Wealth

[GQBlues]

...Forget the 8’s and 10’s..... Bill has said many times to find a good girl..... Listen to him, he knows what he’s taking about!!!. Your not a teenager or young 20 year old anymore who dreams of hot models, you’re a middle aged guy with limited relationship experience, find a good girl and don’t waste your life chasing a fantasy..... Trust me, you’ll regret it in the future!!..

Yah know.. I used to love guys who held on to this ideal. The majority of men actually do have this 'belief', which to me is perfectly fine. Almost all f my friends before bore this exact attitude when we're out in social gatherings, LMAO. Then they wonder why or how I seem to always end up with gals like these. One witnesses this play out in social outings or venue everyday. One which I'm deeply appreciative about.

To me, and in my life's experiences, the most 'normal', secured and stable, no baggage women have been mostly those that universally men would describe as 'hot-hottest', the 9s&10s...you know, the ones judged to be bitches simply because they can rock a man's world simply by walking in the room.

How do these men know what gals like these are all about if they never took the time to find out? Beats me. I'm too busy during these moments trying to find out up close and personal with these very women.

Hell, many of the wackiest, insecure women I've encountered would be in the mid-range looks wise / average / above average, even two that I can think off on the top of my head that were 'church-goers'.

Just because a woman is gorgeous and you feel she is way above your 'league' - therefore she's gotta to be *Ms. trouble-waiting-to-happen* sounds a lot like to me that the problem isn't on the gal they do not know, or care to know - but one they fully know - *themselves*.

While many can admire such ideals of *beauty from within*..hell, I've always taken *beauty all around* first myself at each instance and opportunity.

Anyway, I've always taken this majority behavior from men with utmost appreciation really. It had made my social life during my single years so exceedingly satisfying. I took the same attitude when I went to Russia. Pick the best looking from the lot, then get my butt out there and see who the person behind the look is.

You folks put waaay too much complication and drama in an otherwise primal/basic segment of life. This really is, *that simple*

[Trenchcoat]

Yah know.. I used to love guys who held on to this ideal. The majority of men actually do have this 'belief', which to me is perfectly fine. Almost all f my friends before bore this exact attitude when we're out in social gatherings, LMAO. Then they wonder why or how I seem to always end up with gals like these. One witnesses this play out in social outings or venue everyday. One which I'm deeply appreciative about.

To me, and in my life's experiences, the most 'normal', secured and stable, no baggage women have been mostly those that universally men would describe as 'hot-hottest', the 9s&10s...you know, the ones judged to be bitches simply because they can rock a man's world simply by walking in the room.

How do these men know what gals like these are all about if they never took the time to find out? Beats me. I'm too busy during these moments trying to find out up close and personal with these very women.

Hell, many of the wackiest, insecure women I've encountered would be in the mid-range looks wise / average / above average, even two that I can think off on the top of my head that were 'church-goers'.

Just because a woman is gorgeous and you feel she is way above your 'league' - therefore she's gotta to be *Ms. trouble-waiting-to-happen* sounds a lot like to me that the problem isn't on the gal they do not know, or care to know - but one they fully know - *themselves*.

While many can admire such ideals of *beauty from within*..hell, I've always taken *beauty all around* first myself at each instance and opportunity.

Anyway, I've always taken this majority behavior from men with utmost appreciation really. It had made my social life during my single years so exceedingly satisfying. I took the same attitude when I went to Russia. Pick the best looking from the lot, then get my butt out there and see who the person behind the look is.

You folks put waaay too much complication and drama in an otherwise primal/basic segment of life. This really is, *that simple*

I think indeed it is probably the way you view it GQ. When most guys see a real pretty girl they put her on a pedestal and then they will kiss her ass to try and satisfy her. Sometimes she may be fine back but other times she will be a right cow. A lot of guys will put up with it as she is hot but instead if they take the attitude that she is not all that as after all she is just another human being and not a goddess then it would probably shatter her self belief that she us any better, thus allowing for a relationship to ensue.

[GQBlues]

All I'm trying to convey here is, be yourself. We all have differing reasons why we live the lives we do. I do and have done what I have because they all proved to work for me, not because someone told me to do things in my life the way *they* do with theirs.


Doing things what ultimately makes you happy, and even successful, is really all that matters. If you can do that and share it with someone special to you - even better. It's not a question of right, wrong or dirty socks.


