<p>It is a matter of definition. E.g., in France riche/aisée/moyenne/populaire/pauvre (that is rich/upper middle class/middle class/lower class/poor) constitute an official classification of income, as one can see, e.g., in this infographics (<a href="https://www.lefigaro.fr/social/2014/04/16/09010-20140416ARTFIG00110-tes-vous-riche-pauvre-ou-appartenez-vous-a-la-classe-moyenne.php" rel="noreferrer">image source</a>):<br />
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/Ige3E7Wk.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/Ige3E7Wk.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>The monthly levels of income that puts one into one of these five classes (on the vertical axis) vary, depending on the composition of the household (on the horizontal axis): single, single parent, childless couple, a couple with a child, a couple with two children, a couple with three or more children.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-18T07:47:05.730Z
This diagram looks a bit weird: do the first two columns list salaries for one person, and the next four columns list the sum of two salaries?
Stef
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-18T08:07:36.987Z
@Stef these are household incomes (after subtracting taxes and social deductions, which can be a significant fraction of the raw income in France.)
Roger V.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-18T08:21:56.107Z
And why are the figures in the last column (couple with 3+ children) lower than in next-to-last column (couple with 2 children)?
Stef
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-18T08:28:29.603Z
@Stef Likely because with 3+ children one is entitled to certain social benefits, reductions, etc.
Roger V.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-18T08:35:10.280Z
Sure, I would expect the curve to be less steep from 2 to 3 than from 2 to 1, but to actually have a negative slope? I can't imagine social benefits making it **lucrative** to have children. Surely the money saved in social benefits cannot be higher than the extra money spent on food, real estate, clothes, education, hobbies, etc. Although I'm sure some politicians would like to say they are.
Stef
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-18T08:46:12.653Z
@Stef As an example, SNCF (French railroads) offers a 30% reduction for families with three children (reduction for the whole family) and progressive extra 10% percent for every child above that (till 75% for 6+.)
Roger V.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-18T08:48:49.930Z
@Stef: It's indeed a bit strange, especially as the social benefits are generally only awarded to lower income households. For example, these days, the [complement familial (for 3+ children)](https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F13214) is only available to couples earning less than 52K euros, so a couple earning 7K a month wouldn't be eligible.
Matthieu M.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-18T08:50:16.093Z
@Stef During [Yellow vests protests](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests) the media spoke a lot about a poor couple that took part in those protests - they were both about 25 and had four children. Only husband worked, for the minimal salary (about 1500 a month)... but they were entitled for 300 per child, nearly doubling their income, a subsidized housing, reductions for train, nearly free childcare facilities, etc. I agree that, with four kids, they were still poor, but likely better off than a single working mother with a child.
Roger V.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-18T08:58:12.650Z
@MatthieuM. the difference between *poor* and *rich* is that the latter do not spend their extra money on necessities, like *"the extra money spent on food, real estate, clothes, education, hobbies, etc."* - so any subsidy/reduction can be spent on luxury or added to savings. As far as I see, 30%+ reduction for familles nombreuses on SNCF rides does not depend on income - with the current ticket prices, taking a train trip to Côte d'Azur may well account for the differences of a few hundred euros a year.
Roger V.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-18T09:04:11.697Z
@RogerV.: I like your SNCF example, but it's... marginal? Since one cannot assume that every "rich" household would use the train -- many don't -- I would hope it's not the reason we see this dip in the graph as that wouldn't be very representative.
Matthieu M.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-18T09:14:06.353Z
@MatthieuM. I am only speculating here. Another thing could be the [*economy of scale*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale) - as a poor makes young children to wear the older one's clothes, whereas a rich may get by with one *au pair* for 4 kids as well as four 2.
Roger V.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-18T10:07:42.130Z
@RogerV.: The au-pair cost being steady would mean a flat line, not a dropping line. And not everything leads to economy of scales: going from 2 to 3 children will likely lead to a bigger car as you'll have a hard time fitting 3 children seats on a backseat in most cars.
Matthieu M.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-18T10:14:39.653Z
