Is it true that 99% of people have less than £50,000 in the bank?

EltonJohnFan

Hi all,

I was reading a government paper and it stated that 99% of the British public have £50,000 or less in their bank accounts, would you say this is right or wrong? just a quick question, thanks for answering.

opinions4u

Figures from my previous life were that 98% of individuals are completely covered by the FSCS. When the limit was £35k this figure dropped to 96%.

That only covers about 67% of the money, which says a bit about the distribution of wealth .

StevieJ

EltonJohnFan wrote: »

Hi all,

I was reading a government paper and it stated that 99% of the British public have £50,000 or less in their bank accounts, would you say this is right or wrong? just a quick question, thanks for answering.

Hopefully they will have it invested somewhere decent, and a bank account is not it.

dunstonh

EltonJohnFan wrote: »

Hi all,

I was reading a government paper and it stated that 99% of the British public have £50,000 or less in their bank accounts, would you say this is right or wrong? just a quick question, thanks for answering.

That is incorrect in that context. The context is that 99% are protected by the FSCS. So, a person with £100k split in half between two banking licenses would fall under that 99%. Not that they have less than £50k in the bank.

ultrawomble

The link below (from 1st April!!) reckons that 35% of people have less than £500 saved - some other interesting numbers in there as well:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/savings/7545194/More-than-a-fifth-of-Britons-have-no-savings.html

Primrose

That's an awful lot of people, who if they were to die tomorrow, don't even have enough money to cover their funerals. That's a sobering thought and it means there are going to be a lot of relatives around who would have to put their hands in their pockets to bury their loved ones. In the good old days, no matter how hard up people were, it seemed to be a moral obligation to have enough money saved up to pay for your own funeral.

Soubrette

Not all of them will be unable to cover their own funeral cost though Primrose, most will have assets and/or insurance policies that will pay out or be sold on death.

Cash poor does not necessarily mean asset poor as well.

poet123

Could be, I was quite shocked recently when a friend confided she was having to lend her daughter £500 to pay for a roof repair. Her daughter lives in a sizeable house, she and her husband work and run two cars, so outwardly at least, reasonably affluent, yet they had no savings for this emergency repair.

Primrose

I'm surprised at the number of people who on the face of their household income ought to be able to manage their finances and indeed seem to enjoy quite a high standard of living, yet don't seem to be putting anything away to provide for the future. They appear to have a concept of 'living for the day' without any thoughts of the emergencies or calamaties that the future might throw up. I'm not sure, from a moral point of view, whether somebody who can afford, for example, an expensive holiday abroad every year, has a moral right to be financially rescued if they suddenly find they have no savings if their car has a major breakdown and needs to be repaired. I guess some of it is all about personal priorities, but if somebody had a rather frivolous priority for example and spends all their surplus cash on that, it is right for them to expect to be bailed out?

GillM

Primrose wrote: »

I'm surprised at the number of people who on the face of their household income ought to be able to manage their finances and indeed seem to enjoy quite a high standard of living, yet don't seem to be putting anything away to provide for the future. They appear to have a concept of 'living for the day' without any thoughts of the emergencies or calamaties that the future might throw up. I'm not sure, from a moral point of view, whether somebody who can afford, for example, an expensive holiday abroad every year, has a moral right to be financially rescued if they suddenly find they have no savings if their car has a major breakdown and needs to be repaired. I guess some of it is all about personal priorities, but if somebody had a rather frivolous priority for example and spends all their surplus cash on that, it is right for them to expect to be bailed out?

My friend's husband was made redundant about 10 years ago and was unable to claim for any benefits apart from under £50 JSA per week (at that time) for himself, wife and 3 children all still at school (apart from child benefit of course). All because they had been frugal all their lives and saved. He never earned more than £18,000 pa while he was working and my friend was a full-time mum, but although they had a nice standard of living, they didn't change their car every year or go on exotic holidays or spend money on expensive electronics. Those who did spend all their money were able to claim for everything under the sun . . .

My friend said rather bitterly at the time that she wished they had been more profligate, but when her husband found a job a few years later they started topping up their savings again!

Some people are savers, and some just aren't. Like my friend I sometimes wonder if I'm being a fool saving my money when others live the high life then look to the state to help them, but I've saved since I started work 35 years ago and can't break the habit. :wall:

LongTermLurker

Is it true that 99% of people have less than £50,000 in the bank?

To many people in the country, £50k is a figure they will never see as disposable income. Whether you could say they account for 99% of the population is hard to say.

However, I don't have £50k in cash and don't expect to until I get ready for retirement! 1 or 2 percent's not for me...