I have a million dollars of disposable income. What should I do to best benefit the economy?
"At first, I thought this might be too broad.  There are of course thousands of things that you can do with your money to ""help the economy"".  But I think that there is room to discuss some broad strokes without trying to list a thousand details.   Regular investing (as you are now) helps the economy in that companies obtain money by selling their stock.  They can then use that money to fund expansion, etc.  These things can help the economy permanently.  Of course, they can also use the money to pay executive bonuses, which don't help the economy so much.   Similarly, just spending money does not normally help the economy.  Unless we are in a recession, it is mildly harmful to spend wastefully.  Money that could be going to support long term improvements in production instead is used to buy a luxury that doesn't terribly interest you.  I.e. if you don't want a bigger house or a more luxurious car don't buy it to ""stimulate"" the economy.   Many charitable donations have the same problem.  They help short term consumption somewhere.  And of course the charity starts asking you for more money.  Many charities waste most of a donation trying to get another one from the same person or family.   Sir John Maynard Keynes proposed that the best thing that people could do to help the economy is to invest in things that cause economic activity in turn.  He was mostly talking about things like roads, bridges, and dams that are out of the investing range of most people, so he wanted governments to do it, particularly during a recession.   So we are looking for ways to invest in durable improvements that will support economic activity in the future.  A million dollars is a small amount for many things, but there are some activities that work.  I'm going to list a few examples, but there are certainly others:   Fund microfinance.  Basically loan your million dollars to people who need a small amount of money.  These programs often allow you to determine the initial recipient and then that person determines the next recipient.  A million dollars can finance hundreds if not thousands of these loans.  They may be in the United States or in a developing country.   Set up a scholarship.  My recommendation would be to find an existing scholarship with a few recipients and ask them to add one a year for the million dollars.  A million dollars should typically produce about a scholarship a year in returns after inflation.  Of course, that's just regular inflation.  Education inflation is higher.   Solar prize.  Fund a program that gives out one solar installation every year or five to a family that owns a house, is struggling to pay utilities, and makes a compelling case.  Basically, whenever the investment grows enough to support it, make a new prize.   Buy something that will help other people make money.   This is just six ideas off the top of my head.  The goal here is to create something lasting that will promote economic activity.  So a program that loans money forward.  Or a scholarship or free textbook, particularly in a STEM field.  A small piece of infrastructure that helps people move around to work or spend their money.  Solar is a bit of a stretch here, but it can be justified if you believe that an investment now is an investment in moving towards the future.   The key thing here is to make your money do double duty.  By spending your money during a recession or investing during the rest of the business cycle, you can get some value for your money.  But even better is if that spending has a societal return as well.  Microfinance, scholarships, and infrastructure do that.  There is the immediate spending, plus there is the effect of the spending.  A business is established.  A mind is trained and working at a high income job.  People can move, work, and spend their own money."
Consider a single person with a net worth of N where N is between one and ten million dollars.  has no source of income other than his investments How much dividends and interest do your investments return every year?  At 5%, a US$10M investment returns $500K/annum.  Assuming you have no tax shelters, you'd pay about $50% (fed and state) income tax. https://budgeting.thenest.com/much-income-should-spent-mortgage-10138.html A prudent income multiplier for home ownership is 3x gross income.  Thus, you should be able to comfortably afford a $1.5M house. Of course, huge CC debt load, ginormous property taxes and the (full) 5 car garage needed to maintain your status with the Joneses will rapidly eat into that $500K. 2 very viable options.  Real Estate is cheap now and if you hold a few properties for the long term the price should rise.  You can use them as rental properties to supplement your income.  In addition agriculture is also very viable.  How else you gunna feed 7 billion?  Might as well cash in on that. "I realize that ""a million dollars"" is   a completely arbitrary figure, but   it's one people fixate on. Perhaps   folks just meant it's getting easier   because inflation has made it a far   less lofty sum than when the word   ""millionaire"" was coined. Your point is correct - it' relatively easier as the 1 million dollar nowadays is no where as valuable as compared in the old days after the inflation adjustment. However the way to achieve that is easier said than done: The most possible way is to run your own business (assuming you will make profit). For most of the people running a job to earn a living - the job income is the biggest factor. Being extremely frugal wouldn't help much if you don't maximize your income potential. Earning a million dollar through investment? How much capitals are you able to invest in? 5k? 50k? 500k? I see no way to earn 1 million with 5k from investment, I wouldn't call it easy. This again depends on your income. With better income of course you could dedicate a larger portion to investment, without exposing too much risk and having to affect your way of life. (3) Invest some part of your income   over a long period of time and let the   stock market do the work I'd say this is more geared towards beating the inflation and earn a few extra bucks instead of getting very rich (this is being very relative).  Just a word of cautions, the mindset of investment being the shortcut to wealth is very dangerous and often leads to speculative behavior." His net worth is going to be very different from his liquid assets. It’s not like he can write an $80B check. When you give a homeless person a dollar, are you basing it on what’s in your wallet or based on the worth of all your assets (home, car, electronics, etc)? Next question you should have is “Why the ef is anyone else telling me how much of my money I should give away?” That's what I would do; 1.2 million dollars is a lot of money, but it doesn't make you retired for the rest of your life: There is a big crisis coming soon (my personal prediction) in the next 10-15 years, and when this happens: government will hold your money if you leave them in the bank (allowing you to use just part of it; you will have to prove the reason you need it), government will pass bills to make it very hard to close your investment positions, and government will pass new laws to create new taxes for people with a lot of money (you). To have SOME level of security I would separate my investment in the following: 20% I would buy gold certificates and the real thing (I would put the gold in a safe(s)). 