Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-09-2020, 10:27 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,119

Why is the gap between income and net worth so large for the top 1%


https://www.investopedia.com/financi...-of-the-1.aspx

Income to be in the top 1% is about 515,371. Well and good, that is about the income of a pair of physicians, or highly paid couple who work in law or business.

But the cutoff for the top 1% of wealth is 10.4 million. I guess I don't understand how thats possible, unless the people in the two groups (top 1% by income vs wealth) are 2 totally different groups.

Even at 500k a year in income, you'd have to have 20 years worth of income in the bank to quality for the top 1% in wealth. And at that level of income you're paying 40% of your income in various taxes, plus you have your normal living expenses.

Unless you inherit your wealth, I don't see how most people could amass 10 million over their lifetime unless they are putting 200k a year into high growth investments for several decades.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #2  
Old 02-09-2020, 11:42 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 8,165
Contrary to my initial reaction, it appears that inheritance is not so significant here. According to a Fed report from 2013, the top 1% wealth by wealth are inheriting around $1 - $1.5 million in 2013 dollars.

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/qr/qr3711.pdf
See table 21.

I think the explanation may simply be the high real returns on investment assets in the U.S. over the past decades. Bear in mind that the top 1% by wealth will obviously tend to be older people, so a 30-year time frame seems reasonable, if we assume that a high earner reaches their full earning potential at 30 and retires at 60.

Suppose a 500k earner puts 125k each year into assets (everything in today's dollars) - that includes primary residence and pension savings, so I don't think that number is too high. Then a 5% real rate of return gets you to $8.7 million in 30 years. Is 5% a reasonable assumption? I'm not sure, maybe it's a bit high - the stock market post-war has returned more than that, but bonds and real estate have returned less, and some of it will be taxable.

Last edited by Riemann; 02-09-2020 at 11:44 PM.
  #3  
Old 02-10-2020, 12:04 AM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 8,165
ETA: and for the primary residence real estate component of their assets, most people are leveraged - they have full equity exposure to the real estate market early in their career, financed by a mortgage. That longer time frame offsets the lower average returns on real estate.
  #4  
Old 02-10-2020, 02:09 AM
Aspidistra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
Contrary to my initial reaction, it appears that inheritance is not so significant here. According to a Fed report from 2013, the top 1% wealth by wealth are inheriting around $1 - $1.5 million in 2013 dollars.
I'm sure that the extra-wealthy have a lot more creative ways of passing on their wealth than simply letting their kids have it after they drop dead. "Inheriting" is quite a small subset of "wealth transfer from older generation to younger generation", which is really the salient feature we should be thinking of when looking at the disparity between yearly income and amassed wealth
  #5  
Old 02-10-2020, 08:46 AM
crazyjoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Farmington, MI
Posts: 3,146
You are probably looking at "income" in typical terms. Someone like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, or Warren Buffet doesn't earn an "income" but rather they have "capital gains" from stock ownership. Their net worth is tied to that amount.

Ordinary people, like folks working in Law or Business, will never catch up. A FB meme going around right now is that if you got a job in 0 BC making 2K per hour and worked 50 hours a week every week and never spent a dime and lived until the present day, there would still be like 50 people richer than you.
__________________
If I had a bulldozer.....
  #6  
Old 02-10-2020, 09:18 AM
zimaane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: washington, dc
Posts: 1,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
Suppose a 500k earner puts 125k each year into assets (everything in today's dollars) - that includes primary residence and pension savings, so I don't think that number is too high. Then a 5% real rate of return gets you to $8.7 million in 30 years. Is 5% a reasonable assumption? I'm not sure, maybe it's a bit high - the stock market post-war has returned more than that, but bonds and real estate have returned less, and some of it will be taxable.

5% seems reasonable - The S&P 500 has averaged 8% since 1957 (https://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...urn-sp-500.asp) and a younger high income household would likely invest mostly in stocks. Throw in personal real estate (whose return varies quite a bit depending on region) and its not hard to see how a household could accumulate $10 million in a few decades.
  #7  
Old 02-10-2020, 09:29 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 19,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyjoe View Post
You are probably looking at "income" in typical terms. Someone like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, or Warren Buffet doesn't earn an "income" but rather they have "capital gains" from stock ownership. Their net worth is tied to that amount.
Someone like a Warren Buffett owns a lot of highly valued stock, but that "worth" is totally dependent on what the market is willing to pay at that moment for a similar share of that stock. So right now, people are buying and selling Berkshire Hathaway stocks for $340,900 per share. Buffett owns some preposterous number of those shares.

