/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>779396
No. But he has the money and time to make himself rich. Most people who earn that don't have time.

>>779396
depends on what the cost of living is wherever he lives and what his expenses are.

Is he divorced and paying half in alimony?
Does he live in SF or Manhattan?
If either of those no, that nigga ain't rich, he's just trying to keep his head above water.

>>779401
This. SF and NY are not places to live in unless you have a job that requires you to be there. States with no income taxes and low cost of living is where I would be if I had that sort of passive income. I'd feel quite wealthy.

>>779397
>>779401
So how much someone needs (passive income) to be considered rich?

nope

>>779413
Enough to sustain a rich lifestyle numbnuts

Assuming it's true passive income, with hardly any effort towards maintenance, then I would, on the contingency that he's working full time as well.

>>779439
And how much is that you imbecile?

>>779450
exactly the number of wrinkles on your foreskin

>>779450
Rich is a subjective term. Only you can define it for yourself.

I define being rich by wealth, and not income.

I define wealth in terms of freedom; if you are living exactly how want to be living and are free to do whatever you like then you are wealthy in my view.

What do you do to earn 8k in passive income? Also what is passive income to you? It means a lot of differing things to different people.

Rich? No. Lower-upperclass averages two million a year annually in passive income. But I would consider that person to be in the weird, nebulous boundary between upper-middleclass and lower-upperclass. They could probably work their way up to lower-upperclass if they were working in a profession with a six figure income or turned their time to rental income.

>>779570
>Lower-upperclass averages two million a year annually in passive income.
Um, no.

Where I am now in DC no, but if I moved back to Arizona I'd be living like a straight baller in a mansion and shit

>>779574
It's all relative. You poor peons think someone making $185,000/year is wealthy but all it makes you realize is how little you actually have.

>>779584
You do realize that's like top 0.1%?

>>779589
Did you read what I just said?

>>779604

Stop trying to reason. They don't understand just how small the ruling class actually is or how much wealth they hold proportionately to the rest of us.

>>779570

Annual household income is 51,000~. So the average person makes half of that, let's go with 25,000.

If you split lower/middle/upper in 33% each,

lower is 0 - $17,000~
middle is $17,000 - $93,000
upper is $93,000 +

8,000 a month passive is 96,000.

You're a retard.

>>779608

Jesus fuck. I'll bet you think that a doctor making 185k annually is rich, don't you? No, don't answer that.

And no, that isn't annual household income you stupid fuck: it's the median annual household income in America. If you knew anything about basic statistics you would know why they utilize the median instead of the mean for that figure.

>>779396
Not necessarily, but I would suggest that if you had that much money coming in passively you could maintain an excellent lifestyle

8k a month is $800,000 in a 1% savings rate bank account paying interest monthly. I think if you saved diligently and invested wisely I don't think it's entirely out of a person's reach to achieve that in a lifetime.

>>779631
Disregard that math

>>779584
>It's all relative. You poor peons think someone making $185,000/year is wealthy but all it makes you realize is how little you actually have.
Yes, it is relative. And no, $185K/year isn't particularly wealthy.

But the comment I disagreed with falsely stated that $2MM/year was not upper class. Please learn to read.

>>You poor peons
>I'm the richest guy on /biz/
>get called poor
>mfw

>>779589
Top 5% make $155k a year
Top 1% make 383K a year

>>779636

I didn't say that it wasn't. I said that lower-upper class makes 2 million a year. Drop the flourishes like "mm" when you mean million and pick up some reading comprehension jack.

>>779608
And don't forget that this is passive, meaning that the guy does nothing to earn that income, while most people have to work. If that isn't rich i don't know what is.

>>779659
Bait.jpg

how do you make 8k passively>?

>>779662

Technically it is you and yours who are baiting, but I'll bite anyway because I like explaining it.

The vast majority of people thought of as wealthy are merely upper middle class. If their annual income, by investments or salary, is less than seven figures they are not among the upper-class in terms of income. The difference between middle class, even upper middle class (a multi-millionaire doctor or lawyer with a six figure salary) is only a short fall away from being poor. The difference between the poor and the middle-class is merely that the middle-class have the opportunity to make more money and live comfortably without fearing for their needs.

The upper-class has tens of millions in assets set aside with seven figure incomes as minimum. They have the connections to have carved out a private little fiefdom in their locale or within international trade. Their family members go into public service in order to facilitate better connections and because at this point they work for prestige instead of cash. Their children are military officers, politicians, bureaucrats, diplomats, spies, and charity CEOs. They play by a different set of rules than you do because you don't understand the way that society is set up, which is why you will probably fail to rise above your present station in life.

>>779666
Real estate, coupons, certificates, royalties, etc.

>>779676
>and another /biz/ discussion gets derailed by some attention-whoring kook from /pol/ ...
everytime.gif

If you assume conservative investments that throw off 3% a year in dividends/interest, that's about 3.2 million in cash-generating assets.

Not "rich" rich but very affluent. I mean you would be a multimillionaire, and I believe it's enough to put you at the minimum in the lower 1% by net worth going by IRS estimates. So you have nothing in common with Bill Gates, but you are still, technically, in the 1%.

Someone with this level of wealth likely also owns a house outright, which doesn't give off passive cash income but provides additional imputed rent that you don't pay. This would put your total asset value at somewhere near 4 million dollars.

I could be making an infinite amount of money per week and wouldn't consider myself rich because I don't buy into the idea of being wealthy by having tons of money lying around.

I would say you should instead consider yourself lucky if you have a loving family and time to spend with them instead of caring about how many dollars are multiplying.

>>779692
thanks for the laugh anon

>>779692
>saying this on /biz/

U wot m8

>>779692
>loving family and time
>being wealthy

>>779396

I'll bite; how did you earn the money, how much do you have invested, and what's the rate of return?

Absolutely. If I had 8k in passive income I could completely change careers. That's pick the lock of the golden handcuffs money.

>>779658
Amazing there is so much diversity in that 1 percent. Honestly yes 343 is a lot but I made more than that last year and feel nowhere near rich / at least compared to people with millions. Can barely afford nyc