Tom and Gisele’s mansion
People like to throw around random net worth figures all the time when asked how much is considered rich or how much they would need to never work again. Often, the figures just sound nice, like saying “one meeeeleon dollars” without any mathematical justification.
This post puts some numbers behind ascertaining how much wealth one needs to be in the top 1%. Remember, having a large net worth is better than having a high income. The government goes after income more than it goes after wealth. For example, you can live in a $8 million mansion and get Universal Healthcare subsidies if you make less than ~$94,000 a year with a family of four.
So what do we know?
Based on my Top 1% Income Earners post, we know that in order to be in the top 1%, you’ve got to earn at least $380,000 in gross income a year. The data comes from the all-knowing IRS.
Based on my Net Worth For The Upper Middle Class post, we learn that the net worth range for the top 15% of all Americans between the ages of 45 – 74 is around $700,000 – $830,000.
Finally, I’ve shown numerous examples as to why earning roughly $200,000 – $250,000 gross a year per person and $300,000 a year per couple is the ideal income for maximum happiness. Being rich is sometimes a state of mind, and I’ll use these income figures in my analysis as well.
Given these data points, I’d like to construct two simple models to demonstrate what I think should be considered top 1% rich. All wealth and no income is not ideal. Similarly, all income and no wealth is not ideal either. There needs to be a balance.
THE TOP 1% WEALTH AMOUNT
Instead of going through stale Federal Reserve data about wealth and population stats, I’d rather create logical assumptions based on the existing current top 1% income data. We know the constant variable X (top 1% income). All we have to do is solve for Y (top 1% net worth) based on Z, an agreed upon income multiplier determined by yours truly.
At the age of 35, one should have about 4X gross income as a net worth. At the age of 45, one should have about 9X gross income as a net worth. By the time one turns 60, the net worth figure should be closer to 20X gross income. Don’t believe me? Read the source: How Much Should My Net Worth Be By Income. Making money means nothing if you have nothing to show for it!
One can therefore conclude that a top 1% income-earning 35 year old should have $1,520,000 in net worth to coincide with her $380,0000 a year income if she wants to be in the top 1% net worth echelon. To be clear, the $3.42 million/$380K ratio should be considered the minimum combo for a 35 year old.
A 45 year old top 1% income earner should therefore have roughly $3,420,000 in net worth. While a 60 year old should have a net worth of roughly $7,620,000. Have a look at the chart below to get a good snapshot of top 1% net worth starting at age 25. I’ll then share some further analysis after you digest the chart.
* Top 1% net worth is relative to our ages. It’s unfair to compare a 60 year old’s net worth with 35 more years to accumulate wealth to a 25 year old’s net worth.
* Younger people in this chart will logically have a tougher time getting to the top 1% income figure of $380,000 compared to older people. At the same time, the multiplier younger people have to hit to get into the top 1% net worth is also lower. I start at age 25 as a result, because so few people will make $380,000 within a couple years out of college.
* If you have around $380,000 in net worth at age 25, you’re in the top 1% probably due to some savvy investments made right out of college. Income alone isn’t going to cut it. You may have just started making a top 1% income of $380,000 as a highly coveted software engineer or finance whiz, but thanks to taxes and general living expenses, accumulating $380,000 in net worth by age 25 still isn’t that easy.
* The minimum income multiplier peaks at the traditional retirement age 65 because it’s pointless to accumulate so much more money when you’ve got less than 35 years to live. Social Security is available at 65, adding another million to your net worth if you capitalize its annual payments.
* The minimum income multiplier stays steady at 14 after age 80 in order to maintain a $5.3 million net worth figure. $5.3 million is the limit per individual one can pass on before the Death Tax kicks in and takes half. You might as well spend every single last penny above $5.3 million on yourself, loved ones, or charities instead of giving it to an inefficient government.
* The top 1% net worth figures in the chart are for individuals. But, feel free to use the net worth figures as targets to shoot for if you are a married couple as well since you are a unit. Just know that the Death Tax income limit logically doubles to $10.3 million, unlike the highest income threshold for our progressive tax system ($400,000 + $400,000 = $450,000).
REPLICATING TOP 1% WEALTH BY LIFESTYLE AND SAVINGS RATE
The definition of “rich” can be someone who no longer has to work for a living, while maintaining a top 1% income earning lifestyle. This is where things get a little tricky, because many people spend $380,000+ differently.
When I was making the big bucks, I would always save at least 50% of everything I earned after maxing out my 401k. I knew the income wouldn’t last forever because the job was not sustainable. Given my 50% savings rate, a $380,000+ gross income lifestyle could be matched by someone spending 100% of his $180,000 gross income.
On the other hand, many of my colleagues easily spent 90% – 100% of their $380,000+ gross incomes. One close colleague told me, if he didn’t make at least $500,000 a year, he couldn’t save any money! He required at least $300,000 a year after-taxes to support his family of four. Talk about a high burn rate.
