What/who is a Millionaire?

What/Who is a Millionaire?

  • Someone who has $1m in bank deposits

    Votes: 17 16.0%
  • Someone who has total assets worth $1m (car, PPOR, investments etc.)

    Votes: 11 10.4%
  • Someone who owns $1m in investments (shares, property)

    Votes: 9 8.5%
  • Somone who has equity of $1m in investments (shares, property)

    Votes: 74 69.8%
  • Someone who has a fully paid out PPOR worth $1m

    Votes: 10 9.4%
  • Someone who has a Business worth $1m

    Votes: 8 7.5%
  • Someone who has a Business with annual turnover of $1m

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Someone who has a Business with annual profit of $1m

    Votes: 7 6.6%
  • Other - Please explain.

    Votes: 9 8.5%

  • Total voters
    106
  • Poll closed .
I think the next milestone is to achieve a net worth of $1m. This would be the amount that you would have, should you sell everything up. Net Assets. To me, you are a millionaire once you have reached this goal, although to declare that you have now won the race and you are, indeed rich, would be pure folly. It is true that many would not be able to slap $1m in cash or a bank cheque within 48 hours at this stage, but nevertheless, they are technically millionaires.

20 years ago it was a lot of money,even ten years ago 1 mill had still a lot of power,but not now ,it is a good level to be at but the trick is to turn that 1 mill into 2 then 4 million,that happened to my wife and myself
just on property values alone,not that that means anything,but then again i started with 4k in my back pocket in 1983,we hit the i mill level in 2000,property values in inner brisbane have not stopped going up in
some area's for the last 15 years,i know property investing works it just depends on how fast you want to get there,if the internet was around 20 years ago what a different world we would have now..imho willair..
 
I dont think so. I'm saying its normal cash flow or expected from resi, not 'low'. And i'm asking him why he thinks its low.

Maybe cause 2.85% nett does not sound like a HIGH return and many obviously think the nett returns could/should be higher....

There, I've opened it up for more discussion of your point if you wish...

Perhaps it's good to know
 
I thought this one would be simple 1 million in equity as long as you can sell it and actually have the total after as been 1 million makes you a millionarie. thats the easy way of looking at it even if you can't come up with a million in 48hrs??
 
A mil just isn't what it used to be!

I think you need at least 10mil net assets, (all assests minus all liabilities), I don't care how you get there, and I don't care if it's all locked up and you can't access it.

Cheers
Graeme
 
I hear all of these folks saying they NEED 100K or even 200K p.a., but I never believe it.....reality of people actually spending in retirement does not bear this out. IMHO.

See, I disagree! They may not NEED $100k to survive, but they may NEED $100k for they lifestyle they desire. And what the general population are spending in retirement IMHO is not my idea of a goal. If it was, I wouldn't be investing.
 
Ditto....I worked my figure on the life I want to live not just exist....otherwise why invest!

Based on Dazz's comments that his parents live on $38K and lieve an unrestricted life...I could retire today.

But where is the fun in that.....I love to travel.....go to fine restaurants...concerts...etc......can't do that on $38K. Need a mimimum of $150k with about 100K net.

See, I disagree! They may not NEED $100k to survive, but they may NEED $100k for they lifestyle they desire. And what the general population are spending in retirement IMHO is not my idea of a goal. If it was, I wouldn't be investing.
 
I hear all of these folks saying they NEED 100K or even 200K p.a., but I never believe it.....reality of people actually spending in retirement does not bear this out. IMHO.

Probably true for most of those retiring at the usual retirement ages and with older kids out of home.

But is that because they don't need or it, or because they don't have it?

Which comes first?

Most people will never have this kind of passive income in retirement anyway.

A minority may have it, but not need it.

I aspire to having it, but not necessarily needing it!

Also, some folks here aspire to retirement at a younger age, when they may have a husband/wife with 2-3 young kiddies in private schooling...

More dependants (is that the right word?) and higher needs here.

When you have no dependants presently, but with the possibility of them in the future, figuring out how much is enough is more difficult as you have to anticipate a future need.

How do you put a figure on that?

Anyway, this is a bit off topic!
 
Depends what you want to do in retirement. If you want to sit at home most days pottering in the garden etc. then yeah $30k will probably do you. If on the other hand you want to have a couple of overseas holidays each year for 6 weeks a trip - then you'll need closer to the $100k.

In reality, whilst a lot of retiree's may like option B, it's not possible for them, so of course their spending patterns will reflect option A. Doesn't mean they wouldn't like to do more if they had the income to do so.

My parents unfortunately fall into category A even though they'd love to travel the world. Though I have come up with a way to help them out a bit to that end which has got them excited.
 
Your desired 10M nett assets could reasonably be expected to generate 500K p.a. This is so far off the scale from normality it ain't funny.

Are we really here to be 'normal'?

I for one certainly did not aspire to be normal;):D

I guess I will just have to be "off the scale":eek::D

I think the 'normal' exists as a matter of need. They don't have any more so that all they spend. Lets face it pensioners live within the means of the pension, god only knows how and my mum who is a pensioner actually manages to save some money???

Cheers
 
......my comments weren't addressing what your idea of a goal was.