But until he actually sells any, that value is somewhat illusory- it can fluctuate up and down, and so will his net worth, without any actual money exchanging hands, or that value being realized.

Meanwhile, Buffett's actual income is presumably derived from his actual job at Berkshire Hathaway, and that's roughly $100k a year.
  #8  
Old 02-10-2020, 09:55 AM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
Contrary to my initial reaction, it appears that inheritance is not so significant here.
No it's not inheritance mainly. But a good deal of it is income variation over time relative to more stability in net worth, of which inheritance is a specific case. The more important case though is where income varies over a given person's lifespan as opposed to from one generation to next.

An older person who earned $1mil/yr for a decade or more at the peak of their career a decade or more ago very possibly has at least $10mil+ now if they lived relatively modestly (they payed a significant % of the original earnings in tax and spend a significant %, but earned substantial returns investing the money if for many years). Now in semi-retirement/retirement their reportable* income might be 2% or less of the $10mil, well below 99%-tile income, but NW at the 99%-tile. This point is also a more general version of the rare case (in terms of number of people, though a non-negligible % of total national NW) where a person built a now large, household name company but had an extremely high reportable income perhaps only one year (the year the company IPO'd and they sold x% of their interest). Otherwise their dividend income from remaining interest in the company and other assets might be 99.9%-tile on the income scale, where their NW is 99.99%-tile on the net worth scale, same general idea as more numerous people who earned a high wage income at some point of which they saved a lot, but don't earn a very high income now.

It sometimes becomes a political debate how socially significant it is that the 'top 1%' of reportable income turns over substantially year to year. But it does, which makes it easier to understand statistically why 99%-tile NW is such a large multiple of 99%-tile income in a given year.

*stats you quickly Google up on income in the US might include non-taxable income required to be reported on tax returns, like municipal bond interest, hence my term 'reportable' income, but generally doesn't include unrealized capital gains in a given year (which would also cause occasional years where 'income' of 99%-tile NW households would be negative, IOW the top income population would change from year to year even more). Net worth however includes cumulative unrealized capital gains.

Last edited by Corry El; 02-10-2020 at 09:59 AM.
  #9  
Old 02-10-2020, 10:07 AM
Machine Elf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 12,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
Suppose a 500k earner puts 125k each year into assets (everything in today's dollars) - that includes primary residence and pension savings, so I don't think that number is too high. Then a 5% real rate of return gets you to $8.7 million in 30 years. Is 5% a reasonable assumption? I'm not sure, maybe it's a bit high - the stock market post-war has returned more than that, but bonds and real estate have returned less, and some of it will be taxable.
Morningstar shows an S&P500 index fund delivering an annualized 10.2% since Y2K (this includes both dividends and changes in share price). If we use your scenario with 10.2% per year, then 30 years ends with $23.4M. The actual annual rates of return vary widely over the past thirty years. I couldn't tell by looking at the chart whether the big % gains were in later years (in which case the final tally would be larger) or the earlier years (in which case the final tally would be lower) or relatively evenly distributed, but it seems likely a person starting in 1990 and investing just $60K annually could have hit the $10.4M mark in 30 years' time.

Someone who was willing to pursue riskier single stocks (Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) could have reached a far higher net worth in that same time frame with much smaller deposits.

Last edited by Machine Elf; 02-10-2020 at 10:08 AM.
  #10  
Old 02-10-2020, 10:45 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,559
ISTM to be a combination of unrealized capital gains (as Corry El mentions) and compound interest. I am not worth anywhere close to $10M, but I never made $535 a year either, and my wealth is much greater than the sum of what I invested.

If my house goes up by $100K my wealth has increased but my income hasn't, to put it that way.

Regards,
Shodan
  #11  
Old 02-10-2020, 11:35 AM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyjoe View Post
You are probably looking at "income" in typical terms. Someone like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, or Warren Buffet doesn't earn an "income" but rather they have "capital gains" from stock ownership. Their net worth is tied to that amount.
Yeah but the only way to get that stock is to either found the company, inherit it or buy it.

