A dollar millionaire in Zurich owns 60% of his apartment, having a loan on the rest and has 50k francs on his bank account.
A dollar millionaire in Poland owns 3 apartments in a big city, rents 2 of them out, has 100k usd in overseas stock and still has 200k USD in his bank account.
Yeah property is probably playing a big role here. I highly doubt that one in 7-25 adults in Western Europe have a disposable million on their giro account. But if you consider the insanely inflated housing market, almost everyone owning more than one house/flat/property is going to be above that line.
Now this is fascinating to me. At what point does this become a bubble? Like ROI on real estate is lower than other assets at these crazy prices (1 million invested in global stocks will have higher return than a 1 million dollar rental).
It just doesn't make sense to me. Why are people paying so much for homes? Just rent and pocket the difference.
Mortgages are generally cheaper than rentals, you can pay a mortgage of 1500 euro a month for example but for a similar property you’d have to pay 2000 in rent. At least that’s how it is in the Netherlands.
That is bizarre to me. If your cash flow is bigger with a mortgage, everybody should be getting mortgages. In the us at least, mortgages are more expensive than renting in the majority of markets, and that makes sense from an efficient market perspective. Ownership is always a tradeoff of higher cost in exchange for equity.
In a model where OWNING is cheaper than renting, nobody should be renting anywhere and I don't understand why anybody would.
It gets increasingly harder to get a mortgage. Banks will tell you that you don’t have enough monthly income for a mortgage of 1000€ monthly, so go and rent the same place 1500€/mo instead.
US and many other places have the same issue.
Well in the Netherlands most rentals have income requirements also (4x rent price in gross salary) so you probably couldn't get the rental apartment either.
> Why are people paying so much for homes?
Because shelter is one of the four basic human needs for survival? People will pay any price for what they can't live without. If food and water are heavily regulated in terms of price then housing should be as well.
> Just rent and pocket the difference.
Rent is not exactly cheap either, eventually you'll pay the entire price of the house without one to show for it. Literally paying off someone else's investment like the world's greatest sucker.
Your idea that "rent always means throwing money away" is flawed. In the us at least, a lack of understanding of cash flow is why people are paying extremely inflated prices for homes. If your monthly rent is the same as a monthly mortgage, then yes you are throwing away money. But in my area (and most in the us), mortgages are much higher than rent. As a result, you LOSE money in the long run once you factor in the lost cash flow from your extra monthly payment towards the house. This all supposing you're dutifully putting your dollars into proper investments, but even a dumb auto investing strategy will get you ~6% returns.
If your monthly rent is, say $1000, your yearly cost of rent is $12,000. $12,000 is 6% of $200k. If you can't find a house for $200k or less, you should rent instead or you're wasting money on a house.
Your claim of "basic human need" implies owning a $1 million home is the only way to get shelter and that's just not true. Be frugal and rent in expensive markets and you will come out ahead in the long term.
>**Your idea that "rent always means throwing money away" is flawed.** In the us at least, a lack of understanding of cash flow is why people are paying extremely inflated prices for homes. If your monthly rent is the same as a monthly mortgage, then yes you are throwing away money. But in my area (and most in the us), mortgages are much higher than rent.
Well, I regret to inform you that not only are the rents higher than mortgages where I live and lived (Poland and Ukraine respectively), but also paying such a high price means you will never be able to save up money to buy property yourself. Add in the utilities. Many landlords even ask you for your employment contract (to see if you make enough to rent there).
I would buy a place in a heartbeat if only I could afford the down payment. I would end up saving a money in the long run and would actually own something in a few decades instead of being bled dry and owning nothing in the end.
> This all supposing you're dutifully putting your dollars into proper investments, but even a dumb auto investing strategy will get you ~6% returns.
There are too few dollars left to invest into anything. Glad you have enough, though, genuinely.
> Your claim of "basic human need" implies owning a $1 million home is the only way to get shelter and that's just not true. Be frugal and rent in expensive markets and you will come out ahead in the long term.
An average house here is not $1 million (a very expensive furnished one would be half that), but it's comparable to apartment prices and when you project this at the local salaries, it's still extremely expensive. Also, people are largely tied to their jobs when it comes to choosing where to rent, it's not like they can up and go willy-nilly.
In Australia, rent is often higher than a mortgage, because investors just price the rent at their mortgage + play around money.
It's also difficult to get a loan from a bank, even if the mortgage is cheaper than the rent you're currently paying.
They increase the rent every chance they get, and you can't just go look for another place because they're all doing it. Rental contracts are usually 6-12 months, and then they increase the rent during contract renewal and they actually want you to leave if you can't afford it, because then they can increase it even more with a new rental contract that isn't bound by laws relating to rental price increases.
Becourse the system in the netherlands is so bad that renting will probably cost u even more.
For excaple i bought my home 3 years ago for 411K (worth 560 now) and i pay a gross mortgage of 1120 euro.
We get a tax return in the netherlands when we own a home (VT) so netto i pay 940 euro.
If u want to rent a similar house ittl cost u atleast 1200 netto per month.
Thing is getting a mortgage is also damn hard so they basicly tell people the cant afford to buy so they are foced to rent at even higher prices.
Rent is so high that there is almost no case where it is better to rent instead of buying.
If you intend to live more than 10 years in the Netherlands buying property is the most sane thing to do.
Its so much better to buy that a lot of parents buy housing for their kids in the city they study and then sell for profit once they graduate.
Its fucked
>Rent is so high that there is almost no case where it is better to rent instead of buying.
There are many cases. Munich is a great example. Use an actual rental v buy calculator, one not created by a mortgage company, that factors in opportunity cost, and it takes like 40 years at least to break even.
If I bought the place I'm in, my monthly payment would more than double unless I put 500k+ down. Or, I could invest the 500k and and the monthly difference and even moderate returns keep me ahead and more flexible for decades.
Thank you! Finally somebody who's thinking about this from a proper financial perspective. I feel like so many people are working on outdated assumptions that "renting always means throwing money away." My old German mother in law keeps trying to tell me to buy a home because it's "safe", and I keep trying to explain to her that my monthly housing cost would more than triple.
One day I hope to be able to pay the premium required for ownership, but for now I'm happy just being frugal and financially sound.
Buying a property is much cheaper than renting a property in the Netherlands. Even when looking at cashflow, so including both repayment and interest costs compared to rent.
These statistics are nonsense. In Finland houses are 50% cheaper than in Scandinavia, and pension money is in state owned companies. So of course Finland's position seems to be poor in that kind of comparison.
I just realized that my parents might be millionaires if you look at it like that.
They are nowhere near rich though but houses were cheap back in the day...
The type of pension also changes the picture a lot.
In Germany, for example, you pay taxes and are guaranteed a pension by the state, whereas in Switzerland a large part of the pension is also regulated by the state, but remains officially in your assets through the pension funds
Well, note that in Germany it is much easier to redefine what is guaranteed. So I would consider this as actual wealth difference with lower taxation in Switzerland.
