Net Worth Percentile Calculator

[adrift]

This calculator is based off of the results of the 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances by the Federal Reserve. It will compute your net worth percentile to two decimal places, no less.

Net worth Percentile Calculator | Shnugi

It appears that the top 1% cutoff is about $8 million. I'm still safely in the 99%.

[ejman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by adrift This calculator is based off of the results of the 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances by the Federal Reserve. It will compute your net worth percentile to two decimal places, no less. Net worth Percentile Calculator | Shnugi It appears that the top 1% cutoff is about $8 million. I'm still safely in the 99%.

Nah, you just have to get to the right age bracket. Playing around with the calculator, it turns out that $1.25 M at ages 93-100 puts you in the 99.57%. Darn it! It's not that I don't have enough money - I'm too young!

[eta2020]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ejman Nah, you just have to get to the right age bracket. Playing around with the calculator, it turns out that $1.25 M at ages 93-100 puts you in the 99.57%. Darn it! It's not that I don't have enough money - I'm too young!

Between 18-19 it puts you at round 100%.

I would rather have 1.25 Million at 18 than 1.25 million at 93 especially if I could have my brain of 49 year old man at 18.

[dtbach]

Looks like I'm safely in the 92%


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

[sengsational]

Does one divide the combined net worth by 2 if you are married?

[Amethyst]

Actually I wonder what it all really means. If you are in the 95th percentile (say) can you really live much larger than someone in the 90th?

Amethyst

[ejman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eta2020 Between 18-19 it puts you at round 100%. I would rather have 1.25 Million at 18 than 1.25 million at 93 especially if I could have my brain of 49 year old man at 18.

A miilion+ dollars at 18? it would be gone in no time. (heck with a million at 18 I WOULD have been gone in no time) Now at 93+ I have visions of dedicated nurses catering to my every need and then with the rejuvenation technology 30 years in the future who knows that french lady with the current old age record might be in trouble...

[FIREd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sengsational Does one divide the combined net worth by 2 if you are married?

Based on the comments below the calculator, the data is based on household NW.

[EastWest Gal]

I tried it for my age and forgot to enter the net worth amount. Did you know that 13% of people at age 55 have a net worth of below zero? That's scary!


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

[adrift]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ejman A miilion+ dollars at 18? it would be gone in no time. (heck with a million at 18 I WOULD have been gone in no time).

True that. I've supported myself since I was 17. I can't imagine how I would have survived if I had a million $ at that age.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EastWest Gal I tried it for my age and forgot to enter the net worth amount. Did you know that 13% of people at age 55 have a net worth of below zero?

At least when I was 17, I was too damn poor to have a negative net worth.

[EastWest Gal]

Had a negative net worth when we got married age 24--med school student loans. 10 years later, a different story. 30 years later, RE.

[Spanky]

Quote:

Originally Posted by adrift It appears that the top 1% cutoff is about $8 million. I'm still safely in the 99%.

Wow!

[Unpaintedhuffhines]

No one lives forever, no one. But with advances in modern science, and my high level of income, it's not crazy to think I can live to be 245, maybe 300.

[Andre1969]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FIREd Based on the comments below the calculator, the data is based on household NW.

I always get confused by what is considered a "household". In my case, I'm single, and have two housemates who are unrelated, and rent from me. So would the three of us be considered one "household", or would we be considered three separate "households"? I guess if it went by income tax returns, we would be three separate households, but if it went by address, it would be just one?

Anyway, looks like I hit 90.49% for all surveyed (18-100) and 90.82% for my age group (44).

As for whether your standard of living would be better in the top 5%, versus the top 10%, I'd have to say YES!! I put in my $995K of investible assets as my NW, and that got the 90.82%. $2M would put me at 94.67%. For me, that 5% difference in ranking would be the difference between working and retired! Interestingly, putting in $2.8M only gets you to 94.89%, $2.9M gets you to 95.86%, and $3M gets you to 96.7%.

