Half of Congress Members Are Millionaires, Report Says

[mpohl 1]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/us/politics/more-than-half-the-members-of-congress-are-millionaires-analysis-finds.html?hp&hp

Hope you all feel represented by your millionaire buddies!

[kallend 1,654]

Of the people, by the wealthy, for the wealthy.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ryoder 1,403]

Assuming this includes retirement funds, and home equity, I'm surprised it is that low.
Think about this: take $1M and deduct the value of your home. How long can you live on that?

Of course Congress Members who have served 5+ years get pensions they can live on, and don't really need to use their own savings.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[mpohl 1]

I don't know too many people who have a net worth of 1M+. And they certainly don't represent my interests.

P.S.: Don't overvalue your trailer.

ryoder

Assuming this includes retirement funds, and home equity, I'm surprised it is that low.
Think about this: take $1M and deduct the value of your home. How long can you live on that?

Of course Congress Members who have served 5+ years get pensions they can live on, and don't really need to use their own savings.

[headoverheels 292]

Most of my colleagues (I'm in my late-late-late 50's) have total assets well over a million. I'm in a generally expensive area, so it takes maybe $750k+ to buy the median 1400sq ft house on 1/8 acre, and 80% more than that in a "good" area.

I guess I'd have to know the median age of Congress to know what to think about their level of assets. I generally live on about half of my income and bank the rest (still on my 3rd car ever, and plan to only buy one more), except the past 3 years doing a large house remodel.

[wmw999 2,157]

I have a feeling that we're seeing the results of bifurcation of net worth in the US, where people who have some don't see it as a big deal, and those who don't are generally far enough away that it seems like a ridiculous and unapproachable number.

$1M in the IRA for a couple's retirement is seen as being OK, but not awesome -- and that's with SS included in the retirement planning. So those of you who think that SS should be done away with so that you can be in charge of your own retirement -- can you imagine having $1M by the time you retire?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Andy9o8 0]

The problem my pedantic brain has always had with our cultural fealty to the term "millionaire" is that the $1 million mark is a fixed verbal threshold, yet standard inflation continually devalues its true value over time - thus rendering the term effectively arbitrary. For example, $1 million just 30 years ago only has the value of about $420K in 2013 US dollars. But there are no sexy headlines about "400-hundred-thousandaires".

[champu 1]

Andy9o8

For example, $1 million just 30 years ago only has the value of about $420K in 2013 US dollars. But there are no sexy headlines about "400-hundred-thousandaires".

I know what you mean, but I think you said this the wrong way around.

And to Wendy's point, yes I've been a vocal critic of the "OA" portion of "OASDI", and even if I stopped contributing to my 401k today it would still likely be worth over $1M (in CY$) by the time I retire.

Paying social security tax and getting social security payments when you retire has an abysmally terrible return... You may be better off playing a slot machine.

[weekender 0]

wmw999

I have a feeling that we're seeing the results of bifurcation of net worth in the US, where people who have some don't see it as a big deal, and those who don't are generally far enough away that it seems like a ridiculous and unapproachable number.

$1M in the IRA for a couple's retirement is seen as being OK, but not awesome -- and that's with SS included in the retirement planning. So those of you who think that SS should be done away with so that you can be in charge of your own retirement -- can you imagine having $1M by the time you retire?

Wendy P.

i would rather be a retired municipal employee than a 1 millionaire. how many millions do you need to have saved to earn 40k a year for life? or in the NYC area where they can earn 2x that for life plus free healthcare.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[ryoder 1,403]

Andy9o8

The problem my pedantic brain has always had with our cultural fealty to the term "millionaire" is that the $1 million mark is a fixed verbal threshold, yet standard inflation continually devalues its true value over time - thus rendering the term effectively arbitrary. For example, $1 million just 30 years ago only has the value of about $420K in 2013 US dollars. But there are no sexy headlines about "400-hundred-thousandaires".

Indeed.
The TV show "The Millionaire" debuted in 1955.
The IMDB description: "In this hit 1950's TV series, a millionaire indulges himself giving away one million dollars apiece to persons that he has never met."

According to an online calculator, the value of that check today would be $8,696,604.48.

