I think the wealth income measures are poor in that when we worked in the ME everyone I knew and socialised with would have been in the. 1%

Seven years there many of them have not got a pot to piss in

They lived like kardashian, dinner at nobu or hakkasan twice a week, member ship at 4 seasons and vacations at cheval blanc

We lived large but saved a ton of money and we were no where near as sensible as we could have or should have been but we are now way down on income but way up on worth whereas those that spent it can't get it back.

Broadly, I think to live in UK / Europe, to be considered comfortable you need 1.5-2m euro / sterling and you probably still need to work but a lot of pressure is off.

At 60 that's certainly enough to stop working. At 40 it's enough to have options

Between 2.5-5 you never need to work again but you are not rich

5 plus you are comfortable and your kids will be comfortable but its not rich

Not sure what the precise number is but as monty says you know it when you see it

Income measures of rich are "difficult" (outside the obvious so much more income in any given period than you can spend that you are "forced" to save enough to become wealthy/rich scenario).

You can have a high (absolute or relative, it doesn't matter much) income and this can help you either get rich or live at that moment like you are rich. However, that income level doesn't, at least for me, equate to being rich. Have a high income, live like you are rich (aka spend it all and have fun now) and a change in circumstances beyond your control but wholly within the realms of the "possible" (e.g. losing whatever job / position it is that allows you to generate that income) means you can no longer live like you are rich and, because you were living like you were rich and spending it all you have nothing (or not enough to be rich) to fall back on.

Wealth (as opposed to income) on the other allows you to generate an income without requiring your day to day 9-5 "work" input. It's the assets you won that generate the income not your work. When that's the case you can't (in the ordinary course, massive market crashes or whatever aside) be put in a position where circumstances outside your control affect your ability to generate / receive the income that you use to live like you are rich. At that point you are rich.

Of course the really simple answer is that everyone who makes more than I do or has a greater net wealth than me is rich. That seems to be how people approach the question of who should pay more tax / bear a greater share of group costs etc. no?

along those lines: ratio of savings (and investments) to expenses is what matters a great deal. if i have $1M and move to [low-cost of living country] and my expenses are $20K a year, i have 50x my expenses. i would consider that pretty rich.

if i move to Palo Alto with my $1M, i best be looking for a job cuz $1M ain't gonna last long.

I heard it stated thusly: There are three levels of wealth:

1. You're not stressed about your debts;
2. You can order whatever you want on the dinner menu; and
3. You don't care how much vacation costs.

Anything beyond level three doesn't really mean much.

At least that was another guy's theory, but it makes sense to me.

---

War is god

Having what you need isn't the same as being rich. It might be fortunate relative to many other people, but that's simply not what "rich" means. Rich means abundant, opulent, well-to-do, etc. The word indicates a level of wealth (when discussing money of course) above and beyond just having what you need.

Where the lines are drawn to delineate comfortable from affluent from wealthy from rich from super rich, etc is all subjective. However, I might say that you're only really rich if the cost of living differences that vary from area to area don't really make any difference to you anymore. I.e. if you live a lavish lifestyle in Somalia, but couldn't afford an apartment in Wisconsin, you're not really rich. You're just "rich for Somalia." However, if you could live like basically the same in Wisconsin, or in London, or on Lake Como, then you're probably actually rich.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

My in-laws live in a wealthy suburb of Boston. One of their friends from the town - who lived in the 'rich' neighborhood (which is saying something, when the average home price in the entire town is north of a million) - moved to Charleston a few years ago. They were long gone when the hurricane hit, they booked a spa vacation somewhere in Florida, a nice little impromptu week of pampering and relaxation while Charleston was getting shelled by a hurricane...must be nice!


EDIT: and now I'm remembering the old thread and what this discussion is centered on, so the above isn't necessarily relevant. However, I would contend that if a natural disaster strikes and you're able to book a luxury vacation to 'wait out the storm' you bet your ass you're rich. I said in that other thread, to be rich is to be free of worry of expenses, even big ones like a last-minute $10K vacation. If you're not able to do that I don't consider you to be rich; maybe you're financially comfortable, you don't have any month-to-month worry about debt or any moderate expenses but you still need to budget and invest wisely and build up retirement. My in-laws, for example, are not 'rich' in my opinion; they own a home valued at well north of $1MM, travel a few times a year, visit their kids (each needs a flight to get to) a few times a year...but they have to be smart about their money to do so, they're reliant on paychecks to make it work still, etc...the other couple I mentioned really don't need to work, they own multiple homes, luxury cars, a beautiful boat, and I can only imagine what their portfolio looks like. They have not a care in the world when it comes ot money, THAT is rich to me.