Related: How To Make $200,000 A Year And Not Feel Rich
Given the risk-free rate is currently at around 2.5% +/- 0.5%, one needs a net worth of roughly $15,000,000 ($380,000 / 2.5%) to be able to generate $380,000 a year in top 1% income. $15 million can therefore be considered the upper band for the definition of rich in today’s environment using this methodology.
If we assume that earning $200,000 gross income per person is considered rich because it’s the ideal income for maximum happiness, then one needs a net worth of roughly $10,000,000 ($200,000 / 2.5%) to be in the top 1% of net worth. A $200,000 gross income is equivalent to a $380,000 income earner saving 48% of their gross income.
Finally, if we assume the $380,000 income earner only lives off 25% of their gross salary (75% savings rate), then we can assume the $95,000 a year spender requires $3,800,000 in net worth to feel rich.
Here’s a chart that shows what one needs to accumulate based on a 2.5% risk free rate and various savings rates. The risk free rate will obviously adjust over time, but I don’t think it’ll get over 3% for a long while.
RICH BY NUMBERS AND RICH BY MIND
Only the poor or super wealthy say money can’t buy happiness. For most of us middle class citizens, becoming rich is a nice goal to have. Now you’ve got some concrete figures to shoot for by age. And if you’ve ever wondered whether you’re already rich, now you can know for sure!
Loading ...FREE WEALTH MANAGEMENT TOOL
Manage Your Finances In One Place: One of the best way to build your net worth is by signing up with Personal Capital. They are a free online platform which aggregates all your financial accounts in one place so you can see where you can optimize your money. Before Personal Capital, I had to log into eight different systems to track 25+ difference accounts (brokerage, multiple banks, 401K, etc) to manage my finances on an Excel spreadsheet. Now, I can just log into Personal Capital to see how all my accounts are doing, including my net worth. I can also see how much I’m spending and saving every month through their cash flow tool.
The best feature is their Portfolio Fee Analyzer, which runs your investment portfolio(s) through its software in a click of a button to see what you are paying. I found out I was paying $1,700 a year in portfolio fees I had no idea I was hemorrhaging! There is no better financial tool online that has helped me more to achieve financial freedom. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Is your retirement on track? Check with PC’s Retirement Planner today.
Updated for 2018 and beyond. The bull market should be making a lot of people wealthier if they’ve been continuously investing all this time!
I’d be happy with 2-3 million. It would let me retire around 55 and not worry about the future. I chose a profession that doesn’t pay extremely well, and, while I do enjoy it, in hindsight, might have chosen a different field. Still maxing out 401k and saving about 38% of income beyond that.
My greatest concern as a Gen-Xer is that the federal government will change regulations and tax Roths on withdrawal, and up the taxes on 401k withdrawal.
Given that many studies show Americans go in and out of salary ranges, with many in the top 1% for a year or so then they drop off, the net worth numbers don’t seem to make sense, even if the salary does.
Do you have to average the 380k salary for the full time period to get the net worth? So if you hit the $380 for years 60-65, but have a career with an entry level job from 20-25, then a break from school, then a steady progression until 60 when you have a “breakout year” what should you have saved? Given the 4% rule, wouldn’t $5M be rich by anyone’s standard? Isn’t 2.5% artificially low? (Note the fed states it is in a mood to raise rates)
I agree, there big salary comes usually in the mid to late 40s. One usually makes just below and just above 100K for a large portion of their career.
$2-3 million……………….. That seems enough to me, also, to feel rich. Assumptions included are no more than two-person family, no unusual outside expenses such as alimony, extreme illness, etc, and not living in a very high cost area. Age also matters. Having only days or weeks left to live renders financial wealth unimportant other than attending to the needs of the moment.Ma
Great post and interesting info. Do you think the net worth goals should change at all depending on how many children one has?
I don’t think it matters as much if you can follow the net worth progression and reach $5.3 million or greater by age 65. That is, unless you have more than four kids, and all the kids don’t become independent after adulthood.
I think it does matter how many kids, unless you are already very wealthy. We recently became pregnant again unexpectedly, and it caused us to reassess all of our financial goals and plans. Now I am even more focused on increasing income and savings rate. We also decided that instead of paying for each child’s college education, we will be giving them each a fixed dollar amount and they can use it how they choose (as long as it’s for education). Also, they will need to go to public school rather than private and we will be moving to a suburb with top schools. The calculations change when you have 3+ kids!
First of all, congrats!
Do you consider the income and net worth figures in my chart “very wealthy”? If so, then I think normal sized families should get by just fine if they follow the net worth trajectory.
If the figures in the chart are not considered wealthy, what is your definition of wealthy by net worth and income?
Going to a good public school sounds good to me. That’s why I did for high school and turned out OK :) So did all of my friends.
I know you do a lot of posts on public schools vs. private schools. But maybe you could also talk about saving for college and how to do it. If you have the money- do you fully fund their education? Do you make them borrow some money? Etc… I know a lot of your readers do have kids. Thanks!
Sam, I don’t consider the net worth figures in your table to be “very wealthy.” If you live in a high COLA, your housing costs and other costs are going to be just manageable. We don’t make that income (380k) so maybe that’s why it seems difficult to make it!
