NationStates Jolt Archive

Kiplinger's recently had an article discussing the financial net worths of various candidates for President.

Although I do not trust a poor man with being President and therefore the boss of the SEC, Treasury Department, Tade negotiators, etc., I am surprised by how poor some of the candidates are. I am a Thompson supporter but he is only worth about 2 million and most of that came only recently from his role in Law and Order.

Obama is not even a millionaire. He is worth something like $700,000.

It is nice to know that in theory someone can be a poor man and yet run for President, but I am not sure that I would want such a guy in a position of power over economic policy. If a candidate does not even understand finances enough to at least be a millionaire, how can we expect him to oversee the financial policies and agencies of the US government?

Now I do not think that every candidate must be a billionaire, but they must be able to point to some financial know how. It is also important to not that we are not talking about 35 year olds here, in which case I would not expect them to all be millionaires but we are talking about people in their 40s and 50s.

Lack of understanding of finances is not the only possible reason for what you perceive as relative poverty. Many people choose not to spend their time accumulating wealth financially, but instead focus on other avenues of personal enrichment. Obviously I don't have all the details of why each candidate has the particular amount of wealth they do, but I think if a candidate seems poor it would be just as reasonable to assume that it is because they have devoted their life to public service which is notoriously underpaying work, as to assume that it is because they lack the finanicial know-how to accumulate great monitary wealth.

If a candidate does not even understand finances enough to at least be a millionaire, how can we expect him to oversee the financial policies and agencies of the US government?

Do you seriously think that most middle-aged people who are not millionaires are so "poor" because they don't understand finances?

Does inheriting $1,000,000 really make someone more likely to understand finances than anybody else?

I'm not ever likely to be in a position to vote for a candidate in any US election but I can honestly say that it has never entered my mind to even consider any individual's bank balance when deciding on how to cast my vote in any election.

My own interpretation of someone's 'worth' is not predicated on how much money they may or may not have.

How many of those millionaires earned their money as opposed to inherited it? I'm pretty sure Chappaquiddick Ted and The Decider haven't shown a damn bit of financial knowledge, if their policies and utter ineptitude are any sign.

Barack Obama is a self-made man who not only overcame significant disadvantages as a young adult but also successfully achieved a J.D. from Harvard and established himself as a senator and viable Presidential candidate in a very short span of time. He shows a lot more self-resolve, dedication, and genuine desire to improve himself and his country than any of the millionaire trust-fund babies who never had to work a real day in their lives and always had daddy and his friends to bail them out when they got in trouble.

Even if I don't agree with all of his policies, that man has earned my respect and I would have no qualms about someone like him assuming the responsibilities of the Presidency.

of course i would vote for a "low net worth" candidate. not that i think that any 50ish politician would have a truly low net worth but its possible.

Those running that are congresspersons are rich because of lobby money. No real financial acumen there.

Thompson is an actor, acting is a skill, not a financially based skill. You don't see wall street execs heading up manhattan to try out for plays. Sure he didn't blow it all on fancy cars, but that's not exactly advanced money handling. Same for Edwards and his money from suing corporations.

Romney is the only one i can think of who's great with his money, being a billionaire businessman and all.

I actually like Kucinich because he's only ever accepted his congressional pay for his income; he's still living in a house he payed $23,000 for in the 70's.

I am more worried about how they gained their wealth rather than how much they have. Someone who was a school teacher isn't going to have a ton of money but it doesn't mean they lack understanding of economics.

It is nice to know that in theory someone can be a poor man and yet run for President, but I am not sure that I would want such a guy in a position of power over economic policy. If a candidate does not even understand finances enough to at least be a millionaire, how can we expect him to oversee the financial policies and agencies of the US government?

"8th best reason to study economics: you can talk about money without ever having to make any."

I'm on course for a first-class degree in economics. Its nice that you think this will set me up for becoming a millionaire but I don't think thats going to be a likely outcome.

I'd certainly like a president who has seen the other side of finances. Having all of these rich presidents will never get us the other side of the story. They have advisors just in case anyways.

I'd say I'm more likely to vote the broke candidate what with there obvious lack of corporate oligarchy

also luck plays a factor in capitalism and capitalism plays a factor in winning votes so everybody loses

I am a Thompson supporter but he is only worth about 2 million and most of that came only recently from his role in Law and Order.

I'm reading that as something very scary

Does inheriting $1,000,000 really make someone more likely to understand finances than anybody else?

No. I think that this is obvious. The same could be said for winning a lottery.

I am more worried about how they gained their wealth rather than how much they have. Someone who was a school teacher isn't going to have a ton of money but it doesn't mean they lack understanding of economics.

The funny thing about school teachers is that there is a huge difference between teachers' salaries across the country. It is always impressive when they become millionaires in their 50s or so through saving and investment, but in some parts of the country their salaries are shockingly low. Even neighboring school districts within the same state can have widely divergent salary schedules.

The important thing about wealth is that the most important consideration is not the income but the amount that someone saves and the wisely invests. This world is full of broke doctors and lawyers and millionaire school teachers.

