How Much Income Makes You Rich ..........?

[poanoi]

Depends if the country in question have funded the pension or not,

most european country pensions are funded, while US pensions are underfunded.

But even so, it does not take much to make US pensions sustainable,

now their healthcare OTOH..........is totally unfunded, and 5 times as costly.

Edited November 16, 2012 by poanoi

[Naam]

SS should not be your sole source of retirement income.

You must bear in mind that we pay into this all of our lives. Why would you not take it? It's your money.

Your retirement should come from multiple sources: SS, 401k, other investments, and the equity you have in your home. Lot of Europeans here living off a government pension only.

I would never trust my government for my welfare. That's the difference between Americans and the Euro's.

i claim that a multipleof Americans live on social insurance or welfare than "Euros". 46 million Americans without health insurance and drawing food stamps speaks volumes. they can only dream of 401ks and other investments

[Naam]

No one but the eating-dog-food desperate even consider the social security in their planning, most people I know that old haven't bothered accepting it's such an embarrassment to take any government welfare money.

Everyone's taught from puberty that you're on your own have to save yourself through the various IRA type private schemes, or just plain savings and investment; anything else would be considered socialistic and evil.

That's why we get such a chuckle out of Brits and Euros discussing petty rule changes, as if their governments are going to be able to afford to fund such luxuries at all in the future, completely unrealistic to depend on bureaucrats in a "democracy" for your future security.

indeed a valid point! present day European luxuries are unaffordable in the future.

[rene123]

There can be a big difference between being financially wealthy and being rich. I've met many "rich" people who only have modest incomes. But, they are financially secure and live a rich, full life. You can't buy happiness, and I've met a lot of insecure people who have a lot of money but don't enjoy life.

[geriatrickid]

In the U.S. currently, if you pay the maximum social security payments and take late retirement (69 or 70) your monthly pension will be just $2,700/month.

No one but the eating-dog-food desperate even consider the social security in their planning, most people I know that old haven't bothered accepting it's such an embarrassment to take any government welfare money.

Everyone's taught from puberty that you're on your own have to save yourself through the various IRA type private schemes, or just plain savings and investment; anything else would be considered socialistic and evil.

That's why we get such a chuckle out of Brits and Euros discussing petty rule changes, as if their governments are going to be able to afford to fund such luxuries at all in the future, completely unrealistic to depend on bureaucrats in a "democracy" for your future security.

If that is the case, then why was the US electorate in such a tizzy over proposals to address the precarious state of Social Security and other public benefit systems? The EU, Australia/NZ, Canada, & Japan entered into a social contract with their populations. In return for higher taxes, the state would provide basic social services. That might explain why the stakeholders in those countries have concerns.

[Heng]

It won't apply to everyone, but IMO you should have a debt level of zero and at least some of your income streams should be on autopilot or close to it (interest income, managed rental income, etc.). As for what actual numbers you want to plug into that... that'll be completely relative to the particular individual.

[Neeranam]

As Toybits commented, do not consider yourself rich just because you had money.

When I lived in the UK and worked as a rocket scientist, I was a GBP millionaire, (for a time until I got divorced!). I did not consider myself to be rich.

Now I work in Myanmar as a teacher, (although probably getting paid more than many teachers in Thailand and always have money spare at the end of each month). I consider myself 'rich' because of all the opportunities that are offered to me, and because of the genuine friendliness and generosity of those around me.

To measure richness only in terms of money is a very shallow [but common view] - IMHO.

Simon

I thought you earned more than 1million baht a month with sms messages or something.

[NeverSure]

If you can make a last minute flight reservation to fly off to another country (a personal expense, not business expense), any time you want, and not consider the cost, then you are rich.

Otherwise, you are not.

my definition of rich is: if that last minute flight reservation is for an 8-seater private Learjet which you buy after the flight.

I agree, but make that a Gulfstream. Lear jets are small, cramped, rough riding, noisy, and have limited range.

Why think small?