Agree with this here. I did think about this some more and decided that at the end of the day, it is probably a bit difficult to nail down exact numbers with regard to wealth and kids. As all parents probably know, kids can (but don’t have to) cost a decent bit of $$ to raise. Some may have special needs, some parents want to send kids to private school, some parents want to pay for college, etc.
My personal measure (as an esteemed member of the 380k+ club) is having enough to pay for college for each child. I would probably add at least $100K to the net worth goal for each child one has.
At least in NYC, a lot of my friends have moved to either Long Island or New Jersey for the better schools but then they get hit with the insanely high real estate taxes. I might end up “renting” in the suburbs when I have number one, but there is NO way I am retiring there. Some parts of Long Island and New Jersey you can end up paying $12K+ in real estate taxes for a 400K+ home, NOT including the $400 a month in commuting costs…
Thats really not obscenely high. I live in the midwest in a city with a population of about 20,000 and the taxes on my $100k house is about $2,000. So for a $400k one, it would be about $8,000. Considering how much more things cost over there, I would have thought it would have been even more.
Matt: Anyone who pays $1,000/month (and more) in property tax on a $400,000 home never truly own’s his own home.
Furthermore, theofficialjohnandre is paying 3 times the amount of property tax per month for a home which is only 4 times as valuable as yours.
Using your home as the standard, in order for you to pay the equivalent amount in property tax on a monthly basis as theofficialjohnandre you’d have to own a $600,000 home, e.g., your home would be 1 1/2 times more valuable/expensive than the originaljohnandre’s $400,000 home.
Living in a high cost, i.e., high tax, area chews through one’s discretionary income at a much faster rate than that of a person living in a low cost state.
I live in SoCal and plan to retire to Montana, which, although not a “tax friendly state,” is a much less expensive location in which to live in comparison to California.
Said this: Furthermore, theofficialjohnandre is paying 3 times the amount of property tax per month for a home which is only 4 times as valuable as yours.
I should have said this: Furthermore, theofficialjohnandre is paying 6 times the amount of property tax per month for a home which is only 4 times as valuable as yours.
I also had the same Q. Is this analysis for an adult/couple, or one with kids? Because with kids, the math does not add up, even for a parent who makes $200K p.a.
A couple with 2 kids. Total Gross, $380K. 28% tax, lets say = $106K. Left $273K. $36K for both in 401K. Left $237K. HSA max ($6550), State Tax (5% = $19K). Left $211K. Property Tax, Car Registration Tax = $6K, lets say. Left $205K.
So, after maxing out 401Ks, paying taxes, one is left with $205K. Kids’ expense has not entered yet (except for exemptions), but I chose 28% bracket still.
Fixed Expenses (Cell Phone, Cable, Utilities – Water, Electricity, Trash, HOA) Home Maintenance) = say, $1250 per month. $15K, lets say.
Left with $190K.
Variable Expenses, now this varies heavily with kids, or not. I would add at least $500 for an Elementary/Middle school for each kid. So, if a couple spends $4K pm, with 2 kids, their monthly expense even with public school is about $5K pm. $60K.
Left with $130K to save.
Mortgage Payments, $3K pm. $36K. Left with $94K to save.
$94KK saved for 5 years, $650K, with a growth rate of 2.5% = $506K
Your 40 to 45 shows, an increase in net worth of 1.1M, almost double.
Unless we are in a bull market, and real estate is going up like crazy as in SFO.
How?
Thanks,
Curious
A few edit:
1. I did not include $36K added to 401K to increment in net worth, but then I also did not into the details of Health Insurance, Dental, FSA etc. deducted from Paycheck.
2. Bottomline was – that a 1% earner of $380K is left with about $100K to save. Given the geographic variation in salary, and expenses. This was to bring out the middle ground.
3. $100K saved each year, with 2.5% growth (again this varies on when you were born, someone turning 35 from 2000-2001, or 2007-2008, may not agree with this, but lets keep 2.5% growth as an average), will result in $540K net worth growth over a 5 year period. Not in millions.
4. Of course one is not starting with 100K at 40, to have an increase of $540K, but if you had $2M to begin with, the NW increase will be higher. So, the key becomes to have a NW as early as possible when you don’t have kids, or else the “chain” over time, falls apart.
5. I also think that folks between 50-55 can NEVER have this kind of savings, as they pull out from their savings to pay for their kids private HS, or College. It works faster to negate NW, than after retirement.
Thanks.
You can never make it into the top 1% wealth growing at 2.5%, need 12% at minimum, usually much more. You don’t make it into the top 1% wealth buying stocks or stabilized real estate.
Mercury has it half right. you need to save 15% or more of income. however, the stock market blue chips have been very good to us since 1982 when we began investing with a household income of $25k. only once or twice have I hit anywherer near the 380k described but by constantly living within a budgeted income of 100k (far below means), and investing the difference in blue chips, we are approaching the 1% net worth level at age 56 and have ALWAYS given at least 10% of gross income to charity. I would challenge any reader to focus on the line between wants and needs and drive it toward needs.
