Will term 'Millionaire' lose its significance in the UK?

[Erudite geezer]

I was a young kid in the 1980s and the term 'Millionaire' for me signified someone who was very wealthy, back then.

My parents bought an average 3 bed semi for £20,000 around 1985, they still have the same property now, plus 2 others, each valued at £400,000+ now.

So, my parents have assets in excess of a million, hence are millionaires too.

If they owned the 3 properties in 1985, their assets would be around £60,000 - no where close to being millionaires.

So my question is, is the term 'Millionaire' still relevant today, in terms of indicating serious wealth, like it was 20-30 years ago?

[diablodavs]

I think you have answered your own question there - no

[otherman]

Well you've asked two questions, which have opposite answers:

Will term 'Millionaire' lose its significance

So my question is, is the term 'Millionaire' still relevant today

So yes, but also no.

Edited by otherman on Tuesday 12th December 19:45

[lucido grigio]

Dunno....

[alorotom]

Serious wealth, no definitely not even now, but then billionaire is too far away ... and other than multi-millionaire I’m not sure there is something inbetween

[marksx]

swerni said:

Are we answering the question in the title or the text?

Yes

[lucido grigio]

swerni said:

Are we answering the question in the title or the text?

I forgot the question seconds after reading it....

[Venturist]

Well there’s the inflation element, £1m in 1985 is worth about £2.8m today, I think you would still consider someone with 2.8 net worth to be very wealthy.

[GEFAFWISP]

Realistically I think for you to consider yourself a millionaire you need to have £1million+ in cash, not tied up in assets.

As you quite rightly point out, there are many many homeowners today who are 'paper-millionaires' but have nowhere near that amount in the bank so it's not quite the same.

Although, by this metric I am sure there are a lot of 'billionaires' who don't have billions in cash so who knows.

[djc206]

I think we had this asked recently. It depends how you look at it but I’d say probably not.

According to google there are close to a million households with investable assets of over £1m, so not including property but counting pensions. If you add in property I don’t know what the number would be but surely a couple of million?

Do I see 1m+ households of people living like ‘millionaires’ of old? No. According to the Daily Mail you need £2.6m to live like a millionaire whatever that means.

[bloomen]

I wouldn't consider someone sitting on a million quid's worth of immovable bricks a millionaire. That money will never be realised.

[djc206]

bloomen said:

I wouldn't consider someone sitting on a million quid's worth of immovable bricks a millionaire. That money will never be realised.

It can be though. Sell up and move to a cheaper region when you retire and bingo, millionaire.

[jonamv8]

I hear you i remember growing up and millionaire as in £1m was extremely rich, not so rich now.

Multi millionaire is the equivalent these days.

Also £1m cash at bank id say is pretty rich not taking into account assets

[anonymous-user]

Good question. The term has no significance. One of my pet peeves is when people use the term millionaire to refer to somebody who they assume to be wealthy. The term is utterly useless and signifies nothing.

The term multi-millionaire is even worse, covering a range of 2 million to 999 million? A profoundly stupid relative of mine even uses multi multi millionaire with a strong emphasis on the second multi in the same way as other idiots says very very good.

[Henners]

I work with a few, theres nothing special - they will still work until their 50-60s and retire.

I have a relative who is worth £15-20m, last weekend she was telling me how good QuidCo is. She's not tight - big house, a Tesla, 911 and Aston, but again - only retired at 55, could have done years earlier.

I'd say that having c£5m now is the same as having £1m back then. Assuming we're talking cash / something not very illiquid.

Edited by Henners on Tuesday 12th December 20:30

[slipstream 1985]

marksx said:

swerni said:

Are we answering the question in the title or the text?

Yes

Why answer the question when you can question the question

[kambites]

I wonder what proportion of the UK have a net worth of over 1m. It must be double figures if you count both property and pension pots?

[sparks_E39]

£1,000,000 would be a nice amount. It would buy a decent house outright without a mortgage for around £300k round this way. I wouldn’t be able to quit work on it, but I could just get a billy basic stress free job to tide me over, and have an easier life. It would currently take me just over 40 years to earn £1,000,000!

[kambites]

Where you live does make a big difference. Around here (Hampshire) our decent sized but otherwise fairly unremarkable family home in middle-class suburbia is worth the best part of £700k.

In London, many people will have normal four-bed detached family homes worth seven figures.

[ChocolateFrog]

kambites said:

I wonder what proportion of the UK have a net worth of over 1m. It must be double figures if you count both property and pension pots?

I doubt it. I bet the figure is closer to 1 in a 1000 if you live and work up north for example.

Maybe if you're counting just London but even then more than 1 in 10 sounds high.