[Neeranam]

There can be a big difference between being financially wealthy and being rich. I've met many "rich" people who only have modest incomes. But, they are financially secure and live a rich, full life. You can't buy happiness, and I've met a lot of insecure people who have a lot of money but don't enjoy life.

I was speaking to a friend recently who was rich after inheriting money. Off his assets, he receive over 15 million baht a year, had a boat, airplane etc.

I am what I consider well off but not in all other people's eyes. It's relative as I used to be an English teacher earning 600,000 baht a year. Now I get double that.

The thing we both agreed on was that the times in our lives that were the happiest, were the times when we had little money.

It’s much better to die of hunger unhindered by grief and fear than to live affluently beset with worry, dread, suspicion, and unchecked desire.

Edited November 16, 2012 by Neeranam

[BigJohnnyBKK]

If that is the case, then why was the US electorate in such a tizzy over proposals to address the precarious state of Social Security and other public benefit systems? The EU, Australia/NZ, Canada, & Japan entered into a social contract with their populations. In return for higher taxes, the state would provide basic social services. That might explain why the stakeholders in those countries have concerns.

Because such a large percentage of the US electorate is in the eating-dog-food desperate category once they hit "retirement" age. They'll probably have to institute some sort of market-driven or lottery based old-age euthanasia policy at some point down the road if they want to adhere to their low-tax religion, which they're even more passionate about.

Can't have it both ways.

[NeverSure]

In talking about these issues here, I figure for long-term residents in the not-too-outrageous levels, baht-per-month pretty well translates to dollars-per-year for overall relative standard of living. For me anyway, where labor-intensive local inputs far outweigh imported goods.

IOW I consider a 100,000 baht a month lifestyle here to be comparable - actually superior - to a USD $100K per annum one back home, even though it actually translates to around 40K.

But what I really love about Thailand isn't even available over there though so in the end it's apples to oranges innit.

I agree.

Aside from Bangkok, I usually find that the equivalent per month in Thai baht, is the equivalent to a annual amount in dollars per year in terms of lifestyle:

For example: 90,000 baht/month = $90,000 /year (equivalent lifestyle).

I personally think that if you are single in Thailand and have income of over 60 - 70k/month you are living quite comfortably (unless you live in Pattaya and visit the beer bars every night )

Wow, it really depends on where you live in the US, doesn't it? I mean, you could really struggle on $90k in Manhattan, but live like a king in many less populated areas?

After comparing both, I've decided (but don't ask anyone to agree) that it's cheaper and easier for a retired US citizen to live in small town US than it is in LOS.

Just for starters, there's Medicare Advantage for about $125 a month for those 65 or older. That could save the whole nine yards some day. Cars and motorcycles and other consumer goods are enough cheaper to offset the rent on an apartment in small town US - I'm figuring $750 rent. Food and other staples are WAY cheaper except for Thai food found in LOS. I love Thai food but couldn't hack it 24/7 when I've been there.

Quality has to come in somewhere too. Just because something's cheap doesn't make it a bargain. I recently bought 30 pounds of USDA choice beef roast and another 30 pounds of top sirloin steak for $2.99 a pound on sale - $150 US for 60 pounds. This was the real deal corn fed US beef; not what I saw in LOS.

This isn't a debate. It's just my opinion and YMMV. It's my $.02 and probably not worth that much.

[farangme]

In talking about these issues here, I figure for long-term residents in the not-too-outrageous levels, baht-per-month pretty well translates to dollars-per-year for overall relative standard of living. For me anyway, where labor-intensive local inputs far outweigh imported goods.

IOW I consider a 100,000 baht a month lifestyle here to be comparable - actually superior - to a USD $100K per annum one back home, even though it actually translates to around 40K.

But what I really love about Thailand isn't even available over there though so in the end it's apples to oranges innit.

I agree.

Aside from Bangkok, I usually find that the equivalent per month in Thai baht, is the equivalent to a annual amount in dollars per year in terms of lifestyle:

For example: 90,000 baht/month = $90,000 /year (equivalent lifestyle).

