Defining “Wealthy”by Adam Selene
Not long ago I read Richard Kiyosaki’s Rich Dad, Poor Dad. Aside from all of the other valuable things in the book, possibly the most valuable thing I got from it is an appropriate definition of “wealthy”. I’ll put it in my own words.
Being wealthy is defined as owning enough income generating assets to support your standard of living without having to work as someone else’s employee.
That is, wealthy has nothing to do with how much money you are paid by an employer. In fact, regardless of how much money you make, I would argue that if your sole source of income is your paycheck, then you are not wealthy, you are “merely” middle class.
Wealth is much more than how much your paycheck is. Money is not wealth. Money is an intellectual representation of the value of work and property. If your money is generated by work, then it is not sustainable independent of an employer. If your money is generated by property, it is. If you look up the definition of the word “wealthy”, you don’t find, until you work your way through a bunch of other definitions, one that speaks to how much money you have. And none that I could find say anything about how much money you are paid, but all speak to what you own or have.
So, why does the Left spend so much time characterizing those who earn high incomes as “rich” or “wealthy”? Well, I suspect that it has much to do with two things.
- Truly wealthy people have spent a lot of time and effort on reducing their real income to avoid income taxes
- The Left likes to redistribute wealth and item 1 has left them with folks who earn wages as a focus for their redistribution schemes.
So, the point of all this? Change your definition of wealthy and then re-evaluate every time you hear someone on the left talk about the evil rich or wealthy. They are really talking, generally, about someone with a high wage, not someone who is actually wealthy.
Second point. I highly recommend aspiring to being wealthy rather than highly paid.