There aren't enough people who did IPOs to found the company (although I'm sure some of the top 1% were early workers with stock options for companies who became successful), supposedly inheritance isn't it which only leaves buying the stock with income.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 02-10-2020 at 11:37 AM.
  #12  
Old 02-10-2020, 12:08 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 8,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post
Morningstar shows an S&P500 index fund delivering an annualized 10.2% since Y2K (this includes both dividends and changes in share price).
That's total return. We need to look at real returns, adjusted for inflation in order to think in consistent terms in today's dollars. Otherwise obviously the assumption of 500k earnings or $10 million in wealth would need to be discounted as you go back in time. The real return on the S&P is more like 7%.

Last edited by Riemann; 02-10-2020 at 12:13 PM.
  #13  
Old 02-10-2020, 12:19 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 8,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyjoe View Post
You are probably looking at "income" in typical terms. Someone like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, or Warren Buffet...
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Someone like a Warren Buffett owns a lot of highly valued stock...
The OP is not about the exceptional circumstances of multi-billionaires, it's about the top 1%, who are generally doing more ordinary things - buying a house with a mortgage, paying into their pension funds, investing in stocks & bonds - just on a larger scale than the average person.
  #14  
Old 02-10-2020, 01:18 PM
Hermitian's Avatar
Hermitian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
https://www.investopedia.com/financi...-of-the-1.aspx

Income to be in the top 1% is about 515,371.
Dangit, missed it by that much!
  #15  
Old 02-10-2020, 02:14 PM
enalzi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 8,519
Looking at the actual article, I can't figure out where that 10.4 Million dollar figure comes from. It links to an article from Forbes, which is basically just a blog post. That figure seems to be uncited on the Forbes post.
  #16  
Old 02-10-2020, 02:37 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 8,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by enalzi View Post
Looking at the actual article, I can't figure out where that 10.4 Million dollar figure comes from. It links to an article from Forbes, which is basically just a blog post. That figure seems to be uncited on the Forbes post.
If you look at the Fed paper that I linked to in the second post, there's a much more extensive analysis and discussion of data sources. From their data (Table 2) the top 1% quantiles for 2013 and in 2013 dollars are:
earnings $570k
income $690k
wealth $7.9 million

So, similar numbers to the Forbes article. And if the Forbes data are more recent, it's reasonable to expect that wealth would have increased more than income in the past 7 years, asset values have risen dramatically.

Last edited by Riemann; 02-10-2020 at 02:39 PM.
  #17  
Old 02-10-2020, 04:23 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermitian View Post
Dangit, missed it by that much!
Maybe you'll find a check on the sidewalk for $493,819 on the way home today.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #18  
Old 02-11-2020, 11:51 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 19,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
The OP is not about the exceptional circumstances of multi-billionaires, it's about the top 1%, who are generally doing more ordinary things - buying a house with a mortgage, paying into their pension funds, investing in stocks & bonds - just on a larger scale than the average person.
I was using Buffett as a well known, extreme example. He has famously low income, and fantastically stratospheric wealth, so I was using that as an example to illustrate how someone could have relatively low income, and high net worth.

It's not uncommon for people described as merely affluent to have the same situation- I can totally see how someone's net worth might be several multiples of their income.

For example, let's say our hypothetical affluent guy makes 75k a year. He owns a house valued at say... 250k. He's owned it for a while, so he only owes 60k on it. And he has paid into his 401k for a long time- let's say he has another 250k in there.

Right there, he's got a net worth of 250k + 190k, or $380k, which is five times his annual income. I don't doubt that as you go up in the income percentages, that your amount that you can save, and the value of the stuff you have goes up as well.
  #19  
Old 02-11-2020, 12:35 PM
Shalmanese is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Shenzhen, China
Posts: 7,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Yeah but the only way to get that stock is to either found the company, inherit it or buy it.

There aren't enough people who did IPOs to found the company (although I'm sure some of the top 1% were early workers with stock options for companies who became successful), supposedly inheritance isn't it which only leaves buying the stock with income.
The amount of success you need in business to reach a $10.4M net worth is pretty low. Having a successful plumbing company, owning a chain of franchise restaurants, being a partner at a regional law firm, all of these at the top end of success can easily reach that number.