But, the data only pulls from 111 households where the head is age 44, so I guess you can't expect it to be totally accurate. To hit that 99% threshold, in my age bracket, you have to have about $5.5M

I could definitely see a much higher standard of living with $5.5M socked away, versus $2M, or $995K.

I know I'd rank even higher if I put in my NW rather than just investible assets, but I figure things like a house and cars aren't something you can just convert to cash very easily, so I prefer not to consider them.

[HFWR]

Should I add the NPV of my pension and SS?

[mrfeh]

That page says we're in the top 5%, which is consistent with similar tools I've used...

We'd need quite a bit more to be 1%ers.

[daylatedollarshort]

The Fed data often produces different NW results than IRS estate data:

From Who Rules America:

"Using Fed data, about 8% of US households have a net worth exceeding $1M and the median net worth of the top 10% of US families is $1.569M. The IRS uses the estate multiplier technique to calculate the data, a more complex measure based on tax returns, capitalization of earnings power, and other factors. The estate multiplier technique has been around for decades, is more widely used, and in the opinion of many, is the more accurate number. Where the true threshold is located is impossible to determine with accuracy, but my observations in managing money support the lower number or something close to it"

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica...t_manager.html

[audreyh1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andre1969 I always get confused by what is considered a "household". In my case, I'm single, and have two housemates who are unrelated, and rent from me. So would the three of us be considered one "household", or would we be considered three separate "households"? I guess if it went by income tax returns, we would be three separate households, but if it went by address, it would be just one? Anyway, looks like I hit 90.49% for all surveyed (18-100) and 90.82% for my age group (44). As for whether your standard of living would be better in the top 5%, versus the top 10%, I'd have to say YES!! I put in my $995K of investible assets as my NW, and that got the 90.82%. $2M would put me at 94.67%. For me, that 5% difference in ranking would be the difference between working and retired! Interestingly, putting in $2.8M only gets you to 94.89%, $2.9M gets you to 95.86%, and $3M gets you to 96.7%. But, the data only pulls from 111 households where the head is age 44, so I guess you can't expect it to be totally accurate. To hit that 99% threshold, in my age bracket, you have to have about $5.5M I could definitely see a much higher standard of living with $5.5M socked away, versus $2M, or $995K. I know I'd rank even higher if I put in my NW rather than just investible assets, but I figure things like a house and cars aren't something you can just convert to cash very easily, so I prefer not to consider them.

In general the Fed considers one income tax filing to be one household.

[audreyh1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by adrift This calculator is based off of the results of the 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances by the Federal Reserve. It will compute your net worth percentile to two decimal places, no less. Net worth Percentile Calculator | Shnugi It appears that the top 1% cutoff is about $8 million. I'm still safely in the 99%.

For ages 55-100, you need a household net worth around $11M to make it into the top 1%!

[adrift]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 In general the Fed considers one income tax filing to be one household.

I don't believe this is correct. From the report:

Quote:

The definition of “family” used throughout this article differs from that typically used in other government studies. In the SCF, a household unit is divided into a primary economic unit (PEU)—the family—and everyone else in the household. The PEU is intended to be the economically dominant single person or couple (whether married or living together as partners) and all other persons in the household who are financially interdependent with that economically dominant person or couple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daylatedollarshort The Fed data often produces different NW results than IRS estate data: From Who Rules America: "Using Fed data, about 8% of US households have a net worth exceeding $1M and the median net worth of the top 10% of US families is $1.569M. The IRS uses the estate multiplier technique to calculate the data, a more complex measure based on tax returns, capitalization of earnings power, and other factors. The estate multiplier technique has been around for decades, is more widely used, and in the opinion of many, is the more accurate number. Where the true threshold is located is impossible to determine with accuracy, but my observations in managing money support the lower number or something close to it" Who Rules America: An Investment Manager's View on the Top 1%

The IRS data is based on a tax unit. His belief in its accuracy matches his political agenda. Tax units are poorer than households on average. If you include two children with part time summer jobs in a household, you now have 3 tax units.

This is one of the ways that Picketty got things wrong in "Capital in the Twenty-First Century".