AI slop
millionaires
735,623 Views |
2967 Replies |
Last: 1 day ago by MRB10
BenTheGoodAg said:62strat said:
Why not liquidate the assets if/when a job loss actually happened and you know you need it?
No two situations are the same, but I think about your question through the lens of my own life. Single income family, in a medium-sized city, and I work for the largest employer in the region. The risk is low, but if there ever was a lay-off for my employer, it would be hard to sell a home for a while in this community, so you're potentially double screwed.
We talk a lot about diversification of assets, but I think diversification of risk is also worth considering. To a family with two incomes in a large community like Houston, this could be a completely irrelevant risk. For our personal situation, it makes a lot more sense.
Biggest reason I haven't given into the wife's interest in moving to Albuquerque (Sandia Labs) or Bentonville (Walmart).
AgsMyDude said:
AI slop
Agree. The problem with trying to copy and paste from ai is that you lose the formatting. And no one wants to read all that stuff anyway.
Post your human-written content and maybe summarize ai or just quote a small snippet of it. Nobody wants to read all that poorly formatted gibberish.
QBCade said:BenTheGoodAg said:62strat said:
Why not liquidate the assets if/when a job loss actually happened and you know you need it?
I previously worked for a private-held company, and the owner was often asked about issuing stock for employees. At one of the all-hands meetings, he gave an answer that has stuck with me. He didn't want to have his workforce invested in his company because if they company ever went bust, not only would people lose their livelihoods, they also might lose their retirement savings in one fell swoop.
No two situations are the same, but I think about your question through the lens of my own life. Single income family, in a medium-sized city, and I work for the largest employer in the region. The risk is low, but if there ever was a lay-off for my employer, it would be hard to sell a home for a while in this community, so you're potentially double screwed.
We talk a lot about diversification of assets, but I think diversification of risk is also worth considering. To a family with two incomes in a large community like Houston, this could be a completely irrelevant risk. For our personal situation, it makes a lot more sense.
I completely disagree with his take and IMO, he just wants to keep ownership. It isn't about being generous, but the opposite. Also, as others have mentioned, it's not binary. Meaning, he could give some ownership, but retirement accounts don't have to be company stock. Actually, I believe this isn't allowed anymore post Enron. Giving employees ownership IMO helps foster more pride in the company and more desire to perform and you have more vested.
Enron Employees would say otherwise.
The main argument in favor of home ownership is disciplined savings with an average return of 4.3% to 4.7% over time. A disciplined side fund can earn double that, paying for rent increases, a boat, or early retirement - your choice. Simple math, like I said.
For people who don't have any savings discipline, home ownership is a tax-advantaged godsend. For others, renting is worth consideration. That's my only real point, here.
For people who don't have any savings discipline, home ownership is a tax-advantaged godsend. For others, renting is worth consideration. That's my only real point, here.
I bleed maroon said:
The main argument in favor of home ownership is disciplined savings with an average return of 4.3% to 4.7% over time. A disciplined side fund can earn double that, paying for rent increases, a boat, or early retirement - your choice. Simple math, like I said.
For people who don't have any savings discipline, home ownership is a tax-advantaged godsend. For others, renting is worth consideration. That's my only real point, here.
And then there are the Black Mondays, Black Tuesday, Black Thursday, Black Friday, 1937, 1974, and 2008. The last 3 generations all faced a time or two of potentially being homeless and broke if they only rented. If you own your home outright, it's a little safer as the government would most likely give leniency to tax issues.
I'd have a lot more in stocks or savings if I rented. After my divorce I rented a sweet two BR corner penthouse in Atlanta. It was over $3k per month. But that's ALL I spent. Anything broke, hey maintenance, come fix this ***** Utilities were nothing. I spent a lot more on dining out and events, but:
I now have over 20 acres and a big house to maintain. Equipment, home repairs, huge utility bills, just had to replace 3 HVAC units for $30k+. Ammo costs (lol). Way more expensive. Sure, I'm building equity and have a tax write off, but my money would have been way better off in the stock market.
But luckily I moved out just before Covid hit. That would have sucked way more living in an urban environment.
I now have over 20 acres and a big house to maintain. Equipment, home repairs, huge utility bills, just had to replace 3 HVAC units for $30k+. Ammo costs (lol). Way more expensive. Sure, I'm building equity and have a tax write off, but my money would have been way better off in the stock market.
But luckily I moved out just before Covid hit. That would have sucked way more living in an urban environment.
AgLA06 said:QBCade said:BenTheGoodAg said:62strat said:
Why not liquidate the assets if/when a job loss actually happened and you know you need it?
I previously worked for a private-held company, and the owner was often asked about issuing stock for employees. At one of the all-hands meetings, he gave an answer that has stuck with me. He didn't want to have his workforce invested in his company because if they company ever went bust, not only would people lose their livelihoods, they also might lose their retirement savings in one fell swoop.