I used to have a lot of female friends, and used to get more than an earful of some of the female antics towards social outlooks. While they (many/most/all?) will never openly admit 'sex' plays a major part in their decision process, the fact is this is really important to them.


I remember one time I was with a group of them for dinner somewhere, and the topic of 'meeting/getting to know' period with someone, and what they feel are the important aspect they 'value' to help their decision to continue or stop the acquaintance/s. The question whether or not sex should be part of the equation was discussed. One said a resounding 'you bet'! She said if someone interests her enough, and she'd like to proceed with the process, she'd rather have sex with the guy asap rather than wait. This way, she said, she'll immediately get a very sound feedback if she ought to continue with him. If he's damn good in bed, the finding out more about him would be worth her time. If he's not however, she'd rather know now because it won't matter if he's the nicest guy in the state if he can never arouse her sexually. Why waste her time? Shallow? Maybe...but if you really give it a thought, she makes a fairly valid point. Which, btw, was received in unison by her peers.


Be yourself. These discussions about WMVM/WOVO - Apartment/Hotel - City gal/Provincial gal - Young/old(er) - yadayadayada. When it comes down to it - it's your bus ticket, punch it.

[Intrepid Traveler]

I’ll repeat the question. What is wealth? Is it a high net worth? Is it sizeable assets other than cash? Is it high disposable income?
In two of these scenarios one could be considered wealthy but have no cash at hand.
In the 3rd scenarios one could be earning a high  salary but the fixed outgoings are equally high leaving you with little disposable income.
Or you could be a Trench. With some small assets, limited income but small outgoings.

A while back, I provided some stats in the US. I also provided the source in that post, so you can dig as deep as you want into the information.

In going back to the source data for the US, "Before-tax family income" distributed by "percentile of income" gave the following results:

• 60-79.9: $96.8K
• 80-89.9: $153.5K
• 90-100:  $494.6K

Now, "Net worth by percentile of net worth" gave the following results:

• 50-74.9: $236.3K
• 75-89.9: $703.6K
• 90-100: $5,710.3K

Note that percentiles are different for each group.

In your question, you ask so what is high net worth? Is it cash, investments, or some combination of both? There probably isn't one universal definition of high-net worth. One could argue that just being born in a western country makes you rich.

One definition that we could use is the "accredited investor" status. Before you can invest in a hedge fund, you must be an accredited investor. Here's how the US Securities Exchange Commission defines accredited investor:

Who is an accredited investor?
An accredited investor, in the context of a natural person, includes anyone who:

• earned income that exceeded $200,000 (or $300,000 together with a spouse or spousal equivalent) in each of the prior two years, and reasonably expects the same for the current year, OR
• has a net worth over $1 million, either alone or together with a spouse or spousal equivalent (excluding the value of the person’s primary residence), OR
• holds in good standing a Series 7, 65 or 82 license.

I would use the accredited investor definition for high net worth. A million dollars of net worth, excluding your home, isn't terribly rich. But it does place you in a comparatively good spot.

[ML]

High net worth is useful for emergency spending or with respect to building for retirement.

But more important is high yearly income.

For instance . . . let's say a person around age 45 with low yearly income but a million dollars in net worth because of an inheritance, insurance payoff for injury, or payout from life insurance for death of relative, etc.

Now if this latter person hooks up with a partner and starts spending big time . . .

at some point he/she will exhaust the net worth and have to start living on the low yearly income.

This will probably come as an (unacceptable) shock to the partner.

[Trenchcoat]

High net worth is useful for emergency spending or with respect to building for retirement.

But more important is high yearly income.

For instance . . . let's say a person around age 45 with low yearly income but a million dollars in net worth because of an inheritance, insurance payoff for injury, or payout from life insurance for death of relative, etc.

Now if this latter person hooks up with a partner and starts spending big time . . .

at some point he/she will exhaust the net worth and have to start living on the low yearly income.

This will probably come as an (unacceptable) shock to the partner.

