I feel so out of place...To me $ 2 million is a fortune. But today I'm reading on DU that it isn't

[lunamagica]

That much money.

I'm a renter who lives in a small condo. I always thought owning three homes was for the wealthy. Owning even one home is way beyond my reach...I can't in my wildest dreams imagine what it feels like to own three.

I thought most people here were like me, struggling to survive, but today I'm reading post after post that having two million Dollars and three homes is no big deal...wow

Do most posters feel that way? Do you believe most Americans believe 2 million Dollars and three homes is no big deal?

[RandySF]

1. Sounds pretty well off to me.

[halobeam]

2. I think it's a big deal

but, I think mostly that it doesn't really get us so far these days. One illness and 2 mil is gone, and so go the homes. That's IF you had that to begin with, and most don't.

[pnwmom]

5. Not if you qualify for Medicare. All the people I know on Medicare get a "gap" policy for

a couple hundred a month, and then they're set.

[pangaia]

8. Mine is $35/mo this year. Highest was I think $125. Lowest was zero...

Over the last 10 years.
Non-profits in western NYS.

[pnwmom]

9. I think my mother's was higher than that, but I don't really know. She just had it automatically

deducted out of her SS payment, so I didn't really pay attention.

[pangaia]

12. I still pay the $135/mo, or whatever it is exactly,

taken out of my SS check, but my gap premiums is what I was talking about. Those I pay to Excellus right now..You probably got that..

[Honeycombe8]

85. I pay a lot for Plan G (it pays for almost everything Medicare base plan doesn't).

I pay about $116 + $135 (base Medicare) + cheap Rx plan. A mere fraction of the cost of Obamacare (which was almost $1,000/mo. for a high deductible bad HMO).

What your supplemental is, is probably Advantage Plan? It's a lot less pricey. I might switch to that next year.

[pangaia]

90. Yes, Advantage Plan with Excellus. MVP is also in Western NY.

Both are NOT FOR PROFIT. Each year I just pick the best plan for me at one of the 2 companies.. Includes Part D.

In the beginning customer service was pretty personal. Now not as much. but.... I rarely need them..

[Honeycombe8]

91. Oh. We don't have that. How can a state have a plan that works with Medicare...

and not other states? Medicare is federal law. Very confusing.

Maybe like a co-op?

[pangaia]

92. I think every state has Advantage plans, at least as far as I know.

So I basically NEVER have any contact with Medicare per-se. Everything goes through Excellus.

It is ALSO interesting to note, that some Excellus plans in other states, basically different 'companies,' have much more expensive plans. So, I am just lucky where I live.
Also a very good hospital system in Rochester and surrounding communities. Pretty much every doctor one would want/need to see is on their and MVP's list..

EXCEPT, of course - no dental insurance.. a crime...

[llmart]

57. A medigap or supplemental plan is NOT what is deducted from your Social Security.

The Part B plan that comes with Medicare is what is deducted from your monthly Social Security. Then if you wish to, you can purchase a supplemental plan, also known as a medigap plan. There are a few different levels of supplemental plans you can purchase. I have the Plan G which is almost the best you can purchase and I pay about $135 per month. The deductible is $185 per year. The supplemental plan covers just about everything else that Medicare doesn't pay.

Also, supplemental plans are completely different from Advantage plans.

Prescription drug plans are something else that must be purchased.

[Honeycombe8]

86. I chose the Plan G, too. I don't knw if that's overkill....

but it gives me a good sense of security. United Healthcare.

I got the cheapest Rx plan I could find. Deducted from SS, like base Medicare premium.

[llmart]

93. I have United Healthcare also.

Don't ever think it's overkill. Here is my story. I am a very healthy senior. No meds. The only things that bother me are biomechanical things that i think just come with age such as feet that hurt because I've always been active. I have a tad bit of arthritis in one knee and not much you can do about it. However, I have had dry macular degeneration for a decade. About 8 months ago the dry macular degeneration turned to wet in one eye and I have had to have injections once a month for one year. They helped dramatically. One injection is $2300! This does not include the retinal specialist's charges. I can't tell you how glad I am that I went with the Plan G. I can easily afford the $185 deductible but I can tell you that $2300 x 12 month would have given me a heart attack.

[Honeycombe8]

97. Thank you.

I was wondering. Like you, I am lucky to be in excellent health. No meds. Osteoarthritis...the garden variety kind. I don't medicate for it.

I went with Plan G because a friend had advised it. I think it's cheaper if you sign on when you're younger.

But then I thought...what if something did happen? Cancer? Bad accident at home? It could ruin me financially. What would I do if I ran out of my retirement account and had to live on just SS?

So thanks for the reminder. I've read that Plan G is the most popular plan (well, Plan F, but they're doing away with that one & replacing it with F).

My employer at a health meeting once told us that the insureds who cost ins. cos. the MOST are not the sickly ones who go to the dr. all the time. It's the healthy ones. Because they don't expect anything to go wrong, and aren't on the lookout for it and don't go to the dr. soon enough.

[dhol82]

105. I have the F plan

Currently still healthy except for some HTN. Diagnosed forty years ago as idiopathic. Whatever.
Still pisses me off that what I pay for the supplemental is three times what I pay to SS and only needs to cover the 20% extra. The pharma plan is just as pathetic.
Only thing I can figure is that the CEO of United Health Care needs his 35 million/year.

