If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Business Insider)   The wealthiest Americans' top worry Is ______   (businessinsider.com) divider line 78
    More: Obvious, Charles Schwab, Financial Markets Association, capital expenditures, Vanguard, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, financial adviser, earnings growth, VIX  
•       •       •

5105 clicks; posted to Business » on 23 Mar 2014 at 11:38 AM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



78 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-23 07:57:16 AM  
Inner city men?
 
2014-03-23 08:06:21 AM  
They apparently care more about taxes than dying alone. That just sad.
 
2014-03-23 08:30:41 AM  
Guillotines?
 
2014-03-23 08:34:18 AM  
I mean, everyone IS out to get them and their money.
 
2014-03-23 08:41:39 AM  
Bears!
 
2014-03-23 08:47:34 AM  
The poors will eat all the cake?
 
2014-03-23 08:56:23 AM  
That the Republican base will realize how badly they are being farked by these bastards?

/Unlikely tag
 
2014-03-23 09:02:38 AM  
Did I leave the iron on?
 
2014-03-23 09:32:36 AM  
Why isn't poop coming out?
 
2014-03-23 09:53:11 AM  
having to pay taxes.
 
2014-03-23 10:10:33 AM  
So they're self centered.  Who knew?

Maslow's hierarchy of needs would suggest that the wealthy shouldn't have the same fears (their continued health, the wellbeing of their family, how they will pay for care when old) as the poor do.
 
2014-03-23 10:35:43 AM  
Does "Being the first up against the wall when the revolution comes" fall under "health"?
 
2014-03-23 11:14:09 AM  
Having to give up any of their massive piles of cash to anyone non-voluntarily. Which would be none of it, if they can help it.
 
2014-03-23 11:15:34 AM  

ginandbacon: They apparently care more about taxes than dying alone. That just sad.


According to the article, health of a spouse is the top concern of the very top tier of individuals with a high net worth. It was the second tier of the "mass affluent" (net worth $100k to $1 million) where maintaining their finances was number one. And I don't think
that just means taxes. It could mean any number of factors like job/income stability, etc.
 
2014-03-23 11:28:43 AM  

Nabb1: "mass affluent" (net worth $100k


That's kinda lowballing the "affluent" status there in NYC and SF. If you are single and making that, you are in pretty good shape. Married and that's your joint income, not as much, and if you have kids, you aren't exactly living an "affluent" lifestyle, though you are of course vastly better off than anyone making $50k, of course. $100k in Maine and you are a baron.
 
2014-03-23 11:41:57 AM  
Charles Nelson Reilly.
 
2014-03-23 11:45:21 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Nabb1: "mass affluent" (net worth $100k

That's kinda lowballing the "affluent" status there in NYC and SF. If you are single and making that, you are in pretty good shape. Married and that's your joint income, not as much, and if you have kids, you aren't exactly living an "affluent" lifestyle, though you are of course vastly better off than anyone making $50k, of course. $100k in Maine and you are a baron.


Yeah, I guess if my wife an I totaled up assets and liabilities, we'd probably break that threshold, but if my wife suddenly couldn't do her job, all that could come down (she earns more than I do). So, our respective health is sort of tied to maintaining our house and keeping our kids in school, etc.
 
2014-03-23 11:47:40 AM  
this is what they should be worried about.

We should stop calling it SNAP or Food Stamps. and call it what it really is. Revolt Prevention Payments.


pvhs.chicousd.org
sheg.stanford.edu
 
2014-03-23 12:00:35 PM  
a.abcnews.com
 
2014-03-23 12:05:45 PM  
That they will lose control of the government that they bought and paid for.
 
2014-03-23 12:13:18 PM  
It doesn't give the wording of the question asked but I don't see that the answers would change much across any financial bracket.  You want to keep what you have and stay healthy.  Not exactly a shocking revelation on any level.
 