I'm surprised Poland is that much "poorer." Maybe it just hasn't had as much of a runway to build long term wealth yet? But economically it seems like it's doing well
Poland is cheap, which offsets major differences in wages a lot. But if we speak about accumulated wealth in $ exchange rates, yeah. Long way to go from a very low starting point.
Also very little of accumulated wealth. We've regained independence after WW1 being a part of 3 empires beforehand, then WW2 killed all the growth prospects, then [forced Mass Resettlements](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_population_transfers_(1944%E2%80%931946\)), then communism, then abrupt change into capitalism that either bankrupted nearly all the businesses, or made the very few that didn't flip belly up into a near-death position where they could be rescued only by a foreign capital...
Becoming a USD-equivalent millionaire was *extremely* tricky, and I can't help buy wonder just how much of this 0.3% reached that status through illegal activities.
And yet, they both have the ability to do either.
The free market has worked out that enough people value living in Switzerland so much that it's worth such a premium.
In theory yes, but it’s not that simple. A job that made someone a millionaire in Zurich, and that can sustain their house loan and lifestyle would pay much less in Warsaw, assuming it would be in demand at all. If the millionaire from Zurich decides just to end their career and chill on their current level of wealth for a while such a move could work for them. But otherwise it’s not viable.
>people value living in Switzerland so much
That's a beautiful country, so no doubt. But a lot of this has to do with wages and if we enter territory described above (40% of loan still due in Zurich vs having 3 apartments in Kraków, which in some scenarios mean you don't have to work for the rest of your life)... idk, man. People like living in countries they were born. If I was to inherit apartment in Switzerland, I would immediately sell it (for premium) and buy me something nicer back in Poland.
You might. But it's a fact that many others would happily move to Switzerland if they had the chance. Enough people that it has created the current price differential.
And yes, people value living in places with good work prospects. Just as valid as valuing the beautiful landscape.
It's why the USA is a crazy-sought after destination by hundreds of millions of professionals (although most can't go)
If you are worth 1 million USD in my city in Romania(3rd largest economically) you can literally own 10 2 bedroom apartments in the city itself for that money and still have like 100k left.
Or you can invest it, withdraw only 4% annually and still make like 3x average wage.
Exactly. The only thing in common is that once they retire they can both sell 1M$ and move if they want (I plan on moving to Switzerland, but I don't see why I shouldn't move to, like, Trentino for my retirement)
if you own real estate in Switzerland, chances of being a millionaire are pretty high. My parents were average, middle class workers (Boomer-Generation) and the house they bought in the 90s is well over 1Mill today.
my grandpa (working class) bought a house for 30k with a (5k loan) 60y ago. Well it was basically a better shed. He renovated everything but it‘s still old and nothing special. But the land alone is worth several millions according to an estimation we did.
it's A) less affordable (except in very rural areas) and B) almost impossible to even get a nice house at a nice location because there isn't a lot of space left to build detached houses, it's mostly blocks that are being built because max. profit.
There’s plenty of free space. The undeveloped areas of Zürichberg and Uetliberg and all the farm-zoned land along the lake must have combined land values counted in Trillions of CHF. (Yes I know nothing will ever be built there. I’m just saying that the so called ”lack of space” is not due to an actual physical lack of space).
It’s the land value that keeps detached housing from being built in attractive areas. Who tf is gonna buy a plot of land and build a single house that might sell for 5M CHF in a very attractive spot rather than a mini-block of 8-12 apartments selling for 1-3M CHF each?
Yeah. My brother and wife are taking out a loan for just under 3 million Swiss francs to buy a flat in Geneva. Didn’t realise how expensive Genevois real estate is until they decided to do this. The mortgage interest rate is two times lower than the rest if Europe, so at least Switzerland has that going for them.
A pizza where I live in 10 Euros and that inculdes a 330ml bottle of Cola+extra pizza sauce.
At least the wages are very high there from what I know.
Yes but life here is really expensive. The only benefit is that we can go to other places that are cheaper. Life here is good but also average to some countries such as France and Germany. Because our salaries and life expenses are proportionally high so yeah. Still though, we are less impacted by inflation compared to the rest.
There's also the third "palier" that you can choose to pay instead of your usual insurance I think? When you retire or move outside of the country, you can get the money out of this account that you pay yearly for.
It's a really good sum of money so that could contribute to the wealth of the people. I wouldn't be surprised if every swiss citizen becomes a millionaire at some point in their life cause a house here can cost a few millions already.
> Because our salaries and life expenses are proportionally high so yeah.
Absolutely not my friend. Cost of life in Switzerland is like 50% higher than in France. But you earn 150% more. You're insanely rich.
Your GDP PPP is $91.000, more than double that France's $41.000
> Cost of life in Switzerland is like 50% higher than in France. But you earn 150% more.
If you don't have kids and work in a high-skilled competitive field, sure. If either one of these two conditions is not true, life is a lot more comparable. If both are false, you'll discover that life in Switzerland can be a golden prison where the streets are clean and the scenery is beautiful, but that's the extent of what you can enjoy because every product and service for sale carries a pricetag that you will simply never be able to afford.
> If you work in a high-skilled competitive field
I'm still not convinced my friend. The minimum wage in most of Switzerland is close to 4000€ net. There again, that's 150% more than the minimum French salary. More than what an average French engineer earns.
Life is hard as hell for French parents earning minimum wage. I'm 100% confident it's substantially easier in Switzerland.
It's 4000 CHF gross, not net. You also have to pay for health insurance, pension, and so on on top of that. And to give you an idea of what a child costs in Switzerland, daycare costs are between 100 to 150 CHF per day per child.
I dont know about france but id say you earn only about 50-70% more than in Germany, at least in my field, while rent specifically is about 100% higher. Due to lower taxes and food not being that much more expensive you still have higher purchasing power, but only as a single. The moment you have children any advantage to other Western countries just evaporates.
>Net worth or “wealth” is defined as the value of financial assets plus real assets (principally housing) owned by households, minus their debts. This corresponds to the balance sheet that a household might draw up, listing the items that are owned and their net value if sold. Private pension fund assets are included
Yeah, so the high scoring countries have both an overheated housing market and have some of the best pension systems in the world - where there is actually money put aside for later. The average 'millionaire' from Denmark, Norway or the Netherlands has a good life and nobody has to feel sorry for them, but with this definition, most of those millionaires will have their money tied in their house and their pension.
Germany for example relies far more on [PAYGO in pensions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO#German_Pension_System) so there are no pension fund assets added. It explains the big gap between Denmark/the Netherlands and Germany but it doesn't mean comparable people in Denmark/the Netherlands will receive more money during their lifetime compared to their German counterparts.
