Are you in the 9.9%?

[Bobby Stainless]

[old goat]

Our game plan is to rent out our home in Coronado, plus our other rentals. With my wife's pension and my little pension and SS down the road for me, that should put us in a great "cash flow" position.
Health care is a big consideration in anything we do. We could move to Canada, but I am thinking we would enjoy various countries in Yurp more. From looking into health care / dental insurance over there, it looks much lower in cost than what we would be looking at in the USA.
As I want to move around every 3-6 months, we will just rent until we come back home.
We have the assets, to me cash flow is king, if you want to have a fun retirement.

Last I looked (Nov 9, 2016) you needed to loan a province 500K for 5 years interest free if you wanted emigrate to Canada, unless you had skills they wanted.

[old goat]

unfortunately, mass consumerism keeps most in debt over stuff that's depreciating and they never realize it.

Do not buy a car on credit. Yes, I know that if you get a cheap auto loan and invest the cost of the car at a higher rate of return the loan makes sense, but the only people who do that are the 10%, for whom it really doesn't matter one way or the other. For everyone else, who will spend the money on food and housing, an auto loan is a sucker's deal. Plus, if we all drove cars we could afford to pay cash for, the price of cars would come down.

[DJSapp]

Yeah, but, c'mon, no way you're moving to Kansas, right?

KC BBQ is much better than CA.

And yeah, fair point. I'd go a whole lot of places before KS, but some of those places are price comparable.

[Ted Striker]

Last I looked (Nov 9, 2016) you needed to loan a province 500K for 5 years interest free if you wanted emigrate to Canada, unless you had skills they wanted.

He's Canadian. Lives in the US on a green card.

[XXX-er]

Its cold up here, there are restrictive gun laws in Canada ... are you sure you wana come?

no open carry of tourniquets

[Ted Striker]

very aware of that area, I know at least 10 businesses that closed their doors or had to sell out since they had no cash to pay the bills.

Yeah, I was just being snarky. But to the sub-theme of this thread, leverage can create wealth if the timing is right.

And I'm a little surprised by those who have stated they'd rather have income than assets.

[DJSapp]

And I'm a little surprised by those who have stated they'd rather have income than assets.

You'll find a direct correlation with those opinions and age. Having a bunch of non-liquid assets and no income at age 24 sucks, having a high income and no assets at age 65 is awful.

[XXX-er]

And I'm a little surprised by those who have stated they'd rather have income than assets.

well if I had a couple million dollars worth of stuff that is not very liquid but ime IF somebody is just putting money in my account every month ... works for me

[GeezerSteve]

I agree that, as a general trend, most of the 9.9% is >50 y.o. That reality consistent with the the theme of the article: Americans >50 hold most of the power and influence.

Total wealth is somewhat misleading when real estate is included--at least a primary residence.

I've made that point, although Bunny rejects it out of hand. When I talk with clients re relative wealth in the context of planning, we usually talk about wealth other than primary residence (unless the client plans to sell and downsize).

Net worth is net worth. Maybe the debt is higher, but, that number don't change no matter where you live.

Of course. You're missing my point. Net worth is net worth, but the scope of influence and power associated with X net worth varies greatly depending on: (a) where one lives; and (b) how much of the net worth is liquid vs. illiquid. Also, there is inherent instability when most of one's net worth (see, e.g., SF couple) consists of a highly leveraged asset (i.e., residence encumbered by big debt), and a high value residence drains more wealth in the form of insurance premiums, maintenance and RE taxes.

[Benny Profane]

Dude, please. You can't say, oh, well, my net worth is X, but it would be XX if I lived in podunk, where, cmon, you ain't ever moving to anyway. Your accountant would just look at you funny. And, if you have a huge mortgage on your SF macmansion, well, that's debt, period. Subtract it from the equity. Period. It can't be, oh, I'm in a hot RE market, so, I have potentially higher net worth. There's no such thing.

[GeezerSteve]

Bunny, the article is not about net worth. The subject is power and influence of a class of Americans. Net worth is being used as a one-size-fits-all measure. If you can't see the flaws in using a one-size-fits-all measurement re the respective power and influence of a couple in SF vs. a couple in KC, that's your problem. My typical KC couple and typical SF couple have identical net worths on paper, but the former has much more potential political power and influence. People in KS and MO with 1.0 - 3.0 million net worth control their local and state politics. People with equal paper net worths in CA have far less power and influence because CA politics is controlled by multi-millionaires and billionaires. Also, people with illiquid assets have less to throw around vs. people with more liquid assets.

