$500k is nowhere near enough to be 'safe'. One 'unfortunate event', a couple of bad years in the market or a few years of high inflation and you'll have eaten into your capital to a point where you'll either have to drastically change your lifestyle or watch your capital dwindle away long before you die.
Of course it would. If you had $500M instead of $500k then none of those things would affect you in the slightest. Inflation could run at 20% for a decade and you could lose 80% of your capital in a series of bad investments, and your day to day quality of life would still be just fine.
Amusingly this comment and replies are exactly the problem here.
You say 300k is the maximum anyone should have, people reply stating it's way too low. Ok, so what is the number, 600, 1M, 10M? Hint, we'll never agree and it's as clear as day to me.
Comments are also stating why 99.5% don't see why we take the "rich's" money. This thread is proof of why.
Oh! These statistics are not reliable. It depends on your asset allocation profile, time to entry, fees... Etc.
That's the claim we see online in general but that's probably not necessarily true.
Even backtesting using a moving-window average should show different figures.
> It’s around $300,000 that’s when you can get your 9% return
If you stay in good health, never have to purchase real estate or car then perhaps... but then you'll still have to live somewhere, commute somehow, and the life quality will be... of a poor person.
I imply you mean heterosexual relationship? No woman will create household with a man with comparable net worth. There is only short time span in life around secondary school and early university when it's possible and which most miss. I've never dated a woman with net worth even approaching mine. "what's mine is mine, man is the provider" - whether it's a call center lady in Romania, or a doctor lady in Switzerland. Now, how will capital gains on 300k pay for living in extreme luxury?