What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- tastypickles, on 10/10/2007, -1/+26My first million was the easiest.
Yes, I practice positive thinking.- starcrunchfx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Visualize your first million
- DCGaymer, on 10/10/2007, -5/+36I prefer to use THE SECRET. *cough* scam *cough*
- AirRaven, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14For those amongst you who don't know what he's on about:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=usbNJMUZSwo- torched, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I really want to see south park take a crack at that one, It would be humor of biblical proportions.
stan:dad why aren't you at work
randy: I don't have to work son, I just need to visualize the checks coming in the mail
- torched, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I really want to see south park take a crack at that one, It would be humor of biblical proportions.
- Gr1nch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1ROFL
my university preaches that as the way to get ahead in life. you just made my day.
- AirRaven, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14For those amongst you who don't know what he's on about:
- elhaf, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2I have a friend who says that, and for him it was true. Bastard. Now he's buying up a small town that is about to be overrun by a big city next door. Double Bastard.
- tinyt42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+55I'm working on my second million. My first one didn't go so well.
- BrK1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Really? My first went pretty well. I can still remember how I lost most of it :)
- Snoz, on 10/10/2007, -15/+6Luckily for Kevin Rose he has $60 million.
- downat420, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8has or is worth? it is not the same. last i knew he was wondering where all the money people say he had was.
- xjscrf291, on 10/10/2007, -2/+23Spending and saving wisely is downright UN-American!!
- ashwinashwin, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3Noooo, really?????? What financial genius figured this out???
- PrestonM, on 10/10/2007, -2/+421 million is still a lot of money. At a modest 4.5% interest it will yield 45K a year. The majority of this country live on a lot less than that.
- Twinked, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10People who say 1 millions USD isn't very much anymore. Have no concept of money or it's worth. I could retire very comfortably with 1 million tax free dollars. While paying taxes on my gains from the initial million.
- mz00m, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Unfortunately that 4.5% is typically taxable (unless in a ROTH or other tax free vehicle) so instead of 45,000 you're taking home around 30,000.
- k4zz4m, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2Noooooo RLY?
- lyg82, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10No worries......I will stop by Staples later and get the easy button
- jeffeb3, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13It gets worse when you become rich because you can invest in other things, like ripping off poor people. Luckily, the mortgage business is tanking. That'll teach those rich guys to give money to poor people!
- Kallius, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0You're right in a way, because when you have money, it makes the scam artists work that much harder to part you with your money. And even if you're pretty savvy, you can always fall victim to bad investments that look good at the time.
- ButterBuddha, on 10/10/2007, -1/+32The secret is...make your own currency...My pink paper clip is now worth $12 million US dollars
- patch6, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3That only works if you coerce people into believing it is worth $12 million. Kind of like how people were coerced into believing that paper money was worth anything beyond the value of paper itself.
- 7Mystery, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11I invested in US arms; guaranteed to make me rich
- llbbl, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15Hey I got two of those! !!!!!
- endlessoul, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4Zing!
- llbbl, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15Hey I got two of those! !!!!!
- vSuperLuminal, on 10/10/2007, -16/+9The saying, "The richer get richer while the poorer get poorer", is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Of course the richer get richer. That's what they do! That is how they got rich in the first place. And, of course the poorer get poorer. That is how they became poor in the first place! What? Do you expect the rich to reach a certain level and then stop making more money? Do you expect the poor to all of a sudden "find" a lot of money. It is simple: Work hard and you can buy things; don't and you can't. I think some people make the mistake of believing that BECAUSE the richer get richer the poorer get poorer. Stupid logic.
- iliketurtles2, on 11/20/2008, -3/+1They do get poorer, In relative terms.
- DolphinGL, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10How hard one works does not always equate to one's earnings. Some people know how to work the system in their favour. They put in minimal effort and reap maximum reward. Others simply don't deal well with the system, no matter how hard they work. I'd have a really hard time explaining to my electrician buddy who works 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, that the reason he isn't rich is because he doesn't work hard.
