10M and 100M are just a rough number for pscychological effect. We can give a 50% band, so 10M would mean 5-15M. 100M would include 50-150M
For the mass population, it would be inconvenient to use a range, a magical number like 10 and 100 is more effective to influence the mom and pop people
My question on the definition of rich is directed to buyinghouse who think that people got rich because they exploit tax loopholes. From his example, it seems those guys are already rich. People who have to pay $600k tax (per year?) are not poor⌠I would be very happy to pay Uncle Sam $600k per year since that mean I earned a lot. Mark Zuckerberg is definitely not poor too and he didnât make his billions by exploiting tax loophole. He might has used tax loopholes to increase his net worth from $30B to $60B but definitely not from $1 mil to $60B. I just want to ask questions to let him realize himself that his statement doesnât have strong premise.
Conclusions about issues like wealth divide, depends on definition of the terms such as rich, middle class, etc. I take articles on such issues with a pinch of salt. I can easily change the definition and come up with different conclusions.
Very informative table. So if you are 5M+, you are 1% without doubt. Top 1% income is not as valuable as top 1% in asset. Many top 1% income earners will spend and not much asset. But their lifestyle might be top 1% indeed.
10M is top 0.3%. Is it enough to be considered rich?
I think anyone on that table is enough to be considered rich.
Come on, give people a break 
Credit Suisse includes primary homes, not only âinvestible assetsâ. So many of these millionaires are Californiaâs senior citizens with a a million dollar home. I think many Californian homeowners do not consider themselves ârichâ.
Total wealth and investible asset are different concept. For many homeowners, the numbers can be vastly different.
"It turns out, the numbers depend largely on definitions of âmillionaire.â Specifically, while some studies measure people, others measure households. And while some only count âinvestible assetsâ as wealth, others include homes.
Credit Suisse, for instance, says it defines millionaires as those with total wealth of $1 million or more. It says it measures both âfinancialâ and ânonfinancialâ wealth, in other words anyone with net assets of more than $1 million, i.e. your house, art collection and other assets."
Anyone with $1M is rich enough in my book. They can be all primary home equity wealth and shared with spouse. Doesnât matter!
Come on, when you consider the average person on earth makes less than a few bucks a dayâŚ
This makes the whole rent vs buy argument seem silly. You can become a millionaire by just paying off your home. How many millionaire renters do you know? I actually know one. He rents, because he travels a ton for work. He canât be bothered with maintenance even if itâs hiring people to do it.
I bet you there are a fair number in the Fab 7x7 who have tweaked the game in their favor by keeping their low rent controlled apartments as practically second vacation homes. They donât need them and shouldnât have them!
And as you mentioned, it makes sense for also celebrities and such to rent since they can afford to do that and focus on what their money making profession is.
Whatâs the total wealth before you can quit your job? I think a ârichâ should not have to have a job
It depends on your expenditure though. If you need to spend millions to sustain your lifestyle then you will go broke even if you had a job! But if you can sustain on very little then you donât even need to be a millionaire to quit!
Warren Buffet have a job now too !
Thatâs a good definition. Although a lot depends on your standard of living. If you are a MMMustachean, being ârichâ can happen on a lot less than if you waste money on luxuries.
Rich or Poor is very subjective, varies person to person. One does not have Mln feels 1M are rich, where as those people think having 10M.
IMO, everyone is talking about Financial Independence.
Completely agree. The goal I am working towards is the ability to quit at anytime and still continue my current standard of living (fairly minimalist) and not worry about health coverage or anything else. Not there yet 
So the definition of ârichâ really is to continue your current standard of living without working a job. You can still work, but the pay from your work is optional.
Americanâs minimal standard of living is already pretty good. The real difference between a rich and a poor is really the freedom to choose work or not.
US$1 mil disposable financial asset (excluding owner-occupied house) can go a long way in Singapore 
Really? It doesnât go that far in Hong Kong.
What kind of lifestyle youâre thinking of? AFAIK, the female street and male street have cheap clothes for sale and there are many Cooking Papas around. In Singapore, public transport is cheap, PUB is cheap and prices in hawkersâ centre are cheap as compared with US$1 mil Of course, expensive if you donât have money. If you want to live that Brazilian billionaire, thatâs another story.
I just had lunch at Bugis, a Singaporean chain restaurant in HK. Three bowls of laksa noodles costed $25 USD. Yeah, itâs cheaper than in US. The same amount of food may cost $35 to $40 back in the States, but itâs not that cheap.
BTW that laksa noodles was delicious.