Lack of understanding of finances is not the only possible reason for what you perceive as relative poverty. Many people choose not to spend their time accumulating wealth financially, but instead focus on other avenues of personal enrichment. Obviously I don't have all the details of why each candidate has the particular amount of wealth they do, but I think if a candidate seems poor it would be just as reasonable to assume that it is because they have devoted their life to public service which is notoriously underpaying work, as to assume that it is because they lack the finanicial know-how to accumulate great monitary wealth.

I must disagree. Remember, I am only talking about a candidate being a millionaire in their 40s or 50s. It is not hard to be a millionaire in the US by age 55. If they could not even achieve that there has to be something wrong with them. If a 25 year old bought an ordianry house and paid it off within 30 years and put only $4000 a year into a retirement fund each year he would be 85% there by age 55.

In a country where social security is anticipated to have lots of problems, it is foolish for someone to not have saved and invested for their retirement. Even if social security was sound it would be foolish to not have saved and invested for retirement unless you had a rock solid pension.

Someone who spends all their money on instant gratifcation stuff like wild parties and new cars can not be expected to have any sort of a positive leadership role in a national financial policy. If you were a bank shareholder you would not vote for members of the board who acted this way, so why would you vote for such a fellow for the president of the government?

Click Stand;13268299']I'd certainly like a president who has seen the other side of finances. Having all of these rich presidents will never get us the other side of the story. They have advisors just in case anyways.

Apparently, you want someone as President who understands what it is like to be poor. Most wealthy Americans experienced poverty or at least a middle class lifestyle at some point in their lives. Most wealthy folks understand what people go through who are poor, they just made better choices and lifted themselves out of poverty.

Perhaps we ought to have a standardized test for prospective presidential candidates, you know, find the following countries on a map, answer some questions about math and science and economics. I suppose it wouldn't work, but it's a thought.

How many of those millionaires earned their money as opposed to inherited it? I'm pretty sure Chappaquiddick Ted and The Decider haven't shown a damn bit of financial knowledge, if their policies and utter ineptitude are any sign.

Barack Obama is a self-made man who not only overcame significant disadvantages as a young adult but also successfully achieved a J.D. from Harvard and established himself as a senator and viable Presidential candidate in a very short span of time. He shows a lot more self-resolve, dedication, and genuine desire to improve himself and his country than any of the millionaire trust-fund babies who never had to work a real day in their lives and always had daddy and his friends to bail them out when they got in trouble.

Even if I don't agree with all of his policies, that man has earned my respect and I would have no qualms about someone like him assuming the responsibilities of the Presidency.


Who is The Decider? I never heard of that nickname. Yes, the Kennedys certainly are not self made men.

How old is Obama anyway?

Who is The Decider? I never heard of that nickname. Yes, the Kennedys certainly are not self made men.

How old is Obama anyway?

It's a nickname Bush gave himself. I forget the exact context.

Do you seriously think that most middle-aged people who are not millionaires are so "poor" because they don't understand finances?

Yes. I bet that these folks made a lot of poor financial decisions in their lives.

It's a nickname Bush gave himself. I forget the exact context.

Yeah he is not much of a self made man either. Although, he has at least worked and invested.

Yeah he is not much of a self made man either. Although, he has at least worked and invested.

And run every business he's ever touched into the ground.

"8th best reason to study economics: you can talk about money without ever having to make any."

I'm on course for a first-class degree in economics. Its nice that you think this will set me up for becoming a millionaire but I don't think thats going to be a likely outcome.

What is stopping you from becoming a millionaire by age 55 (in today's dollars)? Can you not live below your means and invest your savings?

And run every business he's ever touched into the ground.

Did he? I do not know too much about him except that he was involved with a sports team or something. Did that sports team lose money?

Yes. I bet that these folks made a lot of poor financial decisions in their lives.

So let me get this straight. Someone like my stepfather, who worked constantly, invested solidly, lived modestly, and saved scrupulously, is not a millionaire in his early sixties for the reason that he made poor financial decisions?

I'd say I'm more likely to vote the broke candidate what with there obvious lack of corporate oligarchy

also luck plays a factor in capitalism and capitalism plays a factor in winning votes so everybody loses



I'm reading that as something very scary


Hmmmm. You sound like a commie. The funny things about commies is that they hate corporations which are communistic and very democratic enterprises. Most commies talk about how the USSR wasnt democratic enough to be their kind of communism. To oversimplify the point, every shareholder gets the same dividend per share. Every common share has one vote.

Did he? I do not know too much about him except that he was involved with a sports team or something. Did that sports team lose money?

The Texas Rangers? They damn near went bankrupt. And then there was Arbusto Oil, and many other enterprises. Google it, you'll see.

So let me get this straight. Someone like my stepfather, who worked constantly, invested solidly, lived modestly, and saved scrupulously, is not a millionaire in his early sixties for the reason that he made poor financial decisions?

This is almost impossible. If he is not a millionaire he must have had some really terrible stroke of bad luck. Assuming he is not a millionaire (he might be one after all but not let on that he is one) my best guess is that he did something like invest too conservatively or did not diversify his investments. Both of these are poor financial decisions.

