As featured in The Wall Street Journal, Money Magazine, and more!

Search: millionaires


It’s no surprise that politicians have difficulty relating to their constituents. When Mitt Romney was asked about his finances, he admitted two facts that would sound strange to most listeners.

  • Romney considers what he earned from speaking fees in one year, $362,000, as “not that much.”
  • Like most individuals who earn most of their income from investments, Romney’s effective tax rate is closer to 15 percent.

For Romney $362,000 may not be that much. His net worth is estimated to be between $85 million and $265 million. The most that income from speaking can increase his net worth each year is by 0.4%. That is a drop in a very large bucket. I can understand why Romney would say that this amount is not that much. For him, it’s practically nothing.

For most people, though, $362,000 is a significant amount of money. This small portion of Romney’s annual income could support ten families or more of four members for one year. “Not that much” is relative.

When President Obama proposed the Buffett Rule, a tax on millionaires to pay a representative share of the tax burden, he had people like Romney in mind. Buffett has pointed out that his effective tax rate is lower than his secretary’s, and this happens when most of an individual’s income comes from investments. Investment income, like dividends, as well as carried interest, is taxed at a 15 percent rate rather than the sliding scale used in the tax brackets for ordinary income. People who earn high enough salaries and wages pay higher tax rates than individuals who make a living off investments.

To compare Romney with his political peers and competitors, Governor Rick Perry has indicated his effective tax rate in 2010 was 23.4 percent, and that rate is closer to what most middle-class Americans might pay in any one year. Rick Perry is the least wealthy of all the presidential hopefuls, with a net worth between $1 million and $2.5 million. President Obama and his family paid an effective tax rate of 25 percent in 2010.

How does your effective tax rate compare to Mitt Romney’s?

Update: ABC News just broke the story that Mitt Romney has made judicious use of an offshore tax haven in the Cayman Islands to shelter his assets from the U.S. Treasury.

Tax experts agree that Romney remains subject to American taxes. But they say the offshore accounts have provided him — and Bain — with other potential financial benefits, such as higher management fees and greater foreign interest, all at the expense of the U.S. Treasury. Rebecca J. Wilkins, a tax policy expert with Citizens for Tax Justice, said the federal government loses an estimated $100 billion a year because of tax havens.

Christian Science Monitor, ABC News

{ 37 comments }

Steve Jobs may not have been as wealthy as his arch-nemesis Bill Gates, but after his successes with Apple and Pixar, he was one of the world’s richest men. Forbes recently listed Jobs as 39th on the Forbes 400, a list of the richest people in America, with a net worth of $7 billion. The author of Jobs’ biography has been offering some insight into the billionaire’s life in advance of the book’s release. Some of the insight pertains to his attitude towards being rich.

As success came to Jobs and his colleagues, he observed the effect of the influx of wealth after Apple became a public company. An excess of money turned those who benefited from the company stock into “bizarro people” who purchased unnecessary things like Rolls Royces and plastic surgery. Jobs said he wanted to avoid “that nutso lavish lifestyle.” Although he could afford to upgrade his lifestyle, Jobs lived with his family in a modest house in Palo Alto and didn’t hire help or an entourage.

Steve JobsJobs was’t a complete stranger to living a finer life than most of the country could afford. He owned an apartment in The San Remo, a building in New York that featured residents including Steven Spielberg, Steve Martin, and Bono. Steve also owned a 17,000 square foot mansion in California. While he didn’t own a Rolls Royce, he drove a 2008 Mercedes SL 55 AMG.

If Steve Jobs gave to charitable causes, he didn’t want anyone to know. There is virtually no record of Jobs sharing his wealth with causes needing funding, unlike many of the other billionaires outranking him. His direction for the posthumous distribution of his wealth is not public information. While many have criticized Jobs for not being a philanthropic role model, using his wealth to inspire others to focus on worthy causes, those with opposing viewpoints argue that his work building a successful company, creating wealth for others as well as revolutionary technology that, among other things, facilitate larger and faster contributions to these worthy causes, has done enough to improve the world.

It’s a weak argument, but it’s one that caters to the more capitalistic approach to philanthropy. It relies on the idea that by providing salaries to his employees, they will go out and accomplish the philanthropic goals that Jobs did not set for himself. The argument assumes that organizations using iPhones, iPads, and MacBooks to collect funds wouldn’t have been just as capable with other devices. Furthermore, the argument ignores that Jobs shut down corporate philanthropy on his return to Apple in order to save money. Did reducing charitable expenses play a significant role in saving the company?

Despite some fancy homes that often went unused and a moderately flashy car, Jobs seems to have taken the ideology of The Millionaire Next Door to heart. He continued to live his life mostly as he always had, not flaunting his wealth and not drawing too much attention to himself outside of his job responsibilities. For someone whose motto and company marketing slogan was “Think different,” Jobs appeared to desire to keep his differences unseen.

