4 ms·

> This shows a pretty big disconnect. Yes it does. That was my point. For starters, you're assuming I'd want to live off the investment, instead of continuing

by 10122018 8y ago

> This shows a pretty big disconnect. Yes it does. That was my point. For starters, you're assuming I'd want to live off the investment, instead of continuing to work. Regardless, I shouldn't have mentioned the arbitrary figure of $100K, which has made it so much easier for people to ignore my point, that many people are comfortable with much less than $10M.

fabricexpert 8y ago
You're presuming you can continue to work. $10M means you don't have to work, even when you can't.
- 10122018 8y ago
  I agree, that is an assumption built into my belief, and possibly a foolish one. I would still maintain that it is possible to live on much less than $10M, although some may not enjoy the change in lifestyle.
  - C1sc0cat 8y ago
    Not really that's about the level where you don't have to think to much at say the £1,000,000 - yes I would not really have to work - but buying a house would easily take 50% - 70% of that. And I could spend 10% of the 1 million on just maxing out my unused pension allowance for the last three years, and probably I should do the same for my sisters.
  - ido 8y ago
    It is possible to live on $0 income/saving indefinitely, assuming you live in a developed country with a welfare system (I wouldn't personally want to).
zeveb 8y ago
> For starters, you're assuming I'd want to live off the investment, instead of continuing to work. Okay, fine. You mentioned that you're a student, so I'll assume that means you're 22: if you're a man, that means you have another 55 years. That $100,000 thus works out to an extra $1,818/year for the rest of your life, which is roughly a month's rent or a dozen or two really good meals a year. Is that a nice supplement to your wealth? Sure. Is it enough to make your life significantly better? No, not really. Ah, but perhaps you're investing it, too. Let's say that you get 6% a year (optimistic), and withdraw 1/55th of the principal + interest each year. So this year you'll get $1,927, next year you'll get $2,006 &c. Is it nice to have that extra money? Sure! Is it going to be life-altering? No, not really.

fabricexpert 8y ago

You're presuming you can continue to work. $10M means you don't have to work, even when you can't.

10122018 8y ago
I agree, that is an assumption built into my belief, and possibly a foolish one. I would still maintain that it is possible to live on much less than $10M, although some may not enjoy the change in lifestyle.
- C1sc0cat 8y ago
  Not really that's about the level where you don't have to think to much at say the £1,000,000 - yes I would not really have to work - but buying a house would easily take 50% - 70% of that. And I could spend 10% of the 1 million on just maxing out my unused pension allowance for the last three years, and probably I should do the same for my sisters.
- ido 8y ago
  It is possible to live on $0 income/saving indefinitely, assuming you live in a developed country with a welfare system (I wouldn't personally want to).

zeveb 8y ago

> For starters, you're assuming I'd want to live off the investment, instead of continuing to work. Okay, fine. You mentioned that you're a student, so I'll assume that means you're 22: if you're a man, that means you have another 55 years. That $100,000 thus works out to an extra $1,818/year for the rest of your life, which is roughly a month's rent or a dozen or two really good meals a year. Is that a nice supplement to your wealth? Sure. Is it enough to make your life significantly better? No, not really. Ah, but perhaps you're investing it, too. Let's say that you get 6% a year (optimistic), and withdraw 1/55th of the principal + interest each year. So this year you'll get $1,927, next year you'll get $2,006 &c. Is it nice to have that extra money? Sure! Is it going to be life-altering? No, not really.