How Wealthy are you?

System

Yet_More_Puddylove wrote: »

As I said, I'm lucky in that I have a job I enjoy, and earn more than the £40k mentioned. I also have pensions (but no pot so no asset there).
So I'll be alright.

I have watched a number of people around my age die suddenly in the last few years (terminal cancer, heart attacks, etc.) so am glad I prioritised happiness. I appreciate there is a balance to be had, so will be buying a house as soon as the stars align.

But - there are no pockets in a shroud.

I have bad news for you, you are not poor. A salary of £40k is higher than the average, and your defined-benefit (since there is no pot) pension is a valuable asset. Typical Guardian-reading, Champagne socialist claiming to be poor!
Premium Bonds are also an asset:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75894426#Comment_75894426

Albermarle

I also have pensions (but no pot so no asset there).

This thread was started due to a article on the BBC about wealth .
The two biggest assets for personal wealth are property and pensions
The biggest part of pension wealth is in DB/Final salary schemes ( although you do not have a pot as such , a value can be calculated)

So you have a salary over £40K and a maybe a large asset in your bulit up pension benefits for the future. I think that helps you to be happier than someone with a salary of £15K and nothing !

djpailo

When I open my eyes after sleep in the morning, reality hits me that I am not actually a billionaire.

Yet_More_Puddylove

I looked at the article regarding wealth - salary isn't counted, and as far as I can see nor were pensions unless you had a 'pension pot'.
I don't own a house.
That leaves savings, which I don't have many of.

So although I have a salary well above the stated minimum for happiness, and I will have a pension which will allow me luxuries rather than just comforts, I'm still a pauper in BBC wealth terms (but is that a useful measure anyway?). If you are in the top deciles, and that makes you happy - result. :beer:

Of course I'm undoubtedly much more fortunate than the unemployed, or those who haven't paid into any pension scheme at all.

My point was more that there is a balance to be had between saving for the future, and living your life happily in the present.

Yet_More_Puddylove

Oh, and I'm the wrong nationality to either read the Guardian, or drink champagne.

bostonerimus

Yet_More_Puddylove wrote: »

Is wealth related to happiness?

Yes it is...but not in a linear way.

My experience has been that once I reached a level where I don't have to worry about having enough to live on, then adding more money hasn't added to my happiness, or maybe peace of mind is a better description.

The greatest happiness comes from friends and family and money just gives you security and the ability to make choices.

System

Yet_More_Puddylove wrote: »

I looked at the article regarding wealth - salary isn't counted, and as far as I can see nor were pensions unless you had a 'pension pot'.
I don't own a house.
That leaves savings, which I don't have many of.

So although I have a salary well above the stated minimum for happiness, and I will have a pension which will allow me luxuries rather than just comforts, I'm still a pauper in BBC wealth terms (but is that a useful measure anyway?). If you are in the top deciles, and that makes you happy - result. :beer:

Of course I'm undoubtedly much more fortunate than the unemployed, or those who haven't paid into any pension scheme at all.

My point was more that there is a balance to be had between saving for the future, and living your life happily in the present.

What type of pension do you have that is not included in pension wealth? Pension wealth includes defined-benefit/final-salary/occupational pensions. In fact they are the largest component of pension wealth. I think that it is a fair bet that you are in the top couple of deciles with your pension and savings (and any other assets that you have conveniently forgotten).

Albermarle

I looked at the article regarding wealth - salary isn't counted, and as far as I can see nor were pensions unless you had a 'pension pot'.

You are right salary is not counted as it is income , and not wealth.
Final salary pension values were counted and were far bigger in value than all other types of pensions put together .
The BBC report was based on a slightly older UK govt report , in which it was clear about this .
See chapter 4https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/wealthingreatbritainwave5/2014to2016

You may be surprised to learn ( a lot of people are ) how much having a final salary scheme is really worth . For example if you were 55 years old and had a salary of £50K and had worked for 30 years, then the values of the benefits you would have built up would have a value somewhere between £0.7Million and one Million Pounds .
So you can see how it would be crazy not to include them in wealth statistics .

Audaxer

OldMusicGuy wrote: »

We have told him to expect nothing when we die as we plan to spend everything that is left and run our capital to zero. Partly that will be achieved by annuitizing savings/pensions as we get older.

I can understand buying an annuity for security later in retirement, but surely we all need to keep at least a few thousand in our savings to cover our funeral costs?

londoninvestor

Anonymous101 wrote: »

Money is not the main driver for hapiness. The evidence from various studies suggest that it makes no difference at all beyond income of about £40k.

Do those studies just correlate present income to present happiness though, or do they look at the longer-term effects of being able to build up savings?