@MatthieuM. *going from 2 to 3 children will likely lead to a bigger car as you'll have a hard time fitting 3 children seats on a backseat in most cars.* - again, this is true for the poor (ok, for middle class), but not if you already have several cars in your garage. E.g., you have a Porsche for yourself, a Mercedes for your spouse, and a 7-seat monospace or a minivan for the nanny and the kids. Still, I know families who manage with a Clio...
Roger V.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-18T10:18:07.377Z
Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/155791/discussion-between-matthieu-m-and-roger-v).
Matthieu M.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-16T12:55:19.467Z
2024-10-16T12:55:19.467Z
Roger V.
<p>&quot;Rich&quot; is a word from everyday language and not a technical term used in economics. It denotes a person with a large net worth, so your answer b) is correct. In the financial services industry, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-net-worth_individual" rel="noreferrer">according to Wikipedia</a>,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>High-net-worth individual (HNWI) is a technical term used in the
financial services industry for people who maintain liquid assets at
or above a certain threshold. Typically, they are defined as holding
financial assets (excluding their primary residence) valued over US\$1
million. A secondary level, a very-high-net-worth individual (VHNWI),
refers to someone with a net worth of at least US\$5 million. The
terminal level, an ultra-high-net-worth individual (UHNWI), holds
US\$30 million in investible assets (adjusted for inflation).</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-16T09:54:13.667Z
2024-10-16T09:54:13.667Z
VARulle
<p>Neither. In economics, the category of &quot;rich people&quot; is as ill-defined as the category of &quot;big numbers&quot; would be to a mathematician. If an economist means either your A or B, they'll say so, probably with concrete numbers attached — or better yet, a percentile.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-17T14:59:09.450Z
"Big numbers" - numbers close to infinity, such as 7.
Yakk
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-18T16:29:38.080Z
Mathematicians don't try to demonize numbers which are bigger than they should have any right to be, nor view numbers which are numerically small as being beneath them.
supercat
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-15T22:58:00.737Z
2024-10-15T22:58:00.737Z
hobbs
<p>Wealth is more about the value of one's assets combined than actual income. For example, only a small percentage of a billionaire's wealth is in the form of actual money.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-11-06T10:42:53.503Z
2024-11-06T10:42:53.503Z
Aristocratic Jack
<p>Being rich refers to a state of the world, i.e., you can measure if someone is rich at a point in time. Hence, the term must refer to the stock concept of net worth, not the flow concept of income. In contrast, having a high income means that someone will likely become rich as time progresses.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-16T15:04:20.677Z
While income is not an instantaneous state, it's generally relatively stable so it can be measured. You can look at a personal budget and estimate their net income for a period of time like the current year.
Barmar
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-16T15:05:14.040Z
And you can measure recent periods exactly.
Barmar
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-17T06:19:33.203Z
Although when talking about rich countries I think it's mostly about income. The US is considered to be the richest country I believe but it's actually also the country with the highest debt
Ivo
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-17T06:47:40.927Z
@Ivo Yes, that is correct. But the original question was about "rich person", not a country.
jpfeifer
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-17T08:06:09.830Z
This answer is wrong through and through.  Having “high GDP”, for instance, also refers to the state of the world, but is an income-like statistic — the value of production in a country per year.  (And plenty of other important and well-defined statistics are similarly time-derivatives.)  And then this answer combines that with the assumption that other answers point out is wrong: “rich” simply isn’t a well-defined technical term, it’s a colloquial term that can roughly match several different precise characteristics.
Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-17T11:39:40.507Z
Interestingly, "poor" is typically defined as insufficient income to meet some threshold (sustain primary needs, be above 25% of the median etc.). The reason is surely that the "poorest" 10 percent or so do not have significant net worth at all which could be used as a criterion. Accordingly, one definition of the opposite -- rich -- could be: Able to save, i.e., run an income surplus.
Peter - Reinstate Monica
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-17T12:05:30.197Z
@Barmar And, even then, you had to specify "net income", rather than "actual income".  If someone is earning \$10,000 per month as income, but their expenses are \$9,999 per month, then their *net* income is \$1 per month.  So, while "a large **net** income" may be the best answer, it is also *not* one of the two options that OP gave in their questionnaire.  Alternatively, someone might be retired with zero income, but also minimal expenses and a few million in savings: does that mean they immediately *stopped* being "rich" the moment they retired?
