Spoilers The Flash - Season 5

[Ovation]

Oh, this explains the attitude.

To be fair, if one is 35 or younger and chooses to “live off” such a sum, it actually isn’t “all that much” in any Western country. If one is twenty years older, then it’s not wealthy by any stretch, but one can live comfortably, if somewhat frugally, into one’s 80s. All assuming the amount is all one has.

The idea that “a million dollars” is all one needs for 40 or more years of life and that one will be “rich” during that time is naive.

On the other hand, having such a sum, properly managed, as a financial foundation certainly allows anyone who wants to pursue other interests that are far less, though not devoid of, remuneration to do so with a security that few people ever have the privilege to experience.

Essentially, “a couple of million dollars” can be both a considerable amount of money and not that much money, depending on circumstances and further life choices. The word “million”, in relation to money, has a far greater perceived value than an actual one.

 

[matthunter]

To be fair, if one is 35 or younger and chooses to “live off” such a sum, it actually isn’t “all that much” in any Western country. If one is twenty years older, then it’s not wealthy by any stretch, but one can live comfortably, if somewhat frugally, into one’s 80s. All assuming the amount is all one has.

The idea that “a million dollars” is all one needs for 40 or more years of life and that one will be “rich” during that time is naive.

On the other hand, having such a sum, properly managed, as a financial foundation certainly allows anyone who wants to pursue other interests that are far less, though not devoid of, remuneration to do so with a security that few people ever have the privilege to experience.

Essentially, “a couple of million dollars” can be both a considerable amount of money and not that much money, depending on circumstances and further life choices. The word “million”, in relation to money, has a far greater perceived value than an actual one.

I am by no means poorly paid, but £1M would allow me to subsist at my current rate of pay (after tax) for 28 years (20 years before tax). Using a portion of it to pay off my mortgage would substantially reduce my outgoings. And sticking a chunk into investments would net a lot more than the pitiful interest rates my current savings can attract.

Yes, if one is living a millionaire lifestyle, perhaps it would not go far. But it can easily be repurposed to a comfortable existence for at least a few decades. My life earnings to date would not equal £1 million, even if I had no outgoings.

Context.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

Oh, this explains the attitude.

And the explanation would be?

 

[matthunter]

And the explanation would be?

I just gave you it.

I notice you didn't query what the attitude is.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

The idea that “a million dollars” is all one needs for 40 or more years of life and that one will be “rich” during that time is naïve.

To be realistic, you are both naïve. Neither Valdes nor Panabaker would be looking just to "subsist." Secondly, having an estimated net worth of $1 million (USD) does not mean you actually have $1 million (USD) cash. If some of that net worth is a pension then it cannot be touched until the age specified. If part of that net worth is property then he still has to pay property taxes. If he sells the property he may have to pay taxes on that. Any insurance or medical expenses. He has a publicist and an agent and a business manager all of whom want to be paid. In fact, a good portion of that net worth would be sheltered subject to penalties and taxes if withdrawn early.

So you are both operating from a dangerously uninformed and flawed premise.

 

[The Old Mixer]

"Dangerously"? Who's at risk here?

 

[Doc Mugatu]

"Dangerously"? Who's at risk here?

Apparently you need to look up the definition of the word.

 

[Guy Gardener]

My assumption with Danielle was that she owns a 2 million dollar house, so none of that money can be used to buy cheeseburgers and cigarettes.

 

[Ovation]

To be realistic, you are both naïve. Neither Valdes nor Panabaker would be looking just to "subsist." Secondly, having an estimated net worth of $1 million (USD) does not mean you actually have $1 million (USD) cash. If some of that net worth is a pension then it cannot be touched until the age specified. If part of that net worth is property then he still has to pay property taxes. If he sells the property he may have to pay taxes on that. Any insurance or medical expenses. He has a publicist and an agent and a business manager all of whom want to be paid. In fact, a good portion of that net worth would be sheltered subject to penalties and taxes if withdrawn early.

So you are both operating from a dangerously uninformed and flawed premise.

Stuff your condescension elsewhere. Any reasonable reading of what I wrote was mostly agreeing with your observation, incidentally. And I understand fully the distinction between having a net worth and a cash worth (the latter is what I meant when saying one could live off 3 million dollars for some time, though not realistically from too early a time).

 

[The Old Mixer]

Apparently you need to look up the definition of the word.

Found this one:

hy·per·bo·le
/hīˈpərbəlē/
noun
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

 

[Romulan_spy]

It's generally a very bad idea financially for an actor to voluntarily leave a gig as a long-running regular of a television show. That's when television actors make the bulk of their career money, and they may never see such high pay again.

That being said: it still happens all the time. It's just financially unwise.

Yeah, I read that the main cast of shows like Friends and Seinfeld are basically set for life just on the syndication royalties. So it definitely pays for the actors to stick with a long running show till the end.

 

[Marc]

So it definitely pays for the actors to stick with a long running show till the end

even when the show is past it's best by date.

plus the cast of friends were pulling in $1mil an ep which certainly has helped their wealth (so is much of the cast of Big Bang Theory)

The actors on the flash combined probably make less per ep than one actor on Big Bang Theory.

 

[Snaploud]

even when the show is past it's best by date.

plus the cast of friends were pulling in $1mil an ep which certainly has helped their wealth (so is much of the cast of Big Bang Theory)

The actors on the flash combined probably make less per ep than one actor on Big Bang Theory.

NBC, CBS, and ABC generally pay better than the CW. Plus, Friends and the Big Bang Theory actors were only able to negotiate that type of money after their respective shows had been around for many years. Friends lasted 10 seasons. The Big Bang Theory will have lasted 12 seasons.