Your comment displays a seriously lack of critical thinking, and is therefore buried.- simpleid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1not necessarily, maybe his idea of what you're working hard -at- is different than yours.
working hard at the goals you desire, leads you to it or very close. everything is always a matter of time as long as you are progressing as much as you can.
if your friend is unsatisfied, maybe he should have taken it upon himself to work towards another goal. he's not controlled, he is his own person. - madroneDorf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Working hard overall is more likely to result in being financially sucessful, but hard work, by itself is not valuable.
Valuable work is vorth a lot of money, and its people who work hard, at valuable work, who make the money.
Pushing a huge rock up a hill, is very hard work, but its unlikely to earn you much money,
- simpleid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1not necessarily, maybe his idea of what you're working hard -at- is different than yours.
- Theisos, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I figure this is based on some weird idea that every country has an unlimited amount of money? If that is the case Governments should just give away money. If the rich get richer do we make more money to compensate for what has gone out of circulation? Or do we wait on them to spend it so it goes back into circulation? Doesn't taking money out of circulation weaken an economic system if nothing is helping to replace what is taken away? In the end - if you're rich and you spend all of your money...you'll become poor again. If we are dealing with finite wealth...shouldn't there be some measure of control? If we take from finite wealth and spend outside of an economic system (e.g. another country) isn't that money lost for good unless it is replaced? How does the poor get richer if they have an ever diminishing access to the wealth of a country?
- marsz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Unlimited amount of wealth isn't really some weird idea. It's called economic growth.
- Uranium118, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Please, return to economy 101.
- comiccannon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I agree with DolphinGL on this one. Lets put things into perspective. A few years ago, my (former) boss made a comment about the growing division between workers and management (management generally being richer than the worker), and how things used to work in skilled jobs. When he was starting to work in IT, the bosses got the VP title after working as the equivalent of a help desk goon, all the way up to where he was in upper management. He could do the average IT workers jobs, who were generally the people who worked beneath him. Things, however, have changed...and not just on the IT front. More and more, we see that management types CAN'T do the jobs of their underlings (mostly because of business management degrees and other filth being pushed by rich university alumni backed board members), yet they are still paid the lions share. Why? Who knows. Because the CEO of any company, surely doesn't work harder than the minimum wage earners on his payroll. In fact, just as my example illustrates, he can't even DO the work required to earn that menial salary. I can attest to this in my own company. I work for a multi-national conglomerate as a Systems Admin. I know what our president does, he shakes hands..flies around on his private chopper to shake more hands, and smile. Really really hard work, I'm sure. Yet, he gets the mult-million dollar paychecks, and I along with the other 6 thousand North American employees do not. So, I think your views are a little disconnected from the reality of the situation.
- Napoleone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I won't put a person down simply because he or she is doing well for themselves. But you give the rich far too much credit and place an inordinate amount of blame on the poor. There are very, very, few self-made millionaires. Most wealth or the capacity to achieve it is inherited.
When you become rich, it is not just compounded interest that makes you richer, it is compounded social influence and networking from the previous generation. When you are poor there are many forces pulling you in all directions. Poor people have future goals, but they also have immediate and urgent necessities that at times will force them to compromise at certain levels, and shelve those goals indefinitely. It's called survival. But if they compromise too much, they lose a lot, because their poverty is compounded by their missteps, which in many instances they had little choice but to take.
If you were to take 20,000 babies from rich families and replace them with 20,000 babies from poor ones, you would see that the once rich babies would find themselves in the same predicaments as adults, and the once poor babies will reap the rewards of inherited opportunity. And I guarantee you that many of them would be just as smug about it as you are. - bdbr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"There are very, very, few self-made millionaires."
Actually most millionaires are self-made. Wikipedia cites a 33% increase in the US in just two years, "fueled largely by the country's real estate boom".
..but it comes from a combination of investing and working in a job with decent pay, not just from "hard work".
