe $125,000 in the midwest or south. So, any of these people that have been in their houses for 15 or 20 years are also technically "millionaires" - but you couldn't tell that these people are the "rich" by their lifestyle, which is the same as anyone else's.

All this is why I'm calling the class warfare being promoted by the OP so dangerous. The people he wants you to hate are basically just like you, but maybe happen to live somewhere else that has changed their circumstances.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by maybereal11
You should try that some time.

And so should you.

By that I mean looking at the bigger picture.

Said the poster right before they went on a rant that had nothing to do with the fact that they gave a false definition for "Net Worth" made a failed attempt to discredit the data in the OP.

Originally posted by centurion1211
My other point is that if you drive around the CA Bay Area, you can find tons of "millionaires" - just because they own a house that has appreciated beyond all sense.

Said the poster as he pretended not to notice that these numbers specifically EXCLUDED home worth.

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by maybereal11
You should try that some time.

And so should you.

By that I mean looking at the bigger picture.

Said the poster right before they went on a rant that had nothing to do with the fact that they gave a false definition for "Net Worth" made a failed attempt to discredit the data in the OP.

Originally posted by centurion1211
My other point is that if you drive around the CA Bay Area, you can find tons of "millionaires" - just because they own a house that has appreciated beyond all sense.

Said the poster as he pretended not to notice that these numbers specifically EXCLUDED home worth.

The OP source does not discuss excluding home net worth at all.

In fact, the OP source article only refers to to people not considering their homes a stable asset. And quoting from the source:

The number of U.S. households worth at least $1 million rose to 8.4 million in 2010, compared to 7.8 million the prior year, according to a report by Spectrem Group.

doesn't exclude the value of people's homes from their net worth.

Deflecting again, or now just making things up in order to be contrary?

i allways thought that this so called financial crisis only hit those that didnt intend it !

there are plenty of people making a mint from other peoples ruin

reply to post by maybereal11


How do you define net worth? Do you know what a balance sheet is? For an individual, take assets minus liabilities and you have net worth. Nowhere in the OP did it suggest that equity in real estate was to be excluded in the net worth calculation.

The article is bs, meant to drive up class warfare sentiments as is this entire thread. They discuss the instability of the housing market as if all investments are not unstable. They refer to the "new millionaires" as "investors" creating the spectre of some dude day trading his portfilio when 99% of the time the "investor" is the holder of either a pension account, the investments managed with full discretion by an outside asset manager or the holder of mutual funds. Is someone who moves money around a couple of different investment options in their 401K an investor? You bet, but that is not the picture that the article, nor the OP wishes to confer. They don't accurately describe the true profile because it does not suit their objective.

Net worth is net worth. Had the OP wanted to actually had a reasonable discussion regarding the growth of different socio-economic classes within the United States, he would have provided a bit of quality econometric data rather than this leftist, retread argument.

Originally posted by centurion1211
The OP source does not discuss excluding home net worth at all.

In fact, the OP source article only refers to to people not considering their homes a stable asset. And quoting from the source:

doesn't exclude the value of people's homes from their net worth.

Deflecting again, or now just making things up in order to be contrary?

edit on 3/17/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)

WRONG. Here is the study from the OP. I posted it on page 1 and you even responded to my post.

The number of U.S households with a net worth of $1 million or more, not including primary residence (NIPR), grew 8% to 8.4 million in 2010 from 7.8 million the year before, according to "Affluent Market Insights 2011," a new report released today by Spectrem Group.

www.spectrem.com...

NIPR stands for Not Including Primary Residence...

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by maybereal11

 

How do you define net worth? Do you know what a balance sheet is? For an individual, take assets minus liabilities and you have net worth. Nowhere in the OP did it suggest that equity in real estate was to be excluded in the net worth calculation.

See post above.

And Net Worth has an actual definition ...Assets - Liabilities..I run a business...this isn't a grey area.

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by centurion1211
The OP source does not discuss excluding home net worth at all.

In fact, the OP source article only refers to to people not considering their homes a stable asset. And quoting from the source:

doesn't exclude the value of people's homes from their net worth.

Deflecting again, or now just making things up in order to be contrary?

edit on 3/17/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)

WRONG. Here is the study from the OP. I posted it on page 1 and you even responded to my post.

The number of U.S households with a net worth of $1 million or more, not including primary residence (NIPR), grew 8% to 8.4 million in 2010 from 7.8 million the year before, according to "Affluent Market Insights 2011," a new report released today by Spectrem Group.

www.spectrem.com...

NIPR stands for Not Including Primary Residence...

edit on 18-3-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)

Wrong?

Not me. THIS is the source from the OP:

OP source

And it is what I said it was (and wasn't).