saw some good Takes on this from @eigenrobot and @kendrictonn
my take: to even phrase the question this way is to make a mistake, in two ways:
1) "rich" is about stocks, not flows. Rich is a WEALTH level, not an income level.
2) if you work [ bc you need to ] you're not richhttps://twitter.com/medved_bjj/status/1412542117457580038 …
-
Show this thread
-
2/ to decide what you mean by rich, take the free cash flow that THINK rich means ($400k/yr ? $2M ?) and backsolve to get the underlying wealth that generates that in perpetuity (flow x25 = stock is a good rule of thumb). $400k/yr income = $10M wealth $2M/yr income = $50M
2 replies 1 retweet 25 likesShow this thread -
ⓘ Dogs don't have thumbs Retweeted Kendric Tonn
3/ "more formal, less folksy" is my brandhttps://twitter.com/kendrictonn/status/1412820682271072263 …
ⓘ Dogs don't have thumbs added,
1 reply 0 retweets 18 likesShow this thread -
4/ There's no one objective answer to the question, but my own personal Take? $500k/yr after tax without ever needing to work is Rich (and if it's not Rich, it'll do til Rich gets here) $500k after tax -> $700k gross -> $17.5M in investments
2 replies 2 retweets 23 likesShow this thread -
I'd set my personal threshold at maybe half that, but I agree with your framing. It's about a level of wealth that provides financial independence.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
half that would be GREAT I'm not defining what I think is good enough, I'm talking about objective RICH
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.