Forum List | Off Topic
Start Previous [ 1 ] -- 2 -- Next End| Topic: How rich is rich enough? |
|---|
| 1. Author: OzPar Date: Fri 30th Oct 2026. 04:55 I noted recently that Bloomberg estimated Elon Musk was worth a smidgeon under a trillion dollars. Not that long ago, a millionaire was regarded as rich. Nowadays, with the value of housing assets rising, quite a lot of people could call themselves millionaires. billionaire is the new boundary for the rich, presumably with trillionaire being the ultimate prize. This got me thinking about the relative values of millions, billions, and trillions. These terms slip off tongues all too easily these days, but how many of us, I wonder, actually understand the scale of difference? I asked AI to do a small exercise for me. if a million dollars is an hour, how long is a billion? And how long is a trillion? Here`s the answer:- If $1 million = 1 hour: $1 billion = 1,000 × 1 million = 1,000 hours 1,000 hours ÷ 24 = about 41.7 days (roughly 1 month and 11 days) $1 trillion = 1,000 × 1 billion = 1,000,000 hours 1,000,000 hours ÷ 24 = about 41,667 days ÷ 365 ≈ about 114 years So: $1 million = 1 hour $1 billion ≈ 42 days $1 trillion ≈ 114 years Another way to feel the scale: at $1 million per hour, a trillion dollars would take over a lifetime — about 114 years of nonstop counting. I guess the ultimate question is, how rich is rich enough? And, one might ask, what would you want to do with all that money? Reply |
| 2. Author: ipswichpar Date: Fri 30th Oct 2026. 07:22 Well apparently £1m apparently might not be enough on retirement..... I don`t agree with that analysis. A lot of folk focus on that 4% to maintain the overall pot, which ends up still being a pot at death... I guess it is a state approach so folk pay for any care they need at end of life. And a "Comfortable Retirement" as defined is, for most, very very comfortable indeed. That being said, I suspect for recent generation, getting to a pension pot of £400k is going to be a significant achievement. Reply |
| 3. Author: pars4life1 Date: Fri 30th Oct 2026. 09:27 That article has been written by someone completely out of touch with reality for the majority of people. Median uk gross salary is £39k and you have tax and housing costs to take off of that, yet £45k after tax and with no housing costs might not be comfortable? **** off. Reply |
| 4. Author: parsmad68 Date: Fri 30th Oct 2026. 10:21 pars4life1, Fri 30 Oct 09:27 It depends on the outgoings and what you spend, etc. people tend to increase their spending to their salary. So I suppose it is whether you need that car or whether you need that new phone or that big house, etc. Reply |
| 5. Author: ipswichpar Date: Fri 30th Oct 2026. 10:45 pars4life1, Fri 30 Oct 09:27 Their use of the world "comfortable" is wrong IMO. Many people would see this as "enough that I don`t need to worry about paying the bills and can enjoy a few little things in life". Their definition is much more than that in retirement.... holidays, new cars quite frequently, lots of money spent on going out. I think for many, having a stress free retirement that can start earlier than the normal retirement age would be good enough. Suspect that there will be a reasonable proportion of folks who either don`t make it to their mid 70s, or at least not in good enough health to spend a lot going out or jetting around the world. Reply |
| 6. Author: kylebrown88 Date: Fri 30th Oct 2026. 14:31 Check out the youtube channel Barry`s Economics (not to be confused with Gary`s Economics - although related) There`s a interesting analysis on Musk [youtube]fchrqBL-8B0[/youtube] Maybe the question should be when does wealth stop being just "living in luxury or very comfortable" and result in a lack of compassion, empathy with an increase in entitlement and self interest? Post Edited (Fri 30 Oct 14:37) Reply |
| 7. Author: widtink Date: Sun 1st Nov 2026. 02:23 I read somewhere (can`t remember where) that to actually live the life of a millionaire, 1 million doesn`t cut it these days. In order to live the life , holidays , plenty of spending per month ,fancy cars , property etc , you need something like 7 or 8 million. It`s probably more now as the article I read was a few years ago. Admin Reply |
| 8. Author: PARrot Date: Sun 1st Nov 2026. 03:16 One day, I will be richer than Musk. I`m quite certain he will be burning his toast in Trumpski666`s gaff while by all accounts, I will have inherited the Earth. ;) Reply |
| 9. Author: tentonhammers Date: Sun 1st Nov 2026. 10:31 PARrot, Sun 1 Nov 03:16 Any chance you could sort it oot? Reply |
| 10. Author: ipswichpar Date: Sun 1st Nov 2026. 10:35 There are few things harder than the Man United job but...... Reply |