To be clear though, the markets were growing at ~12% annualized from 1982. If you have ever looked at those charts which show returns based upon years, 1982 was literally the best year to start investing in equities. This was a rare time when the avg buy-and-hold investor outdid just about any long-term hedge fund over the past decade.
I agree you need to save at a very high level, probably much more than just 15% of income today, but you still need to find a way to grow it at 10-12% if you want to stay in the top 1%, in the long-run.
Sam,
I recalled somewhere in your postings (I couldn’t find it again) that you managed to double your net worth from $5M to $10M from 2002 to 2016. Congrats on that. I am much older middle-age person and my full-time job income has never exceeded $150K per year for the last 12 years. I am a Federal government working stiff currently and I have used an active options investing strategy and managed to more than triple my taxable portfolio before tax from 2002 to 2016. Since it is an active strategy, it takes work to produce capital gain and income. I have only worked for the government for the seven years and I am not old enough to retire from the government as yet even though I really much wanted to in order to focus on my investment strategy and work full time.
My plan is to generate $0.5M annual investment income in the next a couple of years and $1M in the next five years. If I can achieve those annual milestones, perhaps I can ditch my full-time job that I don’t like.
Besides my options investment strategy, I really enjoy and appreciate your idea about starting a blog to generate additional income. Like what I said, my job income is pretty low, and yet my total net worth (active portfolio plus passive 401K and IRA) is about $3M. My goal is to attain $10M and I believe with my active investment strategy will get me there. So I therefore wonder if your could share with me your thoughts on starting a blog regarding the journey of how a government working stiff on his way to achieve top 1% status.
Many thanks in advance.
Hi KKL,
Nice to hear from you. I don’t think I’ve ever written a post about getting to $10M net worth. The only post I’ve written regarding my personal net worth is: The First Million Might Be The Easiest.
But regardless, I think starting a blog about how a gov’t worker reached the top 1% would be a great read! Further, you guys have this great pension that pays for life. Check out: How To Start An Amazing Blog and Blogging For A Living: How Much Can You Really Make?
Interestingly, I surpassed $380,000 in net worth at age 25 and I will also surpass $760,000 in net worth before age 30 (probably at age 27-28), despite never having over $200,000 in income. I have lived off of 30% of the gross income I’ve made since college though and graduated with assets instead of student loans, which was a great kickstarter.
I would say that for my age, I am definitely rich. I agree with you that the figure depends on age.
I also think that the figure can depend on gender too as most women tend to make much less money than men. I took a quick look at that census data spreadsheet you pointed at and for male householders under 35, the mean net worth is $208K, but it’s only $120K for female householders under 35. Interestingly, it takes until age 65 for female householders to have a higher net worth than male householders of the same age. My guess is that there are more widows than widowers and the widows inherited their husband’s net worth.
Nice job Leigh. Can you share with us other details that allowed you to get to $380,000 by age 25? i.e. how much was rent, how long did you work and save until $380K+ etc.
It took four years of working post-college as an engineer to hit $380k in net worth. In that time period, I grossed about $630k in W-2 income, spent about $220k ($90k of which was on housing), paid about $150k in taxes, and saw about $100k in misc income (investment gains, interest, employer 401(k) matching, credit card dividends, income tax returns, selling stuff, employer HSA contributions, and small inheritances). The missing number is my assets when I graduated from college. I bought a condo about 2.5 years post-college, which stabilized my housing costs, though until this year, I have lived by myself in an apartment since graduating from college. I have probably worked on average about 50 hours a week and used all of my PTO.
I became a pharmacist after 7 years after high school. At the age of 25 I had my bachelors and doctorate and also 85k in student loans and 40k owed to my parents. I have held a job since the age of 14 too (or I would have owed much more)!
I have worked tirelessly (60 hours a week average) for the past 3 years to get out of debt and build my net worth. Just counting myself I am somewhere between 200-250k positive net worth now at age 28. I wish I had chosen to be an finance guy, engineer, or tech guy and just work a ton of OT and save like you have.
$250K net worth at 25 is pretty good! What is the income you’re generating currently?
1st year out of school was 155k, 2nd year 167k gross. Both figures do not include investments.
3rd year now on pace for 175k gross not including investments.
Gotcha. Yeah, I know pharmacy school is very expensive. $175K is a good chunk of change at.. 28?
If my primary residence is a rental (ie. no mortgage), how does this factor into my net worth calculation?
It’s part of your net worth. Read: Should I Include My Primary Residence As Part Of My Net Worth?
Love this post and gives us a new number to shoot for. Question: especially for those on the younger end of the spectrum who may have only a small number of years at those income levels — should we use most recent year’s income, or some trailing average (last 3 years?) to compute target net worth? Or just straight up using highest year’s or most recent year’s? I’m all for strwtch goals but curious how you’re thinking about it.
Few people will be in the top 1% right out of school, so it’s unlikely that you’ll be hitting these numbers right away. But if by some stroke of luck you are, then presumably you should have no problem saving enough to be at those levels.
We are comfortably inside the 1% income range with a mid 6-figure income now, but it wasn’t until age 30 that we caught up with the numbers Sam shows here. That’s because when we started out our income was a combined ~$120K.
I think using Sam’s charts is interesting for comparing oneself to others, but I’d strongly recommend:
1. Setting your own goals based on your anticipated lifestyle
2. Tracking your NW monthly in a spreadsheet (using a website like personal capital IS NOT AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE SPREADSHEET!!)
When we first started on our journey in the late 90s, I figured we’d want an income of $100K/year in retirement, inflation adjusted. That meant liquid NW of $2.5M, if following the 4% guideline. So my spreadsheet started with $2.5M as the goal, and I adjust it upward 4% per year to account for inflation. I can track on a monthly basis for the last 17 years how our liquid NW is relative to that goal. Now the number has grown to $4.5M, and we’ll probably finally catch it later this year.
Shoot for your highest income and multiply by the multiple if you think you have upside in your income (should be since you’re just starting off).
I said “younger” but I’m early/mid 30s (I like to still think of mid 30s as young, hah!). Last year was my first year at $380k+ income levels and it appears that I will remain there for some time. My income has increased steadily since college but much more dramatically in the last 4 years as I moved into leadership roles. The reason I asked about how to calculate the multiple was specific to the situation where one’s income has increased quickly, recently. 3-5 years ago my income was much less than the 380k mark. I’m at ~1.2M net worth currently and a nice multiple of my average income over the last 3-5 years. However, using my highest income year is a new goal for me to shoot for since I’m not yet at 4x that level.
Hi Sam,
I love the post. Very thought provoking.
A few nit picks….
If you lived in an $8M house, there is no way you could survive on $95K a year. Just the property taxes alone on the house would be $80K – 160K per year (1-2% of the home value). So you need more income just to stay in the house, much less eat, etc.
Now on the multipliers by age, I realize you did some “top down” calculations as well as a “bottoms up” analysis, but I’d offer the following: The Millionaire next door mentions the formula for an average accumulator of wealth to be the salary times the age divided by 10, so a 40 year old avg accumulator of wealth would have 4X the salary, a 60 year old would be 6X. Meanwhile a prodigious accumulator of wealth would be twice that. Given that your multiplier numbers seem to be a bit high.
Interestingly enough, my boss who is Corporate CEO was telling me that he saves 75% of his after tax money, so is planning to have enough passive income to retire. I have no idea what his salary is (anywhere from $700K to $4M a year I guess) so he didn’t give me too many hints, except to say that $16M of net worth isn’t so much and is not considered to be “rich”. Based on his experience working with people in California, he believes that over $30M USD is considered to be rich and is quite achievable for someone later in their career. He is in his early 60’s and has been in top leadership roles for the past 30 years.
Therefore I now believe that his NW is around $20M and probably earns a 1/10th of that each year, as an educated guess.
For me at 41, I fit the definition of the 1%er of a 45 year old in your chart (similar income levels at about $380K a year), but I don’t think I’m in the top 1%, but more like the top 5%. Not that it matters, not at all. It’s a race against yourself in the long run, and you can’t take it with you.
If I want to emulate my boss, I realize I can also be worth $20M after many more years of work. However in addition to opening my eyes that I can set my targets much higher than where I am today, it told me that there is never a feeling of being fully content as long as you keep looking to those higher than you. In the end it comes down to the level of balance that is good for each of us.
-Mike
Thanks for your thoughts Mike.
You don’t think the < $96,000 a year family of four can afford to pay property taxes on a $8,000,000 mansion with their $10 million in cash in the bank? They've got another $3 million in growth stocks. Surely, paying $100,000 a year in property taxes isn't too hard for this couple. The Millionaire Next Door I think is very light in their calculations, because they use $1 million as the benchmark to be considered a millionaire. I believe $3 million is the new $1 million thanks to inflation.
One more comment- I believe the $380K is adjusted gross income (AGI) as reported after IRA contributions and individualized deductions, so one can assume the gross income of the top 1% would be in excess of $500K, so the NW numbers should be taken up accordingly.
-Mike
It’s better to use the actual reported numbers in the calculation, because deduction amounts are different for everyone. But to your point, if people want to multiply $500K by my multipliers, they are welcome to do so as well.
To clarify, the income, multiplier, and net worth results by age are all MINIMUMS to get to the 1%.
Note 401K are deducted from AGI pretax i’m in my 50ies and me & my wife did the max 24,500 each plus got matches from our companies things like this and unrealized gains may add to this
I once thought I’d be happy at $2M liquid NW. We hit that number in our early 30s, and I wasn’t happy. I thought “When we hit $4M liquid NW, we’ll have it made”. Now in our late 30s we’ve hit $4M, and I don’t feel like we’ve got it made. My vote is for $10M. But I’m sure when we hit $10M, that number will go to $20M.