[Honeycombe8]

106. It gets that expensive? Maybe that's why they're discontinuing it.

I may not be able to afford it, if it gets that expensive. United Health care can tell you, sort of, the base price increases for about 7 years, but they could go up more than that. Then who knows how much after that.

I think the reason it's so costly is because although Medicare covers the routine things that are used more often, the Plans F & G cover the serious stuff. If you're in the hospital longer than Medicare will pay, then the supplemental picks up more days. If you're in that long, you have something serious going on.

One thing we need done about Medicare and pharma is get that provision in Part D removed. A provision was put in, when Part D was passed, that forbids the federal govt from negotiating pharma prices (when the Medicare group is the largest insured group in the country, so would have considerable clout). Pharma WROTE Part D, I'm sure, and had a powerful lobby to get it passed. The main co-sponsor, Sen. John Breaux (D-La), quit the Senate not long after Part D was passed, and went to work for a big pharma co. for a base salary at that time of $1,000,000/yr.

[dhol82]

110. Well, that sounds a bit scary - this is my seventh year.

I am fortunate to currently be able to afford it. Just really, really pissed about the cost value quotient.
I still remember when my husband died five months before I turned 65, the office plan died an even quicker death and I needed a private plan.
Insurance broker I spoke with got me hooked up with an all encompassing plan (I wanted full coverage) that ended up costing over $1700/month. I was grateful that it was only five months until I got Medicare.
Healthcare here sucks. Big time.

[Honeycombe8]

113. I have the discount written down somewhere.

When you sign up for Plan G (or Plan F) before age 72, you get a discount of about 3% per year. So at age 65 you pay, say, $116. The next year, you lose 3% of your discount, so premium goes up 3% (it also may go up for cost of living increase). It goes on that way for 7 years, to age 72, at which time you have then lost all your discount for signing up early.

In addition to the discount, one of the reasons for signing up for it at age 65 is the ins. co. can't turn you down. For instance, if I didn't get that plan at 65, but then I want to get it the next year, ins. cos. would have the right to ask health questions and turn me down.

The ins. cos. are not going to sell any more Plan Fs after this year or next year. The agent explained to me that I could still get it, but Plan F premiums will go up more, probably, over time, than Plan G. That's because without new insureds signing on to Plan F, it will become increasingly unprofitable, as most of the people with Plan F will be older and sicker, while Plan G will have the younger, healthier people in it.

You could have the option of switching to Plan G.

[dhol82]

114. Interesting

I will be 73 shortly so I have used up any breaks I might have had.
The price of the coverage jumped a lot in the last two years.
I will have to go look into plan G.

[Bengus81]

118. That's the monthly payment that you make to Medicare--Part B of $135.50 per month in 2019

which is taken directly out of our SS check each month. Then..."medigap" coverage for at least another $100 per month if you can afford it to cover most of the 20% that Medicare doesn't--you can have that coverage or not have it. Then you have a one time deductible each year of $185 for 2019.

Again...anyone thinking Medicare is free will find out at 65 that no it is not free even after paying in for all your working life.

[WillowTree]

15. Even better is an Advantage plan.......

…….if there's a good one in your area for no additional premium (or very minimal) beyond that for Part B. Not always able to find a good one in all areas, but an excellent alternative when one can be found.

[pnwmom]

18. How can they afford to offer anything for no premium? Just wondering how that works. n/t

[WillowTree]

19. Medicare pays all or most of the Part B premium to the insurance carrier.

Still ridiculously low for the coverage I've got...……..only a little more than my portion of the HMO premium when I was working for similar, and in some instances actually better coverage.

[Liberal In Texas]

20. They're almost always HMOs

And are usually tied to their hospitals and doctors in their network and the area where you live.

They sometimes don't cover what they think are weird conditions.

Just be careful. I've opted for just straight Medicare. They pay the 80% pretty much in or out of network for everything.

BUT, you do need to have a supplemental to cover the 20%.

[pnwmom]

99. Okay, that makes sense. And, no, I don't want to be tied to the local HMO,

since I do have a choice.

[Liberal In Texas]

22. There is a premium. n/t

[LiberalBrooke]

61. This is a Medicare Advantage plan.

The plan gets your Medicare money from the Federal government to provide Medicare covered services. They agree to cover you for that amount with no additional money from you. It is the cheapest way for you to go but you need to understand that traditional Medicare will not cover you while under this plan. The insurance company bets that they can provide services for the amount of money they get. Expect a narrow network of providers and other limitations as they will try to cut costs wherever they can. You will still pay your part B premium of $135 a month which you may not notice because it is deducted from your Social Security money each month. I have been unable to get exact numbers of how much the insurance company gets for your care but it is a lot more than your monthly premium.

[LiberalFighter]

98. The way I see it they offer no premiums by having higher deductibles

and sometimes higher co-pays.

I have a Medicare Advantage plan paid for by my employer. My deductibles at least are much lower than the plans that companies were trying to push on me in the mail.

[stopbush]

39. My wife goes on Medicare in June. Her gap policy costs $0. She added a dental/visiom/hearing benefit

for $20 a month, so her Medicare premium is $155 a month.

[pnwmom]

3. And the irony is that so many of these people were extremely critical of Hillary and Bill

for taking substantial speaking fees after his Presidency -- in addition to donating millions to the non-profit foundation. But he had only been making $32K a year as a Governor, and she was just a partner in an Arkansas law firm. And they had to pay for many of their expenses in the WH out of Bill's salary, so they weren't able to save a lot there, either.

