21 Ways Rich People Think Differently Than Average People
- Thread starter Ace in the Hole
- Start date
"You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won't believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!"
Richard Feynman
Richard Feynman
I am not sure I follow you there, does it mean you assume that to get to $2m balance in super it was required to be on $700K?
This would be untrue in my case. One of my investments within SMSF generated 30 times the return thus having even a bigger balance then $2m, it wasn't purely from income.....It is a possibility which many people are often baffled about and assume that balance is purely from income stream - but it really doesn't have to be, right?
Yes it's one of those quotes I read, "BIG HAT NO COWS!".
Also, I think the rich generate an asset/business to create the income to spend whereas the average people tend to spend before they earn (the other saying, "the rich earn first then spend whereas the poor spend first then earn!).
It makes all the difference in this world! I think it has to do with consumerism and feeling good, or rich to be able to afford what some perceive the "rich" items.
Another quote (by Dave Ramsey):
“We buy things we don't need with money we don't have to impress people we don't like.”
I am sorry but you are talking in this case about me and I must disagree. Perhaps you are talking about some people you know so let's not put everyone under that umbrella...
So Robert Kiyosaki would say instead of being in business you are self-employed, hard work yes!
I like how Robert Kiyosaki explains one profession being in 4 different quadrants:
All these can apply to a doctor (or any other profession), so a doctor can be:
1. An employee - working in a hospital for an income/salary (not working no income)
2. Self-employed - by becoming say a GP and opening his/her own practice - (again not working no income)
3. A business owner - by combining a practice with other doctors, or by buying an independent business with a system where income is generated by the business and he profits from it even by being away (not working himself yet receiving income).
4. An investor - the doctor may decide to buy a building and rent it out (either residential/commercial or medical center where other doctors lease and work etc...) so (not working himself yet receiving income).
So you see it's irrelevant on the positions we have, yes some earn more than others from linear income, but to be truly rich we need to be in 3 and/or 4 quadrant (even tax laws apply differently, right?)
He would probably say a lot of things, most of which are made up
Well, I agreed with those comments of his as I have experienced it myself, have been there, have done that!
I am wondering whether anyone knows someone who say lot of things, most of which are made up (very broad view and can apply to all, right?)
It's a bit like religion.
You can make it true if you believe in it, even if it really isn't true.
You can make it true if you believe in it, even if it really isn't true.
What is truth.
What is the meaning of life.
Where do all lost things go.
This is getting a little abstract.
(To clarify I am religious, and am pro-organised religion, yet agree 'dialouge' with a lot of 'religious' people and equally atheists is the equivalent of banging your head against the wall.
Most of my mates are athiest, I avoid discussing anything beyond empowering principles as you can't argue with someone who wants you to pull a rabbit out of your **** as proof, and then questions the rabbit. Not that I believe in miracles myself).
What I was trying to infer is that in order to have over $2m in super you have had to have been contributing on average about 30k per year over a say 30-40 yr period.
And you are correct ....it would be hard to convert say 70k into $2m via just income streams. It would require tremdous growth.
And you are correct ....it would be hard to convert say 70k into $2m via just income streams. It would require tremdous growth.
I am not sure I follow you there, does it mean you assume that to get to $2m balance in super it was required to be on $700K?
This would be untrue in my case. One of my investments within SMSF generated 30 times the return thus having even a bigger balance then $2m, it wasn't purely from income.....It is a possibility which many people are often baffled about and assume that balance is purely from income stream - but it really doesn't have to be, right?
BIG HAT NO COWS would be appropriate in Africa.....
I believe the phrase was developed in Texas... "BIG HAT NO CATTLE" ...means that someone who seems to having the trappings of success but it is merely illusion as it is all credit.
Agree about what rich and poor do....classic Kiyosaki!
I believe the phrase was developed in Texas... "BIG HAT NO CATTLE" ...means that someone who seems to having the trappings of success but it is merely illusion as it is all credit.
Agree about what rich and poor do....classic Kiyosaki!