- Bricks, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19When 11.2% returns come from helping facilitate the growth of McDonalds, count me out. Capitalism allows for freedom, and I support this deeply. But when money is the only motivation for the choices one makes with that freedom, humanity is easily trivialized along the way. I do my damndest not to invest my money somewhere that I wouldn't spend it as a consumer. Every dollar is still a vote, via investment or purchase.
- muhadeeb, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5I was a millionaire once. Spent it on a comfortable home(Condo), two cars, and am left with taxes.All of it was inherited
- tuxidomasx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13dumb dumb
- KraftDinner101, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The real/not printable article is much easier to read: http://www.fool.com/personal-finance/general/2007/07/16/your-first-million-is-the-toughest.aspx
- SpykerSpeed, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3The rich get richer because they have more disposable income to invest. Duh.
- PropCulture, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1As a youngster, I made several million while hiding in my room with the door locked.
- Optic7, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6You made several million what while locked in your room? Sperm cells?
- scabbers, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3WOW THANKS FOR THE ADVICE, NOW I KNOW WHERE I AM GOING WRONG!
- pongx, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15Saving $100 a month to make a million bux over 20-40 years is a terrible way to go. Especially if the best thing you are doing to save it is to invest in the stock or bond markets. Seriously, who wants to work their butt off for over half their life just to have enough to "retire on"? If you are serious about making a million dollars, start your own business. It doesn't matter what kind of business it is even. If you are any kind of business person at all the ROI will be better, the benefits (writeoffs) are great, and the long-term rewards are much greater than just banking in a 401k and hoping for the best. Most millionaires get there by investing in themselves and their own businesses. If you run out of things in your business to invest in, then start throwing money at stocks and the like, but don't start there. This article is such terrible advice.
- dagwood, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7How many people have the acumen to run their own business or even their own financial health for that matter? Yet most everyone I know can sock away a portion of their income and in time make a million dollars. Think of it as the financial equivalent of paint-by-numbers for the average Joe.
- crimsonalucard, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1financial health? acumen? Wealth is about taking risks. Granted you need to do research and take the right risk, but in the end you still need to make that leap over a chasm. If you don't have the balls to take that risk then all you have is luck.
- sbgunn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"start your own business. It doesn't matter what kind" Are you kidding me? If you pick, say, a restaurant, half of those fail. The success rates in many industries isn't a lot better. Letting your money work for you is a lot smarter/safer bet then trying to get entrepreneurial from scratch. The average Joe isn't going to make his first million by just hanging a shingle.
- waalter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1When a person runs a business, the business runs their life. I'm content making money slowly with compounding if it means I can have a normal social life and think about something other than work.
- Lerg, on 10/10/2007, -8/+0Uninformed liberal whining about how evil the rich are in 3...2...1...
Class envy, it keeps the political system running nicely.- MattCruikshank, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Alright, I'll bite.
Repealing the Estate Tax is evil, because it creates an aristocracy made of people who, by an accident of birth, are able to add nothing to society and live off of the sweat of other people's labor.
Being born to someone rich is just another form of ENTITLEMENT which uninformed conservatives are always bitching about. It makes sense for society to agree to allocate resources to people who have in the past demonstrated the ability to create wealth - i.e., let the rich keep a lot of money, because chances are they'll succesfully use it to the benefit of everyone.
What doesn't make sense is for society to agree to allocate an inordinate amount of resources to people simply because of their parentage - i.e.,we should end the ENTITLEMENT of the children of the rich, and let them MERELY take advantage of their higher social status, access to education and health care, and family connections to build their own wealth - they don't also need to be protected from a "Death Tax."
What's more fair, taxing a living poor person, or a dead rich person?- Lerg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Let's explore that in a different context. A women marries a man. This man becomes fabulously wealthy after the marriage. In the vast majority of our court system, if a divorce occurs, the woman is entitled to at least half of the assets, and often ongoing payments, all depending on the length of the marriage and such. The rational I have most often heard cited is that the woman provided emotional and practical support to the man, allowing him to be so successful.
So, let's take that mind set to a child. Would it be fair to say that a child born before a family earns large wealth has provided emotional and practical support? Perhaps only child born after the wealth are not entitled to an inheritance.