But to answer your question. For a baby-boomer (or older) who has had a long professional career, a spouse with a career, and has reached an advanced age without any extended periods of unemployment or bankruptcy, and is fairly frugal, it wouldn't be that unusual. It used to be much easier for people than it is today. Most older people didn't start out with a ton of college loans, for one thing. That is a huge problem for young people today.

[deurbano]

24. I think they came out of the WH owing millions because of the legal fees from the continuous

persecution/prosecution.

[pnwmom]

26. Yes -- I had forgotten about that! n/t

[ooky]

4. I guess its one of those relative things.

I don't consider myself poor but having all that would be a lot more than I have now, so yeah, I tend to agree with your take on it. I can't imagine that most Americans would think that.

[revmclaren]

6. I have worked consistently for over 40 years

and never have owned, or ever will own my own home.

Someone who owns three homes and is worth millions in income and property reeks of wealth and privilege. Being rich is not the problem here.

Hiding this wealth for personal and/or political gain to me is appalling.



ONLY!!! 2019 and beyond.

[Me.]

80. Bingo

and don't forget he and Jane collect SS and will have a lovely pension with medical when he retires. In 2014 he collected $46,213 in Social Security which some people would certainly appreciate having.

[Ms. Toad]

109. Oh. This is a disguised Bernie thread.

I wondered what started it.

[revmclaren]

111. Wow... Strange that you would automatically come to the conclusion

that I was talking about Sanders (I-VT) when I mentioned hiding wealth and political gain.

Very curious...



ONLY!!! 2019 and beyond.

[Ms. Toad]

116. Hmm...who was in the news recently

as "Someone who owns three homes and is worth millions in income and property reeks of wealth and privilege. Being rich is not the problem here," who has been accused of, "Hiding this wealth for personal and/or political gain," to which some DUers would react by asserting it is not much. Kinda obvious, once you added, "hiding ths wealth for personal and/or political gain"

Not to mention it appears in a thread that would not be permitted in GD if the OP identified the trigger for this discussion.

[revmclaren]

119. Sounds like the MSM has a handle on this...

Awesome!

Although I don't think lecturing them on how they feel about wealth and disparity will get the same results as here in the microcosm of personal and political views that is called DU.

You can try though...

Good luck.



ONLY!!! 2019 and beyond.

[MissB]

7. I'm pretty sure that DU runs the gamut in terms of income.

Plenty of folks own vacation homes and plenty of folks rent a small apartment.

I think most folks would think that 3 homes is a lot.

And I think that most folks would think that $2 mil is a lot.

Money gets kinda funky at the coasts and property gets kinda cheap in between. You can make a huge salary in San Francisco and live in a remarkably small home with no off street parking. You can live like a king with a very nice estate in flyover country on the same salary.

DU doesn’t represent just one part of the country nor one economic class. That’s the beauty of being a Democrat. We have a big tent.

[BigmanPigman]

10. Sounds like they are rich.

My budget and income is like the Dem congresswoman's example of surviving on low income. She has been schooling the heads of banks about employees' salaries and min wage on the news lately. I haven't been able to afford a movie, to eat out (over $10 a month), buy any new clothes, get a haircut, buy food that isn't in the discount food section (not rotting yet), any entertainment, trip, etc for years. My healthcare bills with insurance are 33% of my disability/retirement. I live in CA and it is VERY expensive (even a one bedroom apt) but it is where my family lives. Oh, and I pay the full amount required by the IRS. A hundred thousand sounds like a lot to me too.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. It is a lot of money. But the context of the discussion seems to be

whether Bernie is "rich," or whether it's strange that he has that much money. It would not be all that surprising for a person who has had some kind of professional career for decades, also has a professional spouse, and has written (and sold) a book, to have a million or two in investments and real estate by the time they are in their 70s. Having three homes seems like a lot but that also depends on their size and value. If someone bought a fairly ordinary house 30 years ago it's probably worth three times as much now, and the mortgage probably is paid off. Is the vacation place something fancy or just a little cottage in the woods? Yes, it's a lot more than most people have but it isn't outlandish.

[pnwmom]

13. Right. And it also depends on where the homes are located.

A small townhome in DC, for example, could be worth about the same as a bigger lakefront cabin in a rural state.

[spooky3]

25. Just as an example, a small townhome in

Nice but not ritzy parts of DC would be at least $700k.

[pnwmom]

27. Interesting. That's even more than I would have guessed. n/t

[spooky3]

30. Here's a real estate search site that's fun to use as a looky loo

http://frankly.com/m.aspx?p=2&s=20007%20townhouse&d=2000K

[pnwmom]

32. Wow. The prices for a 2/1 are kind of shocking. n/t

[spooky3]

62. Yes. It's really expensive to live in this area. BS

Probably has seen a lot of appreciation on his Capitol Hill house.

[TeamPooka]

33. Kinda puts a spike in the socialist label a little bit.

[LakeArenal]

14. We have no money.

But 2 million dollars is not that much today.

We aren’t called low income for nothing. It’s not that $2 million is a lot. It’s that $15 an hour or SS is not enough.

That’s why destroying unions was so devastating. Unions help us rise out of poverty to a more equal life. If not in pay then in benefits.

I don’t care how much anyone else has. I care about what I have or don’t have and need.

[Ohiogal]

58. "It's not that $2 million is a lot. It's that $15 an hour or SS is not enough."

BINGO!

[Honeycombe8]

88. I agree the min. wage should have a base of $15/hr nationwide...

or something like that.