In fact, that's typically why long-running scripted shows end. The actor compensation finally reaches a point in which the show is no longer considered financially viable.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

My assumption with Danielle was that she owns a 2 million dollar house, so none of that money can be used to buy cheeseburgers and cigarettes.

That depends. Real estate in California, for example, is a buyers market right now with many listings discounting their asking prices. It would be re-evaluated when selling and could end up selling for less. On the upside she is still married.

Stuff your condescension elsewhere. Any reasonable reading of what I wrote was mostly agreeing with your observation, incidentally. And I understand fully the distinction between having a net worth and a cash worth (the latter is what I meant when saying one could live off 3 million dollars for some time, though not realistically from too early a time).

Condescension? No. If folks unilaterally decide to talk in "cash worth" rather than the previous context of "net worth" then any misunderstanding is on them not I. Even in terms of "cash worth" (I think you mean "liquid assets") $3 million is not much to bank on for the rest of one's life (for reasons stated previously). I do apologize if y response strikes you as condescension.

Found this one:

hy·per·bo·le
/hīˈpərbəlē/
noun
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

What did I hyperbolize? Looking things up is only half the battle, champ.

Yeah, I read that the main cast of shows like Friends and Seinfeld are basically set for life just on the syndication royalties. So it definitely pays for the actors to stick with a long running show till the end.

Just for accuracy:

The 6 leads in Friends and Jerry Seinfeld got a percentage of their respective series. Michael Richards, Julia Louis Dreyfus and Jason Alexander did not. The Friends cast negotiated as one and Jerry helped his cast mates get a raise to $650,000/episode the last 2 years of the series. Production companies do not give up percentages easily. Percentage (profit participation) and residuals are not the same thing.

NBC, CBS, and ABC generally pay better than the CW. Plus, Friends and the Big Bang Theory actors were only able to negotiate that type of money after their respective shows had been around for many years. Friends lasted 10 seasons. The Big Bang Theory will have lasted 12 seasons.

In fact, that's typically why long-running scripted shows end. The actor compensation finally reaches a point in which the show is no longer considered financially viable.

Absolutely right about the broadcast networks, ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX pay the better than CW (though the expectations are not as high either - Supergirl is a great example of that). Parsons, Cuoco, and Galecki followed the Friends template and negotiated as one. Often the first contract for series is a relatively skimpy one. One of the reasons Mark Harmon's series, NCIS, is still on is because it is a cost conscious series that, as you point out, has not priced itself into cancellation. All these years and Harmon is making $500 grand/episode as an actor (as opposed to BBT stars $1 million per). Pauley Perrette after all those years was still only making about $175,000 per when she left.

Like a sports franchise. Some players what the maximum no matter what it means for the team. Some players restructure for the good of the team. Not judging either, just the way it is.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Multi-Quotes are for the young at heart.

 

[Ovation]

$3 million is not much to bank on for the rest of one's life

It’s reasonably decent in liquid form.
It is nearly 86K$/yr for 35 years. Assuming zero effort at investment or other management of funds. I could make that work quite nicely (at my age, that takes me to 86 years old—as I live in Canada, health care is a lesser concern).

If I were 20 years younger, it would be 54.5k$/yr. I could still make it work (I’ve lived on far less per annum) but it would be a step down the ladder for sure from my current situation.

The above scenarios are, of course, based on the assumption that the funds are entirely liquid and after tax. Looking back, I should have made those points clearer in my initial post.

Naturally, if this were my real life situation (it isn’t), I would very likely work at least part time (thus supplementing my funds further) AND have the privilege to choose my work with some baseline financial security unavailable to the vast majority of humanity. Hardly a naive position, just a realistic one.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

Multi-Quotes are for the young at heart.

Yeah, I still got it.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

It’s reasonably decent in liquid form.
It is nearly 86K$/yr for 35 years. Assuming zero effort at investment or other management of funds. I could make that work quite nicely (at my age, that takes me to 86 years old—as I live in Canada, health care is a lesser concern).

If I were 20 years younger, it would be 54.5k$/yr. I could still make it work (I’ve lived on far less per annum) but it would be a step down the ladder for sure from my current situation.

The above scenarios are, of course, based on the assumption that the funds are entirely liquid and after tax. Looking back, I should have made those points clearer in my initial post.

Naturally, if this were my real life situation (it isn’t), I would very likely work at least part time (thus supplementing my funds further) AND have the privilege to choose my work with some baseline financial security unavailable to the vast majority of humanity. Hardly a naive position, just a realistic one.

Actually, it is, but after my previous multi-quote post I am just too plum tuckered out to go over it all again. Look at all the folks who won lotteries far in excess of $3 million and how they ended up broke in only a few years. You won't be as disciplined as you think and costs will come from everywhere. One unexpected illness could wipe out or significantly dent your $3 million. Hell, they say $1 million for a retirement starting at age 67 (even with social security) is likely not to be enough.

I shall say no more and retire this line of debate.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Yeah, I still got it.

Go to edit, then on the far right, are you good with the far right? On the far right there's an icon that looks like a page with one corner curled over, which is your ubb code editor.

You can use that to get rid of those colour taggs in your big post up there.

 

[Ovation]

You won't be as disciplined as you think

If you weren’t before, now you are being condescending. You have no idea how “disciplined” I am with money. And while there are certainly examples of lottery winners who’ve blown their money, they aren’t as numerous as you think (they make the news because they are exceptional). And one of my cousins (I have many) made his 20,000,000$ lottery win last 20 years until he died and his daughter is still managing the money quite well another decade on (because, well, financial discipline). Even granting that it is a danger, you presume that a liquid nest egg acquired through hard work and saving will be as easily frittered away as the “lucky lottery winnings”.