Question for the wealthiest 10%... how?

sabretoothtigger

talexuser wrote: »

To waste that power if you don't want it yourself is just ethically wrong.

They did nothing of consequence. They destroy only paper and collectively we all waste millions every day.

but they were not wasting resources (except a little paper) by burning money. spending lots of money on a pointless project is wasting resources.

Yea basically all they did was reduce money in circulation, no value was lost. Reverse inflation I guess

doughnutmachine wrote: »

when the BoE creates money from thin area MSE posters consider that a bad thing as it might create inflation. i can only conclude that burning money has to be a good thing.

Ironically this is closest to the truth, they could have spent it on the usual pop star waste. They did a good thing seems to me

Bloomberg

racing_blue wrote: »

I was reading the Office for National Statistics report about household wealth in England and Wales.

The median value for household total wealth (which includes pensions) was £232,000, i.e. half of all households had total
wealth less than this and half of all households had total wealth more than this. Belonging to the wealthiest 10% of households required total wealth greater than £967,000.

Without wishing to ask anyone to be too indiscrete, I'd be very interested to hear advice from people in this higher bracket. On your journey, what did you do right, what didn't you do wrong, and what would you have done differently?

A hard-working and smart guy in his 30s who currently sits somewhere between the 50th and 90th centiles- what should he do maximise his chances of joining this club in the future?

General advice from personal experiences would be gratefully received. Hope this doesn't sound too cheeky!

The first thing I would say in response to your question is that statistics are like bikins, the conceal what is vital but reveal what is suggestive. The statistic which you are refering too is quite meaningless even when a median calculation is used. Think of this imaginary situation, Bill Gates moves into your street. The average wages would rise to millions of pounds per year. On paper your street would look very prosperous but the figures although mathematically correct would not paint a true picture of what most people were actually earning.




In stark contrast to what you read I read something far more believable. Due to the severe debt problems which the nation is in and the downturn, if you are debt free but have no money you are in the top thirty percent.



You ask how you can climb the ladder, the answer is that you need to start your own business or be very well qualified. There are so many import opportunities for example, Asia is awash with cheap good quality products, to become rich you need to have business in your heart and your heart in business. I am a millionaire through hard work and obsessive dedication. It is has not been easy but it has been worth it.



Think of a business plan, do your research and go for it. Feel free to send me a personal message if you have any questions. Just one last thing, you may wonder why I read this forum. I still watch my pennies and and remember what it is like to struggle. All the best.

gadgetmind

Bloomberg wrote: »

Think of this imaginary situation, Bill Gates moves into your street. The average wages would rise to millions of pounds per year.

True, but the OP quoted median figures, which would be pretty much unmoved by the arrival of Mr Gates as mode, median and mean are all very different animals.

Bloomberg

gadgetmind wrote: »

True, but the OP quoted median figures, which would be pretty much unmoved by the arrival of Mr Gates as mode, median and mean are all very different animals.

The example I quoted is maybe a little extreme but it would only take a few very wealthy people in the mix to drastically alter the figures.

gadgetmind

Bloomberg wrote: »

The example I quoted is maybe a little extreme but it would only take a few very wealthy people in the mix to drastically alter the figures.

I'm still thinking that you don't fully get what a median is. It doesn't matter whether people earn a quid above the median or a billion above the median, their arrival will move the median by the same amount: not much.

Bloomberg

gadgetmind wrote: »

I'm still thinking that you don't fully get what a median is. It doesn't matter whether people earn a quid above the median or a billion above the median, their arrival will move the median by the same amount: not much.

Do you believe the original statistic?

gadgetmind

Bloomberg wrote: »

Do you believe the original statistic?

I have no reason to disbelieve it.

cepheus

Those figures seem to exaggerate wealth for the typical household.

If financial wealth and medians are considered:

Half of households had gross financial wealth of £9,400 or more in 2008/10, up from £8,700 in 2006/08. These patterns were also seen in the mean and median values of gross financial wealth if all households are considered (including those with no positive financial assets).

In 2006/08 half of all households had a total net financial wealth £5,700 or less whereas this increased to £6,600 in 2008/10.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_271544.pdf

Aegis

gadgetmind wrote: »

I'm still thinking that you don't fully get what a median is. It doesn't matter whether people earn a quid above the median or a billion above the median, their arrival will move the median by the same amount: not much.

The best example I know demonstrating the difference between a mean and a median is when you imagine 100 people and randomly pick one to win a prize of £1m.

The mean prize is £10,000 per person.

The median is £0 per person. (As is the mode)

greenface

I remember somewhere if you have no debt then you are already in this countrys top 20% . My wealth isnt bad but my outgoings are minimal as i have no debts so i dont need much to suvive per month.