But if possible, people should try to move into jobs that pay more, at least during their prime working years. And then save like crazy while being very frugal. Because there will come a time when the prime working years are behind you. If you're frugal, and save what you can, and work at jobs that pay as much as possible, and volunteer for O.T., a person can end up with higher SS benefits and a decent retirement account, and a small paid-off house or duplex or townhouse.

Some people can't get beyond min. wage jobs for various reasons. They will have difficulties in their senior years, since their SS benefits will be low, and they won't have a retirement account. These are the people who are at risk of living in poverty at a time that they are unable to do anything about it because of physical or mental frailties. I think Medicare and Medicaid and food assistance can help. But the working class....too many assets to get assistance, but too poor to get by.

Make hay while the sun shines, though. Those prime working years are very important. And save, save, save. And invest those savings. Schools should teach finance, IMO.

[Joe941]

103. I think you nailed it. We have to be frugal...

And save! I think most people live to the highest level their income allows - hence living paycheck to paycheck instead of saving and being frugal. That's human nature. I've been guilty of it.

[Hekate]

79. Yes

[Liberal In Texas]

16. How old are you? Retired?

We don't have 2 million or whatever...we have a small cottage. And still making mortgage payments.

We have a couple of paid for cars. (OK 3, one is an 87 Firebird I refuse to part with.)

We doing SS and Medicare and some small pensions from past things. We are not rich. Just getting by.

We feel lucky to have Medicare. We feel lucky not to have credit card debt.

I believe 2M and 3 homes is a huge extravagance and not something we aspire to.

I don't know many wealthy people, but one couple I know have a house with an outdoor kitchen, that's right an outdoor kitchen that is larger than the one in my small house. It has wine refrigerators. Several grills. A couple of ceiling fans. A fire pit.

He's a doctor, so I guess he's allowed. Stopped being envious a long time ago. Just want to get on with my life. Watch Netflix, read a lot of books, build scale models and visit kids and grand kids. We don't need $2M.

[Ohiogal]

63. I love your mind set.

Right now we live on my husband's public school teachers' pension.

In comparison to some of my cousins, we're the "poor relations". But I can proudly say that our house is paid off (modest as it is), our three cars are paid off (the newest one is ten years old) and we helped our three sons earn college degrees. We have a little bit in the bank for emergencies.

I have a cousin who is married and has no children -- they have a brand new gorgeous 4500 sq. foot house -- granite counters in the kitchen, 4 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms -- two brand new cars -- yet all they do is complain about never having enough money and how long they will have to work. I am way past being envious, too. I have everything that matters - a loving spouse, good kids, a house with a nice big backyard, enough $ to keep us out of debt but far from a luxurious lifestyle. I can read books, try cooking new dishes, get together with friends for lunch, spend time with my dog, etc. To me that's enjoying life. Why do people need huge houses and brand new everything? Don't get me wrong .... I don't deny anyone all that if they have the wealth. I guess since I went through fighting cancer ten years ago, that opened my eyes to what's really important in life, and, to me, it's not material things any more.

[Yavin4]

17. If I had $2 million, I would immediately stop working and retire.

I live simply and don't have an addiction for things.

[LakeArenal]

21. Back in the recession and high unemployment

It was suggested to give everyone over 55 a million and have them pay off mortgages and let them retire opening all the jobs up to younger folks. I don’t remember how much it would have been but cheaper than any of the other “ fixes”.

Would have fixed us for sure.

[DFW]

43. Suggestions like that always have a catch

"Give everyone over 55 a million?" WHO is doing the giving? What account has a big enough balance to cover a number like that? If a million people in the USA turn 55 every year, that's a TRILLION dollars. Not even abolishing the Departments of Defense, Justice and Education would free up that much money.

[Joe941]

47. With socialism it would be possible. Simply by taxing the rich and equalizing the lower income...

citizens. We are all in this together.

[DFW]

48. Ideally, maybe, but the devil is in the details

With socialism, there theoretically should ultimately be no rich to tax. On a practical basis, once the rich have had their wealth confiscated, the question then becomes, who then redistributes the wealth? Socialist governments then say, "we will." Every time this has been given a chance to be put into practice, those governments then decide that in their wisdom, they end up redistributing most of the confiscated wealth among themselves. From St. Petersburg in 1917 to Caracas a century later, is has always been so. When theories end up butting heads against human nature, human nature wins out every time.

[LakeArenal]

68. Thanks. There always seems to be an excuse as to why we can't equal wealth.

[Lurker Deluxe]

96. How do you "equal wealth"

I am 52. According to my SS benefits page and a little math I have averaged 42K a year SS taxable income since 1985.

With that in mind I have made about $1.3M SS taxable income.

I know plenty of people who have made way more than I, plenty.

Somehow I have $300K in a 401K. Own two homes: 1 $90K condo in Houston 1 $75K place in Cut and Shoot, both paid for. $75K in savings.

That puts me about at about $550K net worth without going into personal possessions ... vehicles, tractor, trailer, boat, RV ...

Probably bumps it up to $600K ish.

Now ... I am not bragging here and I am well aware of the fact that I have been lucky as hell to never have been really sick or faced any serious personal disaster, damn sure born blonde, blue eyed, and white; 5'-10" and physically strong and healthy.

Been robbed a few times, but always had insurance to cover, totaled a car ... insured. Two minor surgeries, again ... insured. I have made my mistakes when I was young but got over it and buckled down and stayed on a path.

