If 1M is good, is 10M better?

[Dicey]

Here's a tangential $10M story. Wealthy dude knows he's dying, and donates $10M to a hospital he's supported philanthropically* for years, among other places. After he died, his widow decided to donate his high-quality wardrobe to the thrift shop that supports the same hospital. One caveat: it must be anonymous. I loved that his giving was large enough to put his name on a building and small enough to benefit normal folks too. I priced everything and wondered why there were so few ties relative to everything else. Answer: if anyone liked a tie he was wearing, he took it off and gave it to them. Pretty badass, IMO.

Plot twist: he grew up dirt poor.

[naturalhattrick]

1M and 10M is the same, and so is infinite money for that matter.

[spartana]

1M and 10M is the same, and so is infinite money for that matter.

????? What does that mean? And does it mean that $0 is the same as $infinite? Woot! Were all FI !

[NorthernIkigai]

Here's a tangential $10M story. Wealthy dude knows he's dying, and donates $10M to a hospital he's supported philanthropically* for years, among other places. After he died, his widow decided to donate his high-quality wardrobe to the thrift shop that supports the same hospital. One caveat: it must be anonymous. I loved that his giving was large enough to put his name on a building and small enough to benefit normal folks too. I priced everything and wondered why there were so few ties relative to everything else. Answer: if anyone liked a tie he was wearing, he took it off and gave it to them. Pretty badass, IMO.

Plot twist: he grew up dirt poor.

I keep fluctuating between ”what a lovely story” and “how awful that hospital infrastructure is dependent on the charitable whims of individual citizens”.

[Metalcat]

Here's a tangential $10M story. Wealthy dude knows he's dying, and donates $10M to a hospital he's supported philanthropically* for years, among other places. After he died, his widow decided to donate his high-quality wardrobe to the thrift shop that supports the same hospital. One caveat: it must be anonymous. I loved that his giving was large enough to put his name on a building and small enough to benefit normal folks too. I priced everything and wondered why there were so few ties relative to everything else. Answer: if anyone liked a tie he was wearing, he took it off and gave it to them. Pretty badass, IMO.

Plot twist: he grew up dirt poor.

I keep fluctuating between ”what a lovely story” and “how awful that hospital infrastructure is dependent on the charitable whims of individual citizens”.

Same.

The hospital I trained at had a second CT because my ex's dad had cancer and wanted easier access to a CT in our publicly funded system.

Like...cool, nice that everyone in the city has more access to CT, but kind of fucked up that that depends on the personal priorities of a rich dude who lived close to that hospital at the time.

And of course, he didn't pay for it personally, it was a tax deductible charitable contribution paid for by multiple corporate entities and optimized to minimize taxes owed, which could have, y'know, paid for whatever medical priorities had been established as more urgent for the public than an additional CT machine in that specific hospital.

But he now has an easier time scheduling his regular CTs, so that worked out well for him...

[obstinate]

Assuming zero additional cost to get the next 9M? You could contrive a circumstance where 10M is not better, but it would be just that: contrived. In all realistic scenarios, having more money strictly dominates having less, since you can do exactly what is done by those with less, and you have more options besides.

[Sanitary Stache]

This is an interesting thread.

My thinking started along the lines of the initial question. Is 1 million good? And Is 10m better?

to me, in any context,1 M is good. But could I find out if I think 10 M is better? 

My main concern is that there is an amount of wealth, net wealth, that is certainly bad. Like really fucking terribly bad. Bad for me absolutely. Bad for society, for sure. Possibly even bad for everyone to have more than that certain amount. Like metalcat describes some ultra wealthy people experience. I’ll just assume every single UHNW individual is fucked up in a way that I think is not good and not better.

Does 10 M reach that threshold?  In the past I have thought 20 M is the threshold at which my policy fantasies would limit wealth inequality. But in this thread I have been trying to find where the upper limit of personal wealth is for me. What is the maximum amount I would keep if given any amount?

I have been encountering a lot of irl statements that more money is always better. I don’t agree with that.

So far, I haven’t considered inflating my lifestyle. This includes not imaging  a lottery fantasy. Though I do love imagining a lottery fantasy. Those lottery fantasies typically include achieving FI, giving some to a handful of family and building a large completely out of place apartment building in a cow field, ideally with only bicycle access.

For this thread I am avoiding fantasies. I ran an analysis on how to live my life with less public and private assistance. Less low income benefits. Less straight up charity. But still on a 4% withdrawal rate of some sum that magically appeared in my accounts.

So far I have analyzed 2M. Which would be a yearly spend of $80,000. This would fit really well into how we have been living. We would end up with $20,000 or so per year to spend on something we currently don’t spend on.  It would make the things we do simpler and let us do more of them. Send the kids to camps that cost money and do home improvements. 2 million doesn’t seem like too much. We would still be financially limited in many of our decisions and much more independent.

Would I give away any amount over 2 million? Maybe. I recognize that my opinion of larger amounts of money is colored by my low asset/low income perspective. As I get more money and the idea of giving it away above a certain amount becomes a real consideration. I am sure I’d find it to be a more complicated thing to do.

None of that really tells me if I think 10 M is better. I’ve started with the belief that there is an amount that is too much. Others have said 50M is too much or 100M or 1B. But I haven’t found where I think is too much. Certainly less than 50M.

[2sk22]

Assuming zero additional cost to get the next 9M? You could contrive a circumstance where 10M is not better, but it would be just that: contrived. In all realistic scenarios, having more money strictly dominates having less, since you can do exactly what is done by those with less, and you have more options besides.

This is a good point: what did you have to give up to get to $10M?

In my case, I have to honestly say that didn't give up much. I had a good long run in my career when I enjoyed my work and was paid well for it. I did eventually reach a point in my mid 50s when I was sick of work but at that point, I had more than enough money to retire - so I did. I could have worked more but the cost would have been too high.

[Dicey]

1M and 10M is the same, and so is infinite money for that matter.

You have sixteen posts. Stick around, there is so much to learn.

[Dicey]

Here's a tangential $10M story. Wealthy dude knows he's dying, and donates $10M to a hospital he's supported philanthropically* for years, among other places. After he died, his widow decided to donate his high-quality wardrobe to the thrift shop that supports the same hospital. One caveat: it must be anonymous. I loved that his giving was large enough to put his name on a building and small enough to benefit normal folks too. I priced everything and wondered why there were so few ties relative to everything else. Answer: if anyone liked a tie he was wearing, he took it off and gave it to them. Pretty badass, IMO.

Plot twist: he grew up dirt poor.

I keep fluctuating between ”what a lovely story” and “how awful that hospital infrastructure is dependent on the charitable whims of individual citizens”.