20% I would put in bitcoin (you would have to really study this if you are new to crypto currency in order to be safe). 40% I would invest in regular finance products (bonds, stocks and options, FX). 20% I would keep in the bank for life expenses, specially if you don't want work for money any more. 20% I would invest in startup companies exchanging high risk hoping for a great return. Those percentages might change a little depending how good/confident you become after investing, knowing about business, etc... "At its heart, I think the best spirit of ""donation"" is helping others less fortunate than yourself. But as long as the US remains solvent, the chief benefit of paying down the national debt is - like paying off a credit card - lowering the future interest payments the U.S. taxpayer has to make. Since the wealthy pay a disproportionately large portion of taxes (per capita), your hard earned money would be disproportionately benefitting the wealthy. So I'd recommend you do one or both of the following: instead target your donations to a charity whose average beneficiary is less fortunate than yourself take political action with an aim towards balancing the federal budget (since the US national debt is principally financed in the form of 30 year treasuries, the U.S. will be completely out of debt if it can maintain a balanced budget for 30 years recanted, see below)" It is worth noting first that Real Estate is by no means passive income.  The amount of effort and cost involved (maintenance, legal, advertising, insurance, finding the properties, ect.) can be staggering and require a good amount of specialized knowledge to do well. The amount you would have to pay a management company to do the work for you especially with only a few properties can wipe out much of the income while you keep the risk. However, keshlam's answer still applies pretty well in this case but with a lot more variability.  One million dollars worth of property should get you there on average less if you do much of the work yourself.  However, real estate because it is so local and done in ~100k chunks is a lot more variable than passive stocks and bonds, for instance, as you can get really lucky or really unlucky with location, the local economy, natural disasters, tenants... Taking out loans to get you to the million worth of property faster but can add a lot more risk to the process.   Including the risk you wouldn't have any money on retirement.  Investing in Real Estate can be a faster way to retirement than some, but it is more risky than many and definitely not passive. "Discussions around expected values and risk premiums are very useful, but there's another thing to consider: cash flow. Some individuals have high value assets that are vital to them, such as  transportation or housing.  The cost of replacing these assets is prohibitive to them: their cashflow means that their rate of saving is too low to accrue a fund large enough to cover the asset's loss. However, their cashflow is such that they can afford insurance. While it may be true that, over time, they would be ""better off"" saving that money in an asset replacement fund, until that fund reaches a certain level, they are unprotected. Thus, it's not just about being risk averse; there are some very pragmatic reasons why individuals with low disposable income might elect to pay for insurance when they would be financially better off without it." "You don't seem to understand wealth. It's not money, really.  Wealth is more good stuff to people. It really doesn't matter how it's distributed for it to be wealth.  If you just give poor people money, you might actually improve things, like lobotomia might improve brains. Mix it, and it might settle in better order.  The economy ""grows"" because people get more good stuff done than they consume. If you pay people for doing nothing in massive scale, you're just making them consume, but not to make any good stuff. They probably spend the money on something that will make more good stuff to people, that's true. And that's the reason why you might get a way with one time lobotomia, but it's terrible if you are competing with countries who don't do missteps, and every expense they do increases the economy in itself + the effect above.  How you should give money away? As an investment to a company that is making a new conquer. Jobs, goods and more competition, all good." At your young age, the most of your wealth is your future labor income (unless you are already rich). Your most profitable investment at this time is most likely to be investment in your human capital (your professional skills, career opportunities).  Depending on how you plan to earn your money, invest time and effort to enable you to earn better wages in that activity. So focus on education or professional training. Also, consider that it is probably your total lifetime utility/welfare you should maximize (but you decide!). I suggest you do not focus narrowly on earning as much money as possible. Consider what sort of life you want and what you need to do to enable it. Best of luck! "Most other countries are worse off.    Your perception of what is a resource intensive lifestyle does not take into consideration future innovation or adaptation.    Government debt is large but not insurmountable.  Much of it is owned by the government itself (social security trust fund and the federal reserve) and by domestic banks.   The ""crumbling infrastructure"" claim is often made but is rarely articulated well so it's hard to respond to.    Entitlements is a bit more complicated an issue due to political gridlock, but I expect that at least minor changes will be made gradually that will help deal with this problem.  If not major reform, small things like pushing back the benefit age a year here and a year there, repealing benefits for the wealthy, reducing the size of cost of living adjustments, reducing the amount that is paid out to higher earning recipients, increasing the amount of yearly income that is subject to FICA...  These are piecemeal changes that both sides could agree to even in the current political climate.  Medicare is the bigger cost, but how to deal with that is difficult to determine considering what's going on with obamacare.  Municipal and state governments will not fail if they go bankrupt.  