Hmmmm. You sound like a commie. The funny things about commies is that they hate corporations which are communistic and very democratic enterprises. Most commies talk about how the USSR wasnt democratic enough to be their kind of communism. To oversimplify the point, every shareholder gets the same dividend per share. Every common share has one vote.

Senator McCarthy called. He wants his bitching points back.:rolleyes: Do you know how juvenile you sound accusing someone of being a "Commie" simply because they had the nerve to disagree with you rather than bask in the brilliance of your opinion? Not to mention how out of date?

This is almost impossible. If he is not a millionaire he must have had some really terrible stroke of bad luck. Assuming he is not a millionaire (he might be one after all but not let on that he is one) my best guess is that he did something like invest too conservatively or did not diversify his investments. Both of these are poor financial decisions.

My guess is that you're a spoiled rich kid with no concept of what it's like to work for a living.

Senator McCarthy called. He wants his bitching points back.:rolleyes: Do you know how juvenile you sound accusing someone of being a "Commie" simply because they had the nerve to disagree with you rather than bask in the brilliance of your opinion? Not to mention how out of date?

Did you read the post I was responding to? It was commie cant. Other posters disagreed with me but without the commie rhetoric. As far as something being out of date, I do not understand. Has communism somehow managed to trump capitalism as the system that provides the most goods and services to the people, the most cures of diseases, the most advances in science? Has communism eclipsed capitalism since yesterday? I do not understand.

Did you read the post I was responding to? It was commie cant. Other posters disagreed with me but without the commie rhetoric. As far as something being out of date, I do not understand. Has communism somehow managed to trump capitalism as the system that provides the most goods and services to the people, the most cures of diseases, the most advances in science? Has communism eclipsed capitalism since yesterday? I do not understand.

You understand, you're just pretending not to. No one advocated Communism. There may be some here that do, but he did not; nor did I. I said your insult was out of date because Communism is all but dead in the world, and there's nothing to be gained by labelling rivals as "Commies" to discredit them. If you disagree with him, debate him, don't just call names.

My guess is that you're a spoiled rich kid with no concept of what it's like to work for a living.

Spoiled rich kids usually are wasters of money and make just as stupid financial mistakes as anyone else. Just because I think it is important to understand the process of wealthbuilding does not mean that I am spoiled or a bad person, so lets please not get personal ok?

You claimed that your stepfather is at least 61 years old and is not a millionaire but lived below his means, worked hard, and invested throughout his life. You asked me if he did anything financially dumb. It is almost impossible that he did everything right and still is not a millionaire.

He did a lot of things right. However, if he is not even a millionaire by this point he must have done something wrong. The most likely possibilities are investing too conservatively (i.e. savings accounts, cash investments) or he did not diversify his investments. Did he do those things? If he did everything right throughout his whole life (or at least since being a teenager or in his early 20s, it is almost completely impossible for him not to at least have a net worth of $1,000,000.

You understand, you're just pretending not to. No one advocated Communism. There may be some here that do, but he did not; nor did I. I said your insult was out of date because Communism is all but dead in the world, and there's nothing to be gained by labelling rivals as "Commies" to discredit them. If you disagree with him, debate him, don't just call names.

Call to power wrote the following: "I'd say I'm more likely to vote the broke candidate what with there obvious lack of corporate oligarchy also luck plays a factor in capitalism and capitalism plays a factor in winning votes so everybody loses I'm reading that as something very scary"

That sounds like commiespeak to me. I am not sure what "corporate oligarchy" means but it sounds communist to me. People speaking commie stuff are probably just trolls becasuse as you agree, communism is all but dead in the world."

I agree that you did not write anything that sounded communist to me. Call to Power did though.

You understand, you're just pretending not to. No one advocated Communism. There may be some here that do, but he did not; nor did I. I said your insult was out of date because Communism is all but dead in the world, and there's nothing to be gained by labelling rivals as "Commies" to discredit them. If you disagree with him, debate him, don't just call names.

No offense to Call to Power but his post was a little vague and confusing. It is possible that two readers could take different meanings from his comment I guess. I took it as being communist in that it disparaged capitalism and seemed to advocate that the poor should be in charge of the property.

This is almost impossible. If he is not a millionaire he must have had some really terrible stroke of bad luck. Assuming he is not a millionaire (he might be one after all but not let on that he is one) my best guess is that he did something like invest too conservatively or did not diversify his investments. Both of these are poor financial decisions.

He's definitely not a millionaire.

If you call "having a family" or "not having an extremely high-paying job" a really terrible stroke of bad luck, then sure, it's just bad luck.

Spoiled rich kids usually are wasters of money and make just as stupid financial mistakes as anyone else. Just because I think it is important to understand the process of wealthbuilding does not mean that I am spoiled or a bad person, so lets please not get personal ok?

You claimed that your stepfather is at least 61 years old and is not a millionaire but lived below his means, worked hard, and invested throughout his life. You asked me if he did anything financially dumb. It is almost impossible that he did everything right and still is not a millionaire.