As a very rough estimate, small businesses are normally valued at ~2x revenue on the higher end and a 50K salaried employee might cost the company $100K with all other expenses and might be expected to generate 50% margin so a plumbing company owner with ~30 plumbers working under them who started the company from scratch with no debt might easily sell their business for $10M.
  #20  
Old 02-11-2020, 12:47 PM
Machine Elf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 12,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
That's total return. We need to look at real returns, adjusted for inflation in order to think in consistent terms in today's dollars. Otherwise obviously the assumption of 500k earnings or $10 million in wealth would need to be discounted as you go back in time. The real return on the S&P is more like 7%.
Fair enough. You can see though that if a borderline 1% earner over the past 30 years was willing to tolerate a little more risk than an index fund, they could have easily hit the $10M mark today with substantially smaller deposits over that period of time.
  #21  
Old 02-11-2020, 01:00 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 8,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shalmanese View Post
The amount of success you need in business to reach a $10.4M net worth is pretty low. Having a successful plumbing company, owning a chain of franchise restaurants, being a partner at a regional law firm, all of these at the top end of success can easily reach that number.

As a very rough estimate, small businesses are normally valued at ~2x revenue on the higher end and a 50K salaried employee might cost the company $100K with all other expenses and might be expected to generate 50% margin so a plumbing company owner with ~30 plumbers working under them who started the company from scratch with no debt might easily sell their business for $10M.
I looked at this before, and I was not convinced how large a contributor this is to the top 1%, but I can't find a reliable source of statistics. There are about 13 million households in the top 1%. There are about 30 million small businesses in the U.S., and from googling related statistics I think it's probably only a few percent of those businesses, say around 1 million businesses, that are worth >$10 million. So maybe small business ownership accounts for the wealth of around 10% of the 13 million households in the top 1% by wealth.

Last edited by Riemann; 02-11-2020 at 01:02 PM.
  #22  
Old 02-11-2020, 01:06 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 8,165
Oh, duh, 13 million households is the top 10%. It's 1.3 million households in the top 1%. So scratch that - yes, small business ownership is probably a very significant component.
  #23  
Old 02-11-2020, 01:16 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 8,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post
You can see though that if a borderline 1% earner over the past 30 years was willing to tolerate a little more risk than an index fund, they could have easily hit the $10M mark today with substantially smaller deposits over that period of time.
Yes, I don't know how we'd figure out statistically if the number of people who took on a higher risk investment profile is likely to be a significant proportion of the top 1.3 million households, but with what some tech stocks have done it seems like a plausible source of wealth for a significant number.
  #24  
Old 02-11-2020, 01:20 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,119
nm
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 02-11-2020 at 01:20 PM.
  #25  
Old 02-11-2020, 01:21 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 8,016
Poking around federal reserve data, it looks like total net wealth and total real estate value (both nominal) track each other pretty well, with some disparity around the recession.
  #26  
Old 02-12-2020, 02:27 PM
Hampshire is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 11,213
The article doesn't define annual income very well. Is that limited to someone's annual base salary or does it include total annual compensation?
I've seen plenty of CEO types annual compensation broken down into for example a base salary of $400K and then bonus compensation of $1.5million and a bonus compensation of $500K in company stock shares.
  #27  
Old 02-12-2020, 03:29 PM
Lightnin''s Avatar
Lightnin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 7,537
Bad game design.

Seriously. The problem is that large amounts of money create large amounts of money. You rarely get that game loop in video games- because if the point of the game is to make money, and all it takes to make money is to have money, the rest of the game doesn't matter at all... especially if some of the players start the game with large amounts of that money.
__________________
What's the good of Science if nobody gets hurt?
  #28  
Old 02-12-2020, 04:33 PM
ftg's Avatar
ftg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 21,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Someone like a Warren Buffett owns a lot of highly valued stock, but that "worth" is totally dependent on what the market is willing to pay at that moment for a similar share of that stock. So right now, people are buying and selling Berkshire Hathaway stocks for $340,900 per share. Buffett owns some preposterous number of those shares.

But until he actually sells any, that value is somewhat illusory- it can fluctuate up and down, and so will his net worth, without any actual money exchanging hands, or that value being realized.