Most municipalities and states are able to balance a budget.  It can be done but in some place it isn't because politicians don't have enough backbone to say no.  When they go bankrupt and are unable to borrow money, they will have no choice and can blame their cuts on the banks who won't loan them money.  That is, unless the people running the federal government also have no backbone and decide to bail them out, in which case we will have an enormous case of moral hazard on our hands.  The economic dominoes in Europe and China are not damaging the core of their economies.  Unless Europe breaks apart violently and goes to war with itself or China has a civil war, the basic aspects of their economy that make them a valuable part of the global economy will not go away.  Their productive capacities will remain intact and we'll still want to buy stuff from each other.    The beauty of free market capitalism is that it's so adaptable and the fact that things are changing does not mean that everyone will be worse off.  Whether or not the US is above everyone else in the end is mostly irrelevant, but the fundamental aspects of the US economy that make it among the strongest in the world will not change because of these things.  Our workforce will remain highly educated, very productive and very innovative.  We have the best farmland in the world and a lot of it, enormous amounts of natural resources, a relatively flexible and adaptable economy and a tremendous amount of wealth.  There may be troubles related to certain institutions and governing bodies, but remember that those things are not the economy.  The economy is the people, the things they can make, the things they know, and the things that they can do." "Your house doesn't need to multiply in order to earn a return. Your house can provide shelter. That is not money, but is an economic good and can also save you money (if you would otherwise pay rent). This is the primary form of return on the investment for many houses. It is similar for other large capital investments - like industrial robots, washing machines, or automobiles. The value of money depends on: As long as the size and velocity of the money supply changes about as much as the overall economic activity changes, everything is pretty much good. A little more and you will see the money lose value (inflation); a little less and the money will gain value (deflation).  As long as the value of inflation or deflation remains very low, the specifics matter relatively little. Prices (including wages, the price of work) do a good job of adjusting when there is inflation or deflation. The main problem is that people tend to use money as a unit of account, e.g. you owe $100,000 on your mortgage, I have $500 in the bank. Changing the value of those numbers makes it really hard to plan for the future! Imagine if prices and wages fell in half: it would be twice as hard to pay off your mortgage. Or if the bank expected massive inflation in the future: they would want to charge you a lot more interest! Presently, inflation is the norm because the government entities, who help adjust how much money there will be (through monetary policy - interest rates and the like - ask about it if you're interested), will generally gradually increase the supply of money a little bit more quickly than the economy in general. They may also be worried that outright deflation over the long term will lead to people postponing purchases (to get more for their money later), harming overall economic activity, so they tend to err on the slightly positive side. The value of money, however, has not really ""ordinarily decreased"" until the modern era (the 1930s or so). During much of history, a relatively low fixed amount of valuable commodities (gold) served as money. When the economy grew, and the same amount of money represented more economic activity, the money became more valuable, and deflation ensued. This could have the unfortunate effect of deterring investment, because rich jerks with lots of money could see their riches increase just by holding on to those riches instead of doing anything productive with them. And changes in the supply of gold wreaked havoc with the money supply whenever there was some event like a gold rush: Because precious metals were at the base of the monetary   system, rushes increased the money supply which resulted in inflation.   Soaring gold output from the California and Australia gold rushes is   linked with a thirty percent increase in wholesale prices between 1850   and 1855. Likewise, right at the end of the nineteenth century a surge   in gold production reversed a decades-long deflationary trend and is   often credited with aiding indebted farmers and helping to end the   Populist Party’s strength and its call for a bimetallic (gold and   silver) money standard. -- The California Gold Rush Today, there is way too little gold production to represent all the growth in world economic activity - but we don't have a gold standard anymore, so gold is valuable on its own merits, because people want to buy it using money, and its price is free to fluctuate. When it gets more valuable, and people pay more for it, mines will go through more effort to locate, extract and refine it because it will be more profitable. That's how most commodities work. For more information on these tidbits of history, some in-depth articles on:" Most people when asked what would they do with $X dollars say:  Pay debt (their own / loved ones)  Buy a nice house  Buy a nice car  Travel   460 million is plenty to do all those things. With the rest I'd start a bond ladder and try to live off the interest I recently finished reading a book that you may be interested in based on your question, The Ultimate Suburban Survivalist Guide. The author begins with a discussion of why he thinks the US economy and currency could collapse. It gets a little scary. Then he goes into great detail on commodities, specifically gold. The rest of the book is about what you can be doing to prepare yourself and your family to be more self sufficient. To answer your question, I do anticipate problems with US currency in the future and plan to put some money in gold if the price dips. Great questions -- the fact that you're thinking about it is what's most important. I think a priority should be maximizing any employer match in your 401(k) because it's free money. Second would be paying off high interest debt because it's a big expense. Everything else is a matter of setting good financial habits so I think the order of importance will vary from person to person. (That's why I ordered the priorities the way I did: employer matching is the easiest way to get more income with no additional work, and paying down high-interest debt is the best way to lower your long-term expenses.) After that, continue to maximize your income and savings, and be frugal with your expenses. Avoid debt. Take a vacation once in a while, too!