Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:04:30 12/13/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 2005 at 10:28:24, Tord Romstad wrote: >On December 12, 2005 at 23:48:30, Jay Urbanski wrote: > >>$1,000,000 in the bank is not "rich" - at best it is comfortable. Assuming 10% >>return per year (an optimistic assumption), that's only $100,000 a year without >>touching the capital. Comfortable, mabye... but hardly "rich". > >Really? Depends a lot on where you are living, I suppose. In my eyes, having >$1,000,000 in the bank is not just being rich, but *copiously* rich. I don't >think I've ever met anybody who had half that amount of money. Even $100,000 >in the bank would qualify as "rich", in my opinion. > >Of course, I am living in what most Americans would describe as a socialist >country, and we don't have a lot of really rich (nor really poor) people. > >Tord I agree with you that 1,000,000$ in the bank is rich. It is enough money to live without working. Note that even if you can get only 3% of it every year that means 2500$ per month that is more than the average person in Israel(average sallary is less than 2000$ per month) Note that I do not consider 100,000$ in the bank as rich. Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.