I personally think that if you are single in Thailand and have income of over 60 - 70k/month you are living quite comfortably (unless you live in Pattaya and visit the beer bars every night )

Wow, it really depends on where you live in the US, doesn't it? I mean, you could really struggle on $90k in Manhattan, but live like a king in many less populated areas?

After comparing both, I've decided (but don't ask anyone to agree) that it's cheaper and easier for a retired US citizen to live in small town US than it is in LOS.

Just for starters, there's Medicare Advantage for about $125 a month for those 65 or older. That could save the whole nine yards some day. Cars and motorcycles and other consumer goods are enough cheaper to offset the rent on an apartment in small town US - I'm figuring $750 rent. Food and other staples are WAY cheaper except for Thai food found in LOS. I love Thai food but couldn't hack it 24/7 when I've been there.

Quality has to come in somewhere too. Just because something's cheap doesn't make it a bargain. I recently bought 30 pounds of USDA choice beef roast and another 30 pounds of top sirloin steak for $2.99 a pound on sale - $150 US for 60 pounds. This was the real deal corn fed US beef; not what I saw in LOS.

This isn't a debate. It's just my opinion and YMMV. It's my $.02 and probably not worth that much.

In general I'd agree. If you want to go native in TL, you can live cheaply. If you want a comfortable western lifestyle, TL is not cheap and can quickly get very expensive. The only caveat would be housing, which is generally inexpensive in TL and much more expensive in the U.S.

Sent from my PC36100 using Thaivisa Connect App

[BigJohnnyBKK]

After comparing both, I've decided (but don't ask anyone to agree) that it's cheaper and easier for a retired US citizen to live in small town US than it is in LOS.

Unless of course the girls are important to you, that's really the main reason most people stay here, all the rest is window dressing.

[NeverSure]

After comparing both, I've decided (but don't ask anyone to agree) that it's cheaper and easier for a retired US citizen to live in small town US than it is in LOS.

Unless of course the girls are important to you, that's really the main reason most people stay here, all the rest is window dressing.

Couldn't agree more.

[BigJohnnyBKK]

Wow, it really depends on where you live in the US, doesn't it? I mean, you could really struggle on $90k in Manhattan, but live like a king in many less populated areas?

On 90K in Manhattan, you're definitely in the bottom half of the farang population, living in a dangerous part of town, compromise on your health care coverage, hardly ever eating out other than junk food, smoking and drinking habits would determine whether you could afford decent professional clothing.

Certainly struggling at a much more basic level if you had kids to educate.

Small town in a farming area you'd be in the 1% and live accordingly.

Edited November 17, 2012 by BigJohnnyBKK

[Chittychangchang]

I'm rich in life but i'll still keep buying my lottery tickets.

[NeverSure]

Wow, it really depends on where you live in the US, doesn't it? I mean, you could really struggle on $90k in Manhattan, but live like a king in many less populated areas?

On 90K in Manhattan, you're definitely in the bottom half of the farang population, living in a dangerous part of town, compromise on your health care coverage, hardly ever eating out other than junk food, smoking and drinking habits would determine whether you could afford decent professional clothing.

Certainly struggling at a much more basic level if you had kids to educate.

Small town in a farming area you'd be in the 1% and live accordingly.

Dead on right you are.

Actually, I was shocked at the numbers in a "real" farming area. "Real" as in those places where farms or ranches run into the 500 to thousands of acres such as farms in the Midwest and ranches in the West.

I may have mentioned that I was a banker in my early years. I worked as an auditor for a bank with more than 100 branches. The very richest branch per capita in town and per depositor was in one of the smallest towns in Oregon in the middle of nowhere. The average checking and savings account balance was $1 million US in the 70's. That included averaging in the waitress at the local diner. This is wheat and cattle country BTW.

Even then it was a cheap place to live because land was plentiful, people had simple expectations, nothing except the brand of hat and boots was for show, and it was life in the slow lane. There also weren't tourists.