The Millionaire Next Door changed the way people think about millionaires. Most millionaires worked hard building a company to earn money. They didn’t earn it. They tend to blend in with their surroundings, not flaunt their wealth. Those who buy items as status symbols tend not to be wealthy (purchasing items on credit) or are wealthy only temporarily due to overspending. This idea of an understated millionaire, comfortable with his wealth and free of a need to prove himself, seems to fit the profile of Steve Jobs.

It’s perhaps an approach that would befit anyone who found himself with any amount of wealth beyond what is needed to afford the necessities of life.

Photo: Annie Bannanie 06
Business Insider, Examiner, Forbes, Forbes #2, Washington Post

{ 26 comments }

The following is a guest post from Neal Frankle, a Certified Financial Planner in Los Angeles who owns the financial blog Wealth Pilgrim. Neal has been a financial planner for the past twenty-seven years and is writing this article on Consumerism Commentary to share what he has learned from his experiences with clients over these three decades.

Even if you’ve been pursuing in your career for only a couple of years, you’ve already learned a great deal about your profession and people in general. I’ve had the same experience. Twenty-seven years ago, one of the small business ideas I had was to become a financial planner. And over that period, I’ve learned quite a few lessons about Wall Street, my clients, and myself.

What I’ve learned about Wall Street

Everything you hear about Wall Street isn’t true –- but most of it is. I’ve found that the higher up you go in management, the more detached and greedy “the machine” becomes. In fact, I’m astounded by the depths to which some firms go to enrich themselves at the expense of investors. Having said that, I must say that I’m not sure this attitude is any different from other industries.

Since I spent very little time working in corporate America I don’t know this for sure, but my guess is that all large corporations encourage political jockeying and self-serving behavior. Wall Street is no different. Take the index annuity product as an example.

When these babies were first introduced, they were some of the best investments I’d ever seen. They allowed investors to participate in growth when the market was good and protected investors from declining markets. But over time, the fat cats got wise. They realized that they could play with the way those indexes were calculated and thereby keep more profit for themselves at the expense of investors. Now, index annuities are terrible investments. This is just one of many examples.

I’ve also learned that competition sometimes works, and the mutual fund industry is a great example of this. Mutual fund fees and expenses have been dropping relentlessly over time as competition increases from Exchange Traded Funds. In short, in the debate between exchange-traded funds and mutual funds, ETFs and index funds are wining hands down.

Last, I learned that the fee structure an advisor uses says a lot about the relationship clients are going to have with the advisor. This may be self-serving because I’m a fee-only advisor. Fee-only advisors are compensated if and only if they serve clients over time. That doesn’t mean they’re going to do it, and it doesn’t mean they know how to do a good job or that fee-only advisors are qualified. Anyone can become a financial planner.

Over the long-haul, advisors generally don’t stay in business if they don’t deliver. That’s not the case with salespeople earning commissions. They get paid up front, and there is a disincentive to serve clients. Not every commission-based advisor is a shyster of course. But when someone is compensated to sell rather than advise, that’s what they’re going to do.

My experience is that commissions put advisors and clients on opposite sides of the table. Generally, the reverse is true when it comes to fee-based planners. Again, this is a generalization and there are many exceptions on both sides of the equation, but for the most part, I’ve experienced this to be true.

What I’ve learned about clients

I’ve learned that people dislike losing money more than they enjoy making money. This aversion to losing money is unfortunately and paradoxically the very reason why many investors get wiped out. If someone has no ability to absorb investment losses, they’ll do one of two things. One potential response is to stick all the money in the bank for protection. Over time, this is a losing proposition.

The other response is to invest emotionally. When the market feels good, this investor becomes aggressive. When the market feels scary, this person goes into cash. This is a perfect recipe for disaster, of course. It’s called buying high and selling low, the opposite of how someone succeeds with investing.

I don’t believe in the buy and hold strategy. There are other strategies that are more market-sensitive, and these can help investors mitigate losses and take advantage of good opportunities. That’s how I manage money, but the method I believe in is far from perfect. It is a system and not an emotional reaction. This, like any other investment methodology, has its flaws.

Some people will tell you me that they want to be aggressive investors. That may be true — until the market turns against them. Just as I need constant education in areas I know little about, some people really need to be reminded frequently about the trade-off between risk and reward. Client understanding and education is not a one-time event.

Few clients have a financial plan and even those who do rarely execute it. They aren’t clear on their objectives and they don’t know how much they’ll need to reach their goals. (Do you know how much money you need to retire?) This is a real shame. I’ve seen people with very low salaries living their dream life because they formulated a plan and executed it, and I know multi-millionaires who are absolutely miserable and live in fear. That’s because they don’t understand the basics of financial planning and refuse to learn it.

What I’ve learned about myself

I’ve learned a great deal about myself over the last quarter century as a financial planner. The most important lesson I’ve learned is that I can’t do better than my best. I used to be harder on myself than any of my clients were. In fact, during the 2008 market melt-down, clients called because they were worried about me, not their money. While my clients’ investments happened to be performing better than the market that year, we still lost money. I didn’t like that and I felt as though I had let my clients down. I was mistaken to feel this way, but I felt that way nonetheless.

