Average household wealth jumps £150,000

[AtW]

In 1959, typical household wealth – including equity in property, savings, pensions and shares – was the equivalent of £72,700 in today’s money. By last year, the figure had risen to £237,000.

The biggest rise was seen in the 1980s when household wealth more than doubled, but household wealth fell by 15 per cent between 2007 and 2008 and remained 8 per cent below its 2007 high despite an improvement last year.

Nitesh Patel, economist at Halifax, said: “The past half century has seen a dramatic increase in wealth for British householders. In addition to greater overall economic prosperity, Government policy measures such as Right to Buy and the privatization of nationalized industries, coupled with the liberalization of financial markets, have provided the impetus for increased household wealth in the forms of both housing and financial assets.”

More: Average household wealth jumps

---------

So basically they say that because of house price inflation people somehow are rich even though they are massively in debt to buy those houses?

[MrMark]

So basically they say that because of house price inflation people somehow are rich even though they are massively in debt to buy those houses?

Well once the 25 years of paying the mortgage are up, the debt is gone (not in all cases I realise, bad endowment policies is one example)
However, it all depends on the UK remaining an alluring place to visit and/or live and work. If we start to see net outward migration the demand for housing may well plummet and affect house prices. I don't know how likely that is on a national scale, but I remember northern cities being battered by the economic climate of the 80s, and houses in some streets being sold at £1000 a time. It has to be said they recovered well in the 90s and early 2000s though.

[gingerjedi]

Water, water, everywhere,
And all the boards did shrink;
Water, water, everywhere,
Nor any drop to drink.

[AtW]

The point is that it's not wealth - it's the house you live in.

Effectively it means there is no real wealth generation - only imaginary driven by debt.

[MrMark]

The point is that it's not wealth - it's the house you live in.

Effectively it means there is no real wealth generation - only imaginary driven by debt.

I know what you're saying - you always have to have somewhere to live. However a lot of people would have bought in down-at-heel or "up-and-coming" places (think Clapham, Kilburn or even Notting Hill many years ago) and then at retirement age been able to sell up, buy a retirement place in Wales or Yorkshire (or abroad) and still have a fat profit.

[MrMark]

Also I know folk who bought properties in places like Leicester and Nottingham to rent out either to students or to professional workers. The rent didn't cover the mortgage to start with, but over the years the rent grew, plus the value of the houses soared - they made a packet. Seems like real wealth to me! I suspect the same trick won't / can't work today however

[Doggy Styles]

The point is that it's not wealth - it's the house you live in.

Effectively it means there is no real wealth generation - only imaginary driven by debt.

Of course it is wealth. I'll be taxed on it when I die. It is not wealth that I can easily translate into anything else, which is presumably your point, but I could downsize if I wanted, and ultimately my heirs will probably turn it into cash and spend it on something else.

[MarillionFan]

13.5 million in poverty!!!

What a load of tosh? How many of that 13.5 million have a tv,Roof over their heads, cigarettes, beer in the fridge, food to eat, clothes to wear, mobile phones, cars, playstations!!!!

******* liberals concept of real poverty versus UK poverty is shocking. The definition is based on the spread of wealth within a country. How many Saudis are defined as being in poverty!!!! Probably the same proportion.

Utter rot!!!!!!

[AtW]

Of course it is wealth.

It's not wealth for most - it's a house to live: wealth is good roads, fast railways, bridges, great schools, lots of high quality jobs that earn a lot of export royalty, great environment and also real money in the back (not inflated asset price that can go up and down), gold bars etc etc.

[SueEllen]

13.5 million in poverty!!!

What a load of tosh? How many of that 13.5 million have a tv,Roof over their heads, cigarettes, beer in the fridge, food to eat, clothes to wear, mobile phones, cars, playstations!!!!

Nit picking.

Having known a few people who lived like this the majority of them had their priorities wrong. and none of them had everything you listed.

Some would have beer in the fridge and cigarettes but no food and a couple of sets of worn out clothing. There as others would have no food but plenty of clothes. And the kids playstations etc tended to come from grandparents or other relations.

However none of them had cars as living in London if you are poor or on benefits you can survive by taking the bus. Also a PAYG mobile is cheaper than getting a landline installed as you can buy a mobile for £5-£10 there as BT charge you £125.

******* liberals concept of real poverty versus UK poverty is shocking. The definition is based on the spread of wealth within a country. How many Saudis are defined as being in poverty!!!! Probably the same proportion.

Utter rot!!!!!!

Problem is the Nu Labour solution was to throw money at the problem. Throwing money at people with poverty of mind isn't going to improve their situation.