The big money was of course in the ranches and cattle herds, but the John Deere dealer was rich as were the new car dealers, the parts store owner, the feed and seed store owner, a lawyer, a couple of doctors, and so on. One customer was a salesman at the John Deere dealer and his commissions back then were more than $100k.

It's still a great life in that country and the people are the salt of the earth. If you don't recognize hats and boots for what they are, you'd never know they had a dime. All of their wealth is out at the ranch or in the bank.

[poanoi]

If that is the case, then why was the US electorate in such a tizzy over proposals to address the precarious state of Social Security and other public benefit systems? The EU, Australia/NZ, Canada, & Japan entered into a social contract with their populations. In return for higher taxes, the state would provide basic social services. That might explain why the stakeholders in those countries have concerns.

Because such a large percentage of the US electorate is in the eating-dog-food desperate category once they hit "retirement" age. They'll probably have to institute some sort of market-driven or lottery based old-age euthanasia policy at some point down the road if they want to adhere to their low-tax religion, which they're even more passionate about.

Can't have it both ways.

There is another way far more likely.

Bismark created the first old age pension system by guaranteeing an income from the age of 65.

This was sustainable because the life expectancy was 55.

USA will have to index age pensions to life expectancy and it will be sustainable without tax raise.

Far more difficult will be to make medicare & medicaid sustainable,

i think the possibility to sue for millions will have to disappear altogether,

so cheaper medicine can be administered, and less expensive alternative treatment applied,

tax will also need an increase

[thaibeachlovers]

Very true. How many people would be happy if they had broken teeth that they could not afford to have fixed, for instance.

How did you know? All four quarters, hardly any molars left and two toward the front as well top and bottom.

You don't have to smile in public to be happy. . .

If you mean missing teeth, that's not what I'm referring to. I'm talking about a broken tooth with sharp edges that cuts your mouth. I've had 3 recently. Drove me batty till they were fixed.

[thaibeachlovers]

If that is the case, then why was the US electorate in such a tizzy over proposals to address the precarious state of Social Security and other public benefit systems? The EU, Australia/NZ, Canada, & Japan entered into a social contract with their populations. In return for higher taxes, the state would provide basic social services. That might explain why the stakeholders in those countries have concerns.

Because such a large percentage of the US electorate is in the eating-dog-food desperate category once they hit "retirement" age. They'll probably have to institute some sort of market-driven or lottery based old-age euthanasia policy at some point down the road if they want to adhere to their low-tax religion, which they're even more passionate about.

Can't have it both ways.

There is another way far more likely.

Bismark created the first old age pension system by guaranteeing an income from the age of 65.

This was sustainable because the life expectancy was 55.

USA will have to index age pensions to life expectancy and it will be sustainable without tax raise.

Far more difficult will be to make medicare & medicaid sustainable,

i think the possibility to sue for millions will have to disappear altogether,

so cheaper medicine can be administered, and less expensive alternative treatment applied,

tax will also need an increase

It's the American desire to sue for everything that makes medical treatrment so expensive. Institute the New Zealand ACC system and it gets a lot cheaper.

[thaibeachlovers]

In the U.S. currently, if you pay the maximum social security payments and take late retirement (69 or 70) your monthly pension will be just $2,700/month.

No one but the eating-dog-food desperate even consider the social security in their planning, most people I know that old haven't bothered accepting it's such an embarrassment to take any government welfare money.

Everyone's taught from puberty that you're on your own have to save yourself through the various IRA type private schemes, or just plain savings and investment; anything else would be considered socialistic and evil.

That's why we get such a chuckle out of Brits and Euros discussing petty rule changes, as if their governments are going to be able to afford to fund such luxuries at all in the future, completely unrealistic to depend on bureaucrats in a "democracy" for your future security.

If that is the case, then why was the US electorate in such a tizzy over proposals to address the precarious state of Social Security and other public benefit systems? The EU, Australia/NZ, Canada, & Japan entered into a social contract with their populations. In return for higher taxes, the state would provide basic social services. That might explain why the stakeholders in those countries have concerns.