No two situations are the same, but I think about your question through the lens of my own life. Single income family, in a medium-sized city, and I work for the largest employer in the region. The risk is low, but if there ever was a lay-off for my employer, it would be hard to sell a home for a while in this community, so you're potentially double screwed.
We talk a lot about diversification of assets, but I think diversification of risk is also worth considering. To a family with two incomes in a large community like Houston, this could be a completely irrelevant risk. For our personal situation, it makes a lot more sense.
I completely disagree with his take and IMO, he just wants to keep ownership. It isn't about being generous, but the opposite. Also, as others have mentioned, it's not binary. Meaning, he could give some ownership, but retirement accounts don't have to be company stock. Actually, I believe this isn't allowed anymore post Enron. Giving employees ownership IMO helps foster more pride in the company and more desire to perform and you have more vested.
Enron Employees would say otherwise.
Read my post again pls. I specifically said not in retirement accounts.
I bleed maroon said:
The main argument in favor of home ownership is disciplined savings with an average return of 4.3% to 4.7% over time. A disciplined side fund can earn double that, paying for rent increases, a boat, or early retirement - your choice. Simple math, like I said.
For people who don't have any savings discipline, home ownership is a tax-advantaged godsend. For others, renting is worth consideration. That's my only real point, here.
We bought a house in 2017 for $346K and sold it in 2022 for $636K. We never considered renting so maybe I'm just one of those people with no savings discipline. I'm also not a finance guru but turning a $70K down payment into $290K over 5 years seems ok to me.
I believe the conversation though is that's not a normal real estate rate of return for five years. The real estate market has been irrational the last decade in relation to historical norms.
Everyone that has banked substantial equity in the last decade should relish it.
Everyone that has banked substantial equity in the last decade should relish it.
This is a fun thread and I look forward to reading through it when I have time and seeing what, if anything has changed over the years. Obviously I know being a millionaire isn't exactly the same financial security as it used to be.
I'm 33 now, but hit the mark at 30. I have a good job in sales, but the biggest factor was being patient when buying real estate (even in a hot market) and then the appreciation on that.
Here's what worked for me.
1. Buying a farm in 2019 for below market value that is now worth at least 3 times what i paid for it.
2. Buying a house on a few acres 2022 that needed lots of work. Probably worth at least 2.5 times what we paid for it.
3. No debt or payments other than the real estate above.
4. Minimal eating out.
5. Driving cars into the ground.
6. Automatic withdraws into retirement and savings accounts.
7. Marrying someone who doesn't spend money like she's in congress.
I'm 33 now, but hit the mark at 30. I have a good job in sales, but the biggest factor was being patient when buying real estate (even in a hot market) and then the appreciation on that.
Here's what worked for me.
1. Buying a farm in 2019 for below market value that is now worth at least 3 times what i paid for it.
2. Buying a house on a few acres 2022 that needed lots of work. Probably worth at least 2.5 times what we paid for it.
3. No debt or payments other than the real estate above.
4. Minimal eating out.
5. Driving cars into the ground.
6. Automatic withdraws into retirement and savings accounts.
7. Marrying someone who doesn't spend money like she's in congress.
I can think of maybe 7 "main arguments" to support home ownership before I get to I Bleed Maroon's argument about 4% returns. Acting like landlords are running a charity and renting places out for less than they cost to own doesn't make any sense to me.
My point is that if I followed the argument and decided to rent instead of buy in my early 20s I would be nowhere close to the financial and living situation I'm in now. Sure I could maybe have stayed in a small apartment and invested like crazy and have a higher net worth but there is zero chance I could have the same standard of living through renting for the last 15 years.
My point is that if I followed the argument and decided to rent instead of buy in my early 20s I would be nowhere close to the financial and living situation I'm in now. Sure I could maybe have stayed in a small apartment and invested like crazy and have a higher net worth but there is zero chance I could have the same standard of living through renting for the last 15 years.
I bleed maroon said:
The main argument in favor of home ownership is disciplined savings with an average return of 4.3% to 4.7% over time. A disciplined side fund can earn double that, paying for rent increases, a boat, or early retirement - your choice. Simple math, like I said.
For people who don't have any savings discipline, home ownership is a tax-advantaged godsend. For others, renting is worth consideration. That's my only real point, here.
Your "math" is still wildly wrong.
You return 4% on the total value of the house when it appreciates including the leveraged portion.
coolerguy12 said:
I can think of maybe 7 "main arguments" to support home ownership before I get to I Bleed Maroon's argument about 4% returns. Acting like landlords are running a charity and renting places out for less than they cost to own doesn't make any sense to me.