Chronocidal
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-17T14:07:35.407Z
@PeterLeFanuLumsdaine If you read the answer carefully, the OP asked to select between 2 options concerning a person. Only option b) is the reasonable one to distinguish between rich and poor. Intuitively, someone who is 2 million in debt but earns $200,000 yearly would not be considered rich. That answer is independent of whether you want to have a relative or absolute measure of being rich (or poor). Of course in practice income and wealth are heavily correlated due to assets earning income as well.
jpfeifer
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-17T14:38:19.143Z
@Peter-ReinstateMonica While it *is* interesting, it also makes some amount of sense. If you have close to 0 wealth the in- and outflow is important to determine whether you can maintain your standard of living. If you have 1B wealth, it matters little what income and expenses you have - you remain able to afford virtually any standard of living you want. I guess economically you can think of a person with wealth being able to pay themselves a living stipend by skimming off their wealth, which you can't do if your wealth is close to 0.
xLeitix
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-17T15:26:55.503Z
@Chronocidal True, but in most cases if you have high income it's hard to spend it all and result in low net income. There are exceptions, like famous celebrities who lives such extravagant lifestyles (or their money managers embezzled from them) that they ended up bankrupt, but these are outliers.
Barmar
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-17T19:52:35.173Z
I don't think this answer fully captures the fact that people can mean *either* thing when they talk about being rich. For a lot of people, someone with high income and high discretionary expenses (thus living an expensive lifestyle) is rich even if they do not save a cent, even if they have huge debts that make their wealth much lower but are never called in (e.g. Donald Trump). As the other answer points out, it is an informal term.
Obie 2.0
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-17T20:17:32.130Z
@Obie2.0 The original question was "what does rich mean to an economist", not what people colloquially mean. But even colloquially, if you google the richest people in the world, it's about wealth not income.
jpfeifer
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-17T20:40:39.460Z
There's not just one meaning of words in common usage.
Obie 2.0
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-15T14:42:33.913Z
2024-10-15T14:42:33.913Z
jpfeifer
<p>It is my belief that in economics, rich refers to a person with a high income. However, I asked 6 of my friends the following question:<br />
Does the word rich refer to a person with?<br />
a) A large income<br />
b) a large net worth</p>
<p>All 6 selected b.</p>
<p>So, what does rich mean to an economist?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-16T04:00:38.017Z
Somewhat related: I read that there was an experiment to try to figure out what "rich" meant.  It turns out that for humans, "rich" is typically twice the net worth of the person being asked.  It didn't matter if they were homeless or in the top 1%.
Cort Ammon
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-16T20:43:52.193Z
When it comes to political discussion, I hear the word "rich" a lot in with respect to taxation; "Making the rich pay their fair share" seems to be said a lot in U.S. politics, which the speaker usually hopes you hear as "anyone with more than me".
spuck
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-17T12:43:00.137Z
As it's a general language usage question, I'd look at common uses of the word: A dessert isn't "rich" because calories keep being added, it's "rich" because it's already a kcal bomb. Then maybe look at the etymology (it means both in Dutch and German "rich" as an adverb as well as "kingdom" as a noun --- which is a static thing again).
user3445853
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-18T00:08:39.203Z
To me, "rich" is not having to check my bank account before buying something unnecessary but desired.   But I'm no economisist
Criggie
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-18T08:26:25.230Z
It's asymmetrical: in general, high income implies high net worth, but high net worth doesn't imply high income. If you've had a high income for a while and have been able to save it, then you have a high net worth. But you might have a high net worth without having a high income, for instance an MBA student, or an entrepreneur who recently opened their business. There is a very rare category of person who have a 6-figure income and manage to spend it all and never accumulate a high net worth, but it's very exceptional (eg high-profile football players or TV reality stars)
Stef
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-10-18T20:11:10.870Z
The Beverly Hillbillies being told "You're Rich!" as soon as they struck oil seems on its face to indicate that net worth is more relevant than cash flow
Indigenuity
<definition><united-states>
What does Rich mean?
Bob
# What does Rich mean?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-10-15)