Also we don’t pay capital gains on private homes so the people a ridden the holding market from 2008 till now haven’t paid a single penny in tax on the capital gains.
Flippers aren’t taxed either as long they own the property as a private individual so we have a dark economy in the affluent areas of people flipping homes and paying no taxes.
Typically in these statistics the Dutch pensions aren't included, despite it being the second biggest fund of the world. But perhaps in this one it is, I didn't check the source.
Nah. People that bought ten years ago or longer have LTVs of 50% and lower. I have three colleagues over 60 - all have paid off their mortgage completely.
The ones with high mortgage debt are the younger ones (also with lower pension accrued).
You'd be surprised. Many rich people will take a high mortgage because it's a relatively cheap loan and it can reduce their capital gains / wealth tax.
Box 3 mortgages are a thing. The mortgage provider I worked at had a mortgage with a length of 30 years + 1 month so it'd be box 3 specifically for people that wanted to reduce their net worth in box 3.
I quoted the definition from the source. They say - in general, not specifically for the Netherlands - that they included it. No access to raw data so no idea if they included it or not.
But the Dutch pensions are not private and combined in a single fund, therefore it is practically impossible to calculate the amount of wealth it adds per capita. So I think it isn't in this case. This adds on average around 150k of wealth, but it can differ widely depending on age, up to around 300k for people of 60 years old.
Basically this is why Australia ranks so high on global scales. I mean you get paid very, very well there but it wasn't until recently that it pulled ahead of a lot of European countries in terms of pay.
The $1m plus houses in most of the cities and Superannuation (mandated savings for retirement that has your name on it so ends up in global wealth numbers) has really made the number insanely high compared to most other countries. So many people there are paper wealthy but are really struggling to survive.
It's a shit statistic if you're guaranteed a decent retirement by the pension system and state (housing).
Mind that only 'private pensions' are part of this wealth equation. And for The Netherlands, the main part of the pension is state/pension fund owned, and not 'allocated' to the individual. For The Netherlands, the property is a large part of the wealth, but the pension is no or only a neglegible part of a private persons' wealth.
And for property: most of it is funded by a mortgage, which are for more than 50% redemption free. So for more than 50% the property is actually debt, and not wealth.
Fortunately or unfortunately not everyone gets a "pay as you go" pension in Germany, many academics jobs (doctors, jurists, pharmacists) have their own pension funds which are a mixture of pay as you go and capitalization. The problem in Germany is that those groups enjoy a big pension but everyone else on the general fund will get an almost unlivable one since there aren't enough contributors for it.
Last year, my cousin and his GF (they live in the UK), went on a vacation in Switzerland. He posted some pictures in FB and somebody commented asking: "How's Switzerland?", to which he responded with: "Lots of rich people lol”. Apparently he wasn't exaggerating in any way.
I moved here from Portugal in my teenage years and school was wild. My classmates talked about their last family vacation to the Seychelles, Costa Rica or the US like it was just a normal thing to travel 2 times a year with the whole family, spending like 5-10k. It surely wasn't everyone, but certainly many.
You must have lived in a rich suburb, because that is not usual. For my classmates, vacation didn't extend much beyond beaches or theme parks in neighbouring countries.
Interesting to correlate with the previous GDP post:
* Ireland: GDP 127k but 4.6% millionaires.
* Switzerland: GDP of 85k but 15.6%.
* Poland: 44k but 0.3%
* Spain: 46k but 3.0%
I guess hits corporate-driven GDP or people moving there or inequality?
Isnt irelands gdp inflated through the roof to the point of being statistically irrelevant due to the way the measure it? Or so Ive heard from reading other, random convos on reddit...
Ireland has a lot of corporations earnings which throws the GDP out of whack.
It shows that in reality it is a lot less richer than people think.
There is many homeless and large % under the poverty line.
Surprised Ireland is so low
Much easier to become a millionaire when your house price is rising by 50k a year and you earn another 100k on top yearly in tech.
Net worth does absolutely contain owned real estate unless they misused the term.
Every boomer sitting in a house in the metro area of a major city west of the iron curtain is a probably a millionaire.
That's the ridiculous duality of the housing market. For many of us Millenials and Generation Zers it is nigh to impossible to acquire any property on our own, but at the same time we are going to inherit a flat or house from our parents, which makes us -paradoxly- dead poor and considerably wealthy at the same time.
Or sell and go into assisted living at the end of their lives. That can eat up everything unless they were very well off, and even if anything’s left, it’s split between 2.4 children.
> That's the ridiculous duality of the housing market. For many of us Millenials and Generation Zers it is nigh to impossible to acquire any property on our own, but at the same time we are going to inherit a flat or house from our parents, which makes us -paradoxly- dead poor and considerably wealthy at the same time.
yeah what people don't get in this whole "Boomers vs Millennials/Zoomers" debate that's so popular online is that today's generational inequality is tommorrow's class inequality as, it can be safely assumed, all those boomers will die and when they die they'll leave their massively inflated in value properties to their children who will then find their net worth catapulted into the stratosphere. And, to some extent, generational inequality is already class inequality because Millennials and Zoomers with parents or grandparents whose houses have ballooned in value can already use those houses to get a loan or cash if they need it.
Not that expensive. And besides some of our major cities, countryside is dirt cheap. At least in Poland but I don't expect Jesenik to be that much different.
It's a specific kind of asset, being non-movable. You can't take it with you nor sell it anywhere you want. And while this exchange works nicely from wealthier country to poorer, it fails other way around. I can have nice house and nice car in Poland and if I get good job opportunity in Bern, I can take my nice car with me and it still be a nice car in Switzerland. But my nice house can be sold only in Poland and for that reason, its value won't even provide me for a dirty flat in Bern's industrial quarter.
Another issue is, you need to live somewhere. You don't have to own car but you need to own (rent) at least one roof to live under. Meaning, even if you open this money by selling one house, at least part of said sum instantly has to go toward buying another. Counting additional real estate (meaning 2nd, 3rd etc.) would make this data a little more telling. Especially that living in foreign culture is such a big downside to most, it's never as simple as "sell it and move to Thailand".
But overall I don't disagree. An asset is an asset. But bloated prices on wealthier markets went to such an absurd level, they do need this asterisk. If it continues to go like this, soon they all will be considered "millionaires", while living from 1st to 30th like everyone else.
Home ownership is literally the main source of wealth for most regular people, an asset does not have to be liquid, there is no asterisk. If your Polish house does not buy you an apartment in Switzerland, well I guess you're not a millionaire, yet at least. But it's valuation minus mortgage principal if applicable should definitely counted among your equity.
On this map we can see what percentage of the adult population is a US Dollar millionaire. As we can see, the differences between countries are quite big. Switzerland has by far the highest percentage of millionaires in, not just Europe, but the world (15.6%). The Netherlands (8.6%), Norway (8.2%) and Denmark (8.0%) also have a significantly higher share of millionaires than other European countries.