Of course, at our current level, we are not concerned in any way about money. The bills are paid with a fraction of our income, and the rest goes to savings. Worrying about repaying student loans has given way to worrying about wash sales caused by our robo-advisors. I consider us “upper middle-class”, but no doubt others would consider us rich. And I know some who are better off than we, whom I would consider rich, but who likewise consider themselves to be “upper middle-class”.
In my opinion “Rich” does not vary by age. Rich is the number at which you can live without worrying about working for money, so you have to assume you are living off earnings without touching principle. Liquid NW by age is a good measure of where you are on the path to “rich”. I’d consider the numbers you show to be an indicator of affluence, with the endpoint being “rich”.
May I ask what is your rational for not paying off your student loans with a $4 million+ net worth? It felt so freeing after I paid mine off, even if the rate was sub 3%.
Check out: Overcoming The One More Year Syndrome
You mis read his post: “student loans has given way to worrying about wash sales caused by our robo-advisors”
What you have learned for yourself is that money doesn’t buy happiness! Sure it’s a cliche, but certainly true. We’re 31, nowhere near the 1% income but fairly close to the net worth level in the charts above for our age, and we also have no real worries about money. Having income well above expenses means that even high-spending months are positive months on the net worth front.
What we have found is that the best way to spend our money to bring us actual happiness (joy, really) is to give it away. That, and to find other like-minded people (or nurture those with the means until they too catch the vision) and combine our resources and our networks to truly make a difference for causes we care about. Helping people out of our abundance has become one the primary sources of meaning and contentment in our lives.
I think for most of us our goals and expectations increase as we exceed our previous goals. When we were 30 we sat down and calculated we would need $3.6M for our nest egg. Once we reached that a decade later we set a goal of $6M and after reaching that, reset our goal to $12M exclusive of our 2 retirement homes. Saying enough is enough can be difficult, especially when your compensation increases dramatically late in your career. Recently after a meeting with our financial advisor, my wife and I made a decision to both retire next year in our early 50’s no matter what our net worth. Our decision is in large part driven by the fact that we’ve seen far too many of our friends and loved ones die or have major health issues in their 60’s or earlier. Life is short and so many of us fall into the trap of chasing the dollar for too long.
Sam, I disagree that net worth is more important than income. You qualify for loans based on income, so in a lot of cases you can have a much nicer lifestyle if you have a high income and can qualify for bigger loans. For instance, my husband and I have over 1 million in investable assets, but just have barely above average incomes. In our city, a nice house in a very good neighborhood is *at least* 1.5 million but probably closer to 2 million. We are not able to responsibly achieve this based on our income. Maybe we are too conservative. Our friends with higher incomes seem to be able to easily afford these homes. I’m getting tired of having money in the bank and not spending it, and feeling like I constantly need to save more! Maybe it’s just time to move out of California!
Mina, I think we might be talking different wealth spectrums here.
Thinking you need a high income in order to take on debt to buy a nice home isn’t a top 1% rich mindset. That’s a middle class / upper middle class mindset. Nothing wrong with that, and I’m part of this class.
This post is a discussion about the top 1% in terms of net worth. These folks just pay CASH.
Paying cash is the mindset everyone should have, regardless of their socioeconomic status.
We are both retired, and our income is from passive income (rental and dividends) Also our net worth is higher base on you chart compare to our age, however, we don’t feel that we belong to 1%.
I am not in the 1% class, but close. Even if you have $2-3M, it doesn’t seem like all that much. 30 years of retirement can burn up a lot of money. If the market goes south, or inflation goes north, you are screwed.
Is the NW per individual or per household? If it’s per individual, a couple with at age 40 must have 4.6M NW. So I have to change my target to hit 18mm by age 65 or maybe even more provided the inflation for the next 25 years.
I think incorporating age makes a lot of sense. I agree that it’s really unlikely that someone younger than 25-year-old is going to have accumulated 380k. I sure was nowhere close to that and I don’t know anyone who is or was at that age either. Really good tables!
I like the way you are trying to interpret the meaning of the top 1% by age and by income, very fancy. I think it’s more simple than that. Wikipedia defines a High Net-worth Individual as a person (not household) with at least $1 million in liquid assets (excluding the primary residence). In the same page Wikipedia states that there are 3.44 million individuals in the US that meet this criteria (2012 data). It turns out that 3.44 million is about 1% of the total US population. In summary, if you have more than $1 million in liquid Net Worth you are in the top 1% in the US regardless of age or income. I’m 47 with $1.5 million liquid and $330K income and certainly feel rich since I only spend about $36K per year.
Ah, but who writes the Wikipedia data?
$1.5 million seems low, and it doesn’t account for by age. Age is the relative factor here. So for you, the target for a 47 year old would be closer to $4 million.
And then there’s the savings and interest rate factors in the next chart.
But if you feel rich, that’s all that matters! Have you considered doing something differently given your spend? What are the reasons why you spend only $36K per year?
There is a new report out from RBC Wealth Management confirming the total number of millionaires in the US was 4.4 million (1.3% of US Population) in 2014.
