Millionaires

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

i've seen a Millionaire ... on TV though, that Major Ingram on who wants to be a millionaire .. but it turns out he cheated anyways

Talking of who wants to be a Millionaire , did Ireland have its own version of it? - I think they did didn't they? - just trying to think who hosted it

Wasn't it Gaybo? *shudder*

I don't know anyone who started with nothing and have become wealthy, however I do know wealthy people who who started out in a very good positions in life and have now become very wealthy and it not always money they started out with, it could be the family they have or the family contacts they have or an accident of the property market has made them wealthy or they were wealthy to begin with and are now very wealthy. There are a lots of wealthy small builders and developers or those who own butchers shop, commercial property ect.

Geuze wrote: »

There is a woman living on the road from Sligo to Rosses Point worth 100m+ in wealth.

Is she married?

Geuze wrote: »

Yes.

Grayson wrote: »

...
I did all my degrees and masters in full time education whilst working full time in a junior level corporate position. I worked my ass off in that job as did all my coworkers. Being rich or well off isn't just a matter of working hard. You need to have a break. You need to have someone help you.
...
People need to realise that people who earn less than them aren't lazy, they aren't stupid and they aren't lacking ambition. They work just as hard, are just as smart and want to progress just as much as everyone else. They just weren't lucky enough to get the same breaks.

Exactly this.
I hate the shyte trotted out by some pretty rich people about how hard they worked which implies that anyone that is poor or not well off are lazy and haven't worked hard.

Many people work hard long hours, but they may not have quiet the business acumen, the backing necessary and yes the luck to succeed and become wealthy.

If you look at a fair few huge success stories, there is almost always a lucky break somewhere along the way.
What if IBM had done a deal with Digital Research to license a version of CP/M operating system rather than getting Microsoft to build Ms-DOS ?
What if Steve Jobs had never visited Xerox PARC to see that there was huge merit in the Macintosh project and that GUI was the way to go ?
What if Mark Zuckerberg had never met the Winklevoss brothers ?
What if the recording engineer had never rang Richard Branson to tell him about Mike Oldfield and what if an existing record company had signed him ?

Yes these guys might have been successful because they were really smart and business savvy, and in case of Jobs had unbelievable vision, but would they have ended up billionaries running/owning companies worth billions.

Now I am not saying every success story is down to luck, there needs to be hard graft and risk taking smart leaders as well to succeed.

metaoblivia wrote: »

...
Many of our clients had the good fortune to be on the ground floor of what are now huge, global companies. Some were actual founders, but some weren't - they just took a chance on a start-up and it worked out for them in a big way...

I have known a fair few people who got jobs in the early days of the likes of Microsoft in Ireland and shares have made them rich.
This happened to lesser extent with the likes of Irish IPOs in case of Iona, Trintech, Baltimore, etc and share options made them a fair few quid.
It is sometimes just being in the right place and backing the right horse.

As for what type of people millionaires are?
Well like everything you have nice ones and assh*les.

Old Bill wrote: »

It's a sad fact but most people get rich by f**king people over.

what is your source for this "fact"?

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I know we get a relatively good pension when we retire. That doesn't mean I'll be better off than I am now, does it? My pension will be considerably less than my current salary.

Go and talk to an actuary.

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

A reasonable level of numeracy is a minimum requirement for entry to the public service. I may be wrong here, but I'm fairly sure a pass at Leaving Cert maths (or equivalent) is necessary.

Not when I joined. In fact the vast majority of public sector jobs did not require a leaving cert at all, let alone a pass in maths. I have, however come across many primary school teachers who are innumerate, despite being third level graduates who are paid to teach maths!

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I'm always annoyed when non-public servants complain about the pension we will get. If the pension is so great, why did you leave the public service? I presume there were other benefits to your chosen career at that time. So you had a choice, stay with the public service and collect a handy pension, or leave the public service and take the benefits that were presumably offered to you at that time.

Who is complaining?

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

You chose your path; I chose mine. I'm happy with the choice I made, and I certainly don't begrudge any benefits given to workers in the private sector.

Why are you so defensive then?
Going to a workplace for 40 odd years where virtually the only topic of conversation is football and watching zombies who can't add mope around is not my idea of collecting a handy pension.

Old Bill wrote: »

It's a sad fact but most people get rich by f**king people over.

I won quite a lot of money on lotto and although I jumped the queue I wouldn't say I fxxked anyone over.

valoren wrote: »

That's an example of the prison of the mind referred to earlier.

She has what an accountant would label an Asset.
But a true asset would be generating cash which this million euro home isn't generating. It's nice to tell yourself that you have a million euro home, but that's not how a truly wealthy person would see it. They wouldn't care about that. From what I can tell any wealthy person I've known simple doesn't give a crap about status symbols, keeping up with the Jonses. A million euro home that is costing them money would be a liability in their eyes. An example of what Texan's call having a "Big Hat but No Cattle".

They would care about living on easy street where possible.

If she wanted to generate assets then she should leverage the asset by downsizing if she wished and moved to a house worth half that.

She then has half a million euro to invest in income producing assets.
If she knew her budget amount i.e. what her esb, broadband, weekly shop amounts etc are then she should be focusing on getting that income generated from the assets to match that amount if possible. She would then be on easy street.

That's assuming that she is perfectly happy where she is living obviously and is not worrying about bills and doesn't see the need for any of that.

She's fecking ancient She's not moving anywhere.

Still she is technically a millionaire. She has a million in assets. Plus, she never bought a house worth a million. She bought it worth a lot less and in the 90's and 00's we all went a bit nuts about property.

There's a guardian writer. I can't remember which one but she's pretty socialist. She wrote an article last year about how she's a millionaire now. She bought a rundown house in London decades ago and last year it tipped the million price mark. She found it weird that in a relatively short time here home had managed to catapult her, a socialist who doesn't like wealth and never chased it, into the millionaire category.

Grayson wrote: »

She's fecking ancient She's not moving anywhere.

Still she is technically a millionaire. She has a million in assets. Plus, she never bought a house worth a million. She bought it worth a lot less and in the 90's and 00's we all went a bit nuts about property.

There's a guardian writer. I can't remember which one but she's pretty socialist. She wrote an article last year about how she's a millionaire now. She bought a rundown house in London decades ago and last year it tipped the million price mark. She found it weird that in a relatively short time here home had managed to catapult her, a socialist who doesn't like wealth and never chased it, into the millionaire category.

She isn't really a millionaire.

What did you do your masters and degree in? I've never heard of anyone who has a masters living below the poverty line in Ireland.

The best book I've read on becoming wealthy was 'The Richest Man in Babylon'. It reads like a financial Aesop fable.

At the start, you have a chariot builder who is bemoaning his lot in life. His friend, a musician, comes by and asks him for a loan of two coppers. He can't, because they would be, he says, his entire fortune, and he could never do that, not even to his best friend. They then realise that they have worked their whole lives and have nothing to show for it.

They talk about their friend, he of the books title, and wonder how he became so wealthy, when they were all in the same class at school and they thought he wasn't as smart as them either. They come to understand that his wealth is not simply in the contents of his purse as he spends liberally. They come to the conclusion that he is able to do this because his purse is always refilled without him having to labor. (i.e. passive income).

They don't simply begrudge him, like others do, they resolve to go and speak with him and ask for his advise and how he came to be so wealthy.

When they meet him, he tells them his story. When he was a teenager, he worked as a stone carver. He had an order from a wealthy gold lender but he was unable to meet his deadline. He promised the gold lender that he would finish his order overnight but he wished to know how he became wealthy, as he himself wished to be wealthy too. The gold lender agrees.

He makes good on his stone carving and the gold lender tells him that he became wealthy when he realised that 'a part of all he earned was his to KEEP'. Not all. A part. To keep forever. He still spent his coins but he kept 10% of his earnings for himself. He advises the lad to do the same. So he does.

For a year, he saves his ten percent. And after a while he has a tidy sum. The following year the gold lender meets him again and asks about his progress. He tells him saved diligently and gave his coins to a brickmaker to buy jewels from abroad, they planned to sell them in Babylon at a huge mark up and split the profits. However, the jewels the brickmaker buys are just glass and totally worthless. He lost his savings. The gold lender simply tells him to start again. To plant another wealth tree.

Another year goes by. The gold lender meets him again and ask him about his progress. He says he saved his 10 percent. And when asked what he did with it, he said he loaned it to the shield maker to buy some bronze. The shieldmaker pays him back every 3 months with a bit of interest. The gold lender then asks him what he does with the interest. The lad says he spends it on fine food, clothes, treats himself etc. The gold lender rebuffs him and tells him that he should be using the interest to give loans to other shieldmakers for even more bronze. (to reinvest his 'dividend' so to speak).

Another year goes by and they meet again. The lad has become skilled in cash management at this point and has invested it wisely and diligently re-invests the interest. The gold lender asks him if he still asks brickmakers about jewels? 'About brickmaking they give good advice!", he retorts. At this point, the gold lender is thinking about retirement. He tells him that his sons are feckless spenders with no interest in working for him or managing his business. He offers him a job to manage his affairs. He has essentially been interviewing him all along to see if he is capable.

When the gold lender eventually passes away, the man, now holds a substantial holding in his business. His interests are wide ranging and well diversified. He however, still diligently saves his ten percent and invests it where he receives interest and dividends. He finds that over time his holdings are increasing in value and the interest eventually enables him to stop actively working. That he says is the story of how he became wealthy.

The chariot builder is impressed and resolves to pay himself first, so that he will always have 'coins in his purse'. The musician says he was lucky that the gold lender made him a partner. He somehow begrudges him about how 'lucky' he was. The richest man tells him it was no such thing as luck as he had merely displayed a definiteness of purpose. He wished to become wealthy and simply asked a rich man how he became rich and with discipline, patience and self resolve made it a reality.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Who is complaining?

I thought you were.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Why are you so defensive then?
Going to a workplace for 40 odd years where virtually the only topic of conversation is football and watching zombies who can't add mope around is not my idea of collecting a handy pension.

I'm not being defensive. Some people prefer working in the private sector, others in the public sector. I'm one of the latter but I can see that it wouldn't suit everyone. I also stated that I don't begrudge anyone in the private sector whatever they get. It always seems to be private sector employees that b*tch and moan about what they think public sector employees earn.

Judging by your ridiculous assertion that public sector employees spend 40 years talking about football, whilst "moping around" and trying to work out what 2+2 equals, I'd say you have a problem with the public sector in general.

I'd also like to know how you reached the conclusion that we spend 40 years moping around if you're not even employed in the public sector? Perhaps it's your ingrained dislike of public sector employees that gives you this picture in your head.

I'd be very grateful if you could explain how I'll be financially better off when I retire. You suggested I ask an actuary, but why should I go to that expense when you so clearly have all the answers?

Holograph wrote: »

Exactly. A millionaire is someone who has at least a million in the bank right now, a lump sum. Not someone whose entire lifetime's earnings add up to at least a million.
And those who would claim "A public servant with a high pension is a millionaire" know this in fairness.
It's just anti public service straw-clutching.

You still have to include assets. At the very least I'd include assets which can be liquidated easily.