Indeed. I think also the guy with his money in assets like a house like me can be a sitting target for a FSW who you get married to but if she's a bit open to other guys. After 5 years marriage in the UK she can claim half of what the guy has, before that possibly she could try I guess. So the guy who brings in the wealth through income may be seen in a much better position, it doesn't have to be high wealth though just decent enough. Then have a mortgage, loans etc. and enjoy life through not working too hard. A guy that works hard and the woman finds is joy because of it may find himself being replaced by one that is more fun. So having a set up where the woman cannot easily make a claim on fully paid up assets can be a good thing I think. Having a situation where the guy is seen to lay the golden egg can be a good thing I think as divorce the hen (or an 'unfortunate accident'  ) and the FSW won't get much if the golden egg. So for me once this place is done I might be better off getting a second house with a mortgage on both.

[GQBlues]

Indeed. I think also the guy with his money in assets like a house like me can be a sitting target for a FSW who you get married to but if she's a bit open to other guys. After 5 years marriage in the UK she can claim half of what the guy has, before that possibly she could try I guess. So the guy who brings in the wealth through income may be seen in a much better position, it doesn't have to be high wealth though just decent enough. Then have a mortgage, loans etc. and enjoy life through not working too hard. A guy that works hard and the woman finds is joy because of it may find himself being replaced by one that is more fun. So having a set up where the woman cannot easily make a claim on fully paid up assets can be a good thing I think. Having a situation where the guy is seen to lay the golden egg can be a good thing I think as divorce the hen (or an 'unfortunate accident'  ) and the FSW won't get much if the golden egg. So for me once this place is done I might be better off getting a second house with a mortgage on both.

TC-


Be at peace knowing that if a 'FSUW' is that smart and conniving, then take comfort knowing you stand a better than a good chance of being passed over for someone who actually will be a bigger fish to fry, no?

[Trenchcoat]

TC-


Be at peace knowing that if a 'FSUW' is that smart and conniving, then take comfort knowing you stand a better than a good chance of being passed over for someone who actually will be a bigger fish to fry, no?

LOL  Yeah funny that it kind of came to my mind while I was writing that in a weird kind of way not being too rich is probably a bonus as most of the bad girls won't be interested in me thus less chance of me being run over like that that poor millionaire guy was a number of years back.

Probably best to be reasonably wealthy but not too wealthy and try and look like the golden egg layer but not lay too golden an egg!

[Trenchcoat]

All I'm trying to convey here is, be yourself. We all have differing reasons why we live the lives we do. I do and have done what I have because they all proved to work for me, not because someone told me to do things in my life the way *they* do with theirs.


Doing things what ultimately makes you happy, and even successful, is really all that matters. If you can do that and share it with someone special to you - even better. It's not a question of right, wrong or dirty socks.


I used to have a lot of female friends, and used to get more than an earful of some of the female antics towards social outlooks. While they (many/most/all?) will never openly admit 'sex' plays a major part in their decision process, the fact is this is really important to them.


I remember one time I was with a group of them for dinner somewhere, and the topic of 'meeting/getting to know' period with someone, and what they feel are the important aspect they 'value' to help their decision to continue or stop the acquaintance/s. The question whether or not sex should be part of the equation was discussed. One said a resounding 'you bet'! She said if someone interests her enough, and she'd like to proceed with the process, she'd rather have sex with the guy asap rather than wait. This way, she said, she'll immediately get a very sound feedback if she ought to continue with him. If he's damn good in bed, the finding out more about him would be worth her time. If he's not however, she'd rather know now because it won't matter if he's the nicest guy in the state if he can never arouse her sexually. Why waste her time? Shallow? Maybe...but if you really give it a thought, she makes a fairly valid point. Which, btw, was received in unison by her peers.


Be yourself. These discussions about WMVM/WOVO - Apartment/Hotel - City gal/Provincial gal - Young/old(er) - yadayadayada. When it comes down to it - it's your bus ticket, punch it.

I hear what you say and the previous post also, a guy can come home good if he enjoys his life and hence the girl will enjoy it sharing it with him. Aside from all the issues over wealth, pretty boys to compete against there is more than that, that can trump a lot of the issues and that is if the guy can tap into the enjoyable side of himself and share that with a lady then a lot of all the other issues on his wealth, his looks, etc become irrelevant. A lot of people don't do that, not in real life, not online, etc. I think a lot of guys (myself included in the past) have gone about dating even daily life in a methodical ordinary way without really getting in touch with who they are. In school, work, etc in the west we are often told to be this way and that way, to be always polite, calm, considerate, mild mannered and balanced; but that's not who we are, it's a false impression we're told to give others so we all get along and don't risk offending others and creates a civil if not boring atmosphere. I think it kind of whitewashes a person's personality that they show to most people even when dating but it's not who we really are.