He did a lot of things right. However, if he is not even a millionaire by this point he must have done something wrong. The most likely possibilities are investing too conservatively (i.e. savings accounts, cash investments) or he did not diversify his investments. Did he do those things? If he did everything right throughout his whole life (or at least since being a teenager or in his early 20s, it is almost completely impossible for him not to at least have a net worth of $1,000,000.

I made no such claim about anyone. HotRodia did.

Call to power wrote the following: "I'd say I'm more likely to vote the broke candidate what with there obvious lack of corporate oligarchy also luck plays a factor in capitalism and capitalism plays a factor in winning votes so everybody loses I'm reading that as something very scary"

That sounds like commiespeak to me. I am not sure what "corporate oligarchy" means but it sounds communist to me. People speaking commie stuff are probably just trolls becasuse as you agree, communism is all but dead in the world."

I'm a capitalist, and even I acknowledge that there's a corporate oligarchy.

I stand by my original assesment. GF is most likely some High School or college kid with very little concept of the real world.

I made no such claim about anyone. HotRodia did.

My bad. Ok just to get this straight, Hot Rodia has a stepfather who is not a millionaire even though he apprently did a lot of things right and is 61 years old.

You merely think that I am a spoiled rich kid.

30X4000=120 000
1 000 000X0.85=850 000
850 000-120 000=730 000

So anyone who can't invest well enough to get the extra 730 000 over 30 years is just completely inept? I don't think you're necessarily a spoiled rich kid, although describing 700 000 as poor is certainly hard to even conceive for most citizens. I think you're someone who is primarily interested in finance and who therefore sees anyone whose knowledge lies in other areas as, not someone who hasn't specialized as you have, but as someone lacking basic common sense. Most people aren't serious investors nor are they required to be good citizens or wise people. Investing to make that kind of money is almost like another job, which is why most truly rich people who got their wealth another way hire someone else to do it for them.

It is true that the President of the United States has a lot of responsibilities regarding economic policy. This is why he appoints experts to the relevant posts and has other expert advisors. The President does not have to personally be an expert in every important policy area he deals with nor does he have to be personally accomplished in its practice. Obama is certainly an accomplished lawyer and the President is charged with the enforcement of national laws and yet no one is saying the candidates without a JD aren't qualified. Likewise, no one is saying the President has to have experience in law enforcement or to be accomplished as a military man, as Senator McCain is, even though he will serve as Commander-in-Chief. The President does not have to be an agronomist, a diplomat, a doctor or an engineer, although these areas are also important. Knowledge and experience in specific areas add to a President's qualifications but it is essentially a leadership and public policy post, not a specialized post in one of the many particular fields that the President is, in an ultimate sense, responsible for.

This easy millionaire stuff is such bullshit. You're in the top 1% of income earners if you're earning $364,657 a year or more. I don't care how good you are at investing, the vast majority of people aren't making nearly enough to have a million by 55, or by 155 for that matter.

My guess is that you're a spoiled rich kid with no concept of what it's like to work for a living.

I second the opinion.

This easy millionaire stuff is such bullshit. You're in the top 1% of income earners if you're earning $364,657 a year or more. I don't care how good you are at investing, the vast majority of people aren't making nearly enough to have a million by 55, or by 155 for that matter.

If someone started putting $4000 and only $4000 into a retirement account every year starting at age 22 and they invested in an age appropriate portfolio, they would almost certainly have at least a million in 35 years. Is that all that hard to do. Now unless they at least keep their contributions constant with inflation, a million bucks might be enough for a month's rent 35 years from now but still the concept is the same this is not all that hard. I do not think that it is BS. Also, this easy hypothetical does not even take into consideration the likely event that the average Joe will be a homeowner as well with little or no mortgage at age 57. It also does not take into account anything else for that matter.

Nobody will become a millionaire (at least in the sense of today's value of money) easily unless they either save regularly and invest in a risk-appropriate and properly diversified manner.

However, if someone saves regularly over the course of their lives and invests properly it is almost guaranteed. So much more so if someone builds equity in other ways too such as homeownership.

I know that this has drifted off topic somewhat but does anybody seriously think that getting rich slowly is impossible? If you do, go look at some of the investment growth claculators on the internet. With an ally like compounding interest on our side, it does not take a genius to acquire wealth over the long haul.

30X4000=120 000
1 000 000X0.85=850 000
850 000-120 000=730 000


Where are you going with this math? I do not understand the significance. Can you explain its significance please?

To me it really depends on how the candidate accumulated their riches. If it was handed to them by any way then that is a big negative. I respect people that are self made when it comes to money over the silver spoon types.

I know that this has drifted off topic somewhat but does anybody seriously think that getting rich slowly is impossible? If you do, go look at some of the investment growth claculators on the internet. With an ally like compounding interest on our side, it does not take a genius to acquire wealth over the long haul.

