The material question - A study in contrasts

[cjppjc]

Re: The material question - A study in contrasts

A long and often public discussion would be a good thing. Not to change people's opinion, but to at least get them to ask the question.

[Ghent12]

Re: The material question - A study in contrasts

Many years ago my grandfather commented on this. He figured if more money wouldn't change the way you eat, or dress, or the kind of car you drive...you have enough.

But if you represent an "interest," then the correct answer would go like this:

Question: "How much is enough?"
Answer: "More."

[doom&gloom]

Re: The material question - A study in contrasts

This thread could probably be updated every day without any trouble. This one stuck out. He is only number 4.



http://finance.yahoo.com/news/man-mi...015300955.html

The Man With a Million Acres

He's from Kentucky, makes his own bourbon, drives a Ford pickup—and flies in a private plane.

These are some of the few details that have emerged about Brad Kelley, 55, a deeply private billionaire who made his fortune in the discount cigarette business. Mr. Kelley, whose hobbies include breeding rare, exotic animals, very rarely gives interviews. He doesn't tweet or use email.

He is also one of the largest private landowners in the country, spending by his own account hundreds of millions of dollars on about a million acres—or about 1,600 square miles. The state of Rhode Island, by comparison, has a land area of 1,215 square miles. According to the Land Report 100, which tracks land ownership, Mr. Kelley is the fourth-largest private landowner by acres in the U.S., just behind Liberty Media Chairman John Malone, media mogul Ted Turner and the Emmerson family, headed by timber magnate Archie Aldis Emmerson

I rarely get pangs of jealousy when I read about what others have, but this guy definitely make me jealous.

[doom&gloom]

Re: The material question - A study in contrasts

Many years ago my grandfather commented on this. He figured if more money wouldn't change the way you eat, or dress, or the kind of car you drive...you have enough.

I equate having enough as:

Not really changing my lifestyle while being able to keep up with inflation, and having something to leave to the kids in the end. In that respect, I think I have enough. Time will tell.

[globaleconomicollaps]

Re: The material question - A study in contrasts

I equate having enough as:

Not really changing my lifestyle while being able to keep up with inflation, and having something to leave to the kids in the end. In that respect, I think I have enough. Time will tell.

You guys are all treating this like philosophical question. It is not. The government knows to the penny how much is enough. It is called the poverty line. Wikipedia has:

in 2010, in the United States, the poverty threshold for one person under 65 was US$11,344 (annual income); the threshold for a family group of four, including two children, was US$22,133. According to the U.S. Census Bureau data released on September 13, 2011, the nation's poverty rate rose to 15.1 percent in 2010.

Note that they are using a pretty freaking low bar for poverty, but for the sake of argument lets go with it.
how much money do you need to be rich in America (i.e. not needing any more money ever)?
Simple. If you live to be ninety you will need ($11,344 x 90 ) = $1,020,960. This will cover rent, food, clothing and you will be set.
Now most people would say that to be rich, you need to own your own home free and clear ( no mortgage ). Some of this was already covered, but lets throw in a low income house. I will debate this point vigorously by the way. You do not under any circumstances have to own a house to "feel rich", and I would contend that it is such an enormous burden that most people will never achieve that rich state if they try to buy a house. So here it is:
3 bedrooms 2 baths 1000 sf ft. 58,000 smackers. Done. No philosophizing, no hemming and hawing about "feelings". This is science!

What have I not included here?
*)Eating out. Don't eat out. It is a waste of money. The food is indifferent and the service is bad.
*)A car. Don't drive. Bad for the environment and super expensive. I bought you a house walking distance to stores and parks. Get out and walk.
*)Medical. This is kind of covered by the $11,344/year, but realistically, medical will easily eat you alive. My advice? leave the US. You cannot live on this amount in the US. Go virtually anywhere else in the world. Even France ( one of the most expensive places on earth ) has a cheaper cost of living if you include medical than the US. Instantly, you go from being poor to being rich!

This last point is important. Rich is frequently a result of a massive government subsidy. If the government gives you a cancer treatment worth more money than you could ever hope to make in a lifetime, you have been gifted the gift of "rich". Much the same as the government giving Bill Gates a 200 foot yacht

[cjppjc]

Re: The material question - A study in contrasts

You guys are all treating this like philosophical question. It is not. The government knows to the penny how much is enough. It is called the poverty line. Wikipedia has:


Note that they are using a pretty freaking low bar for poverty, but for the sake of argument lets go with it.
how much money do you need to be rich in America (i.e. not needing any more money ever)?
Simple. If you live to be ninety you will need ($11,344 x 90 ) = $1,020,960. This will cover rent, food, clothing and you will be set.
Now most people would say that to be rich, you need to own your own home free and clear ( no mortgage ). Some of this was already covered, but lets throw in a low income house. I will debate this point vigorously by the way. You do not under any circumstances have to own a house to "feel rich", and I would contend that it is such an enormous burden that most people will never achieve that rich state if they try to buy a house. So here it is:
3 bedrooms 2 baths 1000 sf ft. 58,000 smackers. Done. No philosophizing, no hemming and hawing about "feelings". This is science!

What have I not included here?
*)Eating out. Don't eat out. It is a waste of money. The food is indifferent and the service is bad.
*)A car. Don't drive. Bad for the environment and super expensive. I bought you a house walking distance to stores and parks. Get out and walk.
*)Medical. This is kind of covered by the $11,344/year, but realistically, medical will easily eat you alive. My advice? leave the US. You cannot live on this amount in the US. Go virtually anywhere else in the world. Even France ( one of the most expensive places on earth ) has a cheaper cost of living if you include medical than the US. Instantly, you go from being poor to being rich!

This last point is important. Rich is frequently a result of a massive government subsidy. If the government gives you a cancer treatment worth more money than you could ever hope to make in a lifetime, you have been gifted the gift of "rich". Much the same as the government giving Bill Gates a 200 foot yacht

Yes, you are clearly missing the point I was trying to make.

[globaleconomicollaps]

Re: The material question - A study in contrasts

Yes, you are clearly missing the point I was trying to make.

The person who is missing the point is YOU! The only people who make this argument are people that have never been in this (these) situations. As someone who has experienced both extremes of the spectrum, I have to say that there very much IS a level of "enough" and not enough. The point when you can live in a house and eat food and buy clothes without working and know that you will be able to do this for the foreseeable future is qualitatively different from the reverse. This point has an exact number and it doesn't vary much from person to person. People with small children or infants in arms have a slightly higher number, but you are missing the point if you say this is all relative and no conclusions can be drawn.

[cjppjc]

Re: The material question - A study in contrasts

No YOU are missing the point. The point I am making is that the question can start a conversation about what is enough. That question is never discussed. The links posted to the conspicuous consumption as opposed to Charles Feeney in the first post, or some of the others that have been mentioned make a good starting point for this discussion. This discussion needs to be made at a higher level, than just this forum. Maybe people can come to a new understanding about money. Since money is such a driving force.