I’ve learned that if I did my best, that was good enough. If it wasn’t good enough for a client, that was the client’s problem, not mine. I’ve learned that most people are good, honest and responsible. Let me tell you, when you deal with a person’s money you really get to know them. As the years pass, I’m more and more impressed by the inherent good I see in others.

I have no plans to retire. I enjoy what I do too much. I believe that the future has a great deal of opportunities ahead, and its share of challenges, as well. The most important thing I’ve learned is that I have no idea what’s coming down the pike. That’s what makes being a financial planner so fascinating.

What have you learned about yourself, others and your profession over the last several years? Were you surprised?

{ 6 comments }

Warren Buffett has frequently claimed that he pays less tax as a percentage of his income that his secretary. President Obama has jumped on this as a basis for the Buffett Rule, a new proposed tax code that ensures that millionaires pay their fair share of income tax.

According to Buffett, his effective tax rate is 17.7 percent while the effective tax rate for his secretary, who earns $60,000, is 30 percent. There are two primary reasons that Buffett’s tax rate is so low. First, only the first $100,000 or so is subject to the payroll tax. For the secretary’s income, all is subject to this tax, while only a small portion of Buffett’s income is subject. Also, most of Buffett’s income is taxed at the lower long-term capital gains rate of 15 percent rather than the tiered ordinary income rates that are in effect for his secretary’s income.

It is also fair to consider why the secretary’s tax rate is so high. I may have to run some calculations again to check, but before I owned my own business, my effective tax rate tended to be 15 to 18 percent considering federal and state income taxes as well as payroll taxes.

Someone with a $60,000 income will also spend a larger percentage of this income on expenses subject to sales tax, increasing their total tax burden more dramatically than someone whose income is high enough so that it can mainly remain in investments or savings.

The Tax Policy Center has offered data that show that while Buffett may pay a smaller tax rate than his secretary, this is not the case on average. The research group estimates that this year, millionaires, or households earning $1 million in income or more, will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes while households earning between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15 percent. Buffett and his team do not seem to follow the norm; in fact, their tax roles are reversed.

Historically, tax situations that favor the wealthy are friendlier than they have ever been. In 1986, the top marginal federal income tax rate was 50 percent. Throughout the 1970s it was 70 percent.
In 1964, it was 77 percent. Throughout the 1950s, it was 91 or 92 percent. In the mid-1940s, the highest bracket was 93 percent. The income required to fall into the top box varied each year, but not by so much that someone earning $1 million per year in today’s dollars would have found him or herself anywhere other than in the top bracket. These highest tax brackets applies to households earning over at least $1 million in today’s dollars. Individuals today need to earn only $380,000 to be placed into today’s highest tax bracket.

Beyond the rates, the poorest and the wealthiest all have ways to reduce their tax bill, though depending on your point of view, the other group seems to have more opportunities to do so. Over the long term, tax policy in the United States has shifted greatly in favor of wealthy households and corporations, while assistance plans for the poor have been facing more scrutiny.

“People who are doing quite well and worry about low-income people not paying any taxes bemoan the fact that they get so many tax breaks that they are zeroed out,” said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. “People at the bottom of the distribution say, ‘But all of those rich guys are getting bigger tax breaks than we’re getting,’ which is also the case.”

The Buffett Rule, intended to ensure that wealthiest households pay their “fair share” to avoid situations like the one between Buffett and his secretary, could be designed to have no effect on the “average” household earning more than $1 million, those households that conform to the averages predicted by the Tax Policy Center.

Associated Press

{ 14 comments }

The Buffett Rule: Tax for Millionaires

by Flexo
Warren Buffett

As a continuation of President Obama’s jobs proposal (economic stimulus) for curbing spending and increasing federal government revenue, the administration is taking a cue from famous investor, Warren Buffett. On many occasions, Buffett has claimed that wealthy Americans do not pay a fair share of the tax burden relative to their means to do so. ... Continue reading this article…

38 comments Read the full article →

Warren Buffett Doesn’t Want to Be Coddled

by Flexo
Warren Buffett Coddle

Update: The concepts implied by Warren Buffett have formed the basis of President Obama’s Buffett Rule proposal. Warren Buffett is staying in the news. I wrote recently about his desire to continue investing in stocks during market volatility, and today he published an opinion piece in the New York Times. He laid out the facts ... Continue reading this article…

22 comments Read the full article →

Last Year: Return of the Millionaires

by Flexo
5105582744_e128529be9_b[1]

According to the latest World Wealth Report, a study designed by Merrill Lynch Wealth Management, last year was a good year for high net-worth individuals (HNWIs), people with more than $1 million in investable assets. After a few years of lagging due to the global recession, the number of millionaires worldwide has climbed past the ... Continue reading this article…

7 comments Read the full article →

How Much Money Do You Need to Feel Wealthy?

by Flexo
4593815143_3d5c50005a_b[1]

Last week, I wrote about a study that evaluates the most important issues for wealthy people, and a new study released recently, sponsored by Fidelity, also takes a look at the attitudes of the super-rich. If I were to have $1 million in investible assets — the value of what I have available to invest ... Continue reading this article…

34 comments Read the full article →
Page 1 of 912345···Last »