2014-03-23 12:17:31 PM  
The are rich only in the context of the society in which they live. If that society breaks down, they have nothing. Further, those with real force (i.e. people and weapons) will get what they had.
 
2014-03-23 12:18:52 PM  
Ruthless oppression in 0bamerica
 
2014-03-23 12:28:22 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Nabb1: "mass affluent" (net worth $100k

That's kinda lowballing the "affluent" status there in NYC and SF.


Especially when you consider that to be net worth vs. annual income. $100K in net worth is lower-middle-class in my world, not anywhere near "affluent".
 
2014-03-23 12:29:08 PM  
Indirect rifle fire?
 
2014-03-23 12:31:34 PM  

mutterfark: Guillotines?


About as much as unicorns.

Ennuipoet: That the Republican base will realize how badly they are being farked by these bastards?


When you've fooled most of the people most of the time for forty years running and both sides are bought out?
And as reliable as the Republicans have been for the rich, with Democrats giving for-profit insurance companies a mandate, who even needs Republicans?

Nicholas D. Wolfwood: That they will lose control of the government that they bought and paid for.


When their power has only consolidated in the same four decades?
Today's wealth disparity puts the 1920s to shame.  Whatever lies you have to tell yourself to sleep at night, I guess.

For that matter, the purpose of polls isn't to determine public opinion, but to influence it.  If some rich guy says they're worried about taxes, it's really an indirect message to the politicians they've bought and paid for, regardless of what their actual concerns are.  It's the same principle as coachspeak during pressers.
 
2014-03-23 01:07:46 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Nabb1: "mass affluent" (net worth $100k

That's kinda lowballing the "affluent" status there in NYC and SF. If you are single and making that, you are in pretty good shape. Married and that's your joint income, not as much, and if you have kids, you aren't exactly living an "affluent" lifestyle, though you are of course vastly better off than anyone making $50k, of course. $100k in Maine and you are a baron.


We're talking assets, not income.  And investable assets (not home value) at that.  Sadly, people who earn six figures but don't have six figures (in investments/retirement, but outside of home equity) are really, really common.  Having $100k available (again, including 401ks) puts you in around the 80th percentile of household liquid wealth.
 
2014-03-23 01:08:03 PM  

Chilkoot Charlie: PC LOAD LETTER: Nabb1: "mass affluent" (net worth $100k

That's kinda lowballing the "affluent" status there in NYC and SF.

Especially when you consider that to be net worth vs. annual income. $100K in net worth is lower-middle-class in my world, not anywhere near "affluent".


Apparently on FARK, they are the ruling class oppressors.
 
2014-03-23 01:08:39 PM  
lol, i couldnt even view the article masked behind 5 scripts.  im guessing 'letting us know their true worries' is the answer.

/thanks NoScript
 
2014-03-23 01:09:59 PM  
Chair?

i1.ytimg.com
 
2014-03-23 01:11:27 PM  

dragonchild: mutterfark: Guillotines?

About as much as unicorns.


tommydmovies.files.wordpress.com

/give us a grin, little robot ;b
 
das
2014-03-23 01:11:51 PM  

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: [a.abcnews.com image 850x478]


Kristalnachte????

///spelling????
 
2014-03-23 01:23:49 PM  

Chilkoot Charlie: PC LOAD LETTER: Nabb1: "mass affluent" (net worth $100k

That's kinda lowballing the "affluent" status there in NYC and SF.

Especially when you consider that to be net worth vs. annual income. $100K in net worth is lower-middle-class in my world, not anywhere near "affluent".


45% of Americans have a net worth of 100k or more. http://www.nasdaq.com/article/americans-have-relatively-poor-net-weal t h-cm257517

It's pretty close to the middle.
 
2014-03-23 01:29:34 PM  
Tigger:

45% of Americans have a net worth of 100k or more. http://www.nasdaq.com/article/americans-have-relatively-poor-net-weal t h-cm257517

Only if you count home equity.   http://www.census.gov/people/wealth/ the fourth link (Excel spreadsheet).  The typical household 'worth $100-200k' has more than half of that tied up in their house.
 