I am one such that has concerns. I'd have been happy to have paid for a guaranteed pension if I paid less tax, but such was not available when I was a young working man. So I did the right thing, worked and paid tax all my life, but now it's all "we can't afford it". So what am I expected to do if that happens- crawl away and die quietly?

[fareastguy]

Well I guess you could say that the answer in monetary terms is if you have 1 baht left in your arse pocket after buying everything you want then you could be classed as rich.

However if you mean to compare how much more you've got left over than the next person after buying everything then you could go on for ever.

But that's talking rich in monetary terms, I know plenty of people (thankfully) on a moderate income who are richer than the wealthiest people alive!

[phuturatica]

If you feel the need to brag about your income and your status as an offshore seaman in comparison to teachers then you must be a very sad individual.

[BigJohnnyBKK]

If you mean missing teeth, that's not what I'm referring to. I'm talking about a broken tooth with sharp edges that cuts your mouth. I've had 3 recently. Drove me batty till they were fixed.

The sharp edges get smoothed down soon enough.

If you feel the need to brag about your income and your status as an offshore seaman in comparison to teachers then you must be a very sad individual.

I agree as long as you mean wrt to the need to boast (or even compare) rather than just for being so poor.

It's the American desire to sue for everything that makes medical treatrment so expensive. Institute the New Zealand ACC system and it gets a lot cheaper.

That's certainly one factor. IMO a more serious issue is the huge combined political power wielded by the insurance companies, the medical profession and big pharma. All are grossly overpaid IMO, there's little reason for doctors and lawyers to make so much more than other professions.

However the far bigger issue - I think required as a necessary (but not sufficient) first step to solving nearly all practical problems in the US political economy - eliminating the unrestricted power of big money from electoral politics.

The other fundamental issue is that many Americans don't think it's the job of government to ensure the economic well-being of its citizens, that it's better overall to let the bottom segment of the population live in extreme hardship. I can see the point from a purely economic argument wrt to the elderly, but not with children, as the lost productivity and higher remedial costs later on so overwhelm the small investment in preventative measures.

Edited November 18, 2012 by BigJohnnyBKK

[farang000999]

It's the third party payer system. Everyone wants to get their money's worth when they finally end up going to the doctor because they have been paying all along. Doctors are more than happy to oblige by ordering as many extra and unnecessary procedures and tests because you never know. Doctors pass this off as being cautious because of the legal enviroment but really it is just about making money.

[MAJIC]

An old saying is: if you need to ask the price then you can't afford it.

So consequently not rich either.

[thehelmsman]

If you feel the need to brag about your income and your status as an offshore seaman in comparison to teachers then you must be a very sad individual.

Not sure how you can interpret what I wrote to bragging - But I do want to thank you for giving me "STATUS" I work 8-16 hrs a day - 7 days a week for 4-5 months - rotate shifts - Wow thats a real status type job. I don't feel envy towards the rich nor do I feel any pity for the poor. We all make our own way in this world.

[NeverSure]

Wow. So many misconceptions I must say, but what does it have to do with defining how much income makes you "rich?"

I think I'm rich if I have opportunity, freedom to pursue it, and no one to steal my money after I earned it.

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

- Thomas Jefferson

"See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime."

- Frederic Bastiat

[poanoi]

3sum is more fun

-Dr Freud

[BigJohnnyBKK]

Wow. So many misconceptions I must say, but what does it have to do with defining how much income makes you "rich?"

I think I'm rich if I have opportunity, freedom to pursue it, and no one to steal my money after I earned it.

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

- Thomas Jefferson

"See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime."

- Frederic Bastiat

Not saying I disagree with the political ideas here, nor accusing you of knowingly trying to deceive, but at least some of your quotes have been shown to be complete fabrications of the whacko Rush Limbaugh / Fox News oriented right wing, I haven't bothered checking all, and will leave it to you to point to credible non-ideological academic or reference sources if you care to bother spending the time with google shouldn't be too hard, I'm sure some of them may be authenticated quotes.

Edited November 19, 2012 by BigJohnnyBKK