6 ms·

A 'high 5 figures' of £80,000 puts you at the 96% mark according to https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-from-1-to-99-for-total-income-bef

by NLips 9y ago

A 'high 5 figures' of £80,000 puts you at the 96% mark according to https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-from-1-to-99-for-total-income-before-and-after-tax https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-f.... The only argument you have for not being 'wealthy' is that you're spending all your dosh! There's nothing wrong with that, but I'm just trying to show you aren't anywhere near the median or mode.

dogma1138 9y ago
Income != wealth, there are about 800,000 millionaires in the UK which means that to be in the 1% (well 1.5ish since the UK has 65M and change population) you need at least 1 million GBP even if you save everything you can with a 80,000K salary you won't get into the 1% in your lifetime. Being on a good salary means that you can keep a decent lifestyle, however the moment you are off it it's over you have some savings but they won't last you for long, wealth is essentially the independent means to secure financial independence to you and likely your children. And I never said that I'm near the median, but 65-80K isn't that much for London even for late 20's early 30's that's pretty much a run of the mill salary for most general IT roles with some decent experience (5-10 years), and finance and plenty of other sectors would also get you there. It's not particularly hard to get into the top 3-1% of income in the UK especially for what I would say the average demographics of HN, however getting to the 3-1% of wealth in the UK is a whole other story. EDIT: The UK likes statistics so... It looks like the total household wealth needed to be in the 1% in the UK is 2,872,575 GBP to be in the top 10% it's 1,048,537 GBP, so please tell me how some one who's making even 100,000 a year pre tax is considered a single digit percenter? https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/adhocs/007203distributionoftotalhouseholdwealthbypercentilepointstotalfinancialwealthnettotalpropertywealthnettotalphysicalwealthandtotalprivatepensionwealthgreatbritainjuly2012tojune2014 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personal...
- NLips 9y ago
  I think you might be replying to someone else - I didn't suggest you were in the top 1% wealth-wise; just had the potential to be 'wealthy'? Responding to a few individual points: Take the 100k amount -> after tax income is ~65k Double that for a couple ("household wealth") = 130k housing = 36k (3k a month) living costs = 30k (based on the fact plenty of people with much lower salaries live in London) savings = 64k It'd take a little under 11 years for 64k of savings per annum to hit 1M, using long-term index returns, and less than 16 years with no compounding. If you have a mortgage, two thirds of your housing costs would also be going to 'savings' i.e. increasing your wealth - that's another 24k a year, which would also compound pretty rapidly. So you could be increasing your household net worth by around 90k per year, which would rapidly put you near the top of the wealth distribution. Regardless, none of this talk about your high income and low-or-not wealth refutes the fact that you are far from the median or mode, which is the entire point of the comment you were responding to... "drawing conclusions from that is meaningless as vast majority of millennials are financially struggling to even think about that."

by NLips 9y ago

dogma1138 9y ago

Income != wealth, there are about 800,000 millionaires in the UK which means that to be in the 1% (well 1.5ish since the UK has 65M and change population) you need at least 1 million GBP even if you save everything you can with a 80,000K salary you won't get into the 1% in your lifetime. Being on a good salary means that you can keep a decent lifestyle, however the moment you are off it it's over you have some savings but they won't last you for long, wealth is essentially the independent means to secure financial independence to you and likely your children. And I never said that I'm near the median, but 65-80K isn't that much for London even for late 20's early 30's that's pretty much a run of the mill salary for most general IT roles with some decent experience (5-10 years), and finance and plenty of other sectors would also get you there. It's not particularly hard to get into the top 3-1% of income in the UK especially for what I would say the average demographics of HN, however getting to the 3-1% of wealth in the UK is a whole other story. EDIT: The UK likes statistics so... It looks like the total household wealth needed to be in the 1% in the UK is 2,872,575 GBP to be in the top 10% it's 1,048,537 GBP, so please tell me how some one who's making even 100,000 a year pre tax is considered a single digit percenter? https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/adhocs/007203distributionoftotalhouseholdwealthbypercentilepointstotalfinancialwealthnettotalpropertywealthnettotalphysicalwealthandtotalprivatepensionwealthgreatbritainjuly2012tojune2014 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personal...

NLips 9y ago
I think you might be replying to someone else - I didn't suggest you were in the top 1% wealth-wise; just had the potential to be 'wealthy'? Responding to a few individual points: Take the 100k amount -> after tax income is ~65k Double that for a couple ("household wealth") = 130k housing = 36k (3k a month) living costs = 30k (based on the fact plenty of people with much lower salaries live in London) savings = 64k It'd take a little under 11 years for 64k of savings per annum to hit 1M, using long-term index returns, and less than 16 years with no compounding. If you have a mortgage, two thirds of your housing costs would also be going to 'savings' i.e. increasing your wealth - that's another 24k a year, which would also compound pretty rapidly. So you could be increasing your household net worth by around 90k per year, which would rapidly put you near the top of the wealth distribution. Regardless, none of this talk about your high income and low-or-not wealth refutes the fact that you are far from the median or mode, which is the entire point of the comment you were responding to... "drawing conclusions from that is meaningless as vast majority of millennials are financially struggling to even think about that."