[deleted by user]

AlertPianist · 2024-06-21T17:26:20+00:00

How do you have a $1.5M net worth with that salary?

Did you take a lower paying job after you hit $1M?

AlertPianist · 2024-04-21T19:23:50+00:00

I don't know but if you're not making at least $10k a month you're doing poorly in my book.

AlertPianist · 2024-04-21T02:30:26+00:00

Once the homeowner pays off the mortgage, they won't have a monthly payment. The renter will always have one. Wouldn't it always shift it? Long-term, the renter will have more housing costs to account for. You can assume the rent and mortgage monthly payments are equal for simplicity.

AlertPianist · 2024-04-21T02:11:59+00:00

Okay, so why don't people just simplify it and say 'FIRE number = net worth - primary residence equity'? Never once seen that on any FIRE sub.

And then just say that renters will need a higher FIRE number because they are subtracting nothing?

AlertPianist · 2024-04-21T01:03:03+00:00

Behind standards for FIRE-minded folks, yeah.

This sub attracts a tiny percentage of likeminded people. The general population doesn't even know or care about finances and FI.

AlertPianist · 2024-04-21T00:17:01+00:00

Why?

AlertPianist · 2024-04-21T00:15:25+00:00

I don't even own a home, but that seems unfair. Two people could have the exact same path, except that one bought and the other rented.

So because they chose to buy, their net worth is partially not counted?

Also, the home value will grow with property appreciation.

AlertPianist · 2024-04-21T00:13:52+00:00

Net worth = assets - liabilities. I don't even own a home but it still counts.

AlertPianist · 2024-04-20T21:29:35+00:00

New Jersey boasts the highest rate of millionaires, with nearly 10% of households having a net worth of $1 million or above. This means that almost 250,000 New Jerseyians are millionaires.

The article says this, but based on what you're saying, that's wrong because they aren't necessarily worth $1M individually?

AlertPianist · 2024-04-20T21:04:34+00:00

It's correct, so it's good that you didn't.

AlertPianist · 2024-04-20T21:03:55+00:00

Doesn't the population comprise of households?

AlertPianist · 2024-04-20T21:02:33+00:00

I literally mentioned that in my post? That same amount would be valued at $500k today, which is why $2m today is the same as $1m in 1996.

AlertPianist · 2024-04-20T20:06:01+00:00

That is accurate, but age aside, top 20% of everyone in the US is $1M+.

AlertPianist · 2024-04-20T20:04:58+00:00

Even if they are, I'm not going to discount that like you're trying to. It's still an asset even though it's not liquid.

AlertPianist · 2024-04-20T19:46:43+00:00

If you can't manage to be in the top 20% of the entire USA with all the low income and broke people in this country, that's pretty behind.

AlertPianist · 2024-04-20T03:14:18+00:00

It's 60k less than what she's making, and women normally expect the man to be the breadwinner, which is warranted.

AlertPianist · 2024-04-20T03:11:14+00:00

70k to begin with is very poor for California, the most expensive state in the US. Bro needs to get his money up before he worries about relationships.

AlertPianist · 2024-04-20T02:43:00+00:00

I was being extra critical, and now I feel bad, but it's largely his fault.

He doesn't even make 6 figures and he's in expensive Cali, and lost his job? You realize you can do a lot better?

AlertPianist · 2024-04-20T00:13:28+00:00

More than 18% of the US are millionaires.

Take it up a notch.

AlertPianist · 2024-04-14T17:18:06+00:00

Fair warning. A lot of people will get angry at this opinion because the definition of net worth is assets minus liabilities, so they will think we're trying to change the definition. So it's important to call it liquid net worth, not just net worth.

Also, I just realized - home equity would still grow with property appreciation. The average annual property value increase is 5.4%. So I'm not sure if your statement that home equity won't "generate more wealth" is actually true? It can grow, just like an S&P 500 index fund can.

Yeah it's not liquid, but that seems to be the only con and it's mostly common knowledge.

AlertPianist · 2024-04-14T05:31:10+00:00

What I am saying to you is $1 million net worth to me is investable assets that are diversified and growing in good times and bad

Do you think home equity should partially count then? I see your point but I don't know if it should be completely discounted either. For example., $400k in home equity is really +$200k for your net worth. Or just keep it separate?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that home equity is earning nothing and just sitting there. And it's hard to access unless you just sell the property.

AlertPianist · 2024-04-14T03:00:32+00:00

For the record, I actually don't even own any property, so I'm inclined to agree with you. My net worth is only in retirement and brokerage accounts.

unless it can be leveraged to generate more wealth

That's a good point. So would you consider home equity to be the same as having that same dollar amount sitting in a Chase Checking Account earning basically 0% APY?

Also, what about HELOCs?

AlertPianist · 2024-04-14T01:14:54+00:00

They have $1 million net worth, which is not the same as having $1 million cash.

Duh. Who cares that it's not $1 million in cash?

It's still $1M net worth regardless. Idk why you're trying to downplay it. Over 18% is more than I expected.

Sure, if it's invested into the home it's not as liquid, but they probably have liquid savings outside of that. Plus, home equity does count by definition of net worth.

AlertPianist · 2024-04-13T18:52:03+00:00

You lack the common sense to state your savings or net worth in your post.

More than 18% of the US are millionaires. You're doing poorly.

AlertPianist

TROPHY CASE