My point is that if I followed the argument and decided to rent instead of buy in my early 20s I would be nowhere close to the financial and living situation I'm in now. Sure I could maybe have stayed in a small apartment and invested like crazy and have a higher net worth but there is zero chance I could have the same standard of living through renting for the last 15 years.
This is exactly how I became a millionaire in my 30's and several others I know. I had a pretty good quality of life renting a nice high rise apartment with a lot of amenities.
The easiest/fastest way to become a millionaire is living below your means and saving/investing a large percentage of your salary in assets. Buying always doesnt make sense especially in HCOL areas. Its hard to save/invest when you have a huge mortgage and taxes youre responsible for paying. Of course, everyone's situation is different and those with a cheap montly mortgage and cheap interest rate, more power to them.
But the truth is, its much harder to have a "cheap" monthly mortgage with the real estate market super high right now as well as high interest rates. What made financial sense 5-10 years ago may not make sense today. Stock market investing is more accessible to the average joe right now compared to buying the average home.
harge57 said:I bleed maroon said:
The main argument in favor of home ownership is disciplined savings with an average return of 4.3% to 4.7% over time. A disciplined side fund can earn double that, paying for rent increases, a boat, or early retirement - your choice. Simple math, like I said.
For people who don't have any savings discipline, home ownership is a tax-advantaged godsend. For others, renting is worth consideration. That's my only real point, here.
Your "math" is still wildly wrong.
You return 4% on the total value of the house when it appreciates including the leveraged portion.
How does leverage work in this de-appreciation environment?
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/11/us-home-prices-negative.html
The math is straightforward. Look at cash flows. You can leverage your investments via margin to replicate the risk you're taking with a cash-sucking front-amortized mortgage, if you really want to do it that way.
Once again, I'm a home-buyer, and a home-owner - I do this mostly for quality of life reasons, not financial reasons. Bottom line = if you are fairly certain you are going to live in a house for 10+ years, buying makes financial sense in a lot of cases. If you're going to live somewhere less than 7 years, it almost never makes financial sense, unless you happen to catch a rapid appreciation wave (which by definition is unpredictable, and is taking on a lot of risk).
chiming in after this year and getting close to this milestone mid next year
there have been 2 main factors:
purchased 2 investment properties that have appreciated nicely over the last 5 years.
started my own business simply because I wanted some extra spending money to help fund my wife and I's wedding that we had zero help paying for. It has since 5x'd my yearly take home. I've reinvested almost every penny at this point and in 2026, I'm currently estimating profits in the 7 figures. Zero over head, no employees, and all self-funded with no debt.
I've always tried to be the next big idea person, until I saw what someone else was doing, doing it very poorly and then putting a new spin on it and providing much better service. been a fun and fulfilling experience so far.
there have been 2 main factors:
purchased 2 investment properties that have appreciated nicely over the last 5 years.
started my own business simply because I wanted some extra spending money to help fund my wife and I's wedding that we had zero help paying for. It has since 5x'd my yearly take home. I've reinvested almost every penny at this point and in 2026, I'm currently estimating profits in the 7 figures. Zero over head, no employees, and all self-funded with no debt.
I've always tried to be the next big idea person, until I saw what someone else was doing, doing it very poorly and then putting a new spin on it and providing much better service. been a fun and fulfilling experience so far.
Owner of Kool Provisions
www.koolprovisions.com
www.koolprovisions.com
I know this has been discussed a bit on this thread so I'm going to bring the topic back up.
For those of you in the top 2-3 tax brackets, and have this option, do you contribute to your 401k pre tax and backdoor to Roth?
We're probably going to get to the 35% tax bracket in 2026 and my employer just added the ability to mega backdoor roth to the 401k plan. I'm about 41% Roth contributions already and am debating on whether it's worth it to start using it.
Im struggling with the idea of locking in at 35% vs waiting until my wife retires and our income gets cut in half. This could be in the next 5 years, or the next 15, so it's very much up in the air.
For those of you in the top 2-3 tax brackets, and have this option, do you contribute to your 401k pre tax and backdoor to Roth?
We're probably going to get to the 35% tax bracket in 2026 and my employer just added the ability to mega backdoor roth to the 401k plan. I'm about 41% Roth contributions already and am debating on whether it's worth it to start using it.
Im struggling with the idea of locking in at 35% vs waiting until my wife retires and our income gets cut in half. This could be in the next 5 years, or the next 15, so it's very much up in the air.
“There is no red.
There is no blue.
There is the state.
And there is you.”
“As government expands, Liberty contracts” - R. Reagan
There is no blue.
There is the state.
And there is you.”
“As government expands, Liberty contracts” - R. Reagan
401k up to match
then backdoor roth
then 401k to max
then whatever else.
then backdoor roth
then 401k to max
then whatever else.