However, in the time when my income exploded between 2004 and 2015 I did not explode my standard of living. I bought my condo in 2008 during the crash for $55K instead of a house for $250K, which I certainly could have gotten financed. Instead of the BMW ... Kia Soul. I still pack my lunch when I go to work.

I save. Used to be because I was scared of one of those life changing things, now it is because I want to retire.

I know people who made, literally, double what I did in those high income years who are flat broke.

How do you "equal" that?

Will I be a millionaire? It will be close, making $70K a year and if I continue to make that and continue to save at the same rate with no life altering event I will be, assuming 6% on 401K and 5% property value increases.

How does one "equal" that? There will always be those who have more ... always. This is what scares the shit out of people when people begin talking about "equalizing wealth".

[LakeArenal]

100. Doesn't scare me and many others.

Including other major countries.
Always will be others that got mine no need to concern ourselves with anyone else.

[ProfessorGAC]

55. You Just Described Me & My Wife

I retired at end of 2018. In August of 2017 I was happily surprised at the value of my 401k&a accounts.
Having graduated from undergrad at 19, owning 1(!) Home outright, and having pension (annuitized) and personal savings of over 2 million, I said 43 years is enough.
Given we no longer pay state taxes on these income sources, and no FICA, UE, or WC deductions, our post tax income is higher than when I was working.
For now, we have to pay for my health care coverage, but when I turn 65 in 29 months, those costs go down a lot.
Are we rich? Don't know about that, but it would be ridiculous for me to say anything other than very comfortable.

[Honeycombe8]

89. He doesn't have $2M cash. It's in those 3 houses, mainly. And continuing income.

But what we don't know is how much he and his wife have in retirement accounts they may have, which are not reported to anyone. They could have a lot of money in retirement accounts.

People often don't retire, when they love their work. It's not really work to them. It's what they like to do. And they get paid for it. I should be so lucky.

[betsuni]

23. "Write a book, you can be a millionaire too."

To get rich is glorious. Capitalism's back, baby.

[apcalc]

35. Yeah . Bookwriting. Speeches too.

Oh wait, not allowed to make speeches. Hillary did both. Oh yeah, no speeches tho. Too capitalistic.
Bookwriting WAS suspect. No more. Speeches? Waaaaaaay out of line.

[betsuni]

36. It's illegal for a serving senator to make paid speeches.

#WhataboutHillaryWaaaaah

[SHRED]

28. 2 million for some is nothing

For others it's a lot.

[Lithos]

29. It's not unheard of

But it's definitely ahead of the curve.

What I would look at is - given that he and his wife have both had fairly good jobs for the past 30 years is it only 2 1/2 million? She was a former college President and serves in several capacities today as a consultant and administrator. He has his Government Salary and speaking fees. The point being I think he is generally free and clear of abusing his position for sideways gain. I also think most of the other candidates also are going to fit a similar pattern of being ahead of the curve - but obviously not enriching themselves.

I also do agree there is still an optics issue no matter the case.

L-

[Stonepounder]

31. We're retired.

We did pretty well when we were working and we owned our home in KY, but not in CA. Now we're living on SS and Medicare Advantage Plan. If you are reasonably healthy, most of your prescriptions run about $2.00 and some are free (This is tier I). If you take expensive drugs, sooner or later you hit the infamous 'doughnut hole' where all of a sudden you have no prescription drug coverage (Tier II). If you are lucky(?) enough to come out the other side of the doughnut hole, then your prescription coverage kicks back in, but they pay less and you pay more (Tier III). Always in the past we have sailed through the year as Tier I. This year I blew right through Tier I and Tier II by the end of Feb. Thankfully I only need 2 meds from the pharmacy and they went from $2.00 to $4.00. The one that put me into Tier III retails for $95,000 a year. thankfully they have a program where they get what they can from insurance and then put me on a program where I don't pay anything for it. Thank God!

$2 million would have been unbelievable to us at any time. When we moved from CA to KY we bought a 2000 sq ft, 4 BR,2 1/2 bath home with a huge kitchen and our PITI was significantly less than the rent we were paying in CA for a much smaller home.

Yeah, to us $2 million would be winning the lottery money.

[samir.g]

34. He is the 1%

[infinite_wisdom]

41. Definitely not....

Net worth of $2 mil puts you in the 94th percentile.

To get to the 99th percentile you would need about $10 mil net worth.

$2 mil is still a lot of money. But it isn't an obnoxious amount of money that is really going to change a person for the worse.

I know that if I won $2 mil in a lottery I would just keep working at the same place I work now and would likely give 1/2 of it away to family and friends. I doubt it would even change my lifestyle all that much. I would probably just invest most of it conservatively just for the peace of mind of having that money for the future.

[TwilightZone]

78. His income is in the 1% range.

Net worth, he's not in the 1%. But, by income, he is, at least for the past couple of years. 1% is $400k+ or so per year.

[Flaleftist]

65. Being a millionaire doesn't automatically make you a bad person.

Obama and Pelosi aré worth more than Bernie, so what? I believe it's more about how you earned that money and the policies you support.

[lunamagica]

82. Who said having money made you a bad person? My question was if mor Americans, the Average

American would think that having two million Dollars and three homes was "no big deal"

[Flaleftist]

112. This wasn't a response to your OP.

This was a response to the person who seemed to use 1%er as a pejorative.

[JHB]

37. To me, this is in the same category as the 2010 "Is $250K rich?'" nonsense...

...because the answer is "why are you acting as if there is one point of division, like an on/off switch instead of a spectrum?"