[Intrepid Traveler]

Indeed. I think also the guy with his money in assets like a house like me can be a sitting target for a FSW who you get married to but if she's a bit open to other guys. After 5 years marriage in the UK she can claim half of what the guy has, before that possibly she could try I guess. So the guy who brings in the wealth through income may be seen in a much better position, it doesn't have to be high wealth though just decent enough. Then have a mortgage, loans etc. and enjoy life through not working too hard. A guy that works hard and the woman finds is joy because of it may find himself being replaced by one that is more fun. So having a set up where the woman cannot easily make a claim on fully paid up assets can be a good thing I think. Having a situation where the guy is seen to lay the golden egg can be a good thing I think as divorce the hen (or an 'unfortunate accident'  ) and the FSW won't get much if the golden egg. So for me once this place is done I might be better off getting a second house with a mortgage on both.

I can't speak to the UK, but most jurisdictions split the increase in value after the marriage. So the guy typically keeps what was his prior to the marriage. Now, if a guy owned a house prior to the marriage and the house increased in value throughout the marriage, then he may have to split that increase in value.

If a guy is wealthy, however one wants to define wealthy, then a prenuptial agreement may prudent. Yes, I know, lots of people don't like them. And some argue that is planning on divorce before the marriage even begins. Everyone has opinions. The reality is that with the risk of divorce, it is a prudent measure for those who have sufficient worth deserving of protection. But if the guy doesn't have a lot of wealth, then there is no incentive.

My own view is that as long as a guy has steady income and a reasonably livelihood, he should be fine. For those that are wealthier, they are usually (but not always) smart enough to take steps to protect themselves. They were smart enough to acquire the wealth.

[GQBlues]

High net worth is useful for emergency spending or with respect to building for retirement.

But more important is high yearly income.

For instance . . . let's say a person around age 45 with low yearly income but a million dollars in net worth because of an inheritance, insurance payoff for injury, or payout from life insurance for death of relative, etc.

Now if this latter person hooks up with a partner and starts spending big time . . .

at some point he/she will exhaust the net worth and have to start living on the low yearly income.

This will probably come as an (unacceptable) shock to the partner.

This brought back memories of one of our acquaintance in the not too distant past. AM/FSUW, with the guy actually being an Asian-American.

He inherited over 2 million when his Dad passed away. Shortly after, he sought to find a wife from Russia. Met one and got married with her. Actually a very nice couple we befriended during the first two years of my marriage.

LSS, everything was fine with them, and neither actually worked and were for the most part living off his inheritance. He's supposed to be a 'doctor' though not US licensed or accredited. What he did however was heavily play in day trading. Then the 2008-2010 shindig hit, just a year after their first child came and MIL recently getting a GC and began staying with them. In short order, he was for the most part, wiped out. Phew! $$ gone forever just like that. Obvious financial problems ensued. While he sunk in some mysterious activities and depression, she decided she'll also become a CPA after consultation with wifey.

Fast-forward, the gal is remarried now, and the guy is roving around out of state doing whatever he can to muster some money to live on. She got custody of the kid, and I believe she's still paying him alimony.

During the heydays, they were living off the fat hog. Travelled everywhere including going to Palau to go scuba diving, and other places of the like...I still remember the time when they decided to get certified, he'd turned around on one weekend & got them matching deep sea watches, tanks, wetsuits, etc...and if that isn't enough, a freaking boat! LMAO.

One time when his wife thought it'll be a good idea for him to learn to play golf so he can hang out with me, he bought a full set of Callaways, shoes, and even paid for lessons at a high-end country club.

They're one of the many AM/FSUW couples we used to spend time with that didn't last long. It's too bad really as they were really both nice people. The gal still speaks to wifey now and then. 

[Intrepid Traveler]

He inherited over 2 million when his Dad passed away. Shortly after, he sought to find a wife from Russia. Met one and got married with her. Actually a very nice couple we befriended during the first two years of my marriage.

It's too bad that the guy wasn't smarter. While two million may seem like a king's ransom, it ain't enough to retire on with a high lifestyle at a young age.

