I recently came across an article that discussed what it means to be wealthy. Some claim that a $100,000 annual income would make them affluent, while others claim that assets in excess of $4 million would do the trick, and still others claim that $2 million would put them in the "rich" category. Of all, everything is relative, and someone earning $25,000 a year would consider someone earning $100,000 a year to be wealthy, or vice versa. Because many college students start off with little money, $40,000 a year may seem like a fantastic sum of money to them. I'm confident that someone with Bill Gates' financial resources would not think $4 million to be extraordinary. It's all a matter of perspective. If you are pleased with your current situation, you are most likely in a comfortable financial position.
But first and foremost, let us discuss Amway diamonds. I use the term "diamond" because it represents the pinnacle of achievement in the Amway business. It is the pinnacle achievement of the 6-4-2 plan (or various modifications) that numerous groups have demonstrated throughout the years. According to Amway, the average diamond earns more than $200,000 per carat. When it comes to young people, those with lower-wage professions, and those who are just starting out in their careers, $200,000 may seem like a large sum of money. However, we are aware that diamonds generate revenue from the sale of tools. Some organisations (verbally) claim that someone could earn $100,000 a year through the tools and honoraria they provide (speaking income).
Take the generous assumption that the diamond generates more than $300,000 a year from Amway and tool sales. Income tax and medical insurance for the family will eat up approximately 40% of that straight away, leaving approximately $180,000 in remaining funds. You might think it's fantastic. For starters, a diamond would almost likely live in a million-dollar mansion, which would require a mortgage of approximately $6000 per month (so much for buying properties in cash) or $72,000 per year, leaving you with $108,000. Isn't that fantastic? As you would imagine, diamonds are always going to numerous functions, flying first class, and staying exclusively in five-star hotels. In this case, an average of one trip per month with a family in first class and a five-star hotel would cost approximately $5000 or more every trip, or approximately $60,000 per year, leaving $68,000 for the diamond's annual budget of $68,000. For example, a nice diamond with a family consumes 300 PV per month for domestic items, which is approximately $900 per month or approximately $11,000 per year, leaving $57,000 available for other expenses during the year. In many cases, a good diamond is a Christian who would faithfully tithe 10% of his income, or approximately $30,000 per year, leaving the diamond with $27,000 per year, or approximately $2250 per month, to pay for their monthly electric and utility bills, gas and car payments, meals and entertainment.
Yes, some expenses may be slightly higher or lower than average, but the point I'm trying to make is that even someone with a higher-than-average diamond with tools income is more likely to be broke than wealthy if they live the lifestyles portrayed at events such as dream night or other major events. Make the calculations. Neither diamonds nor extravagant lives can be supported only by diamond revenue. It is also unlikely that diamonds can be used to pay for everything in cash. There is a great deal of evidence available. Diamonds' residences are being foreclosed on, diamonds are delinquent on their income taxes, a notable triple diamond was formerly involved in a chapter 7 bankruptcy action, and many diamonds are selling off their homes in a terrible real estate market, among other things.
I honestly believe that it is feasible for a large number of diamonds to be fractured. These days, a large number of people are in debt. Is it any different with diamonds, even if they have a higher income? Diamonds, according to the math, are no different than everyone else.
0 comments: