Millionaires

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.

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.

Old Bill wrote: »

Buffet made his fortune by asset stripping companies.

You clearly havent a clue how the man has made his money. He is not an asset stripper. He invests for the long haul.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/12/10/warrens-way

Old Bill wrote: »

You only have to look at what he did to Cadbury he destroyed that company.

Also when buffet talks about "used cigars" in his own book he means asset stripping.

i dont think you understand what the phrase asset stripping means.

This was an interesting little thread apart from all the waffle about public service pensions!

I really wasn't going to bother replying to this, but some of the things you typed really just got on my nerves!

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You interpreted a comment about the source of your pension as a complaint about the pension itself?
You were corrected for incorrectly claiming that you were funding your pension.

I didn't claim I was funding my full pension myself. I merely pointed out that I have a rather large pensions deduction taken out of my pay every fortnight, along with a Pension Levy. That is not open to question - it's there every fortnight on my pay slip in black and white.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

From the Irish Independent of Wednesday last:-
"The reason we can describe the entire public-sector pension structure as a debt pyramid is because public-sector pensions are not based on some investment that makes money or some dividend or some return to savings - as is the case with everyone else's pension.".

Ahhhhh........the Independent. That well-known champion of public servants.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Your response to this is a personalised attack sneering at someone (you think) does not have such a pension arrangement.

I deny the "sneering" accusation. I have no idea whatsoever what your pension arrangements are and to be perfectly honest, I'm not interested. Your own arrangements are your own business.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You don't know where I am employed (if at all).

Correct. However, you did state that you were formerly employed in the public service, and that the reason you got out was the thought of spending 40 years discussing football and being in a job that you found utterly boring.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

I said that many former public sector workers are better off in retirement than when they were supposedly working. That is present tense.
I did not say that any or every current public sector worker will be better off when they retire. That is future tense. It appears to me that you have difficulties with literacy as well as numeracy.

I'll ignore the unfounded and incorrect personal insult there.

However, at the risk of being branded virtually illiterate again, I have to say that you still don't explain yourself too well here. How is anyone with a public service pension better off in retirement than when they were working? Please don't just tell me they are, please give me examples if you have them.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Your attempt to immediately demand how you personally will be better off is typical of the public sector me me attitude. 40 years of that level of discourse from colleagues would break any sane person.
If you want personalised financial advice or analysis then you will have to do what people in the real world do; pay for it.

I thought it was a valid point - you gave me the impression that I would be better off when I retired, I wondered how. I still do!

I can assure you that I certainly don't have a "me, me" attitude in either my personal or professional life. I'm actually very dedicated to my job (as are the majority of the people I've worked with over the past 30 years). I genuinely believe that as public servants we have a responsibility to the public to do our jobs to the highest standard.

Once again, your sentiments in the above betray your utter contempt for the public service as a whole. I do hope my comments here are literate enough for you :rolleyes: There seems to be little point in continuing this discussion.

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I didn't claim I was funding my full pension myself. I merely pointed out that I have a rather large pensions deduction taken out of my pay every fortnight, along with a Pension Levy. That is not open to question - it's there every fortnight on my pay slip in black and white.



:rolleyes: There seems to be little point in continuing this discussion.

Your salary was reduced by what purport to be pension reductions. No money is put into a pension fund of any sort arising from this. Therefore you do noty fund in whole or in part your pension. That is beyond question, whether the Isish Independent is good enough for you or not.

How hard you work or how much you deserve the pension or why anyone else doesn't seek to avail of the same pension is not relevant.

You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't foll all of the people all of the time.

Geuze wrote: »

This is incorrect.

All PS pay the PRD, at up to 10.5%, typically 10%.

Most PS also pay the standard pension cont of 6.5%, payable by most PS all the time.

What part of "no pension fund" do you not understand?

lcwill wrote: »

I'd say not many millionaires have a million sitting in the bank. Most understand that you build wealth by putting your money to work - buying stocks, property, investing in business - in other words buying some kind of assets that grow in value or generate cash flow.

A proper diversified portfolio that earns you more money than you spend.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Oh SO reported for advertising and dodgy ads at that!

Some day one of these things will actually be real and we wont know it

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

He said 2.5 every 5 years though.

He said 2.k a year for 5 years though.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

He said 2.5 every 5 years though.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

He said 2.k a year for 5 years though.

The investment does well for a few years, and the wife decides to invest an additional $2,500 every 5 years into Coke stock without fail.

To me that reads like they are putting in 2,500 every five years. I dont see how you could get 2,500 a year for 5 years from what was written.