How Wealthy are you?

triplea35

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48759591

Found this article quite interesting this morning, coinciding with my monthly net wealth calculations!

As a couple in our sixties, puts us in the top 20% for net wealth but just a little over average for the 61-70 age group.

So we are the fortunate age group, though I would never have thought so over the years, many of the years of single income, mortgage to pay etc.

It is only in recent years that we have begun to feel comfortable. As mortgage paid off, ability to invest,stock market recovery etc has the accumulation phase really begun to take off!

Just wondered what others think about the article. Is it accurate? A useful benchmark?

We certainly don't feel particularly wealthy compared to many of our friends and associates, and we live in the impoverished North East! Just not a subject that is spoken about, even to the closest of friends and family.

[Deleted User]

TBH I cant see the value in looking at something like that.


I am not in my 60's and given the things they look at am worth far more than the £671k of the richest 10%. But that is rubbish given that houses in London and SE can easily be more or less equal to that. I am ' worth' a large figure on their basis but I don't feel wealthy at all tbh, unless I sell my assets that money is not realised and I still watch what I spend month to month.


Wealth would be better defined in terms of disposable income IMO. Once you have paid all your outgoings and have a large disposable income would make me feel wealthier rather than assets which are not readily accessible and even if I sold my property I'd still need to buy another one to live so again no accessible money.


I'm not sure its a useful way of measuring wealth because what you accumulate is only really useful if you sell the lot to realise the money. Its only wealth when you die and the lot goes to someone who has created their own wealth so inheritance is an extra sum.

webjaved

How accurate are the BBC? I'd take anything they put out with a pinch of salt.

Linton

BBH123 wrote: »

TBH I cant see the value in looking at something like that.


I am not in my 60's and given the things they look at am worth far more than the £671k of the richest 10%. But that is rubbish given that houses in London and SE can easily be more or less equal to that. I am ' worth' a large figure on their basis but I don't feel wealthy at all tbh, unless I sell my assets that money is not realised and I still watch what I spend month to month.


Wealth would be better defined in terms of disposable income IMO. Once you have paid all your outgoings and have a large disposable income would make me feel wealthier rather than assets which are not readily accessible and even if I sold my property I'd still need to buy another one to live so again no accessible money.


I'm not sure its a useful way of measuring wealth because what you accumulate is only really useful if you sell the lot to realise the money. Its only wealth when you die and the lot goes to someone who has created their own wealth so inheritance is an extra sum.

Note that the figures are per person, so if you have a partner your wealth includes only half a house. And of course you have to deduct any mortgage. So I would say that if you are a single person in perhaps a £1M house with no mortgage in London it would be reasonable to classify you as very wealthy. After all, you could buy something reasonable but small in a cheaper part of the country and never need work again.


What is interesting is that the average wealth in London is rather low as many particularly young people there are on relatively low incomes and dont own their home.

lisyloo

So we are the fortunate age group

If people save up until they retire and then spend, their wealth it going to peak on the day they retire.
Nothing about being fortunate just the point in life where your pension fund has peaked.

eskbanker

webjaved wrote: »

How accurate are the BBC? I'd take anything they put out with a pinch of salt.

A bit of healthy scepticism is rarely a bad thing but in this case the article has been written by someone with a bit more credibility than the Beeb's general journos:

This analysis piece was commissioned by the BBC from an expert working for an outside organisation.

George Bangham is a research and policy analyst at the Resolution Foundation, which describes itself as a think tank that works to improve the living standards of those on low to middle incomes.

Not sure it's a matter of 'accuracy' though - the underlying stats themselves are sourced from the Office for National Statistics so are presumably uncontested, or do you believe that something specific is questionable?

adonis10

Quite a pointless article, if you ask me. If I include the £230k equity in my house I would class myself as being fairly ok, however it is a nonsense to include that as I am 35 and don't plan to sell it and live in a tent any time soon. I think it is dependent on individual circumstances but for me personally my 'wealth' does not include property as it is too misleading.

System

adonis10 wrote: »

Quite a pointless article, if you ask me. If I include the £230k equity in my house I would class myself as being fairly ok, however it is a nonsense to include that as I am 35 and don't plan to sell it and live in a tent any time soon. I think it is dependent on individual circumstances but for me personally my 'wealth' does not include property as it is too misleading.

So you think that you would be wealthier if you sold your house and rented as then you would have £230K in cash or investments? Any sensible measure of wealth would including housing wealth.

steampowered

I find it a bit strange that people think property shouldn't be taken into account when comparing wealth.

Of course property should be taken into account. Property can be bought and sold. Property is part of your wealth. If you own a £1million property you are wealthier than someone who owns a £200k property.

It is true that living costs are higher in London and the South East, and the cost of property is the main reason for that. That's a completely separate discussion.

Silvertabby

'Wealth' is not something that can be determined by statistics alone.

In our case, most of our wealth is in our (mortgage free) home and our public sector pensions. We consider ourselves to be 'very comfortable' - but another couple on exactly the same income may feel differently because they couldn't afford to go on a world cruise every year.

On the other hand, my late parents (who only had their State pensions and £120 per month occupational pension to live on) would no doubt consider us to be 'wealthy beyond all dreams'.

Linton

I dont see why people are getting so agitated about the article. It just covers capital wealth, not happiness or how your feel about your situation. ISTM it's an interesting straight forward summary of probably reliable data. Like any good report of this type it raises as many questions as it answers.