4.4M US millionaires

[DEC-1982]

I just saw this article at Yahoo

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/mintin...114404552.html

Then I gave some thought to how they define a millionaire and saw this in Wikipedia, one definition includes the house/property and another does not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millionaire

As long as you have enough for your needs and you are healthy and happy, you are a gazillionaire.

[Midpack]

So 1.38% of the US population.

So we have some 1%ers here!

[growing_older]

Those may be old figures. I wonder if the Yahoo writers mixed up some statistics. The number of millionaires in the US should be much higher.

[Independent]

So, where did they get their data?

Quote:

Based on responses from over 4,500 High Net Worth Individuals across 23 countries, the Global HNW Insights Survey explores HNWI confidence levels, asset allocation decisions, perspectives on driving social impact, as well as their wealth management advice and service preferences.

https://www.capgemini.com/news/nearl...another-record

You need top sign in to get any more information on sources.

[Andre1969]

I remember reading somewhere that once you hit $1M in net worth (including home equity), you're in something like the top 8%. That article only counts investible assets (401k, IRA, brokerage accounts etc), so I could see there being some discrepancy, but I don't think taking home equity out of the equation would drop the number of millionaires from ~8% of the population to only 1.38%!

Also, many of those millionaires are married couples, which I think they count as one tax unit, so that may sway things.

BTW, I did a quick Google, and found a couple sources that said the number of millionaire (not including home equity) households in the United States was 9.63M in 2013. I also found a statistic saying that there were about 122,459,000 households in the US in 2013. If you use those numbers to divide, a household net worth of $1M puts you in roughly the top 7.86%

[growing_older]

Wow, had to dig a bit to find their definition of HNWI is $1 million or more in investable assets, excluding primary residence, collectibles, etc. In the US, some millionaire statistics include all assets, which probably accounts for a large part of the difference. It also introduces weird distortion depending on whether you own a home outright or have a large mortgage. This appears to be a study of investable assets only, not net worth. Interesting.

[Independent]

According to the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances, the median net worth of the top 10% of "families" was $1.87 million in 2013. That would mean that 5% have net worth above $1.87 million.

The Fed definition of "family" is more like the census definition of "households", so there would be more than 100 million families. Obviously, a "family" can have more than one person.

The Fed definition of "net worth" includes home equity.

FRB: Survey of Consumer Finances

[DEC-1982]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Independent So, where did they get their data? https://www.capgemini.com/news/nearl...another-record You need top sign in to get any more information on sources.

Thanks for putting up that link. So North America had 4.33 HNWI mil by June 18 2014. It's one year later, I wonder if there is a new report showing 4.4 mil.

[Totoro]

This website also gives a reference:
Wealthometer: USA

1M including house they say is roughly 4% of individuals (for singles).

[easysurfer]

Looks like Mr. Howell has some company .

[Car-Guy]

A million sure isn't what is was 50 years ago. (in buying power anyway). Matter of fact, the same is true for 40 years ago, 30 years ago, etc. When I was a kid (in the 1950's and 60's) I thought to have a million dollars was to be rich (financially speaking). And maybe it was back then? Now, that I am one, more than a few times over, I know it's not (or I don't feel that way). According to one of the on line inflation calculators it would take almost 8 million today to buy what 1 million could buy in the early 60's

[Andre1969]

Even in more recent times, inflation has taken its toll. 1999 was the year I finally started getting serious about investing. I had finally paid off the debt from my divorce a few years earlier, was doing fairly well on the job front, and was able to refinance my condo to a lower rate. 1999 doesn't seem that long ago to me, but adjusting for inflation, $1M back then comes out to around $1.42M today. Or, the other way around, $1M today is like ~$704K in 1999.

It would be interesting to see millionaire data adjusted for inflation, to see if the numbers of rich are really on the rise, or if it's simply because of inflation. For instance, are there more millionaires today than there were people with ~$125K back in 1962?

[Markola]

It would have to allow for big population growth and economic expansion since the 60s, too. Also, tax-advantaged accounts coming available since the 80s, and the ease today of buying powerful mutual funds at extremely low cost while bypassing destructive brokers via the internet since the 90s. There's a book out there called "Richistan", which is what the U.S. really is now for those who take the trouble to learn how to save and invest. Most Americans find personal finance boring and can't be bothered with learning to become a millionaire, sadly.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

[Rothman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack So 1.38% of the US population. So we have some 1%ers here!

To clarify, we have some 1%ers who also qualify for ACA subsidies, so that averages them out to middle class


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

[mickeyd]

DW was real excited when we hit the $1M mark years ago. I reminded her that we had to get to $2M so we could each have $1M. She did not like it but she had to agree with my logic.

We made it.

[longranger]

More than a few of us 1%ers hope to bridge the years between RE and medicare by having just the right AGI to use the ACA. It will not be by accident.

[Ticker]

I got turned down last week for an American Airlines reward card because I have no income. I asked about taking into consideration my savings, which I am currently living off of. No dice! No outside income or withdrawals from a retirement account, no card. Even with an 830+ credit rating.

While I am not a high net worth individual, it appears that income, rather than savings or net worth, is the benchmark banks are concerned about.

[DEC-1982]

I was reading the last few posts on this thread from yesterday and I think I learnt something new. Just watching the forum posts is such a great learning experience for me.

So if DW was not working and we withdrew $60K from our savings account, we would still have 0 taxable income (simplistically speaking) and therefore we would be eligible for ACA subsidies?

(assuming Supreme Court does not invalidate GA subsidies of course)

[Htown Harry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DEC-1982 So if DW was not working and we withdrew $60K from our savings account, we would still have 0 taxable income (simplistically speaking) and therefore we would be eligible for ACA subsidies? (assuming Supreme Court does not invalidate GA subsidies of course)

Yes, that's correct as long as you don't take it to the extreme. Living entirely on savings in after-tax accounts would actually put your income too low for a subsidy. There's a range of taxable income related to the federal poverty level that you want to hit.

Search the forum for "MAGI" (modified adjusted gross income) and you find several threads on how to manage post-retirement spending and taxable income for subsidy eligibility.

One of the members' blogs has a post that goes into some of the nitty-gritty details:
Don’t Fall Off The Affordable Care Act Subsidy Cliffs | Root of Good

[DEC-1982]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Htown Harry Yes, that's correct as long as you don't take it to the extreme. Living entirely on savings in after-tax accounts would actually put your income too low for a subsidy. There's a range of taxable income related to the federal poverty level that you want to hit. Search the forum for "MAGI" (modified adjusted gross income) and you find several threads on how to manage post-retirement spending and taxable income for subsidy eligibility. One of the members' blogs has a post that goes into some of the nitty-gritty details: Don’t Fall Off The Affordable Care Act Subsidy Cliffs | Root of Good

Great. Thanks for the additional pointer(s); I will check them out.