Sorry, I don't think I understand the bolded part. Putting one's name on a new addition to a hospital just means you're a major contributor to the effort. Big donations beget more donations. What's awful about the community raising money to help build something that benefits everyone?

The point is that he gave in many ways, large and small.

[NorthernIkigai]

Here's a tangential $10M story. Wealthy dude knows he's dying, and donates $10M to a hospital he's supported philanthropically* for years, among other places. After he died, his widow decided to donate his high-quality wardrobe to the thrift shop that supports the same hospital. One caveat: it must be anonymous. I loved that his giving was large enough to put his name on a building and small enough to benefit normal folks too. I priced everything and wondered why there were so few ties relative to everything else. Answer: if anyone liked a tie he was wearing, he took it off and gave it to them. Pretty badass, IMO.

Plot twist: he grew up dirt poor.

I keep fluctuating between ”what a lovely story” and “how awful that hospital infrastructure is dependent on the charitable whims of individual citizens”.

Sorry, I don't think I understand the bolded part. Putting one's name on a new addition to a hospital just means you're a major contributor to the effort. Big donations beget more donations. What's awful about the community raising money to help build something that benefits everyone?

The point is that he gave in many ways, large and small.

The awful thing here is that major infrastructure (hospitals and others) serving the public just shouldn't be decided upon in this way. Either the project is *needed and cost effective, in which case the government serving that community should spend taxpayer money on it, or it isn't. Of course, the gray zone here is huge: which hospital, school, national park, etc. administrator wouldn't like an extra pot of money for some specific worthwhile project? But it's a slippery slope.

Making decisions and building infrastructure based on who wants to donate what to which institution leads to uneven, inefficient, and haphazard allocation of resources, many of which are actually taxpayer resources after all -- I assume most donations of this kind still require staff and overheads from the main organization and aren't completely self contained forever into the future. Not to mention the tax incentives mentioned above by Metalcat, also paid for by public money. A system that allows for and actively encourages these kinds of contributions also lowers citizens' motivation to pay taxes and elect sensible politicians to decide on public finances, since you can get things your way easier and more directly instead.

So the dude in question did indeed do a lovely thing, but the system he operated in is an unhealthy one.

*What is "needed" of course changes a lot across time, cultures, total resources available, and technological advancement (we require a lot more from our hospitals now than we did 30 years ago). But there is still a line somewhere, even though it moves with time, and various worthwhile projects should be compared against each other, not funded because someone picked that particular cause.

[Dicey]

Here's a tangential $10M story. Wealthy dude knows he's dying, and donates $10M to a hospital he's supported philanthropically* for years, among other places. After he died, his widow decided to donate his high-quality wardrobe to the thrift shop that supports the same hospital. One caveat: it must be anonymous. I loved that his giving was large enough to put his name on a building and small enough to benefit normal folks too. I priced everything and wondered why there were so few ties relative to everything else. Answer: if anyone liked a tie he was wearing, he took it off and gave it to them. Pretty badass, IMO.

Plot twist: he grew up dirt poor.

I keep fluctuating between ”what a lovely story” and “how awful that hospital infrastructure is dependent on the charitable whims of individual citizens”.

Sorry, I don't think I understand the bolded part. Putting one's name on a new addition to a hospital just means you're a major contributor to the effort. Big donations beget more donations. What's awful about the community raising money to help build something that benefits everyone?

The point is that he gave in many ways, large and small.

The awful thing here is that major infrastructure (hospitals and others) serving the public just shouldn't be decided upon in this way. Either the project is *needed and cost effective, in which case the government serving that community should spend taxpayer money on it, or it isn't. Of course, the gray zone here is huge: which hospital, school, national park, etc. administrator wouldn't like an extra pot of money for some specific worthwhile project? But it's a slippery slope.

Making decisions and building infrastructure based on who wants to donate what to which institution leads to uneven, inefficient, and haphazard allocation of resources, many of which are actually taxpayer resources after all -- I assume most donations of this kind still require staff and overheads from the main organization and aren't completely self contained forever into the future. Not to mention the tax incentives mentioned above by Metalcat, also paid for by public money. A system that allows for and actively encourages these kinds of contributions also lowers citizens' motivation to pay taxes and elect sensible politicians to decide on public finances, since you can get things your way easier and more directly instead.

So the dude in question did indeed do a lovely thing, but the system he operated in is an unhealthy one.

*What is "needed" of course changes a lot across time, cultures, total resources available, and technological advancement (we require a lot more from our hospitals now than we did 30 years ago). But there is still a line somewhere, even though it moves with time, and various worthwhile projects should be compared against each other, not funded because someone picked that particular cause.

FWIW, it's a state of the art cancer center. It will save lives. He is dead, and knew he would receive no personal benefit from the new facility. Fuck cancer.

@NorthernIkigai, I'm think I'm following what you're saying, but you don't seem to be understanding my point. Would it be easier if I called it a generous gift to a college? He did that, too, over the course of many years.

Self made man goes from being dirt poor to highly successful and gives back in many, many ways, large and small.

This is NOT about the shortcomings of the healthcare system, any healthcare system. Are we clear now?

[NorthernIkigai]

I don’t think it’s that I don’t understand your point (although I guess that’s what I’d say also if it were that… since I wouldn’t understand that I didn’t understand it). It’s also indeed not about healthcare! I did give examples outside of healthcare.

It’s about public services in general, and how they are funded. And how non-public funding of public services screws up decision making on a very fundamental level.

Of course fighting cancer is a very worthy cause. But none of us knows if a new cancer wing was the most badly needed resource in that community. Also, you seem to have skipped the whole “what resource will this thing need in the future” argument. Again, the same argument can be made for any public service that gets a random injection of cash.

Charity is commendable, but a system that is dependent on charity is not.

[Telecaster]

There is never enough money to fund everything to the level everyone would like.   And just because the public comes to a consensus on funding priorities it doesn't follow that's automatically the best use of recourses.  For example, it is hard to argue that public funding for professional sports stadiums is the best use of public resources.

I'm sure lots of places would like to have and could make use of, a state-of-the-art cancer ward, but there is no public funding available.    So is it bad for private individuals to fill that need? 

[Gerard]

there is no public funding available.    So is it bad for private individuals to fill that need?

It's good of private individuals to do it, but bad that they have to.

And, of course, it's not that there's no public funding available. It's that the politicians available to be elected have chosen not to spend money on that.

[deborah]

The problem is that funding something diverts funding from other things. Considering healthcare, the most obvious single statistic to compare healthcare in each country is “life expectancy”. If people last longer, they have better overall health. If children die young, life expectancy plummets.