In this sense your right. With an average wage job and two people working they should be able to become millionares. The biggest mistake that people make is living up to their means or over it. When I was making a regular wage I was only living on 50% of my income. Now that the years have gone by and have developed a good source of income that rate has dropped down to 25-30%.

millionaire school teachers.

On their own income and investments? Not through the lottery or inheritance?

Where are these strange creatures you speak of?

In this sense your right. With an average wage job and two people working they should be able to become millionares. The biggest mistake that people make is living up to their means or over it. When I was making a regular wage I was only living on 50% of my income. Now that the years have gone by and have developed a good source of income that rate has dropped down to 25-30%.

That is very impressive! You might be a little overboard but hey since when was accumulating wealth faster a bad thing right? I think you take the prize for thrift! This is coming from a guy who gets excited about finding a penny on the sidewalk.

I think of wealth building in a related manner but one that is slightly different. Instead of thinking in terms of what percentage of my income goes to lifestyle expenses, I think in terms of what percentage of our family income is retained in value. There is no major difference, it just makes me feel better about the mortgage expense because some of each payment goes towards the reduction of the principal. Saying I paid the mortgage and all the other lifestyle expenses, and I have x left over is not as fun as saying not only do I have x but I also have the reduction of the amount owing on the mortgage. I think your approach is probably better because my approach could cause someone to become lax about their saving and not save as much.

On their own income and investments? Not through the lottery or inheritance?

Where are these strange creatures you speak of?

First I should mention that teachers in some parts of the country are paid so little that I do not even see how they can pay the light bills. However, for the teachers that are not destitute, those that are able to contribute $4000 a year to their 403(b) accounts will be millionaires in their 50s. This is espescially true if they do something else as well such as buy a home and pay it off or mostly off by the time tha tthey are in their 50s.

On top of these sources of wealth, they also usually get decent pensions, but these folks would be millionaires even without taking the pension into the net worth tally.

Perhaps we ought to have a standardized test for prospective presidential candidates, you know, find the following countries on a map, answer some questions about math and science and economics. I suppose it wouldn't work, but it's a thought.

I deny that statement being the result of any thinking processes whatsoever. That whould totally transform our democracy into a meritocracy! Then the people born into the best political families would be completely exempt from office and only the most intelligent, hard-working people (regardless of race, religious beliefs, gender, or sexual orientation, God forbid!) with actual experience of the life of the peasantry would run our country. Think of the children!!!:eek:

I deny that statement being the result of any thinking processes whatsoever. That whould totally transform our democracy into a meritocracy! Then the people born into the best political families would be completely exempt from office and only the most intelligent, hard-working people (regardless of race, religious beliefs, gender, or sexual orientation, God forbid!) with actual experience of the life of the peasantry would run our country. Think of the children!!!:eek:

Har!

There's reasons why a person would have very little money that I would strongly approve of. (please ignore the fact that I ended a sentence in a preposition. It's late.)

Perhaps people anonymously donate their money to charities or special causes like schools for the blind and deaf. I know there's no way to know that they did these things if it was done anonymously, but it shows a lot of character, and a lot of responsibility.

I'm a very poor person. But I can budget my money better than a lot of people that have my income and responsibilities.

Generally (and this is a VERY general statement and doesn't blanket everyone), if you show me a rich person, I'll just call them greedy for not doing something productive with their money besides spending it on themselves or keeping it.

Yes, there's Oprah, and she does some good things with her money, but why does she need it all? It's definitely hers to do with what she wants, but really, she could give 90% of it to worthy causes, save the world, and still have enough to throw a 500 person party every day for the rest of her life.

So to summarize it all, the only value I give to a rich person is that they're probably just selfish, and probably not the person I want in charge of the country I live in.

If someone started putting $4000 and only $4000 into a retirement account every year starting at age 22 and they invested in an age appropriate portfolio, they would almost certainly have at least a million in 35 years.

That would require a return on investment of, what, more than 9.5 percent? The current risk-free treasury rate in the US is less than five at the moment?

You’re not a finance whiz for accepting more risk. You accept more risk in the hope of a higher yield.

However, for the teachers that are not destitute, those that are able to contribute $4000 a year to their 403(b) accounts will be millionaires in their 50s.

This of course, completely discounts any of the more nitty gritty details that finance classes tend to gloss over. Like falling sick, or perhaps having the misfortune of meeting up with a bus that has issues negating its forward momentum, and of course, covering the medical expenses necessary to mitigate the damage caused.

And of course, children. Children are expensive prospects. Education, food, clothing, shelter, etc, etc.

And oh my, what about the off chance that you'll get laid off due to the latest round of budget cuts so that the Mayor can get a new office?

Also, lets not forget. The investments you've outlined here must be extremely solid ones, with little chance of plummeting in value overmuch. A difficult proposition.

You really do seem to have this peculiar idea that teachers will get paid an amount that leaves them with some $4000, per annum while having a tidy sum left for savings and miscellaneous unexpected expenses that crop up every so often.

This of course, completely discounts any of the more nitty gritty details that finance classes tend to gloss over. Like falling sick, or perhaps having the misfortune of meeting up with a bus that has issues negating its forward momentum, and of course, covering the medical expenses necessary to mitigate the damage caused.

