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 fe

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."