Is a millionaire rich nowadays?

SwingsitlikeHogan

Major Champion
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
33,467
Visit site
The figures below are for households not individuals.
Each decile shows the average for that decile - not the minimum to be in that decile.

View attachment 56009
The cut-off point for millionaire households might be around 12.5% of population. Somewhat smaller for individuals.

The top 1% of households have £3.5 million or more. A fairly reasonable equivalent to "millionaire" from a few decades ago.

This is a very wealthy country where 3 in every hundred households are very rich people.

10% of households have 43% of the total wealth.
Out of interest - what is physical wealth? Is it the value of the 'stuff' you own. Because it seems quite high for all deciles if it is, and it's not financial wealth as that is separate. I guess if I add up the cost of replacing everything we own we could get to quite a high figure...yes I know that my contents and car insurance will tell me.
 

Voyager EMH

Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
6,352
Location
Leicestershire
Visit site
Out of interest - what is physical wealth? Is it the value of the 'stuff' you own. Because it seems quite high for all deciles if it is, and it's not financial wealth as that is separate. I guess if I add up the cost of replacing everything we own we could get to quite a high figure...yes I know that my contents and car insurance will tell me.
I copied the data from The Office For National Statistics (ons.gov.uk)

wealth components.jpg
 

Canfordhacker

Q-School Graduate
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
1,120
Location
Dorset
Visit site
Thanks Voyager, that's interesting reading and the top 1% probably comes closest to answering my original question of what constitutes today's equivalent of an 80's Millionaire - although several have mentioned similar sums, this has some figures to offer relevance.

And you just know everybody has done an immediate assessment of their own position to see how they measure up to the rest of the country!!
 

PNWokingham

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
3,610
Location
Berks
Visit site
Of course I can’t simply add in my pension pot since if I decided to pull it ALL down today, most of it would be taxed at 40% - it’s post tax value is under 60% of its current value.

the same may also apply to other property investments or financial ones that could have capital gains. I think you do need a haircut on the pension values but not 40% if you have a multi-year plan for taking it. Even if into state pension, which takes your personal allowance, you need to factor in your tax-free allowance and i would say for most people 20% tax on the remainder, less if you have not received state pension
 

chrisd

Major Champion
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
24,982
Location
Kent
Visit site
A 4 bed detached house here in mid Kent is likely to be on the high end of £500k so asset wise you're more than half way there once the mortgage is paid off. But it's quite a difference between asset rich and cash rich
 

Voyager EMH

Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
6,352
Location
Leicestershire
Visit site
Pension wealth is what it is.

It gets converted into spending money eventually.

Tax is not money you have lost. You have spent it for the good of everyone and that includes yourself. This is how a decent society looks after one another.

Pension wealth is not to be scaled down merely because you don't get to spend it all on yourself.

The money that went into my private pension was untaxed wages. Perfectly fine with me that I should pay my fair share of tax when it is converted to spending money.
I will not feel any need to say that my pension wealth is not assessed correctly.
 

Crow

Crow Person
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
9,417
Location
Leicestershire
Visit site
Pension wealth is what it is.

It gets converted into spending money eventually.

Tax is not money you have lost. You have spent it for the good of everyone and that includes yourself. This is how a decent society looks after one another.

Pension wealth is not to be scaled down merely because you don't get to spend it all on yourself.

The money that went into my private pension was untaxed wages. Perfectly fine with me that I should pay my fair share of tax when it is converted to spending money.
I will not feel any need to say that my pension wealth is not assessed correctly.

It's that sort of attitude that prevents you from becoming a millionaire. ;)
 

SwingsitlikeHogan

Major Champion
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
33,467
Visit site
the same may also apply to other property investments or financial ones that could have capital gains. I think you do need a haircut on the pension values but not 40% if you have a multi-year plan for taking it. Even if into state pension, which takes your personal allowance, you need to factor in your tax-free allowance and i would say for most people 20% tax on the remainder, less if you have not received state pension
Agreed…though I was thinking about what I’d be worth if I realised all my assets today…including the totality of my pension pot. And it’s by doing it in one fell swoop that much of my pot would be taxed at 40% since I’m in receipt of state pension and I’ve got a good bit more than ~£40k in the pot. In fact I’d only need ~£112k in my pot for me to go crashing into the 45% rate. Not something I have any plans to do I should add.
 