And of course, children. Children are expensive prospects. Education, food, clothing, shelter, etc, etc.

And oh my, what about the off chance that you'll get laid off due to the latest round of budget cuts so that the Mayor can get a new office?

Also, lets not forget. The investments you've outlined here must be extremely solid ones, with little chance of plummeting in value overmuch. A difficult proposition.

You really do seem to have this peculiar idea that teachers will get paid an amount that leaves them with some $4000, per annum while having a tidy sum left for savings and miscellaneous unexpected expenses that crop up every so often.

I believe that he wasn't taking into account the pitfalls of life that can hit people such as layoffs or accidents. The average person with a typical life can prosper if they have a median income with both working. I like to add even with a kid or two.

I believe that he wasn't taking into account the pitfalls of life that can hit people such as layoffs or accidents. The average person with a typical life can prosper if they have a median income with both working. I like to add even with a kid or two.

No, he was claiming that only complete morons couldn't be millionaires 10 years before retirement age. I can't help but notice, however, that he hasn't explained, short of vague references to "smart investments" and "money management" how he expects that to be accomplished by a median income family with bills to pay. I only wish he were older so that it wouldn't be so long before I could laugh in his face for his own failure to accomplish this (this assumes that my guess about him being a spoiled rich kid who will just inherit his first milllion isn't true.)

No, he was claiming that only complete morons couldn't be millionaires 10 years before retirement age. I can't help but notice, however, that he hasn't explained, short of vague references to "smart investments" and "money management" how he expects that to be accomplished by a median income family with bills to pay. I only wish he were older so that it wouldn't be so long before I could laugh in his face for his own failure to accomplish this (this assumes that my guess about him being a spoiled rich kid who will just inherit his first milllion isn't true.)

Fair enough. I admit I haven't gone through the whole thread to read everything posted.

120 000 is the total amount you would have invested over the 30 years in your scenario. 850 000 is the amount you claim you would have after 30 years of wise investments. 730 000 is the net return you would need in order to realize your predictions with this scheme. So the 730 000 is the money you need to explain. You haven't yet, since the 4 000 a year in and of itself leads to only 120 000. Its obvious that annual returns, especially if reinvested, will increase this amount significantly above 120 000 but it doesn't seem obvious to anyone but you how it could be quite as high as you claim. And Xirnium's post basically explains why that's a bad assumption. Anyway, not everyone makes enough, especially with a family, to put aside 4 000. Obama was briefly doing well as a stock broker and then, finding it unfulfilling, he made a choice to work in the community for much less.

No, he was claiming that only complete morons couldn't be millionaires 10 years before retirement age.

And millionaire teachers. Don't forget he was also making issue that there were many of those.

I'd rather have a candidate that knows how to stretch their dollars, knows how to somehow get just enough money into everything that needs doing, or at least the important stuff, when there's very little money to be had to do it, than someone who simply knows how to accumulate extra riches.

I would have serious reservations about someone becoming president who wasn't already very successful in some respectable field, even if merely philanthropy.

120 000 is the total amount you would have invested over the 30 years in your scenario. 850 000 is the amount you claim you would have after 30 years of wise investments. 730 000 is the net return you would need in order to realize your predictions with this scheme. So the 730 000 is the money you need to explain. You haven't yet, since the 4 000 a year in and of itself leads to only 120 000. Its obvious that annual returns, especially if reinvested, will increase this amount significantly above 120 000 but it doesn't seem obvious to anyone but you how it could be quite as high as you claim. And Xirnium's post basically explains why that's a bad assumption. Anyway, not everyone makes enough, especially with a family, to put aside 4 000. Obama was briefly doing well as a stock broker and then, finding it unfulfilling, he made a choice to work in the community for much less.

Thanks for the explanation. The $730,000 of nominal dollars comes from compound interest at 9% per year which is fairly conservative considering that the S&P 500 typically grows (counting dividends as growth) at a little over 10% on mean average.

I went to fidelity's online investment growth calculator (it was the first search result after googling "investment growth calculator"). I set the contributions at $4000 per year, set the investment period at 30 years, did not increase investments by inflation rate, left inflation at zero, and left taxes at zero. The end value was $800,450 in nominal dollars. Asuming that someone started their investing at age 25 and this was all that they did to increase their net worth they should conservatively have accumulated $800,000 by age 55. Furthermore, a lot of people will have home equity at age 55 of at least $100,000. This puts them at $900,000 at age 55 which is pretty close to a million dollars of net worth acheived by reasonably achievable saving and investing commitments.

There's reasons why a person would have very little money that I would strongly approve of. (please ignore the fact that I ended a sentence in a preposition. It's late.)

Perhaps people anonymously donate their money to charities or special causes like schools for the blind and deaf. I know there's no way to know that they did these things if it was done anonymously, but it shows a lot of character, and a lot of responsibility.

I'm a very poor person. But I can budget my money better than a lot of people that have my income and responsibilities.