Funding new cancer hospitals may (depending on whether the cancer strikes old or young people, and whether the treatments give many more years of life or very few) make very little impact on life expectancy. Exercise appears to have a dramatic influence on life expectancy, so funding a stadium may actually increase life expectancy more than the cancer hospital.

Doctors are very influential in our society, and they tend to believe that more and better treatments are the way to go. It’s one reason why some of the countries with the highest expenditures on healthcare don’t have the best health outcomes. To come back to cancer, if your country has the best head and neck cancer specialists and outcomes in the world, and spends more on that, they won’t have as good outcomes as if they spent that extra money on pancreatic cancer research, since it kills many more people.

There is a lot in the literature about how we can all live longer healthier lives. To enable them, we need to transform our thinking about healthcare and reduce the reactive nature of it. We shouldn’t have to develop a disease before we reduce the probability of anyone ever having it. At first glance, better education, more equitable societies, an emphasis on sports participation… aren’t related to health, but money spent on these can be far more effective at increasing our overall life expectancy than spending on hospitals. Of course, we should look after people with diseases, and fix people, but our system currently does this at the expense of overall health and lifespans. It’s often said that civil engineers are responsible for saving many more lives than the medical profession, since they’ve been responsible for improvements like sewerage.

[vand]

This is an interesting thread.

It's an absurd thread, and fails due to the human tendency to project one's own values onto everyone else.... "everyone wanting more than me is greedy, everyone wanting less than me lacks ambition."

If it's a binary choice between stopping work at $1m, or stopping work at $10m... for some it will be the former, for others it will be the latter.

[bluecollarmusician]

It's an absurd thread

If you say so... :-p

If it's a binary choice between stopping work at $1m, or stopping work at $10m... for some it will be the former, for others it will be the latter.

Correct- but if it is a philosophical question about money and it's abstract nature: is more always better? (Hint- it was meant to be a philosophical question.)

A quote from Schopenhauer comes to mind: "Money is human happiness in the abstract; he, then, who is no longer capable of enjoying human happiness in the concrete devotes himself utterly to money."

Btw, thanks @Sanitary Stache for the thoughtful consideration you gave to the question... :-)

[GuitarStv]

but if it is a philosophical question about money and it's abstract nature: is more always better?[/i] (Hint- it was meant to be a philosophical question.)

Since it's trivially easy to get rid of money, the answer to that philosophical question seems facile.  More is always better.  If you decide that you don't like who you are with more, then give it away and have less.  You effectively are asking if people think it's better to have more or less control of their own lives.  I find it bizarre that some are rooting for less control.

[bluecollarmusician]

More is always better.

Your presumption that this is true, and the fact others are not sure is what I find interesting about this question.

I am wondering if this is because we have paper money (concrete) and the idea of money (abstract.)

I can't think of anything else concrete that we would say "more is always better." 

[Telecaster]

Funding new cancer hospitals may (depending on whether the cancer strikes old or young people, and whether the treatments give many more years of life or very few) make very little impact on life expectancy. Exercise appears to have a dramatic influence on life expectancy, so funding a stadium may actually increase life expectancy more than the cancer hospital.

If the spectators go to the stadium to exercise then yes.  But if they go there to drink beer and eat hot dogs--which is what they actually do, then not so much.   

Doctors are very influential in our society, and they tend to believe that more and better treatments are the way to go. It’s one reason why some of the countries with the highest expenditures on healthcare don’t have the best health outcomes. To come back to cancer, if your country has the best head and neck cancer specialists and outcomes in the world, and spends more on that, they won’t have as good outcomes as if they spent that extra money on pancreatic cancer research, since it kills many more people.

The United States has excellent outcomes for some forms of cancers.   But only fair outcomes for lots of common types.   

I agree with your point that there can be misallocation of public resources.  So a more prudent allocation of private resources would be a good thing, no? 

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

but if it is a philosophical question about money and it's abstract nature: is more always better?[/i] (Hint- it was meant to be a philosophical question.)

Since it's trivially easy to get rid of money, the answer to that philosophical question seems facile.  More is always better.  If you decide that you don't like who you are with more, then give it away and have less.  You effectively are asking if people think it's better to have more or less control of their own lives.  I find it bizarre that some are rooting for less control.

This perspective relies on the axiom that money doesn't change people, it just reveals who they really are. I agree with this somewhat, but also disagree with it somewhat.

I have always been pretty level headed with money. Despite that, if I was given 10m now, I would certainly do a better job with it than if I was given it at 16. If I was given it at 16, I might have made decisions that would have led me down a path that would put me in a worse position than I am now despite being given 10m. I'd like to think that I'm mature enough now not to be in the same boat. Given the chance, I'd certainly take it and see what happened, but the thought experiment is legitimate enough that I do have at least some reservations.

[twinstudy]

There is never enough money to fund everything to the level everyone would like.   And just because the public comes to a consensus on funding priorities it doesn't follow that's automatically the best use of recourses.  For example, it is hard to argue that public funding for professional sports stadiums is the best use of public resources.

I'm sure lots of places would like to have and could make use of, a state-of-the-art cancer ward, but there is no public funding available.    So is it bad for private individuals to fill that need?

To give an example of 'there is never enough money to fund everything to the level everyone would like', consider this: Australia has a robust and fairly efficient public healthcare system. Total yearly federal spending on Medicare (our public healthcare/hospital program) is $40b, or around $2,000 per adult Australian. So far so good.

Australia also has a National Disability Insurance Scheme, which provides publicly funded care and services to those with a 'disability'. Note this only covers medical and rehabilitation services - it does not cover income benefits for disabled people (that is a completely different program). Nor does it cover nursing homes (separate) or acute hospital admissions/cancer/rehab (those are covered under Medicare as normal).

Total yearly spending on the NDIS is $42b and growing at 10% per year. So we spend more for non-acute medical care on the 6% of Australians on the NDIS than we spend on the 100% of Australians covered under Medicare. Is that really a good allocation of resources? Almost 10% of primary school aged boys are on the NDIS for "ADHD" or similar - I suspect a lot of the spending is just papering over poor parenting or other behavioural disorders that should not be treated by throwing money around.

[vand]

It's an absurd thread

If you say so... :-p

If it's a binary choice between stopping work at $1m, or stopping work at $10m... for some it will be the former, for others it will be the latter.

Correct- but if it is a philosophical question about money and it's abstract nature: is more always better? (Hint- it was meant to be a philosophical question.)

A quote from Schopenhauer comes to mind: "Money is human happiness in the abstract; he, then, who is no longer capable of enjoying human happiness in the concrete devotes himself utterly to money."