The argument of "living off the sweat of other people's labor" is certainly a false, emotional-based argument. It gives the impression that other people have no choice but to slave away for another person. When, in reality, that individual, at least in the US, has agreed to work a job for the wage offered. Why must someone give to society? If we punish those who are not giving enough to society, why are we not punishing those who take from society. IE, those living off the government doll. They are adding nothing to society in my view. In fact, they are net negative.
These arguments are not based in a valid philosophy, but pure class envy, with happy little slogans wrapped up around it to make people feel better about it.
The fundamental argument is if society has a right to redistribute wealth. I argue that it should not. I, obviously, am at odds with the vast majority of the users of this web site, and current fiscal policy of the US.- MattCruikshank, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1If you are wealthy enough by birth to not have to work, and are earning > 5% interest... And I am poor by birth have to work for a living, and I have to borrow money from you at that 5% to afford a home... And inflation is 4%... Then yes, I have no choice but to labor, and you have the inherited luxury of benefiting from my labor. You have literally added nothing, except capital, which you did nothing to create. And if you pass your wealth on to your children, who can repeat the cycle, then we are living in an aristocracy.
Not that the universe cares. But it is hypocritical to rail against entitlement programs, and defend the entitlement of inheritance.
"Why must someone give to society?" No reason, other than that you have eyes, and ears and can see pain and suffering, and have the ability to alleviate a portion of it. Most people seem to think that the morale imperative is so great to act when it's possible to act, that they are willing to enforce laws that say that you must. The same is true of doctors when they are present and someone is dying, and in many cases, police when they are in a similar situation. I've read Ayn Rand, thanks.
"Why are we not punishing those who take from society?" Because living off the government doll is punishment enough. If you think it's comfortable, then take the food stamp pledge, and live off of $3.50 of food a day for, let's say, a month. In New York, where costs are high.
It's funny - I could agree with your "they are net negative" assertion, and then endorse genocide of the poor. Please explain why we should not simply KILL everyone who lives off the government doll, and try not to use any false, emotional-based argument involving such wishy washy terms as "immoral." I'm not saying it's a moral equivalence, I'm saying that any argument you use for why it's wrong to kill people can be used to say why it's wrong to let them suffer.
Whether or not society has a right to redistribute wealth, it certainly WILL. History has shown again and again that when the balance of wealth is perceived as unfair, those with wealth have been executed by the mob.
Another way to answer your question is - what is the purpose of wealth? How does ownership (and currency) benefit society? A clear answer is that it encourages divisions of labor, efficiency of scale, and an overall benefit for society. BUT, as with any system, ownership can be gamed. If I owned ALL of the land, could I not force you to pay whatever lease rates I wanted you to? Of course I could - I would have a monopoly on land.
The argument is that the wealthy have a monopoly on capital - they can (and do) charge whatever interest rate they want to. They happen to charge enough more than the rate of inflation that they will never have to work an honest day's labor, and neither will any of their children (unless they are complete fools).
Just as society recognizes the moral problems of a monopoly of land ownership, we recognize the moral problems of a monopoly of capital ownership. Hence, we redistribute wealth in the most fair ways people have been able to come up with.
For the record, I'm in the upper middle class, so it's kind of hard for you to argue that I'm guilty of a lot of class envy. I happen to think we have a morale responsibility, I wouldn't personally gain from a huge estate tax - quite the opposite, actually.
- MattCruikshank, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1If you are wealthy enough by birth to not have to work, and are earning > 5% interest... And I am poor by birth have to work for a living, and I have to borrow money from you at that 5% to afford a home... And inflation is 4%... Then yes, I have no choice but to labor, and you have the inherited luxury of benefiting from my labor. You have literally added nothing, except capital, which you did nothing to create. And if you pass your wealth on to your children, who can repeat the cycle, then we are living in an aristocracy.