| 11. Author: jake89 Date: Sun 1st Nov 2026. 17:57 Pensions are going to be incredibly important going forward. Do not expect the state to help. This is not a criticism of the pensioners of today, but we have far too many old people and this will get worse and worse. Fewer people paying taxes = less for social care. It`s only a matter of time before they`re coming for EVERYTHING you have to cover your care bills. Anyone young person without a pension (or alternative) is going to be well and truly screwed. Reply |
| 12. Author: Indiapar1 Date: Sun 1st Nov 2026. 19:44 I suspect what will happen is that they will raise the pension age from 67 to 70 progressively over the years. In my working lifetime it has already gone from 60 to 67. Alot of people also eligible gor the state pension work beyond retirement age. I had colleagues who were 72 and still working full or part time. G Wardrope Reply |
| 13. Author: jake89 Date: Mon 2nd Nov 2026. 10:51 Indiapar1, Sun 1 Nov 19:44 Horrifying when you consider life expectancy for man I`m places like Blackpool and Glasgow is barely 74. Reply |
| 14. Author: Indiapar1 Date: Mon 2nd Nov 2026. 19:02 jake89, Mon 2 Nov 10:51 I think thats the challenge. The principal in increasing the pension age was two fold - to increase the tax receipts on working people and to reduce the number of years on average pensions will be paid. The reason given for raising the pension age was because people were living longer. The pension age is due to rise to 68 in 2044-46, but that will remain under review. The OBR have modelled a rise to 68 in 2037-39 however but 2044-46 remains the statutory timetable. The best approach is to improve the balance by improving productivity, greater employment participation (hence the concern about NEETS), higher taxable earnings, changes to pension elegibility or uprating, and adjustments to taxation. Tough choices I think. G Wardrope Reply |
| 15. Author: pars4life1 Date: Mon 2nd Nov 2026. 19:32 Part of the cause of youth unemployment or greater NEETS is the higher pension age. Can`t expect businesses to be employing or providing training when their more experienced workforce are being expected to stick around Reply |
| 16. Author: Indiapar1 Date: Mon 2nd Nov 2026. 20:08 The findings of the government report of 2025 - Young People and Work, indicated that 44% of young people reported a work limiting health condition in compsrison to 26% in 2015. More than 25% were economically inactive due to sickness or disability. Among disabled, mental health was increasingly prominent and reported as the primary condition. A separate government report however found that 84% wanted to be in education, training or work. It sounds to me that this group need additional help and support to lead them into employment. The issue with education is that a number of graduates at technical or degree level are unable to find suitable employment. 300,000 NEETS were not claiming benefits. 74% of those were actively seeking employment, 54% had a degree, 57% had been out of work for less than 6 months, and 4 in 5 lived with their parents. A number felt that vocational.training would be more beneficial. It is also interesting to note that 6.8% of school leavers in Scotland did not attain the SCQF level 4 literacy qualification. It seems to be a complex picture. G Wardrope Reply |
| 17. Author: jake89 Date: Mon 2nd Nov 2026. 20:33 Yep. Older people can`t retire meaning people can`t move up meaning no entry positions at the bottom. To make matters worse, there are older people having to pick up more entry level jobs in places like supermarkets. I doubt many CHOOSE to keep working so it`s not them being selfish. We`re also headed towards Idiocracy where the only people who can afford to have multiple kids (thus creating more income generators) are the unemployed ones. Reply |
| 18. Author: Dandy Warhol Date: Tue 3rd Nov 2026. 07:44 Speaking of being rich, superinjunctions,why are the rich allowed to hide their crimes whilst furiously playing the mental health card to try and get off? I don`t wanna go down like disco. Reply |
| 19. Author: ipswichpar Date: Tue 3rd Nov 2026. 09:14 Let`s be honest, playing the mental health card isn`t limited to rich people. The whole legal process is flawed. If you have enough money, you have a decent chance of dragging it out long enough that folk think it isn`t worth the bother. It`s generally only the lawyers that win. Reply |
| 20. Author: Dandy Warhol Date: Tue 3rd Nov 2026. 09:37 ipswichpar, Tue 3 Nov 09:14 Britain`s Epstein class. Savile wasn`t the last or the worst sadly. I don`t wanna go down like disco. Reply |
Post your Reply
Your Message:
By using your account you have implicitly accepted the DAFC.net Forum Rules and agree to be bound by them. You also agree that you will take sole responsibility for your post and indemnify dafc.net on all matters and costs. Refrain from making any potentially libelous comments about anyone
- - -