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20150617/NEWS07/150619831/almost-a-million-more-millionaires
126mm households in the us / 4.4mm millionaries makes one in 29 families a millionaries it’s amazing that it takes 1mm to get to a 3.4%er and 7.4mm to get to the 1%er. The wealth is really held by few
Gosh….you 1%’s you. I have much less than the numbers discussed here, and still feel rich given where I’ve come from. Everyone here is talking multi-millions, never mind 1 million, which is a loooot of money for a loooooot of people. if you have 35 times your expenses invested and working for you, you are rich no matter what your ‘number’. That’s my theory. I only thing I am still figuring out is if the 35x is enough to cover college expenses and some inheritance to kids, or is it just retirement.
I was always shooting for 10M (inflation-adjusted) as a teen because my family would go to Carmel, CA, and I’d see all these beautiful homes close to the beach for 3-4M. 10M seemed like a nice round number to be able to afford one of those homes and be considered rich.
Do you think that achieving an ideal $200,000 income is more important than achieving a net worth that can generate $200,000 passively (8-10M)? Because the net worth goal would require a lot more work and stress.
As a point of reference, I’m 21 and currently have a gross income a little over $70k.
I use nice homes to motivate me all the time as well!
You’ve first got to shoot for the $200,000 before you can get to the $8-10M most likely. Hence, once you get to the $200K, observe your own fillings about how whether it is all worth it and then go from there.
Definitely shoot for the 200k, but don’t decide that income is a must before you build the Net worth. I still don’t make 200k, but can say it is possible to push the Net worth numbers up close to the goals Sam laid out.
It takes planning, smart investing, some luck, and keeping an eye on your long term goals, but it can be done.
Obviously it is harder in higher cost parts of the country, so expenses verse earnings is going to play a big part.
~T~
Brett, what industry do you work in to make $70K a year? I’m 19 now, and I’d love to make that much by the time I am 21.
So you saved 50% per year after taxes and 401(k) contributions, right? Just wanted to make sure it was after taxes. If not, very curious as to how you did that because taxes are about 45-50% of income in NYC.
Yes, agreed. Taxes are about 45% after Federal, State, and City, this doesn’t add up properly.
This is a very interesting analysis, and certainly provides a good range of goals for those aspiring to “1%” status.
It does seem to be mostly hypothetical though, and I would also like to see some statistics on actual 1% net worth by age. I’m especially curious how many of the 1% inherited vs earned their wealth. I imagine it would be quite a few.
Less than 10%, there are tons of articles about this all over the internet and books about it as well. Although as you go up the ranks, meaning past 0.1 and then 0.01%, etc, the number gets higher, but it never becomes the majority even at the Forbes 400 level.
This is a rather strange post. 1% of the population? Really?
To be in the 1% of the population is mostly “luck”. Did you forget your statistics semester in MBA school?
99% have less net worth….. Hello? You are no longer middle class.
And the vast majority of people trying to become part of the 1% will not succeed. It’s basic mathematics! LOL!
The market segment in which you need to sell to is the “mass affluent”. The mass affluent are the real movers of the American economy. The 1% don’t buy enough stuff to make an economy.
Aspiration is always strange, until it becomes a reality.
It’s understandable to be salty about shooting for these numbers at a later stage in life. But for those who aren’t retired yet, these are interesting numbers to know and potentially shoot for.
Also known as “survivorship bias”.
It’s amazing the internal conflict of the nouveau riche.
It’s interesting how many in the top 1% were also in the top 1% in school all along. Not all, but a large percentage, definitely over half. So, is studying for years also luck while everyone else mucks about?
Not succeeding in getting to 1% is acceptable. Not trying is not. Then again, that makes it easier for current 1%ers to stay where they are. Fine by me.
And also perhaps an excellent argument to increase the marginal tax rate!
Rich to me is when one can retire even if they choose to keep working. For me that number would be 3 million dollars. At 3 mill I would like to have 1 mil+ retirement, 1 mil+ non retirement, and primary residence paid off.
Sounds good to me! Once the primary residence is paid off, living expenses aren’t so bad anymore. I just finished paying off one mortgage, and it feels good. Doesn’t cost to much to eat, transportation, etc. Just kids.
One factor that needs to be taken into consideration when looking at net worth is what state you live in. If you have a $2 million net worth and you live in California, half of your net worth could be tied up in your home. Whereas, if you live in Nevada, as an example, an even larger home could be owned for around $500,000. This would leave an additional $500,000 for investment assets for the Nevada resident.
Check this post out: The Best States For Retirement
These numbers are interesting, and a decent way to measure net worth, but they are mostly geared for w2 income folks. Those of us that made our wealth through real estate have a number of factors that skew this analysis. Chiefly, if my net income (all from rental properties) is $120k, that is probably closer to $200k gross income for a w2 earner. But in my case I have significant RE deductions (like depreciation), that I pay little taxes to net that $120k.
Another issue is one’s specific housing situation. Those who have significant equity in their primary residence don’t need to make as much monthly cash to live well. As an RE investor that is even more pronounced as my primary was part of an RE investment project that had high yields.