- qwertydvorak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1actually, look at the death tax in a different light. do you think the death tax hurts small individuals worse, or large corporations ?
example 1: sam walton built a HUGE company before he died, and his children after death taxes etc are still very wealthy even after divying up the pie.
example 2: man builds a company small, but big enough that it is worth enough that his children end up having to pay the death tax. either they will have to take a large loan against the company to afford the tax bill, or they need to sell the company to pay the tax bill. if they take a loan, it just puts a larger burden on the small company and it makes them less competitive. in the end, they may get swallowed up by a larger corp anyway.
example 3: giant international megacorp. they have tons of shareholders, if someone saves all their life, and has bunches of stock in giant megacorp and they die, the kids just sell off enough of the stock to pay the tax, or sell it all of and pay the tax and split the difference. does giant megacorp care ? no. it will be business as usual for them.
the people who fight the repeal of the death tax, either haven't thought it through all the way or are trying to enable the giant megacorps to keep anyone from raising their family tree up above all the other saplings. as the system is set up currently, you have to die poor enough to barely help your children buy a few nice things with your inheritance, or die rich enough to leave them all very wealthy. that is hard to do in one generation, and the vast majority won't be able to.- MattCruikshank, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Poor enough"? Do you even know what the limits on the estate tax were? It was millions of dollars.
I think that the rate should be a progressive scale, and that people like the Waltons are perfect examples of what's wrong.- qwertydvorak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1yes, i do know. a small company can have millions in assets that have to be claimed at death. that doesn't mean the people running it are swimming in cash. one production building could be worth $2-3 million dollars. have you ever done anything that requires a REAL piece of machinery ? lets say you have a packaging company, a laser date coder can run $100k imagine 6 production lines, that's $600k just to put the date on the package. what about a shrink wrapping machine ? that's $15k for a CHEAP one, $50k for one that isn't going to jam constantly. just because you have assets when you die doesn't mean you are JD Rockefeller. those assets took a lifetime to build up, just for the government to come in and take it.
- MattCruikshank, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Poor enough"? Do you even know what the limits on the estate tax were? It was millions of dollars.
- Lerg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Let's explore that in a different context. A women marries a man. This man becomes fabulously wealthy after the marriage. In the vast majority of our court system, if a divorce occurs, the woman is entitled to at least half of the assets, and often ongoing payments, all depending on the length of the marriage and such. The rational I have most often heard cited is that the woman provided emotional and practical support to the man, allowing him to be so successful.
- MattCruikshank, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Alright, I'll bite.
- jamdogg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1if the entire population suddenly became millionaires then money would be worthless. Inflation skyrockets and the rich are rich and the poor are poor again.
- jamdogg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The only thing that would prevent this is a shift in perception. If everyone still saw money as valuable even though everyone had plenty of it then inflation would stay in check. Maybe in a few million years if humans survive long enough to evolve new civilisations.
- MattCruikshank, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The problem with what you're saying, jamdogg, is that we're talking about the ULTRA rich, the people who live off of the interest of their investments, and don't do real labor themselves. Clearly, that kind of rich can't exist for everyone - nothing would get done.
It could happen that everyone in America doesn't have to work, and lives off of the interest of laborers in other countries, but it's pretty obviously "exploitation" at that point.- uselesslogin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What about exploiting the robots?
- MattCruikshank, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The problem with what you're saying, jamdogg, is that we're talking about the ULTRA rich, the people who live off of the interest of their investments, and don't do real labor themselves. Clearly, that kind of rich can't exist for everyone - nothing would get done.
- jamdogg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The only thing that would prevent this is a shift in perception. If everyone still saw money as valuable even though everyone had plenty of it then inflation would stay in check. Maybe in a few million years if humans survive long enough to evolve new civilisations.
- rmxz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Article summary is wrong.
"The reason is simple: compounding."
No that's not the reason - the reason is interest even if it's not re-invested so it doesn't compound.
Once your interest is greater than your expenses, it takes zero effort (just some time) to make your next million. And getting your expenses below what your first million pays in interest isn't that hard.- SpykerSpeed, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Uhh, no. I'm pretty sure share price appreciation is different from the interest rate. Try again.