My comments were in relation to what retired people were actually spending.

I understand that, however, are you planning on spending what the average retiree spends? I know I'm not.:D
 
On the domestic "normal" costs, the wife is allocated an agreed lump sum per month and manages the total household expenses from that.

I thought that kind of thinking went out with wearing aprons :eek:.

If my husband tried to "allocate" a lump sum to me, I would give him a good old "piece of allocation" for himself.
 
I thought that kind of thinking went out with wearing aprons :eek:.

If my husband tried to "allocate" a lump sum to me, I would give him a good old "piece of allocation" for himself.

Wylie, the cats out the bag now - you're really Germain Greer arent you? ;)
 
Not at all, but I don't know any of my friends who are "allocated" some money to spend. I think it is quite "old fashioned" in this day and age.

In the old days, what the "little woman" didn't spend on groceries, I believe she was able to use to buy herself a little trinket occasionally :eek:.

Come on, your other liberated SS women, back me up on this :D.
 
I thought that kind of thinking went out with wearing aprons :eek:.

If my husband tried to "allocate" a lump sum to me, I would give him a good old "piece of allocation" for himself.

I'll probably cop it from you Wylie, but I think what Daz and his missus do sounds fair enough.

At the moment my fiancee works, plus I give her a set $ extra each week - all her money is hers, and if she needs extra I give it to her (though she's usually too shy to ask and I have to pry it out of her).

If she stopped working, I see nothing wrong with allocating a set amount of $ to her each week for whatever she needs. Not saying I'd be a tyrant and tight, we'd discuss what she wants and come to an agreed figure etc. For me I need a set figure so I can move on with all the other figures in my personal/business/investing life. It just wouldn't work if this week it was $300, next week $800, $400, $900, $200 etc Even if we agree on a figure that's more than she needs, that's cool - as long as it's a set figure for me.
 
On the domestic "normal" costs, the wife is allocated an agreed lump sum per month and manages the total household expenses from that. I have no discretion as to what is allocated to what.
I am hoping that this "allocation" of monies would be a combined allocation (as in a salary) that you both use for your day-to-day living expenses/holidays etc.

If my husband tried to "allocate" a lump sum to me, I would give him a good old "piece of allocation" for himself.

Come on, your other liberated SS women, back me up on this :D.


LOL! I am sitting here literally in histerics. Sheesh! Hubby "allocating" me any money would really be a sight to see. He doesn't know anything about the finances in our home. I do it all. All wages go into the one account (his and mine) and I am the only one to draw money out of it. He doesn't even have a keycard. He gets his "allocation" each week for train fares as well as anything else he wants, which is usually nothing:eek:. He does have a credit card (and no Dazz, he doesn't have to ask to use it) which he regularly uses if he needs something and has no cash.

When we first got married, we decided that this is the way things would run. At the time, he earnt a fair bit more than I did & it all got spent each week, whereas I had budgeted & purchased a house on my meagre salary, AND had some savings. So far, it has worked well.
 
Not at all, but I don't know any of my friends who are "allocated" some money to spend. I think it is quite "old fashioned" in this day and age.

In the old days, what the "little woman" didn't spend on groceries, I believe she was able to use to buy herself a little trinket occasionally :eek:.

Come on, your other liberated SS women, back me up on this :D.

Geeez Wylie

I'm allocated a sum each week to cover the household expenses, I don't have a problem with that at all.

As a matter of fact just did the shopping and used some of the left over to have a latte with friends.

Cheers
 
Thank you for your public derision of our private finance structure. It really endears contributors of this forum to divulge further.

No worries. Glad to be of service. :D

I wish you well in your quest to illict further support. :(

You just cannot take a joke, can you? :p
 
I'm allocated a sum each week to cover the household expenses, I don't have a problem with that at all.

As a matter of fact just did the shopping and used some of the left over to have a latte with friends.

Ok, ok, maybe I am just the product of a mother who always worked part time after having kids, who painted houses with my dad, and who NEVER was given an "allowance". I just don't know anyone who is given an allowance and thought it went out with the aprons ;). We are more like Skater describes, no limit on spending, no questions asked.

However, we are both similar in our spending habits, and neither of us are big "spenders". Perhaps if one of us was a "spender" things would pan out differently.

I'm happy to accept "viva la difference" :D.

P.S. I hope you didn't have the latte only because you had some left over, and could have had the latte even if you had used up your allowance :). I feel quite sure the answer is yes.
 
Ok, ok, maybe I am just the product of a mother who always worked and who NEVER was given an "allowance". I just don't know anyone who is given an allowance and thought it went out with the aprons ;). We are more like Skater describes, no limit on spending, no questions asked.

However, we are both similar in our spending habits, and neither of us are big "spenders". Perhaps if one of us was a "spender" things would pan out differently.

I'm happy to accept "viva la difference" :D.

P.S. I hope you didn't have the latte only because you had some left over, and could have had the latte even if you had used up your allowance :). I feel quite sure the answer is yes.

You could be right, my mother never worked once she had children.

By the way I'm a male and find this chauvinistic stereotyping interesting.

Cheers

Pete
 
Last edited:
Back
Top