Btw, thanks @Sanitary Stache for the thoughtful consideration you gave to the question... :-)

People frame the question by asking what they have to give up to get to those numbers (factoring in diminishing returns and opportunity cost).... but approach it from another angle, ie luck - if you had a huge lottery win, would you immediately give 90% of it away in so that they had a "optimal amount"? Would you give any of it away in such a fashion. Now how about if I tell you that you don't get to choose who you give it to, but that instead the money goes straight to the IRS or otherwise gets spread evenly across the rest of society (including convicted rapists and murderer).. are you still so keen?

Yes we are getting into ridiculous contrived scenarios here, which is what happens in these, but they are designed to stress test your answer

Few people here would turn down a larger pay rise that would help them to those larger numbers quicker.. but I suspect some would if it meant more job responsibilities.and expectation which is what tends to happen, so in reality it's always a trade off

[GuitarStv]

More is always better.

Your presumption that this is true, and the fact others are not sure is what I find interesting about this question.

I am wondering if this is because we have paper money (concrete) and the idea of money (abstract.)

I can't think of anything else concrete that we would say "more is always better."

Money is purely an abstract concept.  Paper money is worth nothing unless people believe in the abstract concept of a piece of green paper being guaranteed by a government and accepted by other people.  Hell, in the past ten years I've rarely even touched physical forms of money.  If you're talking about physical stuff then sure . . . I mean, trying to store and protect ten million dollars in cash seems like it would be a bigger headache than doing the same with one million.

At the end of the day though, in the Venn diagram of this situation 'More' completely contains 'Less'.  So you can do everything you can with 'Less' if you have 'More' . . . but the reverse isn't true.

but if it is a philosophical question about money and it's abstract nature: is more always better?[/i] (Hint- it was meant to be a philosophical question.)

Since it's trivially easy to get rid of money, the answer to that philosophical question seems facile.  More is always better.  If you decide that you don't like who you are with more, then give it away and have less.  You effectively are asking if people think it's better to have more or less control of their own lives.  I find it bizarre that some are rooting for less control.

This perspective relies on the axiom that money doesn't change people, it just reveals who they really are. I agree with this somewhat, but also disagree with it somewhat.

I have always been pretty level headed with money. Despite that, if I was given 10m now, I would certainly do a better job with it than if I was given it at 16. If I was given it at 16, I might have made decisions that would have led me down a path that would put me in a worse position than I am now despite being given 10m. I'd like to think that I'm mature enough now not to be in the same boat. Given the chance, I'd certainly take it and see what happened, but the thought experiment is legitimate enough that I do have at least some reservations.

I'd argue that there's no difference with your scenario.  If I was given a million bucks at 16 I'd do stupid shit with it . . . and if I was given ten million bucks at 16 I'd do stupid shit with it.  1 vs 10 doesn't seem to impact that scenario in any meaningful way.  If you're mature enough to handle one, I suspect the same holds true for the other.

[NorthernIkigai]

I guess I'm not yet mature enough to handle 10 M€ then :-D I haven't calculated our net worth since I'm only interested in our stash, but I guess it's somewhere close to or just below 1 M€. I can definitely handle that. And some.

But the thought of 10 M€ freaks me out. Mo' money and all that.

[aloevera1]

I think certain amount of money changes the lifestyle conceptually. It's a little naive to think this: "oh I will have 10 mil and I will live exactly same way, be exactly same person, just more secure in my finances". It's just not how it works in reality. Our lived experiences change us, and that includes acquiring significant wealth.

I don't really know where the point of no return is though. At some point the amount of money transitions from "I can now support my desired middle class lifestyle indefinitely" (FIRE or fat FIRE) to "I can do almost anything I could wish for".

My guess that a the latter stage the existential question of wishing becomes no joke. What will make me happy? Is there anything that will me happy? How can I get it? This is in addition to already discussed aspects of relationship issues, inability to be stealth, etc.

Do I want that for myself? It's a hard question and I have a knee jerk reaction of "of course, I want more money".

However, I probably would never want to cross over into the "I can do almost anything I could wish for" category. Not because I want some hardship on myself, quite the opposite. I would probably want to be able to get any health care I need, money no concern. I'd rather not get into the vortex of those hard existential questions though.

Stuff doesn't buy happiness. Lifestyle inflation does not only apply to material possessions, it also applies to experiences. I do not want to devalue my current points of happiness. Here is  an anectode. Generally, I enjoy having a cocktail on a patio. It's something I sought out but I couldn't always get it. It's expensive and not particularly healthy, I can have it as a special occasion only. However, this summer due to life events I had A LOT of cocktails on various patios. And you know what. It lost its shine. I got tired. Yes, it's nice but the thought of going to the cocktail bar does not excite me anymore. It's not that special. It's not that fun. I'd rather do something else. In fact, I prefer something else! I don't know if I will be enjoying it again...

This anecdote might sound silly but I imagine that removing artificial money constraints on experiences might.. deflate them. Make them more mundane.

I want my special occasions to feel special. The treadmill of always searching for an exciting thing sounds exhausting.

Just my $0.02.

[Turtle]

1M and 10M is the same, and so is infinite money for that matter.

For someone who has annual expenses < 40K and a set it and forget it philosophy, I could see this being the case.  ERE proponents, for instance. 

For folks with annual expenses more like 60K, not so much.

[bluecollarmusician]

At the end of the day though, in the Venn diagram of this situation 'More' completely contains 'Less'.  So you can do everything you can with 'Less' if you have 'More' . . . but the reverse isn't true.

When is a situation when the "more' does not completely contain the "less"?

When is a situation other than "money" when we would all (ha!) mostly agree that "more" is always better? 
 

[Laura33]

I do not want to devalue my current points of happiness.

I think this same thing from a different perspective:  I do not want to become the person who takes all my luxuries for granted instead of always being conscious/grateful that I have somehow managed to wind up with this awesome life.

Ex:  My mom and I both travel and both are Marriott whatever.  She travels extensively so is top-tier whatever, and so she routinely gets upgraded to the best room without even asking; I travel less, so I do not.  After years of this, I've observed that it now takes more to provide her the same level of happiness.  If she doesn't get the upgrade, she's actually unhappy; a basic-level upgrade is now the baseline expectation, and it takes something like the Presidential suite to make her really excited.  Whereas I'm still thrilled with that basic-level upgrade. 

This is where I can see infinite money creating problems.  I have really, really enjoyed getting to the point I can solve some problems by throwing money at them.  For a very long time, that wasn't an option, so just sitting there, looking at a problem, and knowing I have that choice makes me feel like I've succeeded, like I've really come a long way, and I'm both grateful and somewhat disbelieving that this is actually me, sitting here, able to be frivolous with money if I want to. 