Generally (and this is a VERY general statement and doesn't blanket everyone), if you show me a rich person, I'll just call them greedy for not doing something productive with their money besides spending it on themselves or keeping it.

Yes, there's Oprah, and she does some good things with her money, but why does she need it all? It's definitely hers to do with what she wants, but really, she could give 90% of it to worthy causes, save the world, and still have enough to throw a 500 person party every day for the rest of her life.

So to summarize it all, the only value I give to a rich person is that they're probably just selfish, and probably not the person I want in charge of the country I live in.

I read a really interesting book the other month about American wealth attitudes from Benjamin Franklin to Donald Trump. Very many wealthy people give a lot of money to charity. Unfortunately our first super rich American was a miser. His name was John Jacob Astor. He kept everything and passed it all on to his family. It is my undersdtanding that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet (both of whom I believe are in the top 5 richest Americans) are leaving all of their wealth to charity.

Although, I think that some assets should be left to children, family members, and friends when we pass away, I think that a lot of wealthy people enjoy accumulating wealth for the sole purpose of pying for charitable works. I do not see anything wrong with this. We have a saying that, "talk is cheap but it takes money to buy beer." I think that if we want to significantly change the world for the better it takes charitable acts to accomplish this. We can only give to charity in a significant way if we have met our personal obligations first for necessities which includes retirement among other things. Then w eshould give to causes according to our conscience.

Surely, you do not find that repugnant? I have no idea what Oprah plans to do with her money upon her death, but if he bulk of her money goes to charity, great.

No, he was claiming that only complete morons couldn't be millionaires 10 years before retirement age. I can't help but notice, however, that he hasn't explained, short of vague references to "smart investments" and "money management" how he expects that to be accomplished by a median income family with bills to pay. I only wish he were older so that it wouldn't be so long before I could laugh in his face for his own failure to accomplish this (this assumes that my guess about him being a spoiled rich kid who will just inherit his first milllion isn't true.)

Goodness, I never called people complete morons because they were not millionaires by 55. However, I believe that it was Hot Rodia who was talking about his/her stepfather being 61 or older and not having a million in net worth despite having lived below his means and invested all his life. Hot Rodia believed that the stepfather "did everything right" but still did not have a million dollars. I pointed out that he probably did do evrything right --almost. He may not have diversified properly or he might have invested too conservatively.

I do not wish to be vague about how a typical American family can build a million dollars in wealth over 30 years. I had in mind a portfolio, primarily consisting of index stock funds, with an increasingly larger but still fairly small portion of the portfolio in bond index funds. I was basically looking at a portfolio with an avergae return of 9% per year. As most Americans start working at a point prior to age 25, my calculations were pretty conservative.

I also only assumed that one worker would be building this wealth. In a dual income family, there might be a higher result. This makes the $800,000 in the retirement account even more conservative. The other $200,000 or so comes from other things such as a home, one or two vehicles, cash, savings bonds, collectibles, furniture, and what have you. If a husband and wife aged 55 have a $125,000 in home equity and two cars each worth 10,000 we are up to $945,000 already. Assuming that they also have an emergency savings reserve of $5,000, and other assets of $5,000, we get pretty close to a million.

People who do not achieve this wealth are not necessarily morons, they just did not have a good financial plan and or made some mistakes like not diversifying your assets or investing in risk free investments for a long term goal.

That would require a return on investment of, what, more than 9.5 percent? The current risk-free treasury rate in the US is less than five at the moment?

You’re not a finance whiz for accepting more risk. You accept more risk in the hope of a higher yield.

I am not a finance whiz. I do not think that people need to be a finance whiz to make money over the long haul. Investors only need a little discipline and common sense. I helps to read a few basic primers on the subject but I do not think that people need to know everything. This is sespescially true of the index mutual fund investor.

The key is that you should match your investment assets with your goal. If I am saving to buy a car in 3 three years, I would invest my savings differently than I would for my retirement in 35 years.

Goodness, I never called people complete morons because they were not millionaires by 55. However, I believe that it was Hot Rodia who was talking about his/her stepfather being 61 or older and not having a million in net worth despite having lived below his means and invested all his life. Hot Rodia believed that the stepfather "did everything right" but still did not have a million dollars. I pointed out that he probably did do evrything right --almost. He may not have diversified properly or he might have invested too conservatively.

I do not wish to be vague about how a typical American family can build a million dollars in wealth over 30 years. I had in mind a portfolio, primarily consisting of index stock funds, with an increasingly larger but still fairly small portion of the portfolio in bond index funds. I was basically looking at a portfolio with an avergae return of 9% per year. As most Americans start working at a point prior to age 25, my calculations were pretty conservative.

I also only assumed that one worker would be building this wealth. In a dual income family, there might be a higher result. This makes the $800,000 in the retirement account even more conservative. The other $200,000 or so comes from other things such as a home, one or two vehicles, cash, savings bonds, collectibles, furniture, and what have you. If a husband and wife aged 55 have a $125,000 in home equity and two cars each worth 10,000 we are up to $945,000 already. Assuming that they also have an emergency savings reserve of $5,000, and other assets of $5,000, we get pretty close to a million.

