if you have more than 100k a year in expenses you objectively do not live a normal lifestyle you are so incredibly dumb and clueless
Is it normal? Maybe for lower to middle middle class. We're talking generational wealth. Like the kind of people who don't think splurging is getting the double wide.
I’m really struggling to think of any definition of generational wealth that doesn’t include the ability to pay 4 of your failsons $500k a year from just the passive income of your bankroll
this honestly seems like a capitulation to the original point. like you know how dumb you were being but instead of admitting it you’re just pivoting to absurd hypothetical expenses
How many family members have been sucking off that teat for years? Is it one owner with a family or (I am guessing) a few siblings who will be splitting up the proceeds? Generational wealth to me means generations can live a relatively upscale manner without working. 1 person can make that happen with $40mm, but 3 people splitting it up would make that unlikely.
Sigh…okay fellas, when I said normal, that meant like an average American family, which Google tells me is about $100k a year. Hence the use of the term normal. Going above that plays into other variables which was my initial plan of discussion, hence why I wanted the answer to the qualifier instead of having to waste time reading nothing posts.
The general consensus 3-4% annual withdraw rate is safe. That said… $1.6M per year would probably be enough to scape by.
100k is an outrageously expensive year for an individual and probably on the low end for a family with kids
Under 700,000 people on the planet have a net worth over $30mm. You people saying “no” or “it depends” are delusional.
depends on where you live and what the housing market dictates I don’t live an extravagant lifestyle but spend almost that much each year on housing
Yes? I’m assuming you are underestimating your expenses. We have a family of four in Omaha, NE and that number seems very reasonable, I can’t imagine our expenses are less than 100k. How much money are you putting away annually if your expenses are below 100k for a family of 4? I would imagine it’s a ton.
By definition it can’t be generational wealth if there’s only one person, so it’s definitely a family. I still think 40 million has to be considered generational, how many generations depends on how many kids and how much expenditures, but not a chance a non-asshole would blow this kinda lead in life so yeah, generational.
People in this board are not at all representative. The average family income is under $100k, and the median is under $70k.
I didn’t think we were talking about the average family in America. A lot of people really struggle in this country. And a “comfortable lifestyle” is super subjective
Yeah and the average family can’t retire that ain’t generational wealth. Your expenses Have to be assumed to be much higher than 100k annually
But we’re talking about an amount of money that without doing anything generates a cash flow 30x the median US household. And that’s not even considering the appreciation of real assets or access to credit.
What I’m getting at is what number is the actual number using your criteria because 40MM should be a no brainer for anyone. 10MM? 15MM?
Finally, an answer to my first qualifier! Okey dokey, let’s work from here now: Assuming our generational family is living with baller status (aka top 1%) in a higher status state (Cali, New York, etc.) you’re looking at somewhere in the range of probably $300-400k a year in expenses for a family of four. We’ll further assume the higher end of that and that the parents are 30 and the money is come into when the children are around two years old; so we’re looking at $8M of that money gone by the time the kiddos are graduated from undergrad. Let’s further say that the kids are then each given a 1/3 split while the parents keep the last third; that equates to ~$11M per party. If the children then have their family of four and repeat the prior pattern, the initial seed of cash will be depleted right about the time their kids are graduated from undergrad. If the grandparents reduced their spending by half to account for the lost kids, they’ll be set for another 55 years, enough to comfortably cover their retirement. Final take: Without investing the initial money, you’re gonna be broke quicker than you think.
Yeah somewhere between 10-20 mil becomes a question for me, mostly related to how many kids and how you define generational. 5 kids and 10 mil is a stretch, 2 kids and 10 is plenty
The low limit for generational wealth? I think $10mm in investable assets should do the trick. With some of the “it depends” questions falling in the right direction, $5mm could.
Do you people understand the median HHLD income in this country is like 65k???? So no, an average family isn't having 100k in expenses
Yeah same, I understand I’m not representative of the average family, I also live around NYC where if two parents are earning minimum Wage thwyre well over 65k a year in income
I’m tired of these dumb hypotheticals. Let’s put our money where our mouth is and put these ideas into use. I need 40 of you to each wire me $1million dollars.
But have you considered that I won’t get to live like an oil sheik on a mere 400k a year in passive income
do you think people with money don’t invest their money? like they’re all Floyd Mayweather with 120 mil in cash in savings accounts earning a fraction of a percent interest? I would imagine 99% of people with 40 mil are investing their money and earning a return on that investment that could at the very least sustain a fairly modest lifestyle. Of course 40 million is not generational if it’s spent and not invested. I don’t think that was what the OP meant.
uhhh if you spend 35k a year on vacations and you have a budget, you can’t afford to spend 35k a year on vacations