How much money, or what kind of lifestyle denotes a rich person. I just mean affluence, not in terms of happiness or love or spirituality. Does a rich person just have no worries about bills, or do they have to have endless extravagance to be called rich in your opinion?
2006-10-08 16:36:20 · 16 answers · asked by martin h 6 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
I would call someone is rich when one has nothing to worry mostly about anything.
2006-10-08 18:49:31 · answer #1 · answered by Fun Fearless!! 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A person can have even just the material contentment. He need not be happy, spiritual, loving joyous or anything. There can be a person who decides like this " Now that I am here, let me live a normal life, and finish it " ... This person may not find any need of emotional satisfaction.. Even for material requirements, he may be very clear about a brief list... Food, shelter , clothing... such persons are rich... they never worry about trying to possess more materials than they have.
2006-10-08 23:43:16 · answer #2 · answered by Spiritualseeker 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would say if you consider yourself materialistically rich, you have no worries about bills. Many rich people live quite frugally so extravagance can't be a measure of wealth. But, saying all that if you don't have someone to share it with then you are very poor indeed.
2006-10-08 23:42:27 · answer #3 · answered by John B 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
While your question is asked clearly, I find I haven't got a clue. Hmmm. Not worrying about bills doesn't necessarily qualify for "rich," nor does extravagance, really. RICH would be to me, sufficient money to enjoy things in life, contribute to research, & if you've got any tadpoles, help to secure their futures. REALLY rich is when you, your grandchildren, your great grandchildren, & theirs, etc., would never be able to spend it all! 2 answers so far, but I have to give Julian a thumbs up--really made me laugh!
2006-10-08 23:57:47 · answer #4 · answered by Valac Gypsy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
John Muir, an early American naturalist was once quoted as saying he was richer than John D. Rockefeller. Now Rockefeller, as everyone knew, was a very rich man, maybe the richest in the US at the time. When asked how he could possibly be richer than Rockefeller, Muir replied,
"Well, I have all the money I want. He doesn't !"
2006-10-08 23:46:52 · answer #5 · answered by True Blue 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it depends upon the individual. For some people there is never enough and that's why they have millions but they still want more and more and more. They think more will make them happy. Some people don't have that much but they are debt free and want for nothing. I think I would call that rich!
2006-10-08 23:49:10 · answer #6 · answered by Sweetie Poo 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This would depend entirely from the vantage point you were observing from. To many people, if you own a tv, have indoor plumbing or even an auto, you are considered rich. Is totally relevant, only from the position one finds themselves in.
2006-10-09 07:22:40 · answer #7 · answered by mrcricket1932 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Richer than me. Pretty much everyone thinks of those with more money than they have as "rich". If you travel to third world countries, many people think of virtually everyone in America as "rich".
2006-10-08 23:46:43 · answer #8 · answered by jaywalk57 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are rich if you have a roof over your head, clothing, and food.l I've been "society rich" in their terms and I've been homeless and broke. No....rich is having all your needs met.
2006-10-09 01:43:49 · answer #9 · answered by Kitty L 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wasn't aware that "rich" had anything to do with money. Mother Teresa was rich beyond measure.
Just my two cents.
TxR
2006-10-08 23:41:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