I heard the best definition of rich from the Cosby show:

If you work for your money you're not rich. You are rich if your money works for you.

"Some people are so poor, all they have is money."

I would love to be that poor.

That's a bad definition of rich, but a good definition of wealthy.

I somewhat disagree. Rich is always relative. Having substantially more money than you need to live the lifestyle you want to live is rich by my standards.

Yes, rich is relative and $1,000,000 is rich to some and pocket change to others, but my problem with calling this situation being rich is:

> Having substantially more money than you need

They DO need the money, they do not have $500,000 cash they have $20,000 per year. If they are in a terrible car accident and they have to spend $200k on medical bills their entire life falls apart because having only $300k does not support their needed returns, replace that with any scenario that can cause unexpected costs. That to me isn't rich.

That's what high limit medical insurance is for. Unless these insurers commit effective fraud and not provide their service after the fact.

Or living in a country with good public health care?

In the end it's the same or worse. You'll be drowned in taxes in the typical European country with good free healthcare.

I haven't found that, and I moved from California to Denmark, the highest-tax country in the world (most of Europe has somewhat lower taxes). My tax rate is about 15% higher than it was in CA (counting all levels of government). But, I get complete health insurance for that amount of money, no co-pays or deductibles or maximums or employee share of the premium or anything, and I get it guaranteed for life at the same price, with no way to ever be dropped, have claims denied due to pre-existing conditions, have my premiums jacked up due to getting sick, etc. (well, unless I move to another country again). Just complete, bulletproof coverage, with much less bureaucracy too (no forms to file). And I don't have to change doctors or coverage if I change jobs.

If I could pay for that kind of guaranteed-for-life coverage in the U.S., with $0 deductibles, $0 co-pays, no maximums, no reimbursement paperwork, no excluded conditions, etc., for only 15% of my income, I'd gladly do so. In California, I spent around 7-8% just on my comparatively shitty health insurance + out-of-pocket, which had several exclusions and no guarantee I'd be able to renew at a similar rate if I got sick. So I consider the Danish offer a real deal. Even more so if your medical history has any major blemish on it, in which case U.S. premiums skyrocket to much higher than 15% of a typical salary.

People really need to think about this. How much would we save at the individual level with a real deal like this, and at the societal level when taxpayers no longer have to pay increased costs for all the people who waited until death's door because they couldn't see a doctor at a sensible time?

Maybe they will die quickly and cheaply when their problems are discovered too late. Beware the law of unintended consequences.

When you make a conscious decision to reduce your spending, you are also reducing your income, thus reducing your tax. When you are a low income earner, the tax rates are tiny.

Some insurance companies give bonuses to employees to find a reason to cancel a client's policy after a big claim. "You used the wrong middle initial on the application form."

This is what's so screwed up with our employer based insurance model, you would never purchase insurance from a company that engaged in tactics like that.

This doesn't necessarily follow from employer based health insurance, that can happen regardless of how you source your insurance.

The problem is that we get our health care through health insurance companies.

Eh, sport cars are cheap. If you can't buy that Gulfstream on the spot, you are not rich.

Even a million wont be enough if the value of the dollar keeps going ↓

That's why it's a "safe 4% withdrawal rate" -- you can do better on the stock market in nominal terms (8-9% or so) but you lose some of that to inflation.

Of course, if you're stuck in bonds and savings accounts then inflation (including exchange-rate related inflation) is, in fact, robbing you. Way to stick it to the retirees, Bernanke! :P

Bonds should always pay more than inflation.