SwingsitlikeHogan

Major Champion
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
33,467
Visit site
Pension wealth is what it is.

It gets converted into spending money eventually.

Tax is not money you have lost. You have spent it for the good of everyone and that includes yourself. This is how a decent society looks after one another.

Pension wealth is not to be scaled down merely because you don't get to spend it all on yourself.

The money that went into my private pension was untaxed wages. Perfectly fine with me that I should pay my fair share of tax when it is converted to spending money.
I will not feel any need to say that my pension wealth is not assessed correctly.
…and exactly why I have few qualms about unused/residual pension fund being subject to IHT once me and the mrs have flown to another place. The fund was built with untaxed money. I am accepting that the fund should be taxed at some point…and if that is through IHT for a residual fund then so be it.
 

PJ87

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Apr 1, 2016
Messages
22,568
Location
Havering
Visit site
…and exactly why I have few qualms about unused residual pension fund being subject to IHT once me and the mrs have flown to another place. The fund was built with untaxed money. I am accepting that the money that created the fund/wealth should be taxed at some point…and if that is through IHT for a residual fund then so be it.

Yes does seem more right that at least one end of the system tax is paid. My pension after death either doesn't pass over or the rest is available to the wife but paid as income so will be subject to tax. That loophole needed closing far too much tax avoidance around
 

PNWokingham

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
3,610
Location
Berks
Visit site
…and exactly why I have few qualms about unused/residual pension fund being subject to IHT once me and the mrs have flown to another place. The fund was built with untaxed money. I am accepting that the fund should be taxed at some point…and if that is through IHT for a residual fund then so be it.

and of all the changes that were looked at in the budget, taxing the pension through IHT is one i can accept (albeit it will have big personal impacts), although i am much more a low-tax advocate - and indeed would love to massively simplify IHT, remove lots of excemptions/ trust planning etc but increase the limit to circa 1.5m, so it catches all of the richer estates but leaves the rest largely alone and is probably more in line with what this used to be 30 years ago. And a better proposal would be to follow most of Europe and not tax the estate but tax the people who inherit - see article from the Telegraph - extract below for those that cannot access it


Now let’s compare Germany and its reassuring social democratic model.

Take a divorcee, whose modest house in London’s Putney bought 30 years ago is now worth £2.1m, has savings of £400,000, and leaves her estate equally between her three children.

On her death, the only part of her £2.5m estate that will be exempt from inheritance tax will be the first £325,000.

Unlike still married couples, the allowance of her ex-husband who predeceased her cannot be applied to her assets – the UK has a hefty tax on marriage breakdown.

She also misses out on the additional £175,000 exemption on her home, as for estates over £2m, this is reduced by £1 for every £2 over that threshold. It has disappeared to nothing when assets reach £2.35m.

So without fancy tax planning, the children of our imaginary middle-class Putneyite will be landed with a tax bill of £870,000 – 40pc of everything above the initial £325,000.

Now let’s look at her Munich equivalent, also with three children, and an estate of roughly equal value. The Germans, along with virtually all of Europe, don’t tax the estate but rather the individual legacy.

The first €400,000 each child inherits will be tax-free, and then they will each pay 15pc tax on the remaining €600,000. Without employing any wheezes, the combined tax on our Bavarian divorcee’s estate will be €270,000 or roughly £225,000 – not much more than a quarter of what would be due in London.

The German death tax rates on a son or daughter max out at 30pc – and this is for individual bequests of over €26m (over £21.5m). The Teutonic rates can hit 50pc, but that is if someone chooses to leave over €13m (£10.8m) to an unrelated random punter – and surely few are quite that lucky.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SwingsitlikeHogan

Major Champion
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
33,467
Visit site
and of all the changes that were looked at in the budget, taxing the pension through IHT is one i can accept (albeit it will have big personal impacts), although i am much more a low-tax advocate - and indeed would love to massively simplify IHT, remove lots of excemptions/ trust planning etc but increase the limit to circa 1.5m, so it catches all of the richer estates but leaves the rest largely alone and is probably more in line with what this used to be 30 years ago. And a better proposal would be to follow most of Europe and not tax the estate but tax the people who inherit - see article from the Telegraph - extract below for those that cannot access it


Now let’s compare Germany and its reassuring social democratic model.

