> But what if you are sued due to something completely out of your control and lose your wealth?
You will be able to afford lawyers, and the US justice system is not so corrupt that you would lose millions of dollars for no reason. Don’t drive drunk, don’t operate a business, and buy umbrella insurance and you should be fine. Biggest risk would probably be divorce, or accusations of abuse from within the family.
> Or face a medical problem that requires expensive treatment not covered by your insurance or government healthcare?
This also sounds super rare as health insurers are legally required to cover all evidence based healthcare, and there is an appeals process for denied coverage. As long as you can afford the premiums and annual out of pocket maximum, which are legally at most $40k to $50k per year for a family, you should be okay.
Of course, you might have to pony up an additional $10k to $20k to buy concierge care/direct primary care to buy timely access to actual doctors rather than see a Nurse Practitioner or Physician’s Assistant, but your passive income from
$10M should suffice.
> Or your investments fail, the USSR fell very quickly risking pensions people relied on, the roman empire fell. US investments could too; I mean they kinda did in the early 1900's, recovery from that took time.
If $10M in the US invested in broad market low cost index funds backstopped by the federal US government is not secure enough for you to relax, then it might be impossible to help you feel sufficiently secure because this world does not offer many better guarantees.
> I suppose it depends if you would equate security and certainty to the same thing? I certainly did but wouldn't now. I wager you don't since you said 99% not 100%.
I do not know what the purpose of distinguishing security and certainty would be in this context, they seem interchangeable. And since nothing in life is 100%, 99% is a way to convey “all the security that is realistically obtainable”.
I totally agree with pretty much every point you make.
I also invest in US majority index funds so certainly agree they are the best bet. I do however think security and certainty are different in that one is 99% and one is 100%.
I'd say it depends on your personality and risk tolerance but when talking about life destroying events I'd say 1% is quite significant. For example a 1% chance of a car crash per journey would be unacceptably high.
Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed reply by the way, I'm thinking around this topic a lot at the moment so debating the details is very valuable to help reach a view I'm content with.
You will be able to afford lawyers, and the US justice system is not so corrupt that you would lose millions of dollars for no reason. Don’t drive drunk, don’t operate a business, and buy umbrella insurance and you should be fine. Biggest risk would probably be divorce, or accusations of abuse from within the family.
> Or face a medical problem that requires expensive treatment not covered by your insurance or government healthcare?
This also sounds super rare as health insurers are legally required to cover all evidence based healthcare, and there is an appeals process for denied coverage. As long as you can afford the premiums and annual out of pocket maximum, which are legally at most $40k to $50k per year for a family, you should be okay.
Of course, you might have to pony up an additional $10k to $20k to buy concierge care/direct primary care to buy timely access to actual doctors rather than see a Nurse Practitioner or Physician’s Assistant, but your passive income from $10M should suffice.
> Or your investments fail, the USSR fell very quickly risking pensions people relied on, the roman empire fell. US investments could too; I mean they kinda did in the early 1900's, recovery from that took time.
If $10M in the US invested in broad market low cost index funds backstopped by the federal US government is not secure enough for you to relax, then it might be impossible to help you feel sufficiently secure because this world does not offer many better guarantees.
> I suppose it depends if you would equate security and certainty to the same thing? I certainly did but wouldn't now. I wager you don't since you said 99% not 100%.
I do not know what the purpose of distinguishing security and certainty would be in this context, they seem interchangeable. And since nothing in life is 100%, 99% is a way to convey “all the security that is realistically obtainable”.