Thirdly, for me to have cash to make future investments, I do not need to earn it from cash flow. I get it from (hopefully smartly) tapping into the equity in my properties. The cash out refi or HELOC money I pull out, while a loan, is basically tax free (or tax deferred.). Of course it is only deployed in money making RE ventures, so the loan on that money is paid for by the new project’s cash flow.
In summation, I always focus on “minimizing” my cash flow. In other words cashflow pays my bills, but it’s the equity appreciation (be it forced equity through development/repositioning or market driven) is what makes me rich. If I’m making so much in cashflow that I’m paying significant taxes on it, I’m not leveraging enough. Of course defining these numbers specifically is highly personal and YMMV.
I’m confused as to why you assuming income is constant among all age groups.
I’m pretty sure the 99th percentile of age 25 income is less than 380K, and the 99th percentile of age 50 income is enormously higher.
Sorry you are confused. Let me clarify.
$380,000 is the top 1% income level for all ages. That is what we know. Too income levels by age are unknown, or at least doesn’t have strong backing.
The multiplier takes into account some of that income variance by age to get the net worth output.
So long as the input data is clear, the output data should be clear. You’ve got to have control variables to solve a question. The more certain control variables you have, the stronger the output.
Can you share how you’d create the model with actual figures? How does your income and net worth stack up?
Cheers
Dr. Dre’s mansion now!
Your age, income, multiplier, net worth chart is very good info for many.
Suggest you improve it.
Add a 10% income column and 10% net worth column.
Many will find those figures closer to where they are.
Being in the 10% is a comfortable place to be for many.
It would serve as a “first goal” to give it a name.
And it would make many feel proud and appreciative that they got there.
Then the 1% group may not seem so far off.
Just a thought…
The total “target” number is definitely a factor however, most people really need to address personal consumption / overhead and future tax rates going forward in their planning. I’m 44 and a few years away from semi-retiring and spending the days on the golf course (hopefully)! I’m a small business owner (20+ years) and active RE investor who has consistently lived below my means and reinvested a large percentage of my income. My average AGI runs about 400-450k and effective tax rate is in the mid 30’s which fluctuates. Net worth is about 9m. The following is the scenario I debate about when trying to decide when to pull the trigger: Assuming an average return in retirement of 6% (conservative mix of 3-9%) and a 35% tax rate, the after tax net on 9m is about $351,000 per year which is sufficient with no debt (for my objectives). At a 60% tax rate, that number drops to $216,000 and that doesn’t factor in the effects of inflation. With the government in the fiscal condition its in, who’s to say the top tax rate can jump back up to 50,60,70%+ in the future? We have been there before…. Somehow they have to eventually address the shortfall and and you rest assured, it won’t be on the backs of the lower income bracket! Its sad, when people ask me what my concerns are about being self employed, its never the competition that concerns me, its always governmental regulation and tax policies….
Just a few thoughts to share…
I’m 42, have a child, and have a husband who is a big spender. I work for a company with master degree and just signed up for 401K, now I’m considered a middle class tier (recently I got a job with higher pay). I’m reading this article and people’s comments and think how much I’m behind the game and again it scares me so much…. My income doesn’t fall in the category you discuss about and I really don’t now how to get there. All I’m practicing is to spend less but I don’t know what I should do with making more money part. I spoke with a financial adviser and he recommended me to sign up for a life insurance with 6.9% interest (through insurance company) for 20 years and pay monthly but there is still a risk that I don’t get anything extra and end up getting what I accumulated in 20 years. I have little saving that I could hide from “SOMEBODY” so far and it’s equal to two months of my net income and that’s all I have. I’m really scared and don’t know what I should do for me and my child future . Should I continue saving up and when it reaches to a certain amount I have to invest it in something,… I highly appreciate your insight.
Don’t be scared. This is a top 1% income post, where only 1% of earners get to. It’s totally fine not to earn this amount. It’s just a curiosity thing or aspirational income to strive for.
You should max out your 401k, and try and methodically invest another 20% of your income in a balanced portfolio based off your risk tolerance.
See: Investment Strategies For Retirement Based On Modern Portfolio Theory
Thank you very much for your advise,
I signed up for 401K with maximum amount I could contribute. I have to wait a few months to plan and budget for the rest of my paycheck to see if I can invest in anything else as I’m responsible for the bills and main expenses! :)
Please do not buy any insurance product (or any other financial product) before consulting at least one other second advisor and also doing your research. Make sure whomever you speak to about your finances is a Fiduciary. It sounds as if your advisor is trying to put you into an annuity which is often high fee (beneficial to him) and not necessarily a good fit for you. You don’t give enough information to make a judgement, but you sound as if you are not familiar with investing, so tread cautiously. Do not panic. Start reading and doing research.
You might start with a broad based mutual fund that tracks the larger market. A low-fee outfit such as Vanguard, Schwab or Fidelity is a good place to start. They have a range of funds available. Vanguard is a first rate company with some all in one funds that balance the portfolio automatically depending on your targeted retirement date.
Thank you Scott!