> That makes rich relative though?
Yes, that was my main point. But my other point was that there is an upper limit, probably in the tens of millions, where no matter what your lifestyle is you can afford it without work.
Yes, that was my main point. But my other point was that there is an upper limit, probably in the tens of millions, where no matter what your lifestyle is you can afford it without work.
If you're into fast cars and faster women but you're only earning $1million a year you aren't rich, whereas if you live like me, you're rich because you have $1million in the bank.
While I don't think your definition is bad per se, if you start mixing with people who define wealth as $10 in the bank, you aren't going to have a very useful conversation, so I think you at least need a different term.
BTW this guy spent nearly £10million in 4 years, I don't think he could ever be rich by your definition. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Carroll_(lottery_win...
Edit: Also this only takes account of assets, not income. If you're earning $1million a year in a safe steady job you are rich, even if you don't yet have enough to retire.