Page 1 of 2 Publication: The Dallas Morning News; Date: Mar 31.2013; Section: Business: Page: I Test your wealth with 4 questions SCOTT BURNS Are you wealthy yet? Don't laugh. It's a serious question. You'll know whether you're wealthy depending on your answers to a simple four-question test later in this column. Who knows, you might be wealthy and not know it! You could also be poor and not know it, which is more likely. The problem is that we don't have a shared definition of wealth. In spite of the unrelenting attention to spending, consumption and statements of net worth that fill virtually all of our glossy magazines, the reality is that we only see wishful images of what some people imagine wealth to be and what advertisers want us to think it is. In general, being wealthy appears to be all about stuff. In fact, if you focus on the stuff part, you're missing the boat. A definition of wealth that I favor comes from the late economist and joumalist Ferdinand Lundberg. In his 1968 epic, The Rich and the Super-Rich, he defined being poor this way: "For my part, I would say that anyone who does not own a fairly substantial amount of income-producing property or does not receive an earned income sufficiently large to make substantial regular savings or does not hold a well-paid securely tenured job is poor. He may be healthy, handsome and a delight to his friends — but he is poor." Got that? Wealth is about income-producing assets. It's not about consumption. Lundberg's definition quickly eliminates the faux wealth exhibited by the folks we might call Monthly Payment Millionaires:people who flash all the stuff that makes them appear wealthy but that can disappear in a single missed sales quota, a short-term job loss or some other life hiccup. The existence of Monthly Payment Millionaires explains those strange places where it seems everyone is rich because all the cars are new, shiny and expensive. Lundberg's definition shifts our attention f