21 Ways Rich People Think Differently Than Average People

On of the very first things I learned when consciously starting down the investing path was the "pay yourself first" statement.
I heard it from both Rob Kiyosaki, John Burley and a few others..
+ 1, spot on. I have been doing this too, and to be honest I cannot remember the first book that explained that to me. You see, being self-employed (small business) this is especially relevant as you generate irregular savings. Much more discipline is required but by paying yourself first you eliminate the fear, the irregularity. It is one of the simplest and greatest strategy that I used and to date I use!:)
I have a separate account and automatic, regular scheduled payments online transfer weekly money from one account to that dedicated account. Not only do I do this for us I also do it for our children and some nephews and niece accounts I set up (unfortunately they have very poor saving parents so I wish to help by teaching them that a very small, automatic, regular payment - like a cup of coffee amount a day - can add to something worthwhile in the longer term - compound growth).
So to add to this strategy remember it should be automatic too as many people would be too lazy to do it manually. Internet, automatic deductions, or direct debits are great for that.
Yes, it was suggested to start at 10% of your income, but my strategy is to live on 70% of net income then direct 10% for pay yourself first, 10% for debts (personal if any, cards, etc...) and 10% for PPOR mortgage. So I never lived by a budget since the 70% I lived on would have to cover all regular necessary expenses first, such as bills, school/medical payments, groceries, car etc.... and then what was left was what I could spend on me/us (entertainment, holidays, luxuries in life etc..). I think most people live the other way round, they spend on groceries, luxury things first and then find not enough money for bills, or debts payments (cards etc...).
Anyway, imagine if all Australians just paid themselves first that 10% and really lived on 90% of their income throughout their entire life...we could perhaps save the next GFC, just by doing this simple thing (food for thought).:D
 
I just feel the term 'rich' is a very fluid concept. Being in a position where you don't have to worry if you get ill or loose your job is what I personally define as 'materially' rich. That could by my 'limiting' belief. Perhaps I should think more like China.

I read somewhere the explanation of being rich that may apply to all. It said that as long as YOUR ALL EXPENSES (whatever they may be) ARE LESS THAN YOUR MONEY COMING IN, your income (linear - from job OR passive - from investments) than you should classify yourself as rich as you still have money left over!!!!:)
I like that definition as you could earn $100K but if your lifestyle left you with $10K money left over you are than rich. On the other hand, if your earned $1 million and you spent $1million or more you have nothing left or are in debt...than you are not really rich, right?
So basically having always more than your spending on your desired lifestyle would make you feel rich. What do you think?;)
 
I read somewhere the explanation of being rich that may apply to all. It said that as long as YOUR ALL EXPENSES (whatever they may be) ARE LESS THAN YOUR MONEY COMING IN, your income (linear - from job OR passive - from investments) than you should classify yourself as rich as you still have money left over!!!!:)
I like that definition as you could earn $100K but if your lifestyle left you with $10K money left over you are than rich. On the other hand, if your earned $1 million and you spent $1million or more you have nothing left or are in debt...than you are not really rich, right?
So basically having always more than your spending on your desired lifestyle would make you feel rich. What do you think?;)
I think the term RICH for almost every person relates to the context of money and material things.

I've never heard anyone talk about the bloke who lives by himself, spends nothing on anything, works for the Council emptying bins...but has more money coming in than going out every week (due to his lifestyle) as "rich".

I think we kid ourselves when we throw out that line of "I don't need to have money to be happy"...it bloody well helps.

"Rich" is that person who has way more than us...no matter what part of the middle-class or below ladder you are on.

Some of my family think of us as rich (we definitely are not) because they have less...

The rich on the other hand know they are rich and don't need to look up the ladder to see a rich person.

"Rich" to me; they never really need to work, have cool doodads and a great house/s, possibly a chauffeur and maid, and go to the Caribbean in winter, fly a plane, etc.

To live like this would require an income of who knows what? - have to be at least $1mill per year I'd say. It's the income that seals the deal; not necessarily the possessions. The possessions are the visible display results of the income.

Just a figure, and may be way off (too low), but let's start with that.
 
"Rich" to me; they never really need to work, have cool doodads and a great house/s, possibly a chauffeur and maid, and go to the Caribbean in winter, fly a plane, etc.

To live like this would require an income of who knows what? - have to be at least $1mill per year I'd say. It's the income that seals the deal; not necessarily the possessions. The possessions are the visible display results of the income.

Just a figure, and may be way off (too low), but let's start with that.

1mil per year passive income would require a nest egg of 20 mil considering a 5% return p.a. This means most of us in Australia and the planet can never be rich and have to be content to be average middle class. That, I find, sad.
 
1mil per year passive income would require a nest egg of 20 mil considering a 5% return p.a. This means most of us in Australia and the planet can never be rich and have to be content to be average middle class. That, I find, sad.

You're kidding... right? :confused:
 
If it were easy, everybody would be doing it right?

Anyone can achieve this, but most are simply content to be comfortable, so don't feel the need to persue any further.
 
1mil per year passive income would require a nest egg of 20 mil considering a 5% return p.a. This means most of us in Australia and the planet can never be rich and have to be content to be average middle class. That, I find, sad.

A friend of mine has nowhere near 20 mil and is making 40-50k per week in finance...you don't need 20 mil for 1 mill per year.
 
A friend of mine has nowhere near 20 mil and is making 40-50k per week in finance...you don't need 20 mil for 1 mill per year.

I am talking about purely passive income wherein you go to the ATM and just withdraw cash without ever doing any sort of work. Where you can just write out 500k cheques without much concerns. Your friend sounds like he is actively working in finance.
 
I am talking about purely passive income wherein you go to the ATM and just withdraw cash without ever doing any sort of work. Where you can just write out 500k cheques without much concerns. Your friend sounds like he is actively working in finance.

Probably spends around 20 hours a week working if he stopped he would still have over 1m per year from going to the atm with much less then 20m invested/business.

anyone with 200k + Net income per year without lifting a finger is rich in my eyes.
 
$20M would put you in the top 1% of the worlds richest.

The 0.1% now that is a whole other story. That's when you make your own rules. You don't get there by aiming for it. You get there by providing a quality service to as many people as you can.

Most of us here I would assume are already in the top 10%. Even by aussie standards I have it pretty sweet and I have almost nothing.

It will be a sad existence if your sole aim in life is to be the top 1%. I think someone on this thread needs a hobby.
 
Not at all - more top 0.0001% or something. According to that Global Rich List website, an income of 70k USD puts you in the top 0.8% of the world.
 
Most doctors would earn $20M a year, wouldn't they :D:p;)

Now you're being silly wylie.

It's 7M a year but only if you do double cataracts and patients are lined up on a conveyor belt. Allows you to retire within 5 years of graduating too :D.
 
Back
Top