The rough rule of thumb is that you can live off of 4 percent of your savings. So that's $80K per year, which ain't bad if everything else is paid for and you're living a "reasonable" life. But if it is an extravagant lifestyle you seek, you'll need more than $2 million in savings to retire at a young age.

This reminds of a CNBC story Here's why lottery winners go broke. A bit of money can sometimes be a curse.

[ML]

This reminds of a CNBC story Here's why lottery winners go broke. A bit of of money can sometimes be a curse.

I have heard/read about several such cases.

I can't believe what idiots many of those folks were, and wonder how they were able to move out of their parents home in the first place.

I read about one guy who regularly carried a standard briefcase with around $40,000 in cash when he frequented local bars.  Surprise, surprise . . . he finally 'lost' the briefcase in one bar.

[BillyB]

I read about one guy who regularly carried a standard briefcase with around $40,000 in cash when he frequented local bars.  Surprise, surprise . . . he finally 'lost' the briefcase in one bar.

I think you're talking about the guy in the article below. He once walked into a strip club with 50K. Later he got over $540K stolen from his car parked at that strip club. Five months later he got $200K stolen from his car at the same strip club. He also got $100K stolen from his car parked in front of his home. A fool and his money will soon part.


http://nypost.com/2020/07/04/downward-spiral-of-315-million-powerball-winner-jack-whittaker/

[fathertime]

The rough rule of thumb is that you can live off of 4 percent of your savings. So that's $80K per year, which ain't bad if everything else is paid for and you're living a "reasonable" life. But if it is an extravagant lifestyle you seek, you'll need more than $2 million in savings to retire at a young age.
 

As a married man living in South America I think 80k would be enough money to live well, especially if the ranch is already paid for.  That said, I may want to have more money for certain extravagances and/or family emergencies, so I think 150k plus would be meet my own criteria.     If I were a single man, I would also want 150k or so, because with the ladies I may feel the need to lead a bit more with the wallet in older age! 

.I still remember the time when they decided to get certified, he'd turned around on one weekend & got them matching deep sea watches, tanks, wetsuits, etc... 

Hilarious.  I wonder what the woman's thoughts were at the time as he was buying all this stuff.

Fathertime! 

[Trenchcoat]

Weird that someone could be that reckless with money maybe they subconsciously get stressed out by having so much money compared to previously that they end up not liking being in that situation as they struggle to identify with being a rich guy. Myself I would like to think that I would play such a win reasonably carefully so I don't ever have to work for an employer again. Possibly the big lottery wins are too large for some people as if not having to do any work then maybe the struggle to think of something else to do. With a smaller win people might start up a business or do careful investments, S&P and the like but with a real huge win there's no real point in setting up a business unless it's to enable something big you always wanted to do like save the planet or build s space station or something lol.

I play the Thunderball lottery as part of the National lottery group of lotteries once a week. It's a pound a week and has smaller prizes but many more of them. The top prize is £500k and like all the other prizes in Thunderball lottery everyone who gets the numbers gets the £500k each there's no having to share the prizes but no rollover either. Most of the other lotteries they run have a bigger top prize in the millions but is shared if more than one winner and the odds of you winning are far less not that the odds of winning Thunderball top prize is all that good either of course it's still a very long shot. In general with Thunderball winning the smaller prizes of £3, £5 & £10 are much easier and I win a fair few of them each year. That means in my mind that I can make roughly half the money back I spend out on the lottery (£52 a year) so the money I lose is not all that great spread over the course of a year but allows me a chance however slim of potentially winning something each week without a big outlay.

That said it would probably be better odds in theory if I put that £52 on one Thunderball draw instead of spreading it out for the year. No telling if I would lose all of it in one go or most of it with just a few small wins. I don't really do it seriously though I just do it as a weekly thing to hold open the door that I might, just might possibly win that week. I put it on by direct debit with the same numbers each week so often forget I've even put it on, I never check the numbers as I'm automatically told if I win or not. It used to be joked when the National lottery started off a bit over twenty years back now that it was the poor man's tax lol, well I've only been playing Thunderball countinuous for about 2-3 years now so only been paying my poor man's tax for a bit.

The real huge prize is the Euro millions lottery, I've played that the odd few times but hardly ever really, it often has a ridiculously huge big top prize but the odds of winning anything on it are ridiculous particularly the top prize and is more money than I would know what to do with, its way bigger top prize than even the National lottery top prize and that is often more than any one person would need really. FSW would probably be floored at the prize lol.