Calculator: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[DanG 1]

Quote

The TV show "The Millionaire" debuted in 1955.
The IMDB description: "In this hit 1950's TV series, a millionaire indulges himself giving away one million dollars apiece to persons that he has never met."

According to an online calculator, the value of that check today would be $8,696,604.48.

And Thurston Howell III (and presumably Eunice Lovelle Wentworth Howell's younger, hotter replacement) would be worth at least $7,518,354.84.

- Dan G

[kelpdiver 2]

weekender

i would rather be a retired municipal employee than a 1 millionaire. how many millions do you need to have saved to earn 40k a year for life? or in the NYC area where they can earn 2x that for life plus free healthcare.

Going by the 4% 'rule', you'd need a million dollars to have a retirement income of 40k per year. So yeah, let's not go crazy about this uber rich congress. I'd say it's actually a bit sad that this is the median.

Headsoverheels - the average age of Senators is low 60sright now, House members are late 50s. Historically it varies a little bit, like in 74 when the big influx of new people after Watergate. But it only varies down to the low 50s.

Most professionals in the Bay Area have net worths over a million by the time they hit their 50s. Those who have owned their house for 20+ years may have it in their house alone. They ought to have it in their retirement accounts alone.

[billvon 2,444]

>Hope you all feel represented by your millionaire buddies!

Hmm. Personally I think there's a weak correlation between net worth and ability to lead and make good decisions. Intelligent people tend to become millionaires more often than fools.

[kallend 1,654]

headoverheels

Most of my colleagues (I'm in my late-late-late 50's) have total assets well over a million.

OK, but what is the median age of a Congressman? The mean is 59.

And I believe Senators are, on average far wealthier than members of the House, with a median net worth of roughly $3 Million.

Also the reporting requirements are not very stringent, with a number of exclusions allowed.

Assets held for investment or the production of income that were worth more than $1,000 at the end of the calendar year, must be reported in this section of the report. This includes securities, real estate (excluding the filer's primary residence, unless it generates income, and federal retirement accounts), ownership of a business, bank accounts and loans owed to the filer. Assets held within any self-directed account or fund should be listed individually. Filers are not required to provide detail on the individual holdings of, for example, mutual funds. Retirement accounts related to federal employment are exempted from disclosure.

So if the value of the primary residence and retirement accounts is added in, I suspect the $1M mark gets MUCH higher.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

kallend

Of the people, by the wealthy, for the wealthy.

A million dollars when you retire barely qualifies as middle class. It won't generate enough passive income to match the median household income to say nothing of the higher wages experienced professionals are used to.

As of 2009 representatives averaged 57 years old and senators 63 and I expect there would be a larger share of millionaires if they were financially prudent.

The takeaway here seems to be that congress members are irresponsible spenders as both politicians and private citizens.

Becoming a millionaire is not hard. Put money into a Roth IRA instead of the average $450/month car payment and you'll have $1M in current dollars after a 40 year career if you achieve the S&P500 50 year average returns of 7% with dividends re-invested. Double that as a couple. Buying a median sized 1980 house instead of a median sized 2010 home and investing the savings should also do wonders for your net worth.

[kallend 1,654]

DrewEckhardt

***
Of the people, by the wealthy, for the wealthy.

A million dollars when you retire barely qualifies as middle class. It won't generate enough passive income to match the median household income to say nothing of the higher wages experienced professionals are used to.

As of 2009 representatives averaged 57 years old and senators 63 and I expect there would be a larger share of millionaires if they were financially prudent.

The takeaway here seems to be that congress members are irresponsible spenders as both politicians and private citizens.

The reported amounts are misleading on account of exclusions allowed from reporting requirements.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Boogers 0]

Article:
"Congress: More Democrat millionaires than Republican . . . and here’s why"

Link:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/60413

Quotes:
"But what’s really interesting about the story is that it tells us there are more Democrats than Republicans in Congress who are millionaires."

"Both parties love millionaires, and both parties are full of millionaires. The difference is that one party publicly demonizes millionaires who make their money in the private sector, even as it continues to grow the political/governmental world in which even more of them are striking it rich."

[base698 1]

Yep

Quote

Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.

James Madison