4 ms·

The really wealthy people are just really wealthy, beyond what most of us here can probably conceive of. Even if you strike it big in Silicon Valley and make $1

by GuiA 10y ago

The really wealthy people are just really wealthy, beyond what most of us here can probably conceive of. Even if you strike it big in Silicon Valley and make $10M-$50M from your startup, you're still nowhere near all the Chinese real estate magnates, Saudi oil magnates, the people whose family fortune has been accumulating for the past hundred years or so, etc. I was actually surprised to find that the net worth of many celebrities that most of us imagine as really wealthy is not all that much compared to the aforementioned. For instance, let's pick Benedict Cumberbatch, an actor who just had the lead role in a Marvel movie being shown around the world that a lot of people would immediately recognize on the street - a cursory internet search indicates his net worth is about $20M. Not a crazy amount by any means.

oblio 10y ago
The real question is: does it really matter? I'd guess that around 5-10 million is when you can afford a nice house anywhere you want (I'm not talking about palaces with servants). You can have several holidays per year doing what you want, where you want it. Etc.
- GuiA 10y ago
  Oh I wasn't trying to answer the "does it really matter" question, just attempting to offer perspective on the OP's surprise.
NhanH 10y ago
I'm a bit confused after reading your post, especially your first paragraph. So no sarcasm intended here, just curiosity. > you're still nowhere near all the Chinese real estate magnates, Saudi oil magnates, the people whose family fortune has been accumulating for the past hundred years or so, etc. Are you implying those people would be richer than the publicly wealthy we know of (the Walton family, Gates, Buffet etc.)? If that is not the case, I don't think "inconceivable" is the word I would use in this case..
siddboots 10y ago
It's surprising not because of how rich it makes the richest, but because of how many rich people it implies. In order for that to be true, 75 million people out there make $750k or more.
- joss82 10y ago
  It's not revenue, it's wealth. s/make/have
- roel_v 10y ago
  Just having bought a house in a few US states 25 years ago, and having serviced the mortgage on it since then, puts you in that bracket. There many, many electricians and plumbers (just to name some not particularly high paying jobs) out there who have a net worth of 750k+ around retirement age.
hkmurakami 10y ago
Well what you mention about ultrawealthy individuals doesn't really matter since one billionaire is still only one person. In terms of setting the bar for where the 1% threshold is, it wouldn't make a difference if someone has $1B or $10M. So what matters in the quantity of people who own more than $750K in assets, rather than exactly how much each of those people own. >Cumberbatch It says he made $2.6M from Dr. Strange. His paydays from movies are on an upward trajectory, so he may crack the $5m/film mark in a few years. Also, I assume this is ordinary income, which is really tax disadvantaged, especially since I imagine actors are considered self employed (like professional golfers, for instance), which probably means that they pay both sides of the payroll tax. http://networthtomb.com/benedict-cumberbatch-net-worth-endorsement-actor/ http://networthtomb.com/benedict-cumberbatch-net-worth-endor... But these very visible people can wield tremendous influence. The three pillars are power, money, and influence, and you can trade one for the others. Celebrities may not be as powerful as governors or as wealthy as tech billionaires, but their voice often travels much farther than their counterparts.
- curun1r 10y ago
  > especially since I imagine actors are considered self employed (like professional golfers, for instance) At least actors don't have to pay state taxes in each state where they "play" like athletes do. Athletes, while often highly paid, really get screwed in just about every way come tax time.
arvinsim 10y ago
I guess anonymity is also a luxury that the super wealthy can easily afford.
TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
>$20M. Not a crazy amount by any means. It would take a little over 300 years to earn that much at my current annual income.

by GuiA 10y ago

oblio 10y ago

The real question is: does it really matter? I'd guess that around 5-10 million is when you can afford a nice house anywhere you want (I'm not talking about palaces with servants). You can have several holidays per year doing what you want, where you want it. Etc.

GuiA 10y ago
Oh I wasn't trying to answer the "does it really matter" question, just attempting to offer perspective on the OP's surprise.

NhanH 10y ago

I'm a bit confused after reading your post, especially your first paragraph. So no sarcasm intended here, just curiosity. > you're still nowhere near all the Chinese real estate magnates, Saudi oil magnates, the people whose family fortune has been accumulating for the past hundred years or so, etc. Are you implying those people would be richer than the publicly wealthy we know of (the Walton family, Gates, Buffet etc.)? If that is not the case, I don't think "inconceivable" is the word I would use in this case..

siddboots 10y ago

It's surprising not because of how rich it makes the richest, but because of how many rich people it implies. In order for that to be true, 75 million people out there make $750k or more.

joss82 10y ago
It's not revenue, it's wealth. s/make/have
roel_v 10y ago
Just having bought a house in a few US states 25 years ago, and having serviced the mortgage on it since then, puts you in that bracket. There many, many electricians and plumbers (just to name some not particularly high paying jobs) out there who have a net worth of 750k+ around retirement age.

hkmurakami 10y ago

Well what you mention about ultrawealthy individuals doesn't really matter since one billionaire is still only one person. In terms of setting the bar for where the 1% threshold is, it wouldn't make a difference if someone has $1B or $10M. So what matters in the quantity of people who own more than $750K in assets, rather than exactly how much each of those people own. >Cumberbatch It says he made $2.6M from Dr. Strange. His paydays from movies are on an upward trajectory, so he may crack the $5m/film mark in a few years. Also, I assume this is ordinary income, which is really tax disadvantaged, especially since I imagine actors are considered self employed (like professional golfers, for instance), which probably means that they pay both sides of the payroll tax. http://networthtomb.com/benedict-cumberbatch-net-worth-endorsement-actor/ http://networthtomb.com/benedict-cumberbatch-net-worth-endor... But these very visible people can wield tremendous influence. The three pillars are power, money, and influence, and you can trade one for the others. Celebrities may not be as powerful as governors or as wealthy as tech billionaires, but their voice often travels much farther than their counterparts.

curun1r 10y ago
> especially since I imagine actors are considered self employed (like professional golfers, for instance) At least actors don't have to pay state taxes in each state where they "play" like athletes do. Athletes, while often highly paid, really get screwed in just about every way come tax time.

arvinsim 10y ago

I guess anonymity is also a luxury that the super wealthy can easily afford.

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago

>$20M. Not a crazy amount by any means. It would take a little over 300 years to earn that much at my current annual income.