[merrymini]

I am always suspecting of these wealth studies. However, what I like about the villages is that wealthy or not, we all use the same facilities and that net worth is not really important to friendships and activities.

[Plinker]

Originally Posted by thelegges

Especially when many own primary home and multiple investment homes.

Obviously, your primary residence should be included when calculating your net worth. However, it is common practice to exclude your primary residence, as this report does, and only include assets that can provide a source of income (net worth excluding primary residence). In other words, investable assets. This would include properties other than your primary residence and assets that can be readily converted to cash such as coin and art collections, etc.

Your primary residence may rise in value from $300,000 to $1,000,000 over time but if you die before selling and realizing that gain, your primary residence was never a source of income (please don’t mention a reverse mortgage). If you downsize your primary residence, as many retirees do, the remaining money would be included.

This study defines a millionaire as having a net worth of at least $1,000,000, excluding your primary residence. It is possible to own a primary residence that represents a very large percentage of your net worth and have few investable assets.

[Blackbird45]

Even if you own your own home outright being a millionaire is nice but it's just a vehicle to make money. In other words, with CDs now paying 5% plus interest you're talking $50,000 interest yearly per million. So, if you want to live a comfortable life you might be a millionaire, but you'll probably never want to tap the principle. Basically, being a millionaire today is not what it was in the 50s.

[manaboutown]

Except for those who come from wealthy families, and/or inherit significant sums, most people do not reach millionaire status until at least their 50s. Since The Villages is mostly occupied by people in their 50s and older, who are homeowners and receive income from investments, pensions, and perhaps other sources, far more are likely to be millionaires than in a typical urban venue. It is the demographic that skews the percentage so far above average.

[Randall55]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Not counting the value of the home makes no sense to me.

A personal home is always listed as a debt. Even if you pay cash for it, it is still a debt. You must pay property taxes, insurance, and maintenance fees. Since these items never go away, a personal home is a debt. If you do not have a mortgage, you simply have a lower monthly cost.

If you do have a mortgage, the balance that you owe gets subtracted from the total of your assets.

This is why the value of a personal home is not taken into account when determining wealth.

My financial advisor gave me this tidbit: If it is cheaper to rent, then rent! If it is cheaper to own, then own! His advice hasn't failed me yet..

[jmaccallum]

Originally Posted by Kenswing

Honestly I thought the number would be higher. It doesn’t take much to amass a million dollars these days. If you worked for a company that offered a 401k and you took advantage of it you should easily be a millionaire. If you invested at all in real estate in your younger days you should be a millionaire. So many ways to get to a million these days. Heck, if you just post a few viral videos on YouTube you can be a millionaire-lol.

I agree. I think that number is very low. Most retirees today have a net worth of over $1 million.

[manaboutown]

With the exception of some pro athletes, tech moguls, rock musicians, movie stars and the like living a long time is a key factor in becoming wealthy. Warren Buffett has made 99.7% of his money after the age of 52 | by Grant Cardone | The 10X Entrepreneur | Medium

[Randall55]

Originally Posted by jmaccallum

I agree. I think that number is very low. Most retirees today have a net worth of over $1 million.

Yes, but calculating one's wealth is determined by several factors. One factor: If your 401K is worth over $1 million, does the owner need monthly payments from it to survive? The answer yes or no determines wealth.

[JGibson]

A wise lady once said…

“Your health is your wealth”

Also, there is a difference between being a self-made millionaire and being born into it.

Does the article give that information?

[Blackbird45]

Originally Posted by JGibson

A wise lady once said…

“Your health is your wealth”

Also, there is a difference between being a self-made millionaire and being born into it.

Does the article give that information?

I could be wrong, but I do not believe that people living here in The Villages who have reach the million plus status inherited their money. People who inherited their money are usually younger than retirement age. I personally knew a woman who was worth millions and she told me her son was going to inherit a million when he reached 21, that was in the 70s. Shes long gone I don't know she was worth, but we are talking big bucks.

[Randall55]

[QUOTE=JGibson;2253618]A wise lady once said…

“Your health is your wealth”

Also, there is a difference between being a self-made millionaire and being born into it. (Quote)



If there is such a thing as reincarnatiion, I hope I come back the son/daughter of one of the wealthiest on the planet. I don't want to EARN a thing! Sit back and enjoy the view.

[Fastskiguy]

Originally Posted by Gpsma

Only 39% millionaires…i would think it would be higher. Perhaps if you factor in the older section it probably has lowered tye percentage.

Totally agree.

Also...the answer really sounded like chat gpt to me

Joe

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by Randall55

A personal home is always listed as a debt. Even if you pay cash for it, it is still a debt. You must pay property taxes, insurance, and maintenance fees. Since these items never go away, a personal home is a debt. If you do not have a mortgage, you simply have a lower monthly cost.

If you do have a mortgage, the balance that you owe gets subtracted from the total of your assets.

This is why the value of a personal home is not taken into account when determining wealth.

My financial advisor gave me this tidbit: If it is cheaper to rent, then rent! If it is cheaper to own, then own! His advice hasn't failed me yet..

I respectfully disagree.

Our home is an asset which over the years increased in value. With many assets there are costs associated with it but ask any accountant, house is an asset.

[huge-pigeons]

There is a difference between being a millionaire with a million to live on vs being a millionaire of total net worth. If you are calculating net worth, it’s assets - debt.
If you have a million dollar house that you owe $800k, you have around $180k net worth of that house. Even if you own a $1M house outright, you can’t live on that million dollar home.
For myself, financial independence means you have enough money to do what you want, buy pretty much what you want without going into debt. For example, we spent $100k on stuff last year that we really didn’t need, but our net worth grew over $120k for the year, so we made much more than what we frivolous spent.
I sold out of a couple pensions during my 40+ years of working because I thought I could make more money investing that money myself instead of getting pension money in retirement. Our money keeps growing while we live off of the dividends.

[Villagesgal]

Possibly the article referred to households and not individuals. Using households that figure seems reasonable. One million is not what it used to be that is true, but it still leads to a comfortable life, and most here have a very comfortable life. Life is Good here in The Villages.