Government Premium bonds is another thing I do, you invest some money and each pound invested enters you a number in a monthly prize draw. You can win varying amounts and of course the big top prize of £1 million. I've won small prizes in the past with a few thousand in there but not often so then taken the money out to spend on other stuff. So a couple of years or so back just put in £100 so it was an amount small enough to not usually want to bother taking out to spend on something else. It's worked well that way but that said haven't won anything so far and usually forget it's in there. The up side of premium bonds is that you don't ever lose the money you put in you just lose out in any interest you might have got if it were in the bank, that is tiny at the moment anyway so not a bad bet.

Euromillions us Brits still get to play if we wish even though we are no longer in the EU.

[Patagonie]

This brought back memories of one of our acquaintance in the not too distant past. AM/FSUW, with the guy actually being an Asian-American.

He inherited over 2 million when his Dad passed away. Shortly after, he sought to find a wife from Russia. Met one and got married with her. Actually a very nice couple we befriended during the first two years of my marriage.

LSS, everything was fine with them, and neither actually worked and were for the most part living off his inheritance. He's supposed to be a 'doctor' though not US licensed or accredited. What he did however was heavily play in day trading. Then the 2008-2010 shindig hit, just a year after their first child came and MIL recently getting a GC and began staying with them. In short order, he was for the most part, wiped out. Phew! $$ gone forever just like that. Obvious financial problems ensued. While he sunk in some mysterious activities and depression, she decided she'll also become a CPA after consultation with wifey.

Fast-forward, the gal is remarried now, and the guy is roving around out of state doing whatever he can to muster some money to live on. She got custody of the kid, and I believe she's still paying him alimony.

During the heydays, they were living off the fat hog. Travelled everywhere including going to Palau to go scuba diving, and other places of the like...I still remember the time when they decided to get certified, he'd turned around on one weekend & got them matching deep sea watches, tanks, wetsuits, etc...and if that isn't enough, a freaking boat! LMAO.

One time when his wife thought it'll be a good idea for him to learn to play golf so he can hang out with me, he bought a full set of Callaways, shoes, and even paid for lessons at a high-end country club.

They're one of the many AM/FSUW couples we used to spend time with that didn't last long. It's too bad really as they were really both nice people. The gal still speaks to wifey now and then.

 
 
I disagree with the second paragraph. 
This is a common mistake among the youngest, "but if the guy doesn't have a lot of wealth, then there is no incentive".
You never know when you will earn more money. I have rarely seen people refusing an opportunity to make their life and their income better.   
And after it's complicated to change the matrimonial regime, it's generally too late. I even met an FSUW woman living in France doing such a thing because her situation in assets has drastically changed towards more wealth. She faced a lot of difficulties. 

[Trenchcoat]

What's old gaunty's position on all of this anyway, looks like our thread starter has just buggered off.

[2tallbill]

Probably best to be reasonably wealthy but not too wealthy and try and look like the golden egg layer but not lay too golden an egg!

It's probably best to find a good girl, rather than some optimum level of squalor.

 

[John Gaunt]

What's old gaunty's position on all of this anyway, looks like our thread starter has just buggered off.

Trenchies incoherent ramblings................

Some of us are productive members of society and don’t have time to sit in our basements writing stuff no one can make sense of.

[John Gaunt]

A while back, I provided some stats in the US. I also provided the source in that post, so you can dig as deep as you want into the information.

In going back to the source data for the US, "Before-tax family income" distributed by "percentile of income" gave the following results:

• 60-79.9: $96.8K
• 80-89.9: $153.5K
• 90-100:  $494.6K

Now, "Net worth by percentile of net worth" gave the following results:

• 50-74.9: $236.3K
• 75-89.9: $703.6K
• 90-100: $5,710.3K

Note that percentiles are different for each group.

In your question, you ask so what is high net worth? Is it cash, investments, or some combination of both? There probably isn't one universal definition of high-net worth. One could argue that just being born in a western country makes you rich.

One definition that we could use is the "accredited investor" status. Before you can invest in a hedge fund, you must be an accredited investor. Here's how the US Securities Exchange Commission defines accredited investor:

I would use the accredited investor definition for high net worth. A million dollars of net worth, excluding your home, isn't terribly rich. But it does place you in a comparatively good spot.

