MSE Poll: How much are you worth (or do you owe)? 27 August 2019 at 4:02PM in Money Saving Polls 14 replies 2.9K views

Former_MSE_Karl

Poll started 27 August 2019

So are we a nation of savers or debtors? Take any unsecured debt (ie, EXCLUDING ANY MORTGAGE/STUDENT LOAN) away from any savings and where do you end up?

Whether you've "net worth" or "net debt", pick your relevant option:

Click here to vote in the poll

Did you vote? Are you surprised at the results so far? Have your say below.

If you haven't already, join the forum to reply.

Thanks!

michaels

Bit unclear what assets we should be including - house? pension?

And why is the mortgage not debt?

dales1

^^^ this, exactly ^^^


The poll cannot be answered in its present unclear state.


Do you want to know people's net SAVINGS or their net WORTH ?

hugheskevi

So if I have £100,000 mortgage I ignore it. If alternatively I have a £50,000 mortgage and £50,000 on 0% credit cards, I deduct £50,000. Despite being in the same debt position, just paying less interest.

If I have £20,000 sitting in the bank, I include it. But if I put it into a pension I exclude it. If I put it into an ISA do I include it?

If my house is worth £400,000 and I have a £100,000 mortgage, I ignore the £300,000 equity. But if I remortgage to increase mortgage to £200,000 then I am £100,000 'better off'? But if I then spend that money on house improvements I then ignore it again.

And how should we be reporting results? At household level? How are couples factored in - divide the result by 2? Or does the reporting follow legal ownership of each individual asset?

Really can't conclude anything about this, except that it certainly isn't capturing 'how much you are worth' - I think the closest it comes is 'how much are your liquid assets worth, net of debt (aside from mortgage debt)'

Ectophile

Since it excluded secured debts, and talked about "savings", then assumed I wasn't supposed to include any other investments, pensions, the value of the house, or anything else that wasn't essentially cash.


That's probably why I seem to be at the low end of the "what I'm worth" scale for my age group.


Not a very well thought-out poll.

adonis

Call me cynical but we are giving our age and financial status to the site owners who could use it for targeted advertising,
perhaps I will say I am in my 20s and a millionaire and see what comes in my emails.

mathsus

I’ve probably done this wrong. Counted in the value of my house. How do I delete? Unclear poll.

staggered

So, according to this, 33% of 65+ year olds have over half a million pounds in assets. 50% have over £250,000 and 75% have over £100,000.

By contrast, only 15% of 25-34 year olds have over £100,000 in assets and 25% owe more than they own.

One of these groups gets free bus travel, free eye tests, a winter fuel allowance and free TV licences. The other subsidises it.

It seems crazy to me that, until recently, all over 75s, irrespective of their wealth, got free TV licences. The decision to limit it to those with low incomes is entirely sensible.

PaulSh

staggered wrote: »

So, according to this, 33% of 65+ year olds have over half a million pounds in assets. 50% have over £250,000 and 75% have over £100,000.

By contrast, only 15% of 25-34 year olds have over £100,000 in assets and 25% owe more than they own.

What? You mean that people who have worked for 40+ years have more financial assets than younger people? Whodathunkit!

staggered wrote: »

One of these groups gets free bus travel, free eye tests, a winter fuel allowance and free TV licences. The other subsidises it.

Yes, this is what happens when the State Benefits system is basically a Ponzi scheme. We older people have paid tax and NI all our lives to pay the pensions and other benefits of previous generations. Now it's our turn to have someone pay for us. Personally I think the fuel allowance should be taxable, but as for free bus travel, it's worth pointing out that you can get this at any age if you're medically unfit to drive, and also scrapping it will bring countless older people who probably shouldn't be driving any more back onto the roads.

staggered wrote: »

It seems crazy to me that, until recently, all over 75s, irrespective of their wealth, got free TV licences. The decision to limit it to those with low incomes is entirely sensible.

That's a separate thing entirely. The problem here is the BBC's funding model, not any so-called intergenerational fairness issue.

staggered

It's a shame you can't make a comment without descending into sarcasm and rudeness.

However, my point was that, taken as a whole, over-65s are by far the wealthiest group in society. The fact that (some of) this group (the over-75s) received free TV licences, irrespective of how wealthy they were, was, in my opinion, absurd. Especially when younger groups, who are on the whole much less wealthy, were subsidising that.

The picture painted by critics of the BBC's decision - masses of impoverished OAPs losing their only companion - is demonstrably untrue.

XRAT

There are a few requests for clarification above, for next time this poll resurfaces.
May I add to the list.., If "I" am a couple with joint assets, is it safe to assume that I should I halve my worth?
(Just so we know we are all on the same page.)