It is my belief that in economics, rich refers to a person with a high income. However, I asked 6 of my friends the following question:  
Does the word rich refer to a person with?  
a) A large income  
b) a large net worth

All 6 selected b.

So, what does rich mean to an economist?

**Tags:** definition, united-states

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Somewhat related: I read that there was an experiment to try to figure out what "rich" meant.  It turns out that for humans, "rich" is typically twice the net worth of the person being asked.  It didn't matter if they were homeless or in the top 1%.  
> **username_2**: When it comes to political discussion, I hear the word "rich" a lot in with respect to taxation; "Making the rich pay their fair share" seems to be said a lot in U.S. politics, which the speaker usually hopes you hear as "anyone with more than me".  
> **username_3**: As it's a general language usage question, I'd look at common uses of the word: A dessert isn't "rich" because calories keep being added, it's "rich" because it's already a kcal bomb. Then maybe look at the etymology (it means both in Dutch and German "rich" as an adverb as well as "kingdom" as a noun --- which is a static thing again).  
> **username_4**: To me, "rich" is not having to check my bank account before buying something unnecessary but desired.   But I'm no economisist  
> **username_5**: It's asymmetrical: in general, high income implies high net worth, but high net worth doesn't imply high income. If you've had a high income for a while and have been able to save it, then you have a high net worth. But you might have a high net worth without having a high income, for instance an MBA student, or an entrepreneur who recently opened their business. There is a very rare category of person who have a 6-figure income and manage to spend it all and never accumulate a high net worth, but it's very exceptional (eg high-profile football players or TV reality stars)  
> **username_6**: The Beverly Hillbillies being told "You're Rich!" as soon as they struck oil seems on its face to indicate that net worth is more relevant than cash flow  

---

## 5 answers

### Answer by username_14 on 2024-10-15. Score: 17 | Accepted answer

Being rich refers to a state of the world, i.e., you can measure if someone is rich at a point in time. Hence, the term must refer to the stock concept of net worth, not the flow concept of income. In contrast, having a high income means that someone will likely become rich as time progresses.