My extended family has no rich people, but has a number of medical and technical professionals (engineers, doctors, dentists, etc.). I'm not in that category, and have a substantially lower income after adjustment for inflation.

One uncle was a chemical engineer for a couple of well-known companies, now retired. One time during a family gathering I was changing clothes in his & my aunt's bedroom, and my eye fell on a financial statement that had a balance of over a million. That was the nest egg from about 5 decades of savings & investment for retirement with a good salary. Nice house, lives comfortably, and has a lot more money than I expect to ever see. Relatively speaking it may be a 'fortune', but I think it's ridiculous to use that term for septuagenarians with good incomes who'd saved over time vs people with 10, 100, 1000 or more times as much and who gained it through far more predatory means.

Grandpa was a doctor in a small town that was a satellite of a small-to-medium-sized city, He had three houses. One was his home, which included some office space. One was a cottage by a lake, the kind of place people sent their kids for the summer, especially in the days before polio vaccines and home air conditioning. The third, acquired later, was a vacation/retirement place in Florida. Did Grandpa have a fortune? Depends on your perspective: he was moderately affluent, and was able to get the extra properties when they were cheap, but it ain't like he ever needed an elevator for his car. Maybe for his collection of Louis L'Amour paperbacks, but not his car (singular). Though a bookshelf-lined hallway seemed to be sufficient for the paperbacks.

The parents of one of my buddies were both NYC public school teachers (of an age that they are now retired). Thanks to teachers' unions, they could afford a house out in the burbs and a cottage by a New Hampshire lake. Last I heard, they still owned the NH property, and it's worth a lot more now than when they bought it. Do they have a fortune?

If this OP was prompted by reports on a certain septuagenarian New England politician [a fellow, I might add, who has in my eyes racked up more -- let's call them "demerits" -- than his competitors, and assuming my understanding is correct that the "three homes" are 1) his residence in Washington, 2) His home in his home state, and 3) a lakeside cottage], then yeah, I don't count it as a big deal. (with a proviso about what's on his tax returns, the not-yet-ended nondisclosure of which counts for several of the aforementioned demerits). It's on par with what people who have well-paying jobs and the opportunity to save substantial retirement nest eggs can achieve over the course of decades.

In contrast, one of the articles about Romney during the 2012 election noted that back in the late 90s he'd squeezed the FDIC out of about $10 million due to certain provisions in a contract. I managed to find online a number for food and housing assistance in Massachusetts during the same time frame for a single mother with two children. Comparing the numbers, Romney cost the taxpayers more than 1400 families, more than 4000 people, in one single deal.

I know which one I'm going to get all hot and bothered about.

[SammyWinstonJack]

38. I live in a 2006 Class A motorhome full time in an RV park, for now, in Crossville, Tn. That's my

house/home. Two million and several houses, can't imagine. Seems extravagant.

[Beringia]

40. I think DU is on the upper end scale

with money. I have seen it in reflected in a few threads over the years. Also many older people.

[jg10003]

42. Upper middle class is not the same as rich. A two income family of professionals (dentists, ....

lawyers, CPAs', systems analyst, etc) will have an income in the low six figures. With intelligent budgeting, and conservative investments (e.g; a couple of rental properties or long term mutual funds), they can expect to have $2,000,0000 by retirement. That allows them a comfortable retirement without constant finiancial worries. But they are not wealthy. There won't be any 200 foot yachts, private jets, or 30 room mansions. Although they are better of than many, or even most, people, they are not part of the plutocracy that runs the world.

[UniteFightBack]

67. People are getting these two things confused, thanks for clarifying. nt

[JHB]

75. Thank you. Much more succinct than how I put it in #37 above.

[pnwmom]

117. It is also not the same as "poor," or "poorest," terms that have both been ascribed at various times

to a couple of candidates who served in the Senate.

Being less wealthy than other Senators does not make one poor in any sense.

[Tipperary]

44. Lol, I'd take a lot of what you read on the internet with a grain of salt.

We have more than a few braggarts here. Some brag how rich they are, some brag who they know, some are internet tough guys. I have learned in life that the more a person brags, the less likely they are who they want you to think they are.

[nitpicker]

45. There are some feds that may have that much

https://www.fedsmith.com/2019/02/04/many-millionaires-thrift-savings-plan/

(snip)
At the end of December 2016, there were 9,599 millionaires in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). Since that time, with the rising stock market over the past few years, the number of TSP millionaires among the federal employee population has exploded.

At the end of 2017, there were 23,962 TSP millionaires – an increase of almost 150% from two years before that date. At the end of 2018, with the stock market declining in value in 2018, the number of millionaires in the federal government’s TSP program declined along with the stock market. (The C fund declined 4.41% in 2018.)

As of December 31, 2018, there were 21,432 millionaires in the TSP. The average TSP millionaire has been contributing to the plan for almost 30 years (29.63).
(snip)

((Take that, add a house acquired in the 1960s or 1970s and since paid off, and that's about $2 million in paper wealth right there. But I presume a number of the TSP millionaires didn't have financial burdens such as student loan debt, family obligations, medical/dental bills, etc. to impede savings.))

[nitpicker]

52. It's tougher now for those starting out even if they graduated and got hired by the feds

Student loans are the real crusher. Long gone are the days when commuter colleges were happy to use retired professionals to help teach the undergrads. And college costs were low enough that a B student could use Pell and state grants to pay for tuition and books. Now, with the drive for rankings, those schools have morphed into Universities, hiring Big Names, at Big Salaries...