2014-03-23 01:33:10 PM  
"...I'd trade it all for a little more."

- C. M. Burns
 
2014-03-23 01:37:53 PM  

Tigger: Chilkoot Charlie: PC LOAD LETTER: Nabb1: "mass affluent" (net worth $100k

That's kinda lowballing the "affluent" status there in NYC and SF.

Especially when you consider that to be net worth vs. annual income. $100K in net worth is lower-middle-class in my world, not anywhere near "affluent".

45% of Americans have a net worth of 100k or more. http://www.nasdaq.com/article/americans-have-relatively-poor-net-weal t h-cm257517

It's pretty close to the middle.


In the first paragraph of the article: "Over 65% of American adults have a net worth under $100,000."  Not 45%, but less than 35%.
 
2014-03-23 02:38:52 PM  

ginandbacon: They apparently care more about taxes than dying alone. That just sad.


You can pay enough and have a farking supermodel Olympian sucking your dick as you pass into the afterlife.

So no I doubt they would worry about dying alone.
 
2014-03-23 02:50:21 PM  
I am a member of the group this article discusses and I agree, the health and well- being of my spouse and child are by far the most worrisome things in my life.

I'm pretty sure I'd feel the same way if I was dirt-poor, however. What could ever be more important than my wife and son's health status?

Do people out there actually have "car payment" or whatever at the front of their mind, and "wife's lump" at the back?

Maybe, I guess that does make sense. Warped priorities are why most poors are poor.
 
2014-03-23 03:01:34 PM  
That the journalists, judges, politicians they bought won't stay bought.
 
2014-03-23 03:22:25 PM  

ransack.: I am a member of the group this article discusses and I agree, the health and well- being of my spouse and child are by far the most worrisome things in my life.

I'm pretty sure I'd feel the same way if I was dirt-poor, however. What could ever be more important than my wife and son's health status?

Do people out there actually have "car payment" or whatever at the front of their mind, and "wife's lump" at the back?

Maybe, I guess that does make sense. Warped priorities are why most poors are poor.


0/10
 
2014-03-23 03:49:55 PM  

ransack.: I am a member of the group this article discusses and I agree, the health and well- being of my spouse and child are by far the most worrisome things in my life.

I'm pretty sure I'd feel the same way if I was dirt-poor, however. What could ever be more important than my wife and son's health status?

Do people out there actually have "car payment" or whatever at the front of their mind, and "wife's lump" at the back?

Maybe, I guess that does make sense. Warped priorities are why most poors are poor.


There's a major difference between something being the biggest cause of worry and the most important.
 
2014-03-23 03:59:56 PM  

The Flexecutioner: Tigger: Chilkoot Charlie: PC LOAD LETTER: Nabb1: "mass affluent" (net worth $100k

That's kinda lowballing the "affluent" status there in NYC and SF.

Especially when you consider that to be net worth vs. annual income. $100K in net worth is lower-middle-class in my world, not anywhere near "affluent".

45% of Americans have a net worth of 100k or more. http://www.nasdaq.com/article/americans-have-relatively-poor-net-weal t h-cm257517

It's pretty close to the middle.

In the first paragraph of the article: "Over 65% of American adults have a net worth under $100,000."  Not 45%, but less than 35%.


My bad - typo. Still in the interquartile range which was my point.

Lawnchair: Tigger:

45% of Americans have a net worth of 100k or more. http://www.nasdaq.com/article/americans-have-relatively-poor-net-weal t h-cm257517

Only if you count home equity.   http://www.census.gov/people/wealth/ the fourth link (Excel spreadsheet).  The typical household 'worth $100-200k' has more than half of that tied up in their house.


Why on earth wouldn't you count home equity? If you own a 500k house with only 400k due on the mortgage that's 100k of wealth.

