[ SECRET POST #3790 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3790 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 45 secrets from Secret Submission Post #543.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: How To Get Rich

[(Anonymous)]

My argument is not against saving, I just don't think compound interest is relevant.

Like, for example, the reason to invest in a 401k is tax deferment and employer contributions. AFAIK the benefits of investing in a 401k have nothing to do with compound interest. And I think the same is true mutatis mutandis with whatever you want to invest in. In other words, while investing in a 401k is a good idea, it's not because of compound interest (and also won't make you rich).

Re: How To Get Rich

[(Anonymous)]

I would explain how wrong that is, but the short booklet does it better. If you don't have time to give that a read, I don't think my comments will help either.

Re: How To Get Rich

[(Anonymous)]

I can't say that I did more than skim it, but it looks like very sensible and standard savings advice, slightly dickishly administered. I stand by my claim that it has no particular connection to compound interest and it won't make you rich.

Re: How To Get Rich

[(Anonymous)]

Ah, my mistake, I said interest when I meant returns. Hopefully that clears things up.

Amended, thank you anon :)

[(Anonymous)]

1. Stop thinking it's impossible for normal people.
2. Spend less than you earn.
3. Time and compound returns.

Re: Amended, thank you anon :)

[(Anonymous)]

Still won't make you rich. It'll make you secure and is a great retirement plan but that's not the same as being rich.

Re: Amended, thank you anon :)

[(Anonymous)]

What do you define as rich? If you're OP, defining what rich means to you seems like a very important part of the question.

To me, being eventually independent and retired, owing no money to anyone, with enough to live on annually for the rest of my foreseeable life without having to work, would count as quite rich!

Re: Amended, thank you anon :)

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not trying to be dismissive of it - it's a fantastic goal to work towards and a great thing to achieve. But I think describing that as "rich" requires understating the nature of the division of wealth in modern society, especially in America.

To me, "rich" is at least the next level up from that status, where you have some substantial level of capital above what's required for long-term financial security to invest.

Re: Amended, thank you anon :)

[(Anonymous)]

But... what would count as a "substantial" level of capital? 1 million? 2 million? 10 million? 20 million?

I think describing "rich" requires either hard numbers or a milestone or else it is always either "more" or "the next level up" and therefore, to answer your question, you will never be, because there's no concrete definition of the point you're trying to achieve.

This is why I personally prefer using milestones like "no longer having to work, at all, and be fine." I may need 1 million to do that, so 1 million would be rich to me. Someone with more expenses may need 5 million to do that, so 5 million would be rich to them.

At what minimum point would you stop and consider yourself rich, or consider your numbers substantial? Once you got there, are you certain would you find it enough, or would your goalposts move?

Re: Amended, thank you anon :)

[(Anonymous)]

I agree with your point about milestones; I would consider having a substantial amount of capital to invest a milestone in the same way that having long-term financial security is a milestone. And in much the same way, it's hard to define with numbers. I accept that there's going to be some ambiguity here. What I really want to underscore more than anything else is the extraordinary concentration of wealth that does already exist.

Once you got there, are you certain would you find it enough, or would your goalposts move?

I mean, to me, that's a problem of self-understanding and attitude and stuff like that, not really related to any definition of wealth. You can be a person who always wants more at any level of wealth, or you can be a person who's satisfied at (almost) any level of wealth, or you can be someone who sets specific targets for themselves.

Re: Amended, thank you anon :)

[(Anonymous)]

Your point about the extraordinary concentration of wealth in a few people in the USA makes sense, but I would call those people extraordinarily generationally wealthy, not mere "rich" people. The rich neighbors with the swimming pool are peons to the Waltons, aren't they?

I was speaking about the thread topic mostly. It's difficult to answer "how to get rich?" without knowing what rich or substantial means to you. Unless underscoring the wealth disparity was the point of asking how to get rich? Have I taken your question too literally?