People who do not achieve this wealth are not necessarily morons, they just did not have a good financial plan and or made some mistakes like not diversifying your assets or investing in risk free investments for a long term goal.

Have you not listened to everyone on this thread that has pointed out that your assertions are too simplistic, and fail to account for all eventualities? It isn't as easy as simply making good investments. Any unforseen circumstance can derail one's monetary success. Why do you not seem to understand that, or are you willfully ignoring that?

Rich men are usually born rich, and have no idea of what it actually like to be on the other side.
I would sooner vote for a man who has been poor.

I think it's better to have someone who knows what it's like to be poor. Billionaires and heavy millionaires only know how to enrichen the rich.

Define "poor". A candidate who was REALLY poor would never get to first base anyway. However, a person doesn't have to be stinking rich to make a good President. It's not like the people currently in charge of the country know anything about fiscal responsibility. One party wants to cover infinite spending with infinite taxes, and the other just pulls it out of their infinite @$$es. A person can easily have more financial smarts than our current leaders without being rich himself.

Well, assuming all of the financial stuff is correct and possible for any prudent person (still a point of contention, but for the sake of argument we'll grant it), Barack Obama is still 46. He's over two thirds of the way there and he's only about two thirds of the way between 25 and 55. Also, while he had a well-paid but brief stint at Business International Corporation earlier, which he left because he found it unsatisfying, Obama did not seriously start his career until her was 30, not 25. Most Americans start younger but a later start is fairly common for people whose careers require additional schooling, lawyers, doctors, etc. Personally, I'll be starting mine at age 28, after 8 years of school and a 2 year break from school working at the sort of job that barely pays enough to live on, much less to save. So, anyway, Obama has only been doing this for 16 years, not 30. Even with your figures, 700 000 seems reasonable at that point. Of course, if he were a savvy investor it might be higher but here I'll simply refer back to my earlier argument about the President being unable to specialize in everything or even in everything which is vitally important to the functioning of the executive branch. That's why there's a Cabinet and other expert advisors.

Not only would I vote for a poor Presidential candidate, but unless ze had a bunch of money and lost it, it would be a massive plus in zir favor.

Define "poor". A candidate who was REALLY poor would never get to first base anyway. However, a person doesn't have to be stinking rich to make a good President. It's not like the people currently in charge of the country know anything about fiscal responsibility. One party wants to cover infinite spending with infinite taxes, and the other just pulls it out of their infinite @$$es. A person can easily have more financial smarts than our current leaders without being rich himself.

You are the winner of this thread.

Well, assuming all of the financial stuff is correct and possible for any prudent person (still a point of contention, but for the sake of argument we'll grant it), Barack Obama is still 46. He's over two thirds of the way there and he's only about two thirds of the way between 25 and 55. Also, while he had a well-paid but brief stint at Business International Corporation earlier, which he left because he found it unsatisfying, Obama did not seriously start his career until her was 30, not 25. Most Americans start younger but a later start is fairly common for people whose careers require additional schooling, lawyers, doctors, etc. Personally, I'll be starting mine at age 28, after 8 years of school and a 2 year break from school working at the sort of job that barely pays enough to live on, much less to save. So, anyway, Obama has only been doing this for 16 years, not 30. Even with your figures, 700 000 seems reasonable at that point. Of course, if he were a savvy investor it might be higher but here I'll simply refer back to my earlier argument about the President being unable to specialize in everything or even in everything which is vitally important to the functioning of the executive branch. That's why there's a Cabinet and other expert advisors.

Thanks. I did not not know his age. I agree with you that Obama has a decent net worth for his age. Nothing against any candidate in particular, but I think that any president should have at least a basic grasp of finance even if for no other eason than he can have meaningful conversations with his advisors.

I think it's better to have someone who knows what it's like to be poor. Billionaires and heavy millionaires only know how to enrichen the rich.

Unless of course the rich candidate started with little or nothing and accumulated their wealth on their own.

Have you not listened to everyone on this thread that has pointed out that your assertions are too simplistic, and fail to account for all eventualities? It isn't as easy as simply making good investments. Any unforseen circumstance can derail one's monetary success. Why do you not seem to understand that, or are you willfully ignoring that?

I am not sure that financial plans are the fragile ships on tempestuos waters that you claim them to be. To be fair, I did not talk about complete plans so much as one or two components being home ownership and retirement fund contributions. Clearly, there is a need for emergency savings and proper insurance coverage.

I am not sure that financial plans are the fragile ships on tempestuos waters that you claim them to be. To be fair, I did not talk about complete plans so much as one or two components being home ownership and retirement fund contributions. Clearly, there is a need for emergency savings and proper insurance coverage.

And if you're too poor to buy a home because you have no money to spare, as it's all going to rent, power, gas, water and food? What then?

Your simplistic notions that everyone can be a millionaire are laughable. Clearly you've never lived on the other side. You expect everyone to be an expert in the field you're most interested in.

If I expected the same, everyone would think I was an asshole.