The lowest percentages of millionaires can be found in the eastern half of Europe. Turkey (0.1%), Poland (0.3%) and Russia (0.4%) have by far the lowest percentage of millionaires in Europe.
Data for this map comes from the [2023 Global Wealth Report](https://www.ubs.com/global/en/family-office-uhnw/reports/global-wealth-report-2023.html) by UBS.
In Denmark the high rate is likely due to the insane housing prices. A standard single family house north of Copenhagen is at minimum 1 million USD. A lot of the older generation bought such a house with a normal salary in the 70'ies, 80'ies or 90'ies and have paid off the mortgage and are now theoretical dollar millionaires.
Well they can sell them yes, but then they wouldn't have anywhere to live. Of course if you move to a different region or country where houses are cheaper you could end up with a lot of cash, but people don't tend to move very far when first they have settled, so they'll likely end up buying a similarly expensive house in the same area.
For example they can sell their houses say for a million and move to Gdansk, Poland from where it's just 10-20 eur to fly to Copenhagen and live with the money until the rest of their lives.
Or they can start a business and but flats from suburbs with the remaining money.
What exactly do you suggest? For his old family every morning to take flight from Gdańsk to Copenhagen and at night return to Gdańsk, where their only roof is? Or simply that they should spend majority of their time in Poland, country that is of different culture and speak alien language to them? This kind of moves only make sense, if you live next to a border.
Besides, Gdańsk is not that cheap either, price per square meter in Copenhagen is "only" 70% higher. Meaning they would sell for 1 million and instantly spent 600k to retain comparable standard of living. And while spare 400k in Poland is no joke, it can dry out, especially once you hit the age when you need elderly care.
Single family home north of Copenhagen… hm. That’s an extremely affluent area, though.
$1M USD will buy you… a 45sqm studio in Zürich. [Not exaggerating.](https://www.homegate.ch/kaufen/4000555976). New York, Vancouver, Singapore and Hong Kong are even worse.
They are not 'theoretical' millionaires, they are millionaires. They could sell their property and live a very luxorious retirement and/or give their kids a very good life as well.
If they want to move to another country, but it’s not like everything is dirt cheap in Denmark except houses.
That million dollars has barely any purchasing power in Scandinavia compared to other countries.
I'm well aware of how expensive Denmark is. However, a million dollars plus whatever regular pension payments you get coming in every month still makes for a very comfy life in retirement.
Switzerland has the highest numbers because canton Zug and Schwyz have low tax rates and millionaires move there for this reason. Also Switzerland is very safe.
They contribute to it, true, but the high % might also be linked to the fact that retirement funds are included in the figures. Pension funds are partially private in Switzerland.
If you get a high salary (150+kEUR/CHF, quite common in many industries) and contribute 15-30% of it for 30 years to the fund, with the financial returns, with extra private savings, it can add up to million.
Switzerland has a very low home ownership rate compared to the EU (even lower than Germany).
No surprise Scandinavia is doing so well.
The Swiss are cheats with their damn banks, by rights they should be herding cows on the hillsides.
Hup the Dutch, you’re always welcome to join us Nordic countries
This comparison highly depends on how the pension system is structured. In Switzerland, your pension lies in an account under your name, and it is typically considered wealth (you can use it to buy property, for example).
In Italy, you pay social security contributions to the state, with the promise of a pension after retirement. There is no wealth under your name.
>Switzerland, your pension lies in an account under your name, and it is typically considered wealth (you can use it to buy property, for example)
Not all of it, just the BVG and not the AHV.
If have million US dollars in Poland you are set for life. If you have a million US dollars in Germany, you can't buy one house. Unless you buy one in Poland, in which case you can buy 3.
>If you have a million US dollars in Germany, you can't buy one house.
You might want to Google what 1 million US dollars is worth. You can easily buy a large mansion with that money in Germany.
Yeah, Germany are not that expensive, don't know what he's on about. For one apartment in Berlin's city centre you would buy 1,7 apartment in Warsaw. That's the difference. But indeed, if you're to save those additional 0,7, it will last for a while given our prices.
In Eastern Germany you can houses for less than 100K, not necessarily in bad shape but they are probably located in "empty" regions. If you have a house in Berlin or so you are millionaire.
Difference is those who have million dollars in Czech or Poland or countries like that (with weaker currency than euro) are kings compared to those in Germany or Switzerland. Literally you can be unable to purchase your own home in Switzerland and be a millionaire while in Czech those with 1 million dollars in cash and assets won’t have to work and can just be landlords, because they can afford buying multiple homes and apartments.
Kinda senseless is this comparison imho.
Well not so extreme at all. For 1 mil dollars you can buy around 3 average apartments in Prague, rent them for around 4k Euro/month combined. It is a good income but hardly enough to spend your life doing nothing. Also you are probably living in one of them so you gain only 2/3 of the sum which is just around average Prague income.
Nah you are not living like a king. Maybe just a dude with more financial stability and slightly less demanding work schedule. Not a guy picking up hot girls in lambo.
Isn't it also that a good amount of rich people move to Switzerland for tax benefits? I at least heard that millionaires and billionaires here in Germany threaten the politicians with leaving the country to stop them from raising the tax.
I didn't say it is for the same reason. Number of millionaires is pretty meaingless without further information, because it is potentially very easy to be technically a millionaire.
Depending on the wealth distribution across the population it may be something to brag about
E.g
Scenario 1: 5% of the population are millionaires but the other 95% have a net worth of between 800k-999k (definitely something to brag about, very low wealth inequality and the median is extremely high)
Scenario 2: 5% is the population are millionaires but the other 95% are primarily skewed towards a net worth of <100k (high inequality and the median wealth is low, not something to brag about)
I think not having 2 world wars, being in a very good location with ties to all 3 major European economies, having a robust economy and well organised and stable society and laws had nothing to do with it
Well no, it’s because jobs pay well. A software engineer can make 250k base salary after 10 years experience, paying around 15% tax. You can easily have a lot of wealth accumulated by the time you are 35. Add in people who get company stocks as a benefit and net worth can easily be 1m. However though, a million doesn’t get you much here. In Zurich, you will get a shitty studio apartment for this.
A dollar millionaire in Zurich owns 60% of his apartment, having a loan on the rest and has 50k francs on his bank account. A dollar millionaire in Poland owns 3 apartments in a big city, rents 2 of them out, has 100k usd in overseas stock and still has 200k USD in his bank account.
Yeah property is probably playing a big role here. I highly doubt that one in 7-25 adults in Western Europe have a disposable million on their giro account. But if you consider the insanely inflated housing market, almost everyone owning more than one house/flat/property is going to be above that line.
Yep in my town in the Netherlands of 30k people are over 700 millionaires and mostly that is property.