It's not particularly liquid capital but why wouldn't you count it?
 
2014-03-23 04:05:01 PM  

Tigger: The Flexecutioner: Tigger: Chilkoot Charlie: PC LOAD LETTER: Nabb1: "mass affluent" (net worth $100k

That's kinda lowballing the "affluent" status there in NYC and SF.

Especially when you consider that to be net worth vs. annual income. $100K in net worth is lower-middle-class in my world, not anywhere near "affluent".

45% of Americans have a net worth of 100k or more. http://www.nasdaq.com/article/americans-have-relatively-poor-net-weal t h-cm257517

It's pretty close to the middle.

In the first paragraph of the article: "Over 65% of American adults have a net worth under $100,000."  Not 45%, but less than 35%.

My bad - typo. Still in the interquartile range which was my point.

Lawnchair: Tigger:

45% of Americans have a net worth of 100k or more. http://www.nasdaq.com/article/americans-have-relatively-poor-net-weal t h-cm257517

Only if you count home equity.   http://www.census.gov/people/wealth/ the fourth link (Excel spreadsheet).  The typical household 'worth $100-200k' has more than half of that tied up in their house.

Why on earth wouldn't you count home equity? If you own a 500k house with only 400k due on the mortgage that's 100k of wealth.

It's not particularly liquid capital but why wouldn't you count it?


Because you can't sell that house for more than 350k
 
2014-03-23 04:12:02 PM  
The poors getting health care? Because apparently there's only so much health care to go around, and if we give it to the poors, then the hard-working job creators might have to wait behind some stinky poor people in line for health care. Fark that.
 
2014-03-23 04:15:26 PM  
They fear anything that gives pleasure to others and not to them.
 
2014-03-23 04:56:44 PM  
Robots?

And have I got just the insurance for them.
 
2014-03-23 05:36:39 PM  

ransack.: Tigger: Why on earth wouldn't you count home equity? If you own a 500k house with only 400k due on the mortgage that's 100k of wealth.

It's not particularly liquid capital but why wouldn't you count it?

Because you can't sell that house for more than 350k


In that case it's a 350k house, not a 500k house.
 
2014-03-23 06:00:22 PM  

Tigger: The Flexecutioner: Tigger: Chilkoot Charlie: PC LOAD LETTER: Nabb1: "mass affluent" (net worth $100k

That's kinda lowballing the "affluent" status there in NYC and SF.

Especially when you consider that to be net worth vs. annual income. $100K in net worth is lower-middle-class in my world, not anywhere near "affluent".

45% of Americans have a net worth of 100k or more. http://www.nasdaq.com/article/americans-have-relatively-poor-net-weal t h-cm257517

It's pretty close to the middle.

In the first paragraph of the article: "Over 65% of American adults have a net worth under $100,000."  Not 45%, but less than 35%.

My bad - typo. Still in the interquartile range which was my point.

Lawnchair: Tigger:

45% of Americans have a net worth of 100k or more. http://www.nasdaq.com/article/americans-have-relatively-poor-net-weal t h-cm257517

Only if you count home equity.   http://www.census.gov/people/wealth/ the fourth link (Excel spreadsheet).  The typical household 'worth $100-200k' has more than half of that tied up in their house.

Why on earth wouldn't you count home equity? If you own a 500k house with only 400k due on the mortgage that's 100k of wealth.

It's not particularly liquid capital but why wouldn't you count it?


By definition your net worth includes equity in your house.

And honestly, $100k in net worth is hardly affluent. Should be easily be achievable by most, if not all, middle class folks here in the US. I'd venture many of us in this thread are way over that threshold.
 
2014-03-23 06:01:13 PM  
Seeing as guillotines is covered upthread, maybe pitchforks?
 
2014-03-23 06:10:09 PM  
Being touched by a poor person and contracting poor people cooties
 
Displayed 50 of 78 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report