But I don't want to become the person who thinks that my money will solve every problem for me.  Because of course it won't, and so I will be disappointed when I find a problem that I can't solve that way.  But even more, I will lose the joy that I currently get just from realizing that I can solve my problem in that way -- I'll take it for granted because of course I can solve the problem by throwing money at it, because I do it all the time, and that's my baseline expectation now. 

tl;dr:  I don't like people who take their good fortune and privileges for granted, and so I really, really, really don't want to be tempted to become one of them.

[RWD]

The more money I have the more I'd be worried about family (or myself) being kidnapped for ransom. $10M is likely still at the under-the-radar level, but I could see it being a significant concern at $50M+.

[GuitarStv]

At the end of the day though, in the Venn diagram of this situation 'More' completely contains 'Less'.  So you can do everything you can with 'Less' if you have 'More' . . . but the reverse isn't true.

When is a situation when the "more' does not completely contain the "less"?

When is a situation other than "money" when we would all (ha!) mostly agree that "more" is always better? 
 

Happiness?  Health?  Time?  Feeling of belonging?  Satisfaction?

I can think of tons of times where more is always better.

[Sanitary Stache]

At the end of the day though, in the Venn diagram of this situation 'More' completely contains 'Less'.  So you can do everything you can with 'Less' if you have 'More' . . . but the reverse isn't true.

When is a situation when the "more' does not completely contain the "less"?

When is a situation other than "money" when we would all (ha!) mostly agree that "more" is always better? 
 

More wisdom is always better?

The limit on more of somthing always being better seems to be when it comes with a trade off.  If the thought is that more of something comes without any tradeoff whether that tradeoff be more work, loss of discipline, loss of time, analysis paralysis, etc. - then there probably isn't anything where more is always better.  Will more wisdom lead to less action, more love lead to loss of identity, more efficiency lead to loss of friction (then we would be so efficient we couldn't walk!, like because there was no friction on our feet...).  Maybe more effiency is always better? I do like sliding.

[Davnasty]

MMM had a somewhat relevant article recently:

https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2024/05/18/the-ultimate-life-coach/

The main issue he addresses is that never having to do something you don't want to do leads to a certain kind of weakness and dissatisfaction. Even at 1M there are lots of things you might not have to do if you don't want to, but I think for most people it's a number where you can't throw money at every problem. At 10M you probably can. Even though I'm not FI yet, I can already tell I've lost some of the excitement of conquering challenges when I had very little money and I suspect my mentality will continue to change as the stash hits higher levels.

That said I'll take 10M over 1M, no hesitation haha. The opportunity to move exactly where I want to be, cover potential medical expenses, and help family if they fall on hard times is too much to pass up.

[Dicey]

The more money I have the more I'd be worried about family (or myself) being kidnapped for ransom. $10M is likely still at the under-the-radar level, but I could see it being a significant concern at $50M+.

As long as I shop at thrift stores and drive an old car, I'm not so worried about that. I do keep an eye on the rearview mirror as i approach my house. I'm more concerned about a random crime of opportunity than I am a targeted kidnapping.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

but if it is a philosophical question about money and it's abstract nature: is more always better?[/i] (Hint- it was meant to be a philosophical question.)

Since it's trivially easy to get rid of money, the answer to that philosophical question seems facile.  More is always better.  If you decide that you don't like who you are with more, then give it away and have less.  You effectively are asking if people think it's better to have more or less control of their own lives.  I find it bizarre that some are rooting for less control.

This perspective relies on the axiom that money doesn't change people, it just reveals who they really are. I agree with this somewhat, but also disagree with it somewhat.

I have always been pretty level headed with money. Despite that, if I was given 10m now, I would certainly do a better job with it than if I was given it at 16. If I was given it at 16, I might have made decisions that would have led me down a path that would put me in a worse position than I am now despite being given 10m. I'd like to think that I'm mature enough now not to be in the same boat. Given the chance, I'd certainly take it and see what happened, but the thought experiment is legitimate enough that I do have at least some reservations.

I'd argue that there's no difference with your scenario.  If I was given a million bucks at 16 I'd do stupid shit with it . . . and if I was given ten million bucks at 16 I'd do stupid shit with it.  1 vs 10 doesn't seem to impact that scenario in any meaningful way.  If you're mature enough to handle one, I suspect the same holds true for the other.

I don't think I agree with this, though, at least for me now. In fact, for the now version of me, I disagree pretty strongly with it. If someone gave me 1M, in the stage I am in, it would accelerate my FIRE plans for sure, but I really don't think I would do much with it at all other than stress a little about how to invest it and maybe go out with DW for a celebratory dinner.

10 M is so far beyond what I need at 4% that things would change. I'm not saying I'd do stupid things with it. I'm just saying that I'd have to actively try not to because the urge would most certainly be there.

I'm actually surprised you don't feel the same. Do you think you'd do a lot of dumb spending with just 1M or not feel the urge to do lifestyle inflation or maybe buy a mattress/cell phone combo at 10M? :-)

[aloevera1]

I do not want to devalue my current points of happiness.

I think this same thing from a different perspective:  I do not want to become the person who takes all my luxuries for granted instead of always being conscious/grateful that I have somehow managed to wind up with this awesome life.

Ex:  My mom and I both travel and both are Marriott whatever.  She travels extensively so is top-tier whatever, and so she routinely gets upgraded to the best room without even asking; I travel less, so I do not.  After years of this, I've observed that it now takes more to provide her the same level of happiness.  If she doesn't get the upgrade, she's actually unhappy; a basic-level upgrade is now the baseline expectation, and it takes something like the Presidential suite to make her really excited.  Whereas I'm still thrilled with that basic-level upgrade. 

This is where I can see infinite money creating problems.  I have really, really enjoyed getting to the point I can solve some problems by throwing money at them.  For a very long time, that wasn't an option, so just sitting there, looking at a problem, and knowing I have that choice makes me feel like I've succeeded, like I've really come a long way, and I'm both grateful and somewhat disbelieving that this is actually me, sitting here, able to be frivolous with money if I want to. 

But I don't want to become the person who thinks that my money will solve every problem for me.  Because of course it won't, and so I will be disappointed when I find a problem that I can't solve that way.  But even more, I will lose the joy that I currently get just from realizing that I can solve my problem in that way -- I'll take it for granted because of course I can solve the problem by throwing money at it, because I do it all the time, and that's my baseline expectation now. 

tl;dr:  I don't like people who take their good fortune and privileges for granted, and so I really, really, really don't want to be tempted to become one of them.

Agree, entitlement to a certain "standard" is a very real thing. Whatever constitutes "the standard" is changing over time though. It's pretty much a direct function of disposable income and the lifestyle inflation.

This entitlement is a really tricky concept though. It actively ruins enjoyment of good things because they suddenly don't seem as good anymore unless you get something even more impressive.