Meanwhile, Buffett's actual income is presumably derived from his actual job at Berkshire Hathaway, and that's roughly $100k a year.
I've thought it was Buffett who said this but it turns out to be Sam Walton after the crash of October 19, 1987 erased $1.7 billion of his net worth: “It's paper anyway. It was paper when we started and it's paper afterward.”
  #29  
Old 02-12-2020, 05:09 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
Oh, duh, 13 million households is the top 10%. It's 1.3 million households in the top 1%. So scratch that - yes, small business ownership is probably a very significant component.
While not probably the 1%, a friend I wargamed with is a prime anecdotal example. He was a genuinely small farmer. He grew a pretty common corn/soybean rotation and kept some sheep on the part of his land that wasn't well suited for tilling. His land wasn't far outside Lansing, Michigan which is the state capital. It was close to a highway exit. That gave it more value since it was the kind of place someone might consider buying him out to build yet a another subdivision as the suburbs crept out.

He easily had a net worth of multiple millions. One year farm prices were down quite a bit and he had a lot of unexpected costs. That year he was both wealthy and income poor. He couldn't pull value from his high net worth without metaphorically eating his seed corn.

Last edited by DinoR; 02-12-2020 at 05:09 PM.
  #30  
Old 02-12-2020, 05:17 PM
Caldazar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hampshire View Post
The article doesn't define annual income very well. Is that limited to someone's annual base salary or does it include total annual compensation?
I've seen plenty of CEO types annual compensation broken down into for example a base salary of $400K and then bonus compensation of $1.5million and a bonus compensation of $500K in company stock shares.
Income is anything of value for which you realize a gain. If your employer pays you to do a job, that's income. If your friend gifts you a $20 gift card, that's income. If you clean someone's house in exchange for receiving three chickens, the chickens are income.

All three of your examples would be income of one sort or another.

Re: the OP, compounded rates of return add up. As an example, $150,000 annual contributions to an investment earning 6% is $5.5M after 20 years.
  #31  
Old 02-12-2020, 09:52 PM
actualliberalnotoneofthose is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post
Someone who was willing to pursue riskier single stocks (Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) could have reached a far higher net worth in that same time frame with much smaller deposits.
I'm not in the 1% of anything but I acquired some Amazon stock from working at Amazon. It was around $700/share when I started and 3x that at my 2 year mark. There are plenty of examples like someone who had $10,000 in Walmart in 1972 would have $5 million 45 years later. So anyone taking those risks as you mentioned would have a chance to get that lucky with huge returns without ever needing a high income. My 401(k) is averaging around 11% over its lifetime and it's relatively small but compared to my income and amount invested it's quite a return. If I had been able to max it out every year during my working career (which would not even require a 6 figure income on my budget) it could be well into the millions.
  #32  
Old 02-13-2020, 01:47 PM
robardin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Flushing, NY
Posts: 4,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
https://www.investopedia.com/financi...-of-the-1.aspx

Income to be in the top 1% is about 515,371. Well and good, that is about the income of a pair of physicians, or highly paid couple who work in law or business.

But the cutoff for the top 1% of wealth is 10.4 million. I guess I don't understand how thats possible, unless the people in the two groups (top 1% by income vs wealth) are 2 totally different groups.
The thing is, in an annual survey report like this, "wealth" = assets you hold at the end of the year, but "income" = how much money you earned in a year.

Yes, things like capital gains and inherited fortunes are certainly a big chunk of that "national top 1%" of wealth (though it's not clear if realized capital gains, i.e., you sold and made a profit, shouldn't count as "income" for the year - it does for my local and state taxes...).

But even aside from that, you shouldn't be surprised that high earners would eventually accumulate a lot of wealth, simply by

(a) not spending all their money every year, and
(b) doing something with their "extra" money that appreciates in value (real estate, stocks or funds, etc.).

And by "eventually" I don't even mean over a lifetime, like on your deathbed - more like a 15-20 year window.

Let's say you were paid an annual 500,000 (barely missing the 1%), and after tax, that figure came to around 325,000. You live pretty darn well, spending $15,000 a month on "stuff" - that's 180,000 a year, and after tax. Well that's still leaving you with 145,000. Go, you!

What do you do with that? Let's say you put the bulk of it in an index fund.

And oh, some portion of that $15,000 a month is spent paying the mortgage/interest and some prepayment on an increasingly valuable property. Like a house in Palo Alto you bought for a couple hundred thou back in 1995 that is now worth multi-millions, as an obvious example, but it could work in many other areas of the country.

After 20-25 years of being a 1% income earner, your 30 year mortgage would now be paid off with the prepayments, and you might be around 50-55 years old (or possibly even younger) and have "wealth" of many millions of dollars.

Last edited by robardin; 02-13-2020 at 01:48 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017