And living costs have shot up for all. In a look at FERS retirement, I estimated that someone retiring after 30 years of service from a $100K/year job (GS 12/13) would make about $43K a year until they reached age 62 and the FERS Supplement ended. With federal and state taxes, plus carrying insurances into retirement, those drop net pension to $30K. Even with a paid-off home and car, real estate tax, car maintenance, food and utilities eat up another $15K, leaving $15K for the other things such as medical/dental, saving up for car fix/replacement, appliance replacement, etc.

It's worse for the newly graduated. A GS-7 in the DC area gets about $47K a year. However, taxes ((including SS/Medicare)) knock that down to about $37K (in Virginia). After health and basic life insurance deductions, this drops to about $34K.

If they can't live at home, there are housing costs. Currently available modern studios in Northern VA next to Metrorail run about $1750 a month, and bus-ride studio/one bedroom apartments are $1250 a month and up. That drops the net to $13K-19K. Add about another $8K for utilities (including phone and Internet), transport costs, and food; so that leaves $5K-11K to spend on everything else (including paying off student loans).

Even at Northern Virginia Community College, going there four years costs $22K. If that is all paid via student loans, that's about $250 a month to pay back. It's double that to use loans to go to George Mason University.

The promotion to GS-9 can't come soon enough for those folks.

[nitpicker]

54. And for the $10 an hour workers

If a married couple is working full-time, that's about $40K a year. Taxes drop that to about $32.5K. If they managed to find health insurance at $5K for the two of them, the net reduces to about $27.5K.

If they don't want to live in cockroach land, that means $15K for that one-bedroom apartment, $10K for utilities/transport/food...

So how likely is it that they did take out health insurance or splurge on utilities beyond the basics?

[DFW]

46. This thread reminds me of a quote from one of my favorite books:

“a man is happiest when there is a balance between his needs and his possessions. Now the question is: how to achieve this balance. One could seek to do this by increasing his goods to the level of his appetites, but that would be stupid. It would involve doing unnatural things—bargaining, haggling, scrimping, working. Ergo? Ergo, the wise man achieves the balance by reducing his needs to the level of his possessions....."

[Kaleva]

49. I live in a 24k house but I won't knock a person who has 3 homes and 2 million.

More power to them. I'm a happy person and don't wish to waste time being envious of others.

[anarch]

50. well, everything is relative - to me, that's an inconceivable fortune...to a rich person, a pittance

But then again I consider someone who can do things like buy new clothes, eat at restaurants, go to movies, etc...to be pretty much a rich person.

[vlyons]

51. Only greedy people

who run with other greedy people feel that way.

[sarabelle]

53. What is this thread about??? Who has 2 million and 3 homes? Everything is relative.

[Autumn]

69. Bernie, a well paid US Senator wrote 2 books and became a millionaire.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/08/bernie-sanders-summer-house

Bernie Sanders now has one thing in common with the millionaires and billionaires and other 1 percenters he so frequently attacked on the campaign trail: he now owns his very own summer home.

Vermont magazine Seven Days reported Tuesday that the 74-year-old senator and his wife, Jane Sanders, have purchased a four-bedroom house on the shore of Lake Champlain for roughly $600,000. Jane told Seven Days that they had recently sold a house in Maine that had belonged to her family since the 1900s, and used the proceeds to purchase the new property, which is located in North Hero (population 803, as of the 2010 census). With this purchase, Sanders now owns at least three houses, the others being in Burlington, VT, and Capitol Hill in D.C.

Sanders, an outspoken advocate for the working class who spent his 2016 presidential primary campaign railing against income inequality, remains one of the poorer members of Congress, and his net worth is among the lowest in the Senate. His 2014 tax returns revealed that he and Jane made $205,617 that year, the bulk of which came from Sanders’s $174,000 Senate salary. (Jane, who previously made about $160,000 a year as the president of Burlington College, retired in 2011.) Technically, Bernie’s salary places him in the top 4 percent of income earners, enough to purchase a nice lakefront retirement property with plenty leftover to buy “Feel the Bun” sandwiches from the local Hero’s Welcome General Store:

I don't have 2 million in the bank but I have 2 homes, 1 paid for and 1 rental almost paid for. My husband has a small cabin that was left to him when his Mom died, the kids like to use it in the summer.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

56. No. The point is there's a difference between $2M and $2 BILLION

People with $2M are well off. There’s no question.

BUT, the true problem with America today comes not from the people worth $2 million. The problems are caused by the people worth $2 BILLION, who use their money to buy politicians and rightwing media.

A major part of Republican propaganda strategy is to get Americans to lump together people with $2 million and $2 billion. We must kee them separate in our minds!!

[DFW]

72. The problems are caused by selfish people with evil intentions, not the number of zeroes

George Soros, the billionaire, is not evil. Tom Cotton, not even a millionaire yet, is an evil piece of excrement.

To people with only a few thousand dollars to their name--if they are not completely in debt--there is indeed no difference between $2 million and two billion.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

107. That's true. But the billionaires have much more influence

We’re only talking about Tom Cotton and how evil he is because rightwing billionaires, the Koch network, bought him his Senate seat. Without billionaires he is nothing.


The problems in our democracy do NOT stem from the millionaires. Being a millionaire is something we can all work for. But each billionaire is a policy failure. No one should have so much money — both because inequality is unjust but also because billionaire oligarchs are corrupting our political system.