I recently watched a movie about rapid acquisition of wealth (The Billionaire Boys Club). It had a comment about life in Beverley Hills: "While the rest of the world is trying to live better life, everyone here is trying to live the best life".

Imagine what kind of pressure that puts people under. What if your life is NOT THE BEST LIFE? Given the amount of resources you can throw at any problem? Gosh.

Again, I am not saying that I don't want to have more money, because I do, I really do. I also really want to avoid this trap, it looks miserable. It's like screaming "I used to be happy with drinking my mojito, why am I on my 10th mojito and still not achieving bliss??"

I don't know where people get wisdom and internal strength to maintain their sense of contentment (do not confuse with pride of accomplishment) after amassing huge fortunes.

[GuitarStv]

I don't know where people get wisdom and internal strength to maintain their sense of contentment (do not confuse with pride of accomplishment) after amassing huge fortunes.

. . . but even a million bucks is already a massive fortune!

With that you could buy a Lambourghini Aventador any time . . . and a couple hundred Vitamix blenders.  And still have enough for a personal assistant to follow you around and tell you how good you look all day.

These are dumb things to do though.  Dumb people who come into money will do them.  But this kind of dumb is a choice.  Amassing a huge fortune doesn't mean you have to be dumb with it.

[spartana]

I don't know where people get wisdom and internal strength to maintain their sense of contentment (do not confuse with pride of accomplishment) after amassing huge fortunes.

. . . but even a million bucks is already a massive fortune!

With that you could buy a Lambourghini Aventador any time . . . and a couple hundred Vitamix blenders.  And still have enough for a personal assistant to follow you around and tell you how good you look all day.

These are dumb things to do though.  Dumb people who come into money will do them.  But this kind of dumb is a choice.  Amassing a huge fortune doesn't mean you have to be dumb with it.

Yeah I see contentment and wealth (at any level) as two totally different things. If you are content with your life why would amassing more money or stuff or experiences make you more content? If you need more money to bring more contentment to your life when you are already content that just seems odd. The Buddha said, “Contentment is the greatest wealth.” I suppose that's the mustashian version of "enough".

[aloevera1]

I don't know where people get wisdom and internal strength to maintain their sense of contentment (do not confuse with pride of accomplishment) after amassing huge fortunes.

. . . but even a million bucks is already a massive fortune!

I agree, it is.

However, I don't view $$ as a dollar amount. I think about it as "how much income will it generate per year in perpetuity?". With that perspective a million bucks is not buying you a crazy lifestyle.

I think it's easy to think that dumb people will do dumb things. However, it looks like a fallacy of "oh, I am definitely smart so I will be better than everyone else". If you are that smart, then congrats! I just don't think I am that much of an abnormality. Hedonic adaptation and lifestyle inflation are pretty universal among humans last I heard.

Sure, I don't care about Vitamix blenders or personal assistants. I have my own set of pet causes and vague desires that would probably will mean lifestyle inflation for me, given the opportunity (and lack of goal to accumulate\preserve wealth and get to FI). For instance, I would totally hire a house cleaner if I could :P And then I would lose the joy of washing the floors myself... lol.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I don't know where people get wisdom and internal strength to maintain their sense of contentment (do not confuse with pride of accomplishment) after amassing huge fortunes.

. . . but even a million bucks is already a massive fortune!

With that you could buy a Lambourghini Aventador any time . . . and a couple hundred Vitamix blenders.  And still have enough for a personal assistant to follow you around and tell you how good you look all day.

These are dumb things to do though.  Dumb people who come into money will do them.  But this kind of dumb is a choice.  Amassing a huge fortune doesn't mean you have to be dumb with it.

It doesn't mean you have to, but it does mean you have to make more decisions in general. Like I said above, 1 M isn't going to change my life one way or the other a whole lot other than allowing RE much sooner. I'm probably going to end up having a 3% or less WR because I'm a pansy. It's still in the tangible level of reality. At 10M, that's $400,000 of withdraw. It's insane.

I'll put it this way, I feel very confident that I would put pretty much 99% of 1M into my Vanguard account. When I think about getting $10M, my thoughts immediately go to, well, I could buy a couple of new cars immediately to replace my 200k mile car and close to 300k mile van even though both definitely have life left in them. I could pay for this home improvement that I don't really need but would be nice. Etc. Etc. Etc. I would like to think that I would go about with literally no changes except more freedom, but I don't know that for sure. I can't imagine I'm the only one.

[Ron Scott]

[At 10M, that's $400,000 of withdraw. It's insane.

Lots of retirees have a second, vacation home in nice areas. Buying homes in the NY metro area and south Florida—or CA, etc.—could easily cost $3-4M. Then you’ve got $6M. Draw down your reasonable 3% and it’s $180k a year. Maintenance and taxes on the homes ALONE could be close to $100k, Wanna travel? Charity? Help the kids? This is not crazy-ass lifestyle of the rich and famous. No yacht, no his and hers Bentleys.

$10 is nice, don’t get me wrong. But you’re not Snoop…

[spartana]

I don't know where people get wisdom and internal strength to maintain their sense of contentment (do not confuse with pride of accomplishment) after amassing huge fortunes.

. . . but even a million bucks is already a massive fortune!

I agree, it is.

However, I don't view $$ as a dollar amount. I think about it as "how much income will it generate per year in perpetuity?". With that perspective a million bucks is not buying you a crazy lifestyle.

I think it's easy to think that dumb people will do dumb things. However, it looks like a fallacy of "oh, I am definitely smart so I will be better than everyone else". If you are that smart, then congrats! I just don't think I am that much of an abnormality. Hedonic adaptation and lifestyle inflation are pretty universal among humans last I heard.

Sure, I don't care about Vitamix blenders or personal assistants. I have my own set of pet causes and vague desires that would probably will mean lifestyle inflation for me, given the opportunity (and lack of goal to accumulate\preserve wealth and get to FI). For instance, I would totally hire a house cleaner if I could :P And then I would lose the joy of washing the floors myself... lol.

Not always true with the bolded. Even here where people don't generally inflate their lifestyle you often hear people lamenting the excess in their lives and wishes they could go back to a more carefree live. A smaller house (which isn't a burden to care for), no second homes to care for, no expensive vacations, no luxury items, a simpler life that doesn't require lots of upscale things to maintain, an older car that they don't have to worry about (or just being car free), etc..

While I think much of that is romanticizing the past, there are those who find MORE joy and contentment with fewer or smaller thing regardless of their income or NW. Getting off the middle class or upper middle class spending binge, even high high income spending binge, is something many people long for but often find themselves "stuck".  Whether due to debt, societal beliefs that you're a loser if you don't have or do those things, spouse or kids wanting that life, or just any reason that compels to to "move up" rather then "move down" even if moving down would bring you greater happiness and lower stress.