Take a divorcee, whose modest house in London’s Putney bought 30 years ago is now worth £2.1m, has savings of £400,000, and leaves her estate equally between her three children.

On her death, the only part of her £2.5m estate that will be exempt from inheritance tax will be the first £325,000.

Unlike still married couples, the allowance of her ex-husband who predeceased her cannot be applied to her assets – the UK has a hefty tax on marriage breakdown.

She also misses out on the additional £175,000 exemption on her home, as for estates over £2m, this is reduced by £1 for every £2 over that threshold. It has disappeared to nothing when assets reach £2.35m.

So without fancy tax planning, the children of our imaginary middle-class Putneyite will be landed with a tax bill of £870,000 – 40pc of everything above the initial £325,000.

Now let’s look at her Munich equivalent, also with three children, and an estate of roughly equal value. The Germans, along with virtually all of Europe, don’t tax the estate but rather the individual legacy.

The first €400,000 each child inherits will be tax-free, and then they will each pay 15pc tax on the remaining €600,000. Without employing any wheezes, the combined tax on our Bavarian divorcee’s estate will be €270,000 or roughly £225,000 – not much more than a quarter of what would be due in London.

The German death tax rates on a son or daughter max out at 30pc – and this is for individual bequests of over €26m (over £21.5m). The Teutonic rates can hit 50pc, but that is if someone chooses to leave over €13m (£10.8m) to an unrelated random punter – and surely few are quite that lucky.

Perhaps it’s time for Ms Reeves to take a trip to Germany and learn something useful from a country she would like to emulate.
That’s useful thankyou…my only obvious observation being that the three children have a £2.1m house they can sell and split the proceeds from - so £700,000 each. The IHT bill split three ways us £290,000 each - so each child will inherit £410,000 from the property alone. Not bad given the parental outlay for the property might have been at a very rough guess something in the region of £100,000-150,000. Add in £133,333 each get share of £400,000. £540,000 each - not bad inheritance.
 
Last edited:

Swango1980

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
13,016
Location
Lincolnshire
Visit site
The first millionaire was considered to be John Jacob Astor in the 1830's. To have a million pounds in 1830 would be comparable to having just over £97 million now.

First billionaire was John D Rockfeller in 1916. Equivalent to just over £73 billion now

Elon Mush is the worlds richest person now, worth $348 billion, but they reckon he is on course to become the first trillionaire by 2027. That being said, he isn't as wealthy as you think. Because, I assume when he becomes a trillionaire, that will be based on dollars. So, he won't really be a Pounds Sterling trillionaire. It might take him another 6 months or so before he breaks that barrier, and help ease his wallet.
 

Voyager EMH

Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
6,352
Location
Leicestershire
Visit site
The first millionaire was considered to be John Jacob Astor in the 1830's. To have a million pounds in 1830 would be comparable to having just over £97 million now.

First billionaire was John D Rockfeller in 1916. Equivalent to just over £73 billion now

Elon Mush is the worlds richest person now, worth $348 billion, but they reckon he is on course to become the first trillionaire by 2027. That being said, he isn't as wealthy as you think. Because, I assume when he becomes a trillionaire, that will be based on dollars. So, he won't really be a Pounds Sterling trillionaire. It might take him another 6 months or so before he breaks that barrier, and help ease his wallet.
Sunday Times Rich List UK is always interesting reading each year.

For 2024 we have the Grosvenor Family (Duke of Westminster) way down in 14th place with £10.13 billion.
In 20th place the Coates family (Bet365) with £7.47 billion.

Way way down in a very lowly 350th place is Sir Lewis Hamilton with a piddling £350 million.
 

sunshine

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 17, 2018
Messages
5,643
Visit site
The first millionaire was considered to be John Jacob Astor in the 1830's. To have a million pounds in 1830 would be comparable to having just over £97 million now.

Surely he was the first American millionaire, must have been plenty of millionaires through history with “old money”. Just think about the wealth of European monarchs building empires, or Mansa Musa, the emperor of Mali who is the richest person in history.

America today is a very wealthy country, 9% of the adult population are USD millionaires.
 
Top