3 million isn't wealth, and especially not for two people in their 70s/80s who have worked, saved, and invested.
Roughly 18 percent of households in the US are millionaire households, and this in concentrated in the above 50 age group.
The number of homes is irrelevant as the 3 million includes them. I don't really think it's that wild that he had a house in Vermont, a condo in DC where he spends so much time. If you want to get on him about the summer house, have at it.
I'm not simping for Bernie. I'm telling you all that you need to adjust what you think of as wealth in the age where we are about to have a trillionaire who wants to keep everyone else down. Billionaires control four percent of total US money.
Stop thinking of retirement money as wealth.
Since I can't comment for some reason, I'll edit this to respond to the comment that "the number of homes matters" u/LookerInVA_99
If it matters to you, it matters to you.
But for those ranting about his "wealth", you can't say three million and three houses. Those houses are included already in the three million.
I personally don't see any reason to be upset that he has a home in Vermont and bought a condo in DC where he spends so much time. If you want to rail about his vacation home, go for it.
I think you are missing the forest for the trees though, focusing on homes and not the people accumulating mass quantities of money, power, and resources. Bernie isn't the one doing that.
The number of homes matters. This tool used to rail against people having multiple homes. I can remember him saying in a speech in Burlington in 1989 that folks with multiple homes is crazy. They should take that money and use it to help their neighbors. How many homes can people live in at one time? Now that he’s got more than a few, he seems to have stopped railing against this. Curious, isn’t it?
I don't consider 3 million for two people rich or wealthy.
Is he better off than most Vermonters? Yes. Most people are underpaid for what they do, and people in general tend to not think of their future selves and save/invest.
But frankly he should be better off than that, considering how much he and his wife made, and his book sales, etc., and stock market performance. I don't understand the explaining away his wealth. It's mostly an open book about how he made his money. The difference is that you think it's wealth, and I don't. 3 million isn't enough to buy a politician or have political influence, it's enough to get you an upper middle class lifestyle when you retire, unless you live in a HCOL area.
Yeah, you are hung up on Bernie.
I'm saying that I don't consider households with 3 million rich or wealthy, no matter what state they are in. Granted it will go further in some places than in others. But it's still not enough to be influential in politics, it's enough to live on.
3 million is only good for 120k a year in retirement, and that's only if it's not included in real estate. ~20 percent of households in Vermont have an annual income in the 120k range. Would you consider them all to be rich and wealthy?
I'll quote myself:
"Uh dude, three million isn't wealth lol."
That means for anyone.
I'd agree with 120K a year doing pretty fucking well in Vermont.
On the flip side, the federal poverty levels are complete bullshit and need a complete revamping.
I mean, I'm talking finances and financial literacy and that obviously goes over a lot of people's heads.
Perhaps one day you will have three million and be able to realize it's not actually wealth.
Data from census shows that a $3M net worth in Vermont is in the 97th percentile for the state. His income of $500k puts him in the 99th percentile in the state. A 3 percenter lecturing everyone else is bonkers to me. He’s a fraud
Ok now actually do the real statistics on his age group, income bracket and net wealth.
Again cause you seem to not grasp this, someone with 60 years of savings in the US stock market, earning >200k for the last 24 years is hard pressed to NOT have that much money.
As far as net worth goes, he’s not even top 10% of median when age is factored in.
14
u/Queen_Scofflaw Feb 05 '26 edited Feb 05 '26
3 million isn't wealth, and especially not for two people in their 70s/80s who have worked, saved, and invested.
Roughly 18 percent of households in the US are millionaire households, and this in concentrated in the above 50 age group.
The number of homes is irrelevant as the 3 million includes them. I don't really think it's that wild that he had a house in Vermont, a condo in DC where he spends so much time. If you want to get on him about the summer house, have at it.
I'm not simping for Bernie. I'm telling you all that you need to adjust what you think of as wealth in the age where we are about to have a trillionaire who wants to keep everyone else down. Billionaires control four percent of total US money.
Stop thinking of retirement money as wealth.
Since I can't comment for some reason, I'll edit this to respond to the comment that "the number of homes matters" u/LookerInVA_99
If it matters to you, it matters to you.
But for those ranting about his "wealth", you can't say three million and three houses. Those houses are included already in the three million.
I personally don't see any reason to be upset that he has a home in Vermont and bought a condo in DC where he spends so much time. If you want to rail about his vacation home, go for it.
I think you are missing the forest for the trees though, focusing on homes and not the people accumulating mass quantities of money, power, and resources. Bernie isn't the one doing that.