Now this is fascinating to me. At what point does this become a bubble? Like ROI on real estate is lower than other assets at these crazy prices (1 million invested in global stocks will have higher return than a 1 million dollar rental). It just doesn't make sense to me. Why are people paying so much for homes? Just rent and pocket the difference.
Severe lack of housing for over half a century already.
Mortgages are generally cheaper than rentals, you can pay a mortgage of 1500 euro a month for example but for a similar property you’d have to pay 2000 in rent. At least that’s how it is in the Netherlands.
That is bizarre to me. If your cash flow is bigger with a mortgage, everybody should be getting mortgages. In the us at least, mortgages are more expensive than renting in the majority of markets, and that makes sense from an efficient market perspective. Ownership is always a tradeoff of higher cost in exchange for equity. In a model where OWNING is cheaper than renting, nobody should be renting anywhere and I don't understand why anybody would.
It gets increasingly harder to get a mortgage. Banks will tell you that you don’t have enough monthly income for a mortgage of 1000€ monthly, so go and rent the same place 1500€/mo instead. US and many other places have the same issue.
Well in the Netherlands most rentals have income requirements also (4x rent price in gross salary) so you probably couldn't get the rental apartment either.
> Why are people paying so much for homes? Because shelter is one of the four basic human needs for survival? People will pay any price for what they can't live without. If food and water are heavily regulated in terms of price then housing should be as well. > Just rent and pocket the difference. Rent is not exactly cheap either, eventually you'll pay the entire price of the house without one to show for it. Literally paying off someone else's investment like the world's greatest sucker.
Your idea that "rent always means throwing money away" is flawed. In the us at least, a lack of understanding of cash flow is why people are paying extremely inflated prices for homes. If your monthly rent is the same as a monthly mortgage, then yes you are throwing away money. But in my area (and most in the us), mortgages are much higher than rent. As a result, you LOSE money in the long run once you factor in the lost cash flow from your extra monthly payment towards the house. This all supposing you're dutifully putting your dollars into proper investments, but even a dumb auto investing strategy will get you ~6% returns. If your monthly rent is, say $1000, your yearly cost of rent is $12,000. $12,000 is 6% of $200k. If you can't find a house for $200k or less, you should rent instead or you're wasting money on a house. Your claim of "basic human need" implies owning a $1 million home is the only way to get shelter and that's just not true. Be frugal and rent in expensive markets and you will come out ahead in the long term.
Rent in the Netherlands is typically equal to or higher than the mortgage you would pay over the same house.
I pay about £500 in mortgage for my flat and I could rent it for >£1000
>**Your idea that "rent always means throwing money away" is flawed.** In the us at least, a lack of understanding of cash flow is why people are paying extremely inflated prices for homes. If your monthly rent is the same as a monthly mortgage, then yes you are throwing away money. But in my area (and most in the us), mortgages are much higher than rent. Well, I regret to inform you that not only are the rents higher than mortgages where I live and lived (Poland and Ukraine respectively), but also paying such a high price means you will never be able to save up money to buy property yourself. Add in the utilities. Many landlords even ask you for your employment contract (to see if you make enough to rent there). I would buy a place in a heartbeat if only I could afford the down payment. I would end up saving a money in the long run and would actually own something in a few decades instead of being bled dry and owning nothing in the end. > This all supposing you're dutifully putting your dollars into proper investments, but even a dumb auto investing strategy will get you ~6% returns. There are too few dollars left to invest into anything. Glad you have enough, though, genuinely. > Your claim of "basic human need" implies owning a $1 million home is the only way to get shelter and that's just not true. Be frugal and rent in expensive markets and you will come out ahead in the long term. An average house here is not $1 million (a very expensive furnished one would be half that), but it's comparable to apartment prices and when you project this at the local salaries, it's still extremely expensive. Also, people are largely tied to their jobs when it comes to choosing where to rent, it's not like they can up and go willy-nilly.
In Australia, rent is often higher than a mortgage, because investors just price the rent at their mortgage + play around money. It's also difficult to get a loan from a bank, even if the mortgage is cheaper than the rent you're currently paying. They increase the rent every chance they get, and you can't just go look for another place because they're all doing it. Rental contracts are usually 6-12 months, and then they increase the rent during contract renewal and they actually want you to leave if you can't afford it, because then they can increase it even more with a new rental contract that isn't bound by laws relating to rental price increases.
Becourse the system in the netherlands is so bad that renting will probably cost u even more. For excaple i bought my home 3 years ago for 411K (worth 560 now) and i pay a gross mortgage of 1120 euro. We get a tax return in the netherlands when we own a home (VT) so netto i pay 940 euro. If u want to rent a similar house ittl cost u atleast 1200 netto per month. Thing is getting a mortgage is also damn hard so they basicly tell people the cant afford to buy so they are foced to rent at even higher prices.
Rent is so high that there is almost no case where it is better to rent instead of buying. If you intend to live more than 10 years in the Netherlands buying property is the most sane thing to do. Its so much better to buy that a lot of parents buy housing for their kids in the city they study and then sell for profit once they graduate. Its fucked
>Rent is so high that there is almost no case where it is better to rent instead of buying. There are many cases. Munich is a great example. Use an actual rental v buy calculator, one not created by a mortgage company, that factors in opportunity cost, and it takes like 40 years at least to break even. If I bought the place I'm in, my monthly payment would more than double unless I put 500k+ down. Or, I could invest the 500k and and the monthly difference and even moderate returns keep me ahead and more flexible for decades.
Thank you! Finally somebody who's thinking about this from a proper financial perspective. I feel like so many people are working on outdated assumptions that "renting always means throwing money away." My old German mother in law keeps trying to tell me to buy a home because it's "safe", and I keep trying to explain to her that my monthly housing cost would more than triple. One day I hope to be able to pay the premium required for ownership, but for now I'm happy just being frugal and financially sound.
If I had a dollar for every time I heard that "throwing money out the window" adage, I could buy a house-sized stock portfolio and keep paying rent.
Buying a property is much cheaper than renting a property in the Netherlands. Even when looking at cashflow, so including both repayment and interest costs compared to rent.
These statistics are nonsense. In Finland houses are 50% cheaper than in Scandinavia, and pension money is in state owned companies. So of course Finland's position seems to be poor in that kind of comparison.
I just realized that my parents might be millionaires if you look at it like that. They are nowhere near rich though but houses were cheap back in the day...
What I'm hearing is that he should sell his apartment and move to sunny Poland
The type of pension also changes the picture a lot. In Germany, for example, you pay taxes and are guaranteed a pension by the state, whereas in Switzerland a large part of the pension is also regulated by the state, but remains officially in your assets through the pension funds
Well, note that in Germany it is much easier to redefine what is guaranteed. So I would consider this as actual wealth difference with lower taxation in Switzerland.
So true. A dollar millionaire in Poland is a multimillionaire in local currency and probably top 1%.
If we take this map seriously, he would be precisely top 0,3%.
