How do you define wealth?

marathonic

innovate wrote: »

Sorry, it is far too simplistic to say mortgage debt is a "good" debt. Of course it is, for many people. But it has been, and sadly will be, the trigger for financial ruin for people. Remember, mortgage defaults started the global financial crisis.

No need to be sorry - I agree that it's overly simplistic. However, it's as close a definition as I could come up with in a short post. Due to the wide variation in individual circumstances, it's impossible to come up with the perfect definition.

Perhaps the distinction between mortgage debt and business/other loans should be removed and changed to something like "all loans can be serviced with x% of annual net income".

This is getting more complex though. I reckon my definition with a slight modification to specify that the mortgage debt should take up no more than 30% of net earnings would probably be enough to make the definition apply to the vast majority of the population.

Glastoun

Income is how much you put into your mouth.

Spending is how much comes out the other end.

Wealth is the size of your stomach.

Wealthy is when your stomach is big enough to balance your hobbies on it.

eskbanker

mulronie wrote: »

Plato: The greatest wealth is to live content with little

Pete Wylie: Money isn't everything but try paying lawyers with love

bitemebankers

I'd define your wealth as simply a measure of your total assets, less your liabilities.

Wealthy, however, implies to me that you're better off than middle class, so, you'd have to be looking at wealth of at least £1m, plus.

gadgetmind

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-net-worth_individual

rich11

eskbanker wrote: »

Pete Wylie: Money isn't everything but try paying lawyers with love

Thats Sinfull.And Tragic

bigadaj

eskbanker wrote: »

Pete Wylie: Money isn't everything but try paying lawyers with love

I think that approach might work with judges though!

robatwork

I was researching interest rates on children's accounts recently.

One of the comparison sites came up with C Hoare & Co as offering 3%. So, never having heard of them, I did a bit of research. I think you can say they are for "the wealthy".

"'You must be introduced by two people we know and typically have assets of £1 million"

innovate

robatwork wrote: »

I was researching interest rates on children's accounts recently.

One of the comparison sites came up with C Hoare & Co as offering 3%. So, never having heard of them, I did a bit of research. I think you can say they are for "the wealthy".

"'You must be introduced by two people we know and typically have assets of £1 million"

You don't need a million to get some decent interest rates for your kids - here's a no-strings 3% AER one at Lloyds. Or the 6% AER JISA at Halifax. If I am not mistaken, Halifax also do a 6% AER Reg Saver for children.

robatwork

innovate wrote: »

You don't need a million to get some decent interest rates for your kids - here's a no-strings 3% AER one at Lloyds. Or the 6% AER JISA at Halifax. If I am not mistaken, Halifax also do a 6% AER Reg Saver for children.

Thanks for that Innovate. Yep I already knew about the Halifax ISA and have opened an adult one just to qualify for that. Their Junior Saver is about the best I can find for a lump sum (ie not monthly) at 3% - I can't actually find the comparison site now that gave me C Hoare.

Oh and that "no strings" Lloyds one has a huge string - you need a Lloyds current account.

Anyway don't want to hijack this thread any more but if anyone knows a children's account paying >3%, not regular savings, not an ISA, no strings (and ideally managed online although most don't seem to be) let me know, thanks