Actually, that’s not the question I asked.
But thanks for the factoids you’ve put out there..

[John Gaunt]

That's a good run through of all the plus points living in the west can bring Bill I don't think a lot of FSW think about it a lot as many haven't experience of it. The closest they might have is living out in the country/dacha living but most likely that probably doesn't come with as nearly a comfortable set up. Could be something to bring up with a FSW I'm guessing she would either start to resent you or see more reason to get with you lol.

Here in the UK the situation is probably a bit different to the US. Here prices for housing is going through the roof even for small places so you likely get a lot less for your money compared to in the US. Most new build housing has gone back to the old Victorian workmans terrace size of housing but instead of in long rows of terraces just in small clusters of three or four or so then a space then another cluster or a road to break them up in between. That size of house is a 3 bed new build house these days and the rooms are small and cramped feeling, a space for a bed, a wardrobe and if your lucky a bedside table and that's it. The living room downstairs is equally as small and usually a small kitchen often at the back of the house next to it. Outside the back garden is about two parking spaces large, the front garden often consists of about a half meter strip of grass from the front footpath. Unlike the US we still have footpaths here to try to encourage people to walk rather than just drive everywhere. In Southern England a new build three bed house that I have mentioned would set you back about £300k. So that's a lot of money for such a tiny house. They do tend to be done in a nice fancy brick style so look nice enough at least. Cost of land & building materials often prohibits larger new build three bed houses.

Even still I'm guessing the above is still a little better than the concrete block apartment Bill has mentioned. My house in South Wales being more towards the old Victorian is similar size to the new build three bed but outside a but bigger garden out back and a bit more front garden to the house as well. Inside I have installed en-suite W/C to every room so getting quite nice. I fully own it all but never really been sure how a FSW would view it, a step up or a bit smallish? I'm guessing the same money that I could sell the house for here roughly £150k (as cheaper in Wales than southern England) I could buy a good property in the US in many but not all parts.

Either way guess at least I'm not paying any rent or mortgage.

So Trench thinks he’s wealthy because he ‘owns’ a house worth £150k outright.
I have a mortgage on my house, which is probably closer to £500k.
Does that make me less ‘wealthy’ than good old Trench?

[Trenchcoat]

So Trench thinks he’s wealthy because he ‘owns’ a house worth £150k outright.
I have a mortgage on my house, which is probably closer to £500k.
Does that make me less ‘wealthy’ than good old Trench?

Welcome back, we were Gauntless there for a while

Depends, if you have a large mortgage, also is the risk you take with a mortgage, if you're way of bringing in income goes and can't be replaced then you're stuffed and can lose the lot or a lot.

My guess is that you're not as wealthy as you once were JG, I've noticed you're slightly less chipper than you were when you first came on here over your wealth. The virus has done in a lot of business so my guess is that you got hit from the impact of it all financially, am I right?

[John Gaunt]

Welcome back, we were Gauntless Gormless there for a while
(There, fixed that for you)

Depends, if you have a large mortgage, also is the risk you take with a mortgage, if you're way of bringing in income goes and can't be replaced then you're stuffed and can lose the lot or a lot.

I don’t have a big mortgage and if needed could clear the outstanding in one go so I don’t think there will be any stuffing going on.
Taking a mortgage is not a huge risk if you borrow within your means and dont over extend plus ensuring you have the right sort of insurance and savings for a rainy day should the worst happen.
You plan for most eventualities and minimise any risk.

My guess is that you're not as wealthy as you once were JG, I've noticed you're slightly less chipper than you were when you first came on here over your wealth. The virus has done in a lot of business so my guess is that you got hit from the impact of it all financially, am I right?

 

Im doing just fine but thanks for the concern. 

[Trenchcoat]

I don’t have a big mortgage and if needed could clear the outstanding in one go so I don’t think there will be any stuffing going on.
Taking a mortgage is not a huge risk if you borrow within your means and dont over extend plus ensuring you have the right sort of insurance and savings for a rainy day should the worst happen.
You plan for most eventualities and minimise any risk.
 

Im doing just fine but thanks for the concern. 

Indeed Gauntless, I could for example never take on a mortgage, but more progress on wealth may be made by doing so. Either way I don't intend to stay with just a 3 bed terrace forever more, it's ok but not moving forward tends to mean that many people drift I think.