Technically you are contributing to an "After-Tax" 401(k) and then converting that to a ROTH which is what is called the Mega Backdoor ROTH. Ideally your plan allows you to set that up to happen automatically.
As the name applies this additional money comes out after tax and is only useful if you are already maxing out your standard 401k ($24,500 in 2026), whether that is with Traditional or ROTH contributions. Im assuming you are already maxing out your standard 401k and per your comment are currently a 59/41 split between traditional and ROTH? If you aren't maxing that out then this new option doesn't do anything for you.
What have you been doing with this extra money before you found out about Mega Backdoor ROTH access? Spending, saving in a brokerage account, investing in other ways? You are paying the 35% tax already on this money so outside of the freedom and access to your money, the ROTH is going to win out.
How you invest your initial/standard 401k can be debatable for sure, but at 35% the math is going to favor traditional.
As the name applies this additional money comes out after tax and is only useful if you are already maxing out your standard 401k ($24,500 in 2026), whether that is with Traditional or ROTH contributions. Im assuming you are already maxing out your standard 401k and per your comment are currently a 59/41 split between traditional and ROTH? If you aren't maxing that out then this new option doesn't do anything for you.
What have you been doing with this extra money before you found out about Mega Backdoor ROTH access? Spending, saving in a brokerage account, investing in other ways? You are paying the 35% tax already on this money so outside of the freedom and access to your money, the ROTH is going to win out.
How you invest your initial/standard 401k can be debatable for sure, but at 35% the math is going to favor traditional.
This is labeled as an in-plan Roth conversion. It specifically states I can convert Before Tax, incl. company match, to Roth at any time and pay the taxes on it during the year it's converted.
This is not limited to excess contributions.
I'm reading this as I can contribute before tax, obtain the offset to taxable income, and then convert to the roth 401k portion at a later date.
This is not limited to excess contributions.
I'm reading this as I can contribute before tax, obtain the offset to taxable income, and then convert to the roth 401k portion at a later date.
“There is no red.
There is no blue.
There is the state.
And there is you.”
“As government expands, Liberty contracts” - R. Reagan
There is no blue.
There is the state.
And there is you.”
“As government expands, Liberty contracts” - R. Reagan
You are still subject to the standard limit of $24,500 for 2026 on traditional/pre-tax contributions. An in-plan conversion from pre-tax to ROTH is a taxable event, the year you do the conversion.
Do pretax to max and then do post tax ROTH to the maximum allowed ($72k employee+company).
I started upping my after tax contributions several years ago to keep my take home pay mostly the same to where it was even though my salary has increased quite a bit. The alternative would be a taxable brokerage or increased spending, and it's a better long-term option than either of those IMO.
I'm aware and said as much in my last post. My question is more around should I exercise the in plan conversion if I'm paying those taxes at the 35% rate. I was hoping someone in a similar situation might share what they do and the thought process behind it.
I'm maxing the before tax contributions and don't intend to invest additional after tax money because the investment options suck.
I'm maxing the before tax contributions and don't intend to invest additional after tax money because the investment options suck.
“There is no red.
There is no blue.
There is the state.
And there is you.”
“As government expands, Liberty contracts” - R. Reagan
There is no blue.
There is the state.
And there is you.”
“As government expands, Liberty contracts” - R. Reagan
IMO, the only time an in plan conversion is valuable is when it is used on after tax contributions. I'm not sure why anyone would convert pretax contributions early. I wish I could put away more pretax, because my secondary goal after saving is to minimize my annual tax bill.
Since an in-plan conversion is basically the same as choosing ROTH…at the 35% bracket I would keep it as a pre-tax contribution and not convert. You could convert it in future years if your wife retires and your marginal bracket reduces.
I'm thinking that may be the way we go now that we bumped up to this bracket. I had been splitting between Roth/Pretax previously based on some advice I received 5ish years out of school.
“There is no red.
There is no blue.
There is the state.
And there is you.”
“As government expands, Liberty contracts” - R. Reagan
There is no blue.
There is the state.
And there is you.”
“As government expands, Liberty contracts” - R. Reagan
Thanks. This validates my initial thought process.
“There is no red.
There is no blue.
There is the state.
And there is you.”
“As government expands, Liberty contracts” - R. Reagan
There is no blue.
There is the state.
And there is you.”
“As government expands, Liberty contracts” - R. Reagan
Featured Stories
See All
Texas A&M adds former LSU OL Coen Echols via transfer portal
by Cade Draughon
Texas A&M adds former Colorado S Tawfiq Byard via transfer portal
by Ryan Brauninger
Texas A&M adds former Tulsa LB Ray Coney via transfer portal
by Ryan Brauninger
Sunday (1/4) Portal Storylines: Elko & Co. make four additions
by TexAgs Recruiting