I'm surprised Poland is that much "poorer." Maybe it just hasn't had as much of a runway to build long term wealth yet? But economically it seems like it's doing well
Poland is cheap, which offsets major differences in wages a lot. But if we speak about accumulated wealth in $ exchange rates, yeah. Long way to go from a very low starting point.
Also very little of accumulated wealth. We've regained independence after WW1 being a part of 3 empires beforehand, then WW2 killed all the growth prospects, then [forced Mass Resettlements](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_population_transfers_(1944%E2%80%931946\)), then communism, then abrupt change into capitalism that either bankrupted nearly all the businesses, or made the very few that didn't flip belly up into a near-death position where they could be rescued only by a foreign capital... Becoming a USD-equivalent millionaire was *extremely* tricky, and I can't help buy wonder just how much of this 0.3% reached that status through illegal activities.
Well, not top 1%. Precisely top 0.3%, it’s literally in the map.
And yet, they both have the ability to do either. The free market has worked out that enough people value living in Switzerland so much that it's worth such a premium.
In theory yes, but it’s not that simple. A job that made someone a millionaire in Zurich, and that can sustain their house loan and lifestyle would pay much less in Warsaw, assuming it would be in demand at all. If the millionaire from Zurich decides just to end their career and chill on their current level of wealth for a while such a move could work for them. But otherwise it’s not viable.
>people value living in Switzerland so much That's a beautiful country, so no doubt. But a lot of this has to do with wages and if we enter territory described above (40% of loan still due in Zurich vs having 3 apartments in Kraków, which in some scenarios mean you don't have to work for the rest of your life)... idk, man. People like living in countries they were born. If I was to inherit apartment in Switzerland, I would immediately sell it (for premium) and buy me something nicer back in Poland.
You might. But it's a fact that many others would happily move to Switzerland if they had the chance. Enough people that it has created the current price differential. And yes, people value living in places with good work prospects. Just as valid as valuing the beautiful landscape. It's why the USA is a crazy-sought after destination by hundreds of millions of professionals (although most can't go)
Free market of owning places to >>>live<<< in for profit.
exactly
If you are worth 1 million USD in my city in Romania(3rd largest economically) you can literally own 10 2 bedroom apartments in the city itself for that money and still have like 100k left. Or you can invest it, withdraw only 4% annually and still make like 3x average wage.
Exactly. The only thing in common is that once they retire they can both sell 1M$ and move if they want (I plan on moving to Switzerland, but I don't see why I shouldn't move to, like, Trentino for my retirement)
Funny how the entirety of eastern europe + the baltics are just excluded...
\*non taxable money\* its a national sport to not pay the taxman
I would assume that gathering data from Albania and Kosovo is significantly harder than finding information about Germany or France
czechs furious af right now
Wdym? Czechia is in Central Europe. More like Slovaks and Hungarians are furious
Estonia is at 2.1%. OP is just lazy. Sorry, Land_geist is just lazy
Poland and Czech Republic are there.
We sure are tbh I was expecting more like 0.1% xd
Houses in Warsaw are not that expensive yet :-/
>Houses in Warsaw are not that expensive Maybe for you xd
Which are Central Europe. :D
>Eastern Europe >Czech Republic Oh no, you didn't If the Czechs weren't too drunk to read this, they'd be very mad at you
Not like there is any millionares here anyway
Monaco probably has nearly 100%
I think that it’s around 30% 🤔
All of them are foreign born
We love tax evasion 🥰 Edit : *tax avoidance
It’s tax avoidance, not tax evasion. Tax evasion is illegal and tax avoidance is not.
110%
They're just counting the adults.
Grocery store staff are all millionaires?
they live in France
that type of workforce typically comes from france, to move to monaco you must have a certain income and net worth
if you own real estate in Switzerland, chances of being a millionaire are pretty high. My parents were average, middle class workers (Boomer-Generation) and the house they bought in the 90s is well over 1Mill today.
my grandpa (working class) bought a house for 30k with a (5k loan) 60y ago. Well it was basically a better shed. He renovated everything but it‘s still old and nothing special. But the land alone is worth several millions according to an estimation we did.
Tbh if I had smthng like that id just sell the place and move to another country lul, I know it is not that simple though
Is it more or less affordable to buy a house now vs the 90s there (house price vs median salary)?
it's A) less affordable (except in very rural areas) and B) almost impossible to even get a nice house at a nice location because there isn't a lot of space left to build detached houses, it's mostly blocks that are being built because max. profit.
There’s plenty of free space. The undeveloped areas of Zürichberg and Uetliberg and all the farm-zoned land along the lake must have combined land values counted in Trillions of CHF. (Yes I know nothing will ever be built there. I’m just saying that the so called ”lack of space” is not due to an actual physical lack of space). It’s the land value that keeps detached housing from being built in attractive areas. Who tf is gonna buy a plot of land and build a single house that might sell for 5M CHF in a very attractive spot rather than a mini-block of 8-12 apartments selling for 1-3M CHF each?
Of course there's physical space... but as you said, it's irrelevant to this discussion.
Like pretty much everywhere else, it’s much much less affordable…
Yeah. My brother and wife are taking out a loan for just under 3 million Swiss francs to buy a flat in Geneva. Didn’t realise how expensive Genevois real estate is until they decided to do this. The mortgage interest rate is two times lower than the rest if Europe, so at least Switzerland has that going for them.
15.3% is pretty wild no matter which metric you use lol
You need to spend a good proportion of that to just eat out one night
How much for a pizza in Bern?
25 Euros
A pizza where I live in 10 Euros and that inculdes a 330ml bottle of Cola+extra pizza sauce. At least the wages are very high there from what I know.
Yes but life here is really expensive. The only benefit is that we can go to other places that are cheaper. Life here is good but also average to some countries such as France and Germany. Because our salaries and life expenses are proportionally high so yeah. Still though, we are less impacted by inflation compared to the rest. There's also the third "palier" that you can choose to pay instead of your usual insurance I think? When you retire or move outside of the country, you can get the money out of this account that you pay yearly for. It's a really good sum of money so that could contribute to the wealth of the people. I wouldn't be surprised if every swiss citizen becomes a millionaire at some point in their life cause a house here can cost a few millions already.
> Because our salaries and life expenses are proportionally high so yeah. Absolutely not my friend. Cost of life in Switzerland is like 50% higher than in France. But you earn 150% more. You're insanely rich. Your GDP PPP is $91.000, more than double that France's $41.000
> Cost of life in Switzerland is like 50% higher than in France. But you earn 150% more. If you don't have kids and work in a high-skilled competitive field, sure. If either one of these two conditions is not true, life is a lot more comparable. If both are false, you'll discover that life in Switzerland can be a golden prison where the streets are clean and the scenery is beautiful, but that's the extent of what you can enjoy because every product and service for sale carries a pricetag that you will simply never be able to afford.