[GuitarStv]

I don't know where people get wisdom and internal strength to maintain their sense of contentment (do not confuse with pride of accomplishment) after amassing huge fortunes.

. . . but even a million bucks is already a massive fortune!

With that you could buy a Lambourghini Aventador any time . . . and a couple hundred Vitamix blenders.  And still have enough for a personal assistant to follow you around and tell you how good you look all day.

These are dumb things to do though.  Dumb people who come into money will do them.  But this kind of dumb is a choice.  Amassing a huge fortune doesn't mean you have to be dumb with it.

It doesn't mean you have to, but it does mean you have to make more decisions in general. Like I said above, 1 M isn't going to change my life one way or the other a whole lot other than allowing RE much sooner. I'm probably going to end up having a 3% or less WR because I'm a pansy. It's still in the tangible level of reality. At 10M, that's $400,000 of withdraw. It's insane.

I'll put it this way, I feel very confident that I would put pretty much 99% of 1M into my Vanguard account. When I think about getting $10M, my thoughts immediately go to, well, I could buy a couple of new cars immediately to replace my 200k mile car and close to 300k mile van even though both definitely have life left in them. I could pay for this home improvement that I don't really need but would be nice. Etc. Etc. Etc. I would like to think that I would go about with literally no changes except more freedom, but I don't know that for sure. I can't imagine I'm the only one.

I don't know.  With 1.8 million now I don't seem to make any more decisions than I did with 40k in the bank after my second year working.

For sure, withdrawing 400,000$ a year is insane - but there's no reason to actually do it.  I live an incredibly comfortable life with my family that is completely without deprivation under 50k a year.

If I got 10 million dollars I'd put it into the same savings and investment vehicles that I've put the last 1.8 into.  There aren't too many really expensive things that I want.  I fricking love my '05 Corolla.  Why buy a different car?  There's some stuff that I could do as far as home improvements on our house . . . but honestly, I want to do those on my own.  Working a little bit at a time on things like that is something I enjoy.  I've already got more guitar stuff than I need, and have formed emotional bonds with my guitars so wouldn't even be blowing money there.  My steel frame road bike is similar - it fits me perfectly and we've been through so many thousands of hours that I wouldn't want to get rid of it for something else.  I don't really like travelling.  I don't enjoy eating out at fancy restaurants.  The only jewelry I wear is my wedding ring (recently around my neck held on by a stainless steel chain).  Heck, even my clothes tend to last me a really long time washing everything on cold and hang drying them.  It is honestly hard to think of things that I really want to blow money on - maybe some music or writing courses?  But those take time so are somewhat self limiting in the amount they can drain.

Some of the biggest temptations for me spending-wise would be to give the money away.  I'd probably set up something so that my son receives a few million dollars in his mid thirties after he has made his way in the world for a while.  I'd want to give my sister some money too.  There are some environmental causes I'd like to donate to.  I'd give some money to my Jiu-Jitsu instructor to replace worn mats at the gym.  I'd be interested in setting up some sort of fund to improve things in my neighbourhood somehow - homeless and drug related outreach programs, food subsidy stuff, donation to local hospitals and schools, and a large donation to the Toronto Public library.  I was reading about a summer camp program where inner city kids are brought out into the woods and taught some basic outdoors skills - camping, hiking/portaging, cooking, fishing, etc.  I'd love to do something like that.

[mistymoney]

I don't know where people get wisdom and internal strength to maintain their sense of contentment (do not confuse with pride of accomplishment) after amassing huge fortunes.

 . . . and a couple hundred Vitamix blenders. 

Youre obsessed! get a room!

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

[At 10M, that's $400,000 of withdraw. It's insane.

Lots of retirees have a second, vacation home in nice areas. Buying homes in the NY metro area and south Florida—or CA, etc.—could easily cost $3-4M. Then you’ve got $6M. Draw down your reasonable 3% and it’s $180k a year. Maintenance and taxes on the homes ALONE could be close to $100k, Wanna travel? Charity? Help the kids? This is not crazy-ass lifestyle of the rich and famous. No yacht, no his and hers Bentleys.

$10 is nice, don’t get me wrong. But you’re not Snoop…

C'mon. Anyone can Suze Orman our way to explaining any amount of money being not really that much. 1M can buy you a lot of ridiculous things. That's why looking at it as the 4% is a good way to look at it. A person with 40k a year in passive income can do decently well. A person with 400k in passive income has money coming out of their ears. Now, they but a 3M house, a 3M Ashton Martin, 2M yacht, and a 1M stamp collection, they'll only have 1M left and 40k in passive income, so there is that...

[Sanitary Stache]

I don't know where people get wisdom and internal strength to maintain their sense of contentment (do not confuse with pride of accomplishment) after amassing huge fortunes.

. . . but even a million bucks is already a massive fortune!

With that you could buy a Lambourghini Aventador any time . . . and a couple hundred Vitamix blenders.  And still have enough for a personal assistant to follow you around and tell you how good you look all day.

These are dumb things to do though.  Dumb people who come into money will do them.  But this kind of dumb is a choice.  Amassing a huge fortune doesn't mean you have to be dumb with it.

It doesn't mean you have to, but it does mean you have to make more decisions in general. Like I said above, 1 M isn't going to change my life one way or the other a whole lot other than allowing RE much sooner. I'm probably going to end up having a 3% or less WR because I'm a pansy. It's still in the tangible level of reality. At 10M, that's $400,000 of withdraw. It's insane.

I'll put it this way, I feel very confident that I would put pretty much 99% of 1M into my Vanguard account. When I think about getting $10M, my thoughts immediately go to, well, I could buy a couple of new cars immediately to replace my 200k mile car and close to 300k mile van even though both definitely have life left in them. I could pay for this home improvement that I don't really need but would be nice. Etc. Etc. Etc. I would like to think that I would go about with literally no changes except more freedom, but I don't know that for sure. I can't imagine I'm the only one.

I don't know.  With 1.8 million now I don't seem to make any more decisions than I did with 40k in the bank after my second year working.

For sure, withdrawing 400,000$ a year is insane - but there's no reason to actually do it.  I live an incredibly comfortable life with my family that is completely without deprivation under 50k a year.