[lunamagica]

81. What are you talking about? My question was if most Americans thought that two million and three

houses was no big deal

[EndGOPPropaganda]

108. Republican talking point: hate the millionaires...

So you don’t notice the billionaires who are choking our society.

Deflect populist anger away from the billionaires onto the millionaires. That’s what the GOP tries to do.

[aikoaiko]

59. After a lifetime of investments I hope to have to 2 million when I get close to retirement

It’s is decent amount to live on when faced with retirement and needing to support a spouse too.

Three houses is a lot but not so much depending on the outstanding mortgage.

[ananda]

60. No. I agree with you.

I guess that's how entitlement works.
You live in a kind of bubble, not seeing
how the great majority of people actually
live.

[mcar]

64. I'd consider myself wealthy with $1 million

But I'd be happy to try it and prove myself wrong.

[LakeArenal]

70. Hmmmm. It's the American dream.

It’s only unattainable because of the powers that be.

It was not impossible when blue collar wages was $25- 40 an hour. My dad used to make really good money.

As Republicans busted unions and sent work overseas they gutted wages and pensions. Until folks can’t seem remember the American dream anymore.

[panader0]

71. I was a bricklayer for most of my life.

I also did concrete, carpentry, drywall, roofing, tile and more.
I bought 40 acres that took me 25 years to pay off. I built my own
two story 3000 square foot house, a little at a time. Raised four kids
alone. They're gone now, all successful.
Now I live on $846 dollars a month from Social Security.
My poverty makes me qualified for AHCCCS, the Arizona state
medical program, so most medical is covered, though I don't need it.
I feel rich. My sweetheart splits the bills with me, she does electric and cable,
I do taxes, propane, firewood and garbage. There's enough to go out to eat
once a week. I feel rich on $846 a month.

[Me.]

83. THen Imagine How You'd Feel With $3851.08 A Month

which is what Senator Sanders collects in SS a month. Plus his Senate salary.

[ProfessorPlum]

73. Just wait until you find out about FDR

you'll be shocked

[Coventina]

74. LOL!

Thanks for the laugh!

[BlueFlorida]

76. It is the intellectual flexibility

of the supporters of one candidate to make their devotion distort the facts.

[TwilightZone]

77. As I noted in a couple of those threads, to many, many people, $2.5m is a fortune.

Frankly, I think it's just a kneejerk defense of Sanders by some of his supporters. I'm not sure how many of the posters who were dismissive about $2.5m being a lot of money truly believe it. I suspect not very many of them.

[Honeycombe8]

84. It's a matter of money as it relates to age, yrs of working, and income level.

For someone who has been famous for decades, made a GOOD income for DECADES, married to a spouse with a GOOD income, and both paying into or receiving pensions or retirement accounts for DECADES, it's not THAT much...for his station in life.

You may be young, so it's unimaginable. But these things snowball over the years. If you build up $100k in a 401k, and add monthly to it, and have it invested in sensible mutual funds...it will double in 10 or so years,and then THAT will double in another 10 yrs, and then THAT will double again.

Houses get paid off, and at the same time, increase in value. So if someone buys a house fr $70,000 in the '60s, he pays it off, and then it's worth maybe $250,000 yrs later. You own a $250k house free and clear.

TIME + your income + your regular savings + your contributions to retirement accounts = a LOT of money.

Sanders is over 70. He's been working for over 50 years, maybe longer than you've been alive? And he has LOWer exenses because he shares expenses with a spouse, who also makes a good income.

So it's a lot of money, but no more than I'd expect someone at his age, in his station in life (upper class).

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

87. Owning three homes sounds like a horror story

Three lawn mowers, traveling from home to home to mow the lawn, shovel the snow, clean the windows.

No thanks. One is enough. Sometimes, more than enough.

[Codeine]

94. Imagine three plumbing bills.

Fuck that noise.

[lunamagica]

95. I imagine that people who own three homes have staff to take care of all the unpleasant chores

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

102. I know a few people with two homes.

One main home, one cottage "up north" or at the lake or the hunting camp. They are very busy, driving to the other place for some maintenance. A lakeside cottage sounds nice, until you think of the upkeep, and the loud whine of watercraft on weekends.

If someone has "two million", I don't think that would bring in enough income to pay for much maintenance by professionals. Unless you're Trump, and don't mind stiffing the contractors out of their pay.

[John Fante]

101. Two million is well-off anywhere. Yes, even in places like Manhattan or San Francisco.

[stillcool]

104. I have no experience with money..

having it that is. I plan to, some day. I would prefer more that 2 million, but that will be fine. Millionaires are not what they used to be...the concentration of wealth produces more than ever to the 1%, so if you haven't got a billion hanging around, you're looking from the outside in. I don't know if it's true, but I've read that wealth and power are not determined by a cash value. Controlling interests of different industries would leave someone wealthier than the cash value of their holdings.

[EllieBC]

115. I live outside of Vancouver. $2mill is nothing.

A trailer goes for $200k here. A 40 year old trailer.

A single family detached home? Cheapest you’ll find is $800k and it’s a year down.

[GaYellowDawg]

120. It's a HUGE damn deal.

$150,000 would leave me completely debt free and a homeowner. I wouldn't want to own three houses; seems like upkeep on one would be enough. That would leave me $1.85 million. I could retire tomorrow and that would be enough to make me very comfortable for the rest of my life.