> **Comments:**
> **username_15**: While income is not an instantaneous state, it's generally relatively stable so it can be measured. You can look at a personal budget and estimate their net income for a period of time like the current year.  
> **username_15**: And you can measure recent periods exactly.  
> **username_16**: Although when talking about rich countries I think it's mostly about income. The US is considered to be the richest country I believe but it's actually also the country with the highest debt  
> **username_14**: @username_16 Yes, that is correct. But the original question was about "rich person", not a country.  
> **username_17**: This answer is wrong through and through.  Having “high GDP”, for instance, also refers to the state of the world, but is an income-like statistic — the value of production in a country per year.  (And plenty of other important and well-defined statistics are similarly time-derivatives.)  And then this answer combines that with the assumption that other answers point out is wrong: “rich” simply isn’t a well-defined technical term, it’s a colloquial term that can roughly match several different precise characteristics.  
> **username_18**: Interestingly, "poor" is typically defined as insufficient income to meet some threshold (sustain primary needs, be above 25% of the median etc.). The reason is surely that the "poorest" 10 percent or so do not have significant net worth at all which could be used as a criterion. Accordingly, one definition of the opposite -- rich -- could be: Able to save, i.e., run an income surplus.  
> **username_19**: @username_15 And, even then, you had to specify "net income", rather than "actual income".  If someone is earning \$10,000 per month as income, but their expenses are \$9,999 per month, then their *net* income is \$1 per month.  So, while "a large **net** income" may be the best answer, it is also *not* one of the two options that OP gave in their questionnaire.  Alternatively, someone might be retired with zero income, but also minimal expenses and a few million in savings: does that mean they immediately *stopped* being "rich" the moment they retired?  
> **username_14**: @username_17 If you read the answer carefully, the OP asked to select between 2 options concerning a person. Only option b) is the reasonable one to distinguish between rich and poor. Intuitively, someone who is 2 million in debt but earns $200,000 yearly would not be considered rich. That answer is independent of whether you want to have a relative or absolute measure of being rich (or poor). Of course in practice income and wealth are heavily correlated due to assets earning income as well.  
> **username_20**: @username_17-ReinstateMonica While it *is* interesting, it also makes some amount of sense. If you have close to 0 wealth the in- and outflow is important to determine whether you can maintain your standard of living. If you have 1B wealth, it matters little what income and expenses you have - you remain able to afford virtually any standard of living you want. I guess economically you can think of a person with wealth being able to pay themselves a living stipend by skimming off their wealth, which you can't do if your wealth is close to 0.  
> **username_15**: @username_19 True, but in most cases if you have high income it's hard to spend it all and result in low net income. There are exceptions, like famous celebrities who lives such extravagant lifestyles (or their money managers embezzled from them) that they ended up bankrupt, but these are outliers.  
> **username_21**: I don't think this answer fully captures the fact that people can mean *either* thing when they talk about being rich. For a lot of people, someone with high income and high discretionary expenses (thus living an expensive lifestyle) is rich even if they do not save a cent, even if they have huge debts that make their wealth much lower but are never called in (e.g. Donald Trump). As the other answer points out, it is an informal term.  
> **username_14**: @username_21 The original question was "what does rich mean to an economist", not what people colloquially mean. But even colloquially, if you google the richest people in the world, it's about wealth not income.  
> **username_21**: There's not just one meaning of words in common usage.  

---

### Answer by username_9 on 2024-10-16. Score: 14

"Rich" is a word from everyday language and not a technical term used in economics. It denotes a person with a large net worth, so your answer b) is correct. In the financial services industry, [according to Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-net-worth_individual),

> High-net-worth individual (HNWI) is a technical term used in the
> financial services industry for people who maintain liquid assets at
> or above a certain threshold. Typically, they are defined as holding
> financial assets (excluding their primary residence) valued over US\$1
> million. A secondary level, a very-high-net-worth individual (VHNWI),
> refers to someone with a net worth of at least US\$5 million. The
> terminal level, an ultra-high-net-worth individual (UHNWI), holds
> US\$30 million in investible assets (adjusted for inflation).


---

### Answer by username_10 on 2024-10-15. Score: 13

Neither. In economics, the category of "rich people" is as ill-defined as the category of "big numbers" would be to a mathematician. If an economist means either your A or B, they'll say so, probably with concrete numbers attached — or better yet, a percentile.

> **Comments:**
> **username_11**: "Big numbers" - numbers close to infinity, such as 7.  
> **username_12**: Mathematicians don't try to demonize numbers which are bigger than they should have any right to be, nor view numbers which are numerically small as being beneath them.  