[Benny Profane]

How is a millionaire in SF more influencing and powerful than one in KC?

[LHutz Esq]

There are a fair chunk of elderly folk in Vancouver who would now be in the 9.9% simply because they bought a $30-40,000 house and paid it off 20-30 years ago.

However, they are somewhat stuck in that although their 1.2m plus house is free and clear, condos are not all that cheap, property taxes have been going up and their income hasn't kept up with that increase. They will have to eat into the equity somehow to keep it up. So I would say that net worth, and the life style that it is supposedly an indicator of, is entirely location specific.

A 1.2 million house here could be sold and result in a very nice condo and 1 million in spending money. A 1.2 million house in Van will get you an ok condo and maybe $500,000 in spending money.

[GeezerSteve]

How is a millionaire in SF more influencing and powerful than one in KC?

Oh sheez. Reading. Try it. You've got it upside down Bunny. Being a mere millionaire (on paper) in SF doesn't mean shit. See LHutz Esq's post. Then look up the term "house poor."

[Benny Profane]

What do mean it "doesn't mean shit"? Did California move to another currency?

[Benny Profane]

There are a fair chunk of elderly folk in Vancouver who would now be in the 9.9% simply because they bought a $30-40,000 house and paid it off 20-30 years ago.

However, they are somewhat stuck in that although their 1.2m plus house is free and clear, condos are not all that cheap, property taxes have been going up and their income hasn't kept up with that increase. They will have to eat into the equity somehow to keep it up. So I would say that net worth, and the life style that it is supposedly an indicator of, is entirely location specific.

A 1.2 million house here could be sold and result in a very nice condo and 1 million in spending money. A 1.2 million house in Van will get you an ok condo and maybe $500,000 in spending money.

BUT THEY HAVE A MILLION DOLLAR HOUSE!

[The AD]

However, they are somewhat stuck in that although their 1.2m plus house is free and clear, condos are not all that cheap, property taxes have been going up and their income hasn't kept up with that increase. They will have to eat into the equity somehow to keep it up.

They're only "stuck" if they want to stay in Vancouver, of course.

[XXX-er]

Dude, please. You can't say, oh, well, my net worth is X, but it would be XX if I lived in podunk, where, cmon, you ain't ever moving to anyway. Your accountant would just look at you funny. And, if you have a huge mortgage on your SF macmansion, well, that's debt, period. Subtract it from the equity. Period. It can't be, oh, I'm in a hot RE market, so, I have potentially higher net worth. There's no such thing.

actualy I rememeber thats^^ exactly how the dentists on TT.com & TGR used to calculate their net worth 10 yars ago

Assets - debt = equity

they kept upgrading their RE for the higher tax deduction

then one day their asset was not worth as much $$$$$$ as they owed on it

in any case what will 1.2 million buy you? in Vangroovy a regular house, up here if ya had 1.2 million you could buy a lakefront house on Tyee lake and a ski cabin at HBM

hell buddy would probably thro in the boat his truck his dog and the wife for 1.2 million

[GoldMember]

What do mean it "doesn't mean shit"? Did California move to another currency?

Yeah, crypto...those are the dudes that responded to that point in the poll.

[Mazderati]

Net worth is assets minus liabilities. Period. Location is not a factor. Age is not a factor. It's utility as the sole metric for worth can be debated but the definition is the definition.

[GoldMember]

Net worth is assets minus liabilities. Period. Location is not a factor. Age is not a factor. It's utility as the sole metric for worth can be debated but the definition is the definition.

Correct. The relative net worth is variable based on the overall value of what net worth can buy in a given location.

[reckless toboggan]

Location is a factor when relating net worth to policital and social access and influence, and economic mobility...which is exactly what the article is doing.

[iceman]

Net worth is assets minus liabilities. Period. Location is not a factor. Age is not a factor. It's utility as the sole metric for worth can be debated but the definition is the definition.

I can't understand how this isn't clear. Actual net worth can vary as the value of the asset (house, stocks, Van Gogh) goes up or down but it's still calculated the same way.

[LHutz Esq]

BUT THEY HAVE A MILLION DOLLAR HOUSE!

No shit, so do the folks that have a million dollar house outside Vancouver(or a $500,000 house and $500,000 in other investments), just one of them is better off by not having a greater % of that net worth sunk into the one asset that if they sell , renders them homeless.