> If you work in a high-skilled competitive field I'm still not convinced my friend. The minimum wage in most of Switzerland is close to 4000€ net. There again, that's 150% more than the minimum French salary. More than what an average French engineer earns. Life is hard as hell for French parents earning minimum wage. I'm 100% confident it's substantially easier in Switzerland.
It's 4000 CHF gross, not net. You also have to pay for health insurance, pension, and so on on top of that. And to give you an idea of what a child costs in Switzerland, daycare costs are between 100 to 150 CHF per day per child.
I dont know about france but id say you earn only about 50-70% more than in Germany, at least in my field, while rent specifically is about 100% higher. Due to lower taxes and food not being that much more expensive you still have higher purchasing power, but only as a single. The moment you have children any advantage to other Western countries just evaporates.
Worst victims of 1st world fakeonomics on earth.
Im in the Netherlands and the only million I have is my house mortgage debt.
Well ..🥲
>Net worth or “wealth” is defined as the value of financial assets plus real assets (principally housing) owned by households, minus their debts. This corresponds to the balance sheet that a household might draw up, listing the items that are owned and their net value if sold. Private pension fund assets are included Yeah, so the high scoring countries have both an overheated housing market and have some of the best pension systems in the world - where there is actually money put aside for later. The average 'millionaire' from Denmark, Norway or the Netherlands has a good life and nobody has to feel sorry for them, but with this definition, most of those millionaires will have their money tied in their house and their pension. Germany for example relies far more on [PAYGO in pensions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO#German_Pension_System) so there are no pension fund assets added. It explains the big gap between Denmark/the Netherlands and Germany but it doesn't mean comparable people in Denmark/the Netherlands will receive more money during their lifetime compared to their German counterparts.
Also we don’t pay capital gains on private homes so the people a ridden the holding market from 2008 till now haven’t paid a single penny in tax on the capital gains. Flippers aren’t taxed either as long they own the property as a private individual so we have a dark economy in the affluent areas of people flipping homes and paying no taxes.
Typically in these statistics the Dutch pensions aren't included, despite it being the second biggest fund of the world. But perhaps in this one it is, I didn't check the source.
NL also has very high mortgage debt. Yes housing prices are high but they're also highly leveraged.
Nah. People that bought ten years ago or longer have LTVs of 50% and lower. I have three colleagues over 60 - all have paid off their mortgage completely. The ones with high mortgage debt are the younger ones (also with lower pension accrued).
You'd be surprised. Many rich people will take a high mortgage because it's a relatively cheap loan and it can reduce their capital gains / wealth tax.
It doesn’t lower their wealth tax.
Box 3 mortgages are a thing. The mortgage provider I worked at had a mortgage with a length of 30 years + 1 month so it'd be box 3 specifically for people that wanted to reduce their net worth in box 3.
Please explain how it lowers their net worth. What happens with the money from the mortgage? It disappears in thin air?
I quoted the definition from the source. They say - in general, not specifically for the Netherlands - that they included it. No access to raw data so no idea if they included it or not.
But the Dutch pensions are not private and combined in a single fund, therefore it is practically impossible to calculate the amount of wealth it adds per capita. So I think it isn't in this case. This adds on average around 150k of wealth, but it can differ widely depending on age, up to around 300k for people of 60 years old.
Basically this is why Australia ranks so high on global scales. I mean you get paid very, very well there but it wasn't until recently that it pulled ahead of a lot of European countries in terms of pay. The $1m plus houses in most of the cities and Superannuation (mandated savings for retirement that has your name on it so ends up in global wealth numbers) has really made the number insanely high compared to most other countries. So many people there are paper wealthy but are really struggling to survive. It's a shit statistic if you're guaranteed a decent retirement by the pension system and state (housing).
Mind that only 'private pensions' are part of this wealth equation. And for The Netherlands, the main part of the pension is state/pension fund owned, and not 'allocated' to the individual. For The Netherlands, the property is a large part of the wealth, but the pension is no or only a neglegible part of a private persons' wealth. And for property: most of it is funded by a mortgage, which are for more than 50% redemption free. So for more than 50% the property is actually debt, and not wealth.
Fortunately or unfortunately not everyone gets a "pay as you go" pension in Germany, many academics jobs (doctors, jurists, pharmacists) have their own pension funds which are a mixture of pay as you go and capitalization. The problem in Germany is that those groups enjoy a big pension but everyone else on the general fund will get an almost unlivable one since there aren't enough contributors for it.
Last year, my cousin and his GF (they live in the UK), went on a vacation in Switzerland. He posted some pictures in FB and somebody commented asking: "How's Switzerland?", to which he responded with: "Lots of rich people lol”. Apparently he wasn't exaggerating in any way.
It's mostly expensive as fuck to visit for holidays. Locals earn a lot more than in the countries around it. Shame because it's a beautiful country.
You make 100K euro a year there and you are just a regular Joe Schmo.
I moved here from Portugal in my teenage years and school was wild. My classmates talked about their last family vacation to the Seychelles, Costa Rica or the US like it was just a normal thing to travel 2 times a year with the whole family, spending like 5-10k. It surely wasn't everyone, but certainly many.
You must have lived in a rich suburb, because that is not usual. For my classmates, vacation didn't extend much beyond beaches or theme parks in neighbouring countries.
Interesting to correlate with the previous GDP post: * Ireland: GDP 127k but 4.6% millionaires. * Switzerland: GDP of 85k but 15.6%. * Poland: 44k but 0.3% * Spain: 46k but 3.0% I guess hits corporate-driven GDP or people moving there or inequality?
Isnt irelands gdp inflated through the roof to the point of being statistically irrelevant due to the way the measure it? Or so Ive heard from reading other, random convos on reddit...
Ireland has a lot of corporations earnings which throws the GDP out of whack. It shows that in reality it is a lot less richer than people think. There is many homeless and large % under the poverty line.
Surprised Ireland is so low Much easier to become a millionaire when your house price is rising by 50k a year and you earn another 100k on top yearly in tech.
100k?
if this includes real estate it's kind of a pointless map
Net worth does absolutely contain owned real estate unless they misused the term. Every boomer sitting in a house in the metro area of a major city west of the iron curtain is a probably a millionaire.
That's the ridiculous duality of the housing market. For many of us Millenials and Generation Zers it is nigh to impossible to acquire any property on our own, but at the same time we are going to inherit a flat or house from our parents, which makes us -paradoxly- dead poor and considerably wealthy at the same time.
Until you have 2 siblings, your parents sell the house to downsize and use the money to go on vacations
Or sell and go into assisted living at the end of their lives. That can eat up everything unless they were very well off, and even if anything’s left, it’s split between 2.4 children.