---

### Answer by username_7 on 2024-10-16. Score: 7

It is a matter of definition. E.g., in France riche/aisée/moyenne/populaire/pauvre (that is rich/upper middle class/middle class/lower class/poor) constitute an official classification of income, as one can see, e.g., in this infographics ([image source](https://www.lefigaro.fr/social/2014/04/16/09010-20140416ARTFIG00110-tes-vous-riche-pauvre-ou-appartenez-vous-a-la-classe-moyenne.php)):  
[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/Ige3E7Wk.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/Ige3E7Wk.png)

The monthly levels of income that puts one into one of these five classes (on the vertical axis) vary, depending on the composition of the household (on the horizontal axis): single, single parent, childless couple, a couple with a child, a couple with two children, a couple with three or more children.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: This diagram looks a bit weird: do the first two columns list salaries for one person, and the next four columns list the sum of two salaries?  
> **username_7**: @username_5 these are household incomes (after subtracting taxes and social deductions, which can be a significant fraction of the raw income in France.)  
> **username_5**: And why are the figures in the last column (couple with 3+ children) lower than in next-to-last column (couple with 2 children)?  
> **username_7**: @username_5 Likely because with 3+ children one is entitled to certain social benefits, reductions, etc.  
> **username_5**: Sure, I would expect the curve to be less steep from 2 to 3 than from 2 to 1, but to actually have a negative slope? I can't imagine social benefits making it **lucrative** to have children. Surely the money saved in social benefits cannot be higher than the extra money spent on food, real estate, clothes, education, hobbies, etc. Although I'm sure some politicians would like to say they are.  
> **username_7**: @username_5 As an example, SNCF (French railroads) offers a 30% reduction for families with three children (reduction for the whole family) and progressive extra 10% percent for every child above that (till 75% for 6+.)  
> **username_8**: @username_5: It's indeed a bit strange, especially as the social benefits are generally only awarded to lower income households. For example, these days, the [complement familial (for 3+ children)](https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F13214) is only available to couples earning less than 52K euros, so a couple earning 7K a month wouldn't be eligible.  
> **username_7**: @username_5 During [Yellow vests protests](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests) the media spoke a lot about a poor couple that took part in those protests - they were both about 25 and had four children. Only husband worked, for the minimal salary (about 1500 a month)... but they were entitled for 300 per child, nearly doubling their income, a subsidized housing, reductions for train, nearly free childcare facilities, etc. I agree that, with four kids, they were still poor, but likely better off than a single working mother with a child.  
> **username_7**: @MatthieuM. the difference between *poor* and *rich* is that the latter do not spend their extra money on necessities, like *"the extra money spent on food, real estate, clothes, education, hobbies, etc."* - so any subsidy/reduction can be spent on luxury or added to savings. As far as I see, 30%+ reduction for familles nombreuses on SNCF rides does not depend on income - with the current ticket prices, taking a train trip to Côte d'Azur may well account for the differences of a few hundred euros a year.  
> **username_8**: @RogerV.: I like your SNCF example, but it's... marginal? Since one cannot assume that every "rich" household would use the train -- many don't -- I would hope it's not the reason we see this dip in the graph as that wouldn't be very representative.  
> **username_7**: @MatthieuM. I am only speculating here. Another thing could be the [*economy of scale*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale) - as a poor makes young children to wear the older one's clothes, whereas a rich may get by with one *au pair* for 4 kids as well as four 2.  
> **username_8**: @RogerV.: The au-pair cost being steady would mean a flat line, not a dropping line. And not everything leads to economy of scales: going from 2 to 3 children will likely lead to a bigger car as you'll have a hard time fitting 3 children seats on a backseat in most cars.  
> **username_7**: @MatthieuM. *going from 2 to 3 children will likely lead to a bigger car as you'll have a hard time fitting 3 children seats on a backseat in most cars.* - again, this is true for the poor (ok, for middle class), but not if you already have several cars in your garage. E.g., you have a Porsche for yourself, a Mercedes for your spouse, and a 7-seat monospace or a minivan for the nanny and the kids. Still, I know families who manage with a Clio...  
> **username_8**: Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/155791/discussion-between-username_8-m-and-username_7-v).  

---

### Answer by username_13 on 2024-11-06. Score: 0

Wealth is more about the value of one's assets combined than actual income. For example, only a small percentage of a billionaire's wealth is in the form of actual money.


---

