Richest musicians lists seem to put Mick ahead of Keith by a bit. Assuming they have made the same from the Stones, however, you figure...

*Keith's never been divorced and has fewer kids
*Keith's one film project (Pirates of the Caribbean) did better than anything Mick ever did (Freejack, Elysian Fields, etc.)
*Mick never cashed in on a solo career, although he probably has sold few more solo records admittedly since STB went platinum

I dunno.

in what way silver...gold...soul.....satisfaction...coolness ????



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
in what way silver...gold...soul.....satisfaction...coolness ????

Coolness - obviously yes
Satisfaction - nah, Mick's happier

Drugs are expensive, so I'd say Mick has more dough.

It depends on who invested their money better. I'm going to have to go with Mick.

Keith has had more legal bills. Its expensive to stay out of jail

Quote
DrPete
Keith has had more legal bills. Its expensive to stay out of jail

My guess is that the Rolling Stones paid for Keef's drug related legal fees.
Rockandroll,
Mops

The truth is these lists are regularly over or under net worth. Property spread all over the globe and private art collections are awfully hard to estimate. Reported value of recording contracts and tour revenue are usually overestimated as PR bragging rights.

Keith has the lemons.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
The truth is these lists are regularly over or under net worth.

Really? Over or Under?

Rod

Well Mick has more children- and them diapers never wear off!

I suspect Mick's always likely to have more money.
He's the one more interested in the mechanics of wealth and the accumulation of it.. and he seems more the type who's always looking for more of everything in life I suppose.


Keith's probably just as happy to have a huge of pile of money [and is probably just as keen to look after it]...but he likely doesn't care so much exactly how huge that pile of money is.

Keith's philosophy is likely "...enough is as good as a feast "



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-10-12 13:10 by Spud.

The Rich Lists are only guides, based on known earnings,investment returns,likely tax liabilities, assumed living costs and so on. But then you have a lot of imponderables.For example, with their wealth do we know what charitable donations they might make? Their Corporate Accounts reveal little it seems, in comparison to Apple Corps and people like Page and Plant whose company details are out in the Public Domain. So, a lot of speculation.
Here goes:
Mick's lifestyle and living costs certainly seems to be high maintenance compared to Keith. He's always on the move and certainly won't be flying Economy class. He has more homes, so running costs higher. Both will employ Investment brokers to look after their dosh. Keith's lifestyle actually seems to be quite low key these days.

I was surprised at the value of George Harrison's Estate: He left £99 million (in 2001). Not a prolific composer or(from 1982) a recording Artist.Ripped off by Business Managers. Ran (in the end) a costly film company. Not a tax exile. A pretty high spender and certainly supported many charitable causes. I suppose Beatle earnings are on a different level altogether.

£100 million is a lot of money, though

Quote
DandelionPowderman
£100 million is a lot of money, though

Yes, that was what I meant. I was surprised at how much he left. And Estates valuations are usually conservative to limit tax liabilities.
So, the US tax authorities are chasing Jacko's Estate for more dosh as his 'value' seemed to underestimate his investments, principally Northern Songs.

Quote
jlowe

Quote
DandelionPowderman
£100 million is a lot of money, though

Yes, that was what I meant. I was surprised at how much he left. And Estates valuations are usually conservative to limit tax liabilities.
So, the US tax authorities are chasing Jacko's Estate for more dosh as his 'value' seemed to underestimate his investments, principally Northern Songs.

Ah, I read you wrong there, mate. Sorry about that

No, but he is probably second on the list ? I also think Paul McCartney could very well have more money than Mick and Keith , I could be wrong ?

You'd think so wouldn't you .

But it's live performance that brings the money in these days ...largely why the Stones are still on the road if you ask many folks .


But, when you have hundreds of millions already, the performance of investments probably becomes just as important as your core income in terms of how much money you're making.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-10-12 16:21 by Spud.

Quote
TheGreek
No, but he is probably second on the list ? I also think Paul McCartney could very well have more money than Mick and Keith , I could be wrong ?

McCartney is supposedly a billionaire...again, according to these daft lists which can be wildly inaccurate.

For sure both are much, much, much wealthier than I am. And I'm doing fine, so they also do for sure
Aren't good health and happiness of the mind the wealthiest treasure?

Quote
rollmops

My guess is that the Rolling Stones paid for Keef's drug related legal fees.

Mops

Are you sure about this? Remember that late 1982 he was singing (to Patti) "I hope you find it funny that I got no money".

So I think the 70's and its string of legal problems left him "dry" or severely wealth-challenged.
Maybe this had to do with the "World War III" with "Brenda" that started soon after. Some kind of brotherly jealousy...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-10-12 17:57 by dcba.

Quote
georgie48
For sure both are much, much, much wealthier than I am. And I'm doing fine, so they also do for sure
Aren't good health and happiness of the mind the wealthiest treasure?

So true, so true
jeroen

In case you're concerned about eithers financial wellbeing - I just saw that they're now selling DELUXE NO FILTER NUMBERED POSTERS online for a bargain price of £150.00 each. Better get them fast

Quote
bitusa2012

Quote
Rocky Dijon
The truth is these lists are regularly over or under net worth.

Really? Over or Under?

jlowe explained it better.

Quote
Send It To me
Richest musicians lists seem to put Mick ahead of Keith by a bit. Assuming they have made the same from the Stones, however, you figure...

*Keith's never been divorced and has fewer kids
*Keith's one film project (Pirates of the Caribbean) did better than anything Mick ever did (Freejack, Elysian Fields, etc.)
*Mick never cashed in on a solo career, although he probably has sold few more solo records admittedly since STB went platinum

I dunno.

Forbes has them fairly close.. likely fairly accurate.

Paul McCartney-Net Worth $1.2 billion.
Bono-Net Worth $600 million. ...
Jimmy Buffett-Net Worth $550 million.
Elton John-Net Worth-$480 million.
Mick Jagger-Net Worth $360 million.
Ringo Starr-Net Worth $350 million.
Bruce Springsteen-Net Worth $350 million.
Keith Richards-Net Worth $340 million.

Do you mean financially, sexually, or philosophically?

Quote
Chris Fountain
Well Mick has more children- and them diapers never wear off!

But Mick does create a good supply of hand me down clothes and toys and the older kids can be ready made babysitters for the young ones. Plus they can cut his grass and pick up dog poop for 5$ a week like I did at age 12

Quote
Send It To me
Richest musicians lists seem to put Mick ahead of Keith by a bit. Assuming they have made the same from the Stones, however, you figure...

*Keith's never been divorced and has fewer kids
*Keith's one film project (Pirates of the Caribbean) did better than anything Mick ever did (Freejack, Elysian Fields, etc.)
*Mick never cashed in on a solo career, although he probably has sold few more solo records admittedly since STB went platinum

I dunno.

Actually Keith has another film credit to his name:
'Michael Kohlhaas-Der Rebell' (1969), starred David Warner with Anita Pallenberg also in the movie.
Keith had a small role, played a guy called Soldat.

Depends how they invested their money

Keith was in TWO Pirates movies. I'm sure he got paid more to return for the second. I would never underestimate Keith. He might be quite canny when it comes to his wealth. Mick appears to have a much higher overhead.

Okay, what I want to know is how the hell Ringo amassed $350 Million? What's he got, one, two songwriting credits on Beatle albums? Certainly his little All Starr jaunts don't bring in a lot of dough. His solo career was more successful than the others, but that was the early 70s. The band he used to make money with hasn't toured since 1966, and doesn't appear to be regrouping soon. He had a few acting gigs, also in the 70s. He gets some mechanical royalties from Beatle albums, but $350 Million!!!!????