- xShad0w, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5if u wanna actually make money, make a billion, a million is a freaking condo in washington dc
- xenuxenuts, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The trick is to find someone to give you a million dollars for 5 years at 0% interest.
- jamdogg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Gonna happen?
- Harrison88, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Lies. The first 1 million spam mails I sent out took me just as long as the second :(
- jamdogg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You made a dollar per spam mail? Rock on.
- HastyBoom, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I just threw up a little.
- bdbr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Anyone who is part of the dot-com era can tell you how easy it is to become a millionaire...and how easy it is to become an ex-millionaire!
- zdiggler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I didn't become make millions on dot.com boom but I did made a lot of money, I got me a brand new car with payment, nice apartment and still have extra money to have fun with, when that ***** busted and got laid off, my severance run out 401k drained, not even McDonald was hiring because other laid offs already working there. Moved back to parents, car got reposed and credit got screwed :*(
- steger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2god bless you for using the print version.
- stinkypyper, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wow, the author listed stocks that pay dividends. I thought they were extinct now and stock prices were based completely on hype.
- zdiggler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes even with little money I got I can save more money faster if I got some money on the buffer. Once you hit near bottom its get harder to and harder to save until you get a break like a good side job or something.
- Corona4456, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2How come no one has mentioned the lottery? :) That's an easy million!
- zdiggler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I have a customer who is a lottery winner, she got money invested every where she gets about 400K/year after tax of income just sitting at home.
- silga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2start a business, the only way to get rich bitches
- databoy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If you want to make money it takes money to make money.
There are two types of people.
The ones who make money and the ones who talk about it.
The person who wrote the article is blowing hot air out of his rear end and does not know anything about money.
You have to live somewhere. You can rent from a landlord or rent from a bank.
Save a deposit and buy a small affordable house or condo.
The interest repayment is your rent. Pay extra and that is your savings.
In five years you will have enough equity to buy a bigger house.
Repeat the process. You will own your house in 15 to 20 years, where most people are still paying the interest.
It works in Australia, but the USA may work on a different financial system.
I own my home and live on less than most people pay in rent.
In Australia, the people who invested in their home 20 years ago are laughing all the way to the bank.- macman2k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Don't buy a house in todays market.... wait a few years and then buy with cash.
- 1337diggster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Several flaws I've found in the article:
1) The article does not include inflation factors. Who knows what the rate of inflation is but everyone sure as hell knows that a million dollars ain't what it used to be. This is because all the stuff we really want (commodities like food, petro, houses) have all gone up as well. A million dollars today won't be the same as a million dollars in 10 years. I would really like to see this analysis but compared to commodities like food, real estate and oil.
2) Taxes - All those, "gains" have to be taxed at capital gains rate unless you have it in some sort of tax sheltered account.
3) Chart assumes that 8-12%/year historical gains are easy to get. They aren't. A lot of people loose money and a lot more are loosing value but don't even realize it!
4) The fact that the government can change the rules at any time. You know all those problems with social security and medicare we are having? Who do you think is going to bail us out on that one?- mre5765, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2> The article does not include inflation factors.
So? Increasing the monthly payment into the nest egg by the inflation factor.
> Taxes - All those, "gains" have to be taxed at capital gains rate unless you have it in some sort of tax sheltered account.
The article specifcally mentions 401ks. Regardless, investing in the S&P500 has very few capital gains.
> Chart assumes that 8-12%/year historical gains are easy to get.
8% is historical return of the U.S. stock market.
> You know all those problems with social security and medicare we are having?
Which is why you should assume you won't get a nickel from SS and medicare, and save for yourself.
- mre5765, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2> The article does not include inflation factors.
- mre5765, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Based on the majority of comments here, I conclude that most diggers are destined to be destitute. Really sad.
- deathproof, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I Invested my Million on Cloud Insurance DAMN YOU CLOUDS!!
- BradMW, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I lost millions in the Great Beanie Baby crash of 99.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is