The Wealthometer

[jon-nyc]

Want to see how you stack up?

In the first screen it asks you to guess what percentile you're in, in the next it calculates it.

I admit the information isn't particularly useful, but it's entertaining nevertheless.

Wealthometer: USA

(US based)

 

[CaliforniaMan]

In my opinion it is not very useful at all, since there is nothing about your age. A persons position in the wealth chart naturally changes with age. I know right after College mine was close to zero. So they are comparing me now with a current copy of my young self? What is the point? It is from a department of Harvard University. I think they could have done better.

 

[Meadbh]

The real point of the website is to generate debate on taxing wealth, ie net worth. Probably a research project going on.

 

[Texas Proud]

Yea, pretty bad IMO.... not worth taking your time to do it...

Also, it divided the number by household members... which is not happening here...

ALSO, you cannot put down an estimate of zero taxes on wealth.... which is what I would have done...

 

[NW-Bound]

Still, try to enter your NW in to see. I think many retirees here would be within the top 2 or 3%. Then, if you are a couple, try entering in 1 instead of 2 for household number to see the effect of doubling individual NW.

The top 1% starts at $2.75M per individual, but I think that the top 0.1% may start at the $20M. It would be interesting to see that top 1% broken down further in to 0.1% steps or smaller.

 

[jon-nyc]

No need to answer the last question. Anyway, I can save them time on their research project - generally speaking, those with decent amounts of wealth oppose taxing wealth, those with little or none will be net supporters.

 

[jon-nyc]

I kept household at 1. I didn't want to see how my 4 year old stacked up with 1/3 of my wealth.

 

[jon-nyc]

They have meters for Germany, Italy, and Austria too


wealthometer.org

 

[Andre1969]

I wonder how accurate it is? I ended up placing in the top 4%, as a household of 1. In plugging various numbers in, it looks like $1,161,447 in NW is the bottom threshold to break into the top 3%. Even to break into the fabled top 1%, you only need to amass $2,734,475.

Does it really take that little to get into the top tiers? Almost seems too easy.

 

[jon-nyc]

I was under the impression that the 1% threshold was more like $5MM.

 

[H2ODude]

So if you are on a substantial DB pension, do you assume that as an equivalent SP annuity cost?

 

[NW-Bound]

Even to break into the fabled top 1%, you only need to amass $2,734,475.

Does it really take that little to get into the top tiers? Almost seems too easy.

Too easy? Tell that to the bottom 99%, no the bottom 50% (NW < $24K).

 

[powerplay]

I ended up at 97 for a household of 1. My guess was 84 and would have equated to about $206K of assets. Don't think it says much other than that we (not most of us on this site) aren't very good at saving and building wealth. The curve becomes very steep at the high end. A tax on what we have already saved and paid taxes on would be a difficult thing to accept.

 

[Hermit]

wealthometer.org hasn't been rated as OK by McAfee yet. I think I'll wait before I attach a wealth figure to my web address.

 

[MRG]

wealthometer.org hasn't been rated as OK by McAfee yet. I think I'll wait before I attach a wealth figure to my web address.

Neither has the bank my 401k is at. I trust the bank more than McAfee. YMMV.

MRG

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Early Retirement Forum mobile app

 

[ls99]

DW and I are comfortable. No, I do not enter numbers into these kinds of gizmos.

 

[Andre1969]

Too easy? Tell that to the bottom 99%, no the bottom 50% (NW < $24K).

I guess it just seems too "easy", because I was able to do it. And I don't consider myself anything all that special.

Just out of curiosity, I plugged in my statistics from this time in 1996, when my marriage was falling apart, bills were mounting, and I had very little equity in the condo. That would put me in the bottom 3%.

So I guess if was able to zoom from the bottom 3% to the top 4% in just 18 years, it just seemed too easy.

 

[jon-nyc]

wealthometer.org hasn't been rated as OK by McAfee yet. I think I'll wait before I attach a wealth figure to my web address.

Before I used it I found the link from the Harvard prof who's behind it.

WEALTHOMETER: USA | Maximilian Kasy

If it's a scam, they did pretty well getting it on Harvard's faculty site.

 

[NW-Bound]

I guess it just seems too "easy", because I was able to do it. And I don't consider myself anything all that special.
...

Well, for some reasons that have been debated forever, some people always live pay-check-to-paycheck. I know that my NW is a lot higher compared to others that I worked with, and who had comparable salaries. Now, they may want me to share.

Anyway, when my NW is divided by 2, my ranking drops. Still, two together can live better than one with 1/2 NW, as many expenses are shared.

Hey, I just thought of something. We have two houses in different climates. That is not at all extravagant; it's the same as single persons with a single home.

 

[Hermit]

Before I used it I found the link from the Harvard prof who's behind it.

WEALTHOMETER: USA | Maximilian Kasy

If it's a scam, they did pretty well getting it on Harvard's faculty site.

That's certainly more reassuring than what McAfee had to offer. Thanks, jon-nyc.

 

[pb4uski]

Interesting question is whether one should reduce tax-deferred assets by estimated taxes.

Depending on the rate and structure I could stomach a wealth tax if income taxes went away, but since this is associated with a Harvard professor I suppose that the wealth tax would be in addition to an income tax. If that is the case then no thank you - I already paid (substantially) each year as I built my wealth.

 

[Andre1969]

Anyway, when my NW is divided by 2, my ranking drops. Still, two together can live better than one with 1/2 NW, as many expenses are shared.

Just for kicks, I ran the numbers for a household of 2, and 3. There are three people in my house, but the other two are just roommates and not wives, so no jointly held assets or debt, so I figure they don't count into the equation.

But, for a household of 2, my rank only drops from 96% to 92%. And even for 3, it only drops to 89%.

I wonder though, if I should count them, because there is still some benefit. The rental income is one reason I've amassed as much as I have. They also help out with utilities and groceries, so overall it does reduce my living expenses?

 

[dunkelblau]

I was under the impression that the 1% threshold was more like $5MM.

I think you're right, the 1%-ers are the Barron's Penta crowd.

But maybe it's because this is household percentile and the typical household is two individuals? As a rough estimate 10% of households are above the 1M USD threshold, and it's one tenth of the previous level for each 5.5x in net worth. This upper tail power law works out to roughly a half-population per Golden Ratio (1.62x) in net worth. Another way of looking at it, the median household above a threshold X is the Golden Ratio times X.

 

[NW-Bound]

Just for kicks, I ran the numbers for a household of 2, and 3. There are three people in my house, but the other two are just roommates and not wives...

Wives? Would that be legal where you live?

 

[ziggy29]

Interesting question is whether one should reduce tax-deferred assets by estimated taxes.

Yeah -- I guessed X and got X+4, but nearly 3/4 of that is tied up in 401K and TIRA investments which will be taxed when withdrawn. If I reduced their value by (say) 25%, it goes from X+4 to X+2.