If I got 10 million dollars I'd put it into the same savings and investment vehicles that I've put the last 1.8 into.  There aren't too many really expensive things that I want.  I fricking love my '05 Corolla.  Why buy a different car?  There's some stuff that I could do as far as home improvements on our house . . . but honestly, I want to do those on my own.  Working a little bit at a time on things like that is something I enjoy.  I've already got more guitar stuff than I need, and have formed emotional bonds with my guitars so wouldn't even be blowing money there.  My steel frame road bike is similar - it fits me perfectly and we've been through so many thousands of hours that I wouldn't want to get rid of it for something else.  I don't really like travelling.  I don't enjoy eating out at fancy restaurants.  The only jewelry I wear is my wedding ring (recently around my neck held on by a stainless steel chain).  Heck, even my clothes tend to last me a really long time washing everything on cold and hang drying them.  It is honestly hard to think of things that I really want to blow money on - maybe some music or writing courses?  But those take time so are somewhat self limiting in the amount they can drain.

Some of the biggest temptations for me spending-wise would be to give the money away.  I'd probably set up something so that my son receives a few million dollars in his mid thirties after he has made his way in the world for a while.  I'd want to give my sister some money too.  There are some environmental causes I'd like to donate to.  I'd give some money to my Jiu-Jitsu instructor to replace worn mats at the gym.  I'd be interested in setting up some sort of fund to improve things in my neighbourhood somehow - homeless and drug related outreach programs, food subsidy stuff, donation to local hospitals and schools, and a large donation to the Toronto Public library.  I was reading about a summer camp program where inner city kids are brought out into the woods and taught some basic outdoors skills - camping, hiking/portaging, cooking, fishing, etc.  I'd love to do something like that.

Do at what amount would you start giving it away?

[GuitarStv]

I don't know where people get wisdom and internal strength to maintain their sense of contentment (do not confuse with pride of accomplishment) after amassing huge fortunes.

. . . but even a million bucks is already a massive fortune!

With that you could buy a Lambourghini Aventador any time . . . and a couple hundred Vitamix blenders.  And still have enough for a personal assistant to follow you around and tell you how good you look all day.

These are dumb things to do though.  Dumb people who come into money will do them.  But this kind of dumb is a choice.  Amassing a huge fortune doesn't mean you have to be dumb with it.

It doesn't mean you have to, but it does mean you have to make more decisions in general. Like I said above, 1 M isn't going to change my life one way or the other a whole lot other than allowing RE much sooner. I'm probably going to end up having a 3% or less WR because I'm a pansy. It's still in the tangible level of reality. At 10M, that's $400,000 of withdraw. It's insane.

I'll put it this way, I feel very confident that I would put pretty much 99% of 1M into my Vanguard account. When I think about getting $10M, my thoughts immediately go to, well, I could buy a couple of new cars immediately to replace my 200k mile car and close to 300k mile van even though both definitely have life left in them. I could pay for this home improvement that I don't really need but would be nice. Etc. Etc. Etc. I would like to think that I would go about with literally no changes except more freedom, but I don't know that for sure. I can't imagine I'm the only one.

I don't know.  With 1.8 million now I don't seem to make any more decisions than I did with 40k in the bank after my second year working.

For sure, withdrawing 400,000$ a year is insane - but there's no reason to actually do it.  I live an incredibly comfortable life with my family that is completely without deprivation under 50k a year.

If I got 10 million dollars I'd put it into the same savings and investment vehicles that I've put the last 1.8 into.  There aren't too many really expensive things that I want.  I fricking love my '05 Corolla.  Why buy a different car?  There's some stuff that I could do as far as home improvements on our house . . . but honestly, I want to do those on my own.  Working a little bit at a time on things like that is something I enjoy.  I've already got more guitar stuff than I need, and have formed emotional bonds with my guitars so wouldn't even be blowing money there.  My steel frame road bike is similar - it fits me perfectly and we've been through so many thousands of hours that I wouldn't want to get rid of it for something else.  I don't really like travelling.  I don't enjoy eating out at fancy restaurants.  The only jewelry I wear is my wedding ring (recently around my neck held on by a stainless steel chain).  Heck, even my clothes tend to last me a really long time washing everything on cold and hang drying them.  It is honestly hard to think of things that I really want to blow money on - maybe some music or writing courses?  But those take time so are somewhat self limiting in the amount they can drain.

Some of the biggest temptations for me spending-wise would be to give the money away.  I'd probably set up something so that my son receives a few million dollars in his mid thirties after he has made his way in the world for a while.  I'd want to give my sister some money too.  There are some environmental causes I'd like to donate to.  I'd give some money to my Jiu-Jitsu instructor to replace worn mats at the gym.  I'd be interested in setting up some sort of fund to improve things in my neighbourhood somehow - homeless and drug related outreach programs, food subsidy stuff, donation to local hospitals and schools, and a large donation to the Toronto Public library.  I was reading about a summer camp program where inner city kids are brought out into the woods and taught some basic outdoors skills - camping, hiking/portaging, cooking, fishing, etc.  I'd love to do something like that.

Do at what amount would you start giving it away?

Probably when I'm at about 50% higher than what I think I need for comfortable retirement.  Unnecessary, but this would make my little risk averse heart of hearts happy.  I'm aiming for 2 mil for retirement right now, so would cap my stuff at 3 mil and then start giving it away.

[Log]

Any thought experiment that makes 10M not a fuckload of money has to rely on "well spend $XMillion on a house or two and then..."

Look at it through a rental lens though, and you see that if you follow the "one third of income" rule on housing from 4% rule of $10M and renting a place that costs $11,000/month is comfortably within your budget. Then your "second home" problem can be considered vacation expenses, not housing costs. And even after spending $11k per month on your sick mansion or penthouse or whatever, you still have ~$267k/year of other spending money, which I think can fund some pretty sick vacations. And by not buying a vacation home in one specific location, your vacations can be more varied, and you're not paying for an empty home all year long.

[spartana]

Any thought experiment that makes 10M not a fuckload of money has to rely on "well spend $XMillion on a house or two and then..."

Look at it through a rental lens though, and you see that if you follow the "one third of income" rule on housing from 4% rule of $10M and renting a place that costs $11,000/month is comfortably within your budget. Then your "second home" problem can be considered vacation expenses, not housing costs. And even after spending $11k per month on your sick mansion or penthouse or whatever, you still have ~$267k/year of other spending money, which I think can fund some pretty sick vacations. And by not buying a vacation home in one specific location, your vacations can be more varied, and you're not paying for an empty home all year long.

But but but...I "need" my own private vacation island and a private plane to get me from my primary mansion home (in San Fran, Silicon Valley or The OC - which 5 minutes ago the News told me were the top 3 most expensive housing markets in the US) to my private island. $10 mil can't buy that!

But seriously, while housing is expensive now and living on 4% of $1mm isn't going to be doable in many high housing markets, 4% of $10mm is so far beyond what's needed it's not comparable.. And of course many can move elsewhere or downsize so that housing cost are lower.