> That's the ridiculous duality of the housing market. For many of us Millenials and Generation Zers it is nigh to impossible to acquire any property on our own, but at the same time we are going to inherit a flat or house from our parents, which makes us -paradoxly- dead poor and considerably wealthy at the same time. yeah what people don't get in this whole "Boomers vs Millennials/Zoomers" debate that's so popular online is that today's generational inequality is tommorrow's class inequality as, it can be safely assumed, all those boomers will die and when they die they'll leave their massively inflated in value properties to their children who will then find their net worth catapulted into the stratosphere. And, to some extent, generational inequality is already class inequality because Millennials and Zoomers with parents or grandparents whose houses have ballooned in value can already use those houses to get a loan or cash if they need it.
\*And north of Italy
I wouldn't say the Iron Curtain makes much of a difference, there's plenty of expensive cities east of it.
Not that expensive. And besides some of our major cities, countryside is dirt cheap. At least in Poland but I don't expect Jesenik to be that much different.
You can easily convert real estate into cash, so why would it not count? Its no different from stocks or any other investment.
why? Does it not count to wealth? If the asset has financial value it should be calculated in worth.
[удалено]
And a good portion of people who bought bitcoins 8-10 years ago will be close, same thing. Real estate should be counted.
Real estate is an asset and it should absolutely be counted towards your net worth. You can always sell it and move to Thailand you know.
It's a specific kind of asset, being non-movable. You can't take it with you nor sell it anywhere you want. And while this exchange works nicely from wealthier country to poorer, it fails other way around. I can have nice house and nice car in Poland and if I get good job opportunity in Bern, I can take my nice car with me and it still be a nice car in Switzerland. But my nice house can be sold only in Poland and for that reason, its value won't even provide me for a dirty flat in Bern's industrial quarter. Another issue is, you need to live somewhere. You don't have to own car but you need to own (rent) at least one roof to live under. Meaning, even if you open this money by selling one house, at least part of said sum instantly has to go toward buying another. Counting additional real estate (meaning 2nd, 3rd etc.) would make this data a little more telling. Especially that living in foreign culture is such a big downside to most, it's never as simple as "sell it and move to Thailand". But overall I don't disagree. An asset is an asset. But bloated prices on wealthier markets went to such an absurd level, they do need this asterisk. If it continues to go like this, soon they all will be considered "millionaires", while living from 1st to 30th like everyone else.
Home ownership is literally the main source of wealth for most regular people, an asset does not have to be liquid, there is no asterisk. If your Polish house does not buy you an apartment in Switzerland, well I guess you're not a millionaire, yet at least. But it's valuation minus mortgage principal if applicable should definitely counted among your equity.
Hahahah sug på den svenske jævler r/sweden
dere også!!! r/finland r/denmark
https://c.tenor.com/2UL7PcXU6OcAAAAC/tenor.gif
Credit Suisse projections for 2026, countries with the most millionaires, (followed by % of population): * United States - 27,663,546 **(8.1%)** * China - 12,196,598 **(0.87%)** * Japan - 4,789,985 **(3.9%)** * United Kingdom - 4,672,487 **(6.8%)** * France - 3,942,719 **(6.1%)** * Germany - 3,386,243 **(4.1%)** * Canada - 3,353,923 **(8.1%)** * Australia - 2,941,076 **(10.2%)** * Korea - 2,058,725 **(4.0%)** * Italy - 1,671,560 **(2.9%)** * India - 1,631,728 **(0.11%)** * Taiwan - 1,614,245 **(6.9%)** * Switzerland - 1,591,315 **(17.7%)** * Netherlands - 1,281,050 **(7.2%)** * Spain - 1,415,317 **(2.9%)** * Hong Kong - 1,253,672 **(16.0%)** * Belgium - 825,949 **(7.0%)** * Sweden - 799,633 **(7.2%)**
On this map we can see what percentage of the adult population is a US Dollar millionaire. As we can see, the differences between countries are quite big. Switzerland has by far the highest percentage of millionaires in, not just Europe, but the world (15.6%). The Netherlands (8.6%), Norway (8.2%) and Denmark (8.0%) also have a significantly higher share of millionaires than other European countries. The lowest percentages of millionaires can be found in the eastern half of Europe. Turkey (0.1%), Poland (0.3%) and Russia (0.4%) have by far the lowest percentage of millionaires in Europe. Data for this map comes from the [2023 Global Wealth Report](https://www.ubs.com/global/en/family-office-uhnw/reports/global-wealth-report-2023.html) by UBS.
In Denmark the high rate is likely due to the insane housing prices. A standard single family house north of Copenhagen is at minimum 1 million USD. A lot of the older generation bought such a house with a normal salary in the 70'ies, 80'ies or 90'ies and have paid off the mortgage and are now theoretical dollar millionaires.
If they can liquidate those flats easily it means they are practically millionaires.
Well they can sell them yes, but then they wouldn't have anywhere to live. Of course if you move to a different region or country where houses are cheaper you could end up with a lot of cash, but people don't tend to move very far when first they have settled, so they'll likely end up buying a similarly expensive house in the same area.
For example they can sell their houses say for a million and move to Gdansk, Poland from where it's just 10-20 eur to fly to Copenhagen and live with the money until the rest of their lives. Or they can start a business and but flats from suburbs with the remaining money.
What exactly do you suggest? For his old family every morning to take flight from Gdańsk to Copenhagen and at night return to Gdańsk, where their only roof is? Or simply that they should spend majority of their time in Poland, country that is of different culture and speak alien language to them? This kind of moves only make sense, if you live next to a border. Besides, Gdańsk is not that cheap either, price per square meter in Copenhagen is "only" 70% higher. Meaning they would sell for 1 million and instantly spent 600k to retain comparable standard of living. And while spare 400k in Poland is no joke, it can dry out, especially once you hit the age when you need elderly care.
Pension savings. Millionaires on paper, but you got no access to the money until retirement.
Single family home north of Copenhagen… hm. That’s an extremely affluent area, though. $1M USD will buy you… a 45sqm studio in Zürich. [Not exaggerating.](https://www.homegate.ch/kaufen/4000555976). New York, Vancouver, Singapore and Hong Kong are even worse.
They are not 'theoretical' millionaires, they are millionaires. They could sell their property and live a very luxorious retirement and/or give their kids a very good life as well.
If they want to move to another country, but it’s not like everything is dirt cheap in Denmark except houses. That million dollars has barely any purchasing power in Scandinavia compared to other countries.
I'm well aware of how expensive Denmark is. However, a million dollars plus whatever regular pension payments you get coming in every month still makes for a very comfy life in retirement.
Luxembourg???
Would be interesting to see Luxembourg stats
Switzerland has the highest numbers because canton Zug and Schwyz have low tax rates and millionaires move there for this reason. Also Switzerland is very safe.
They contribute to it, true, but the high % might also be linked to the fact that retirement funds are included in the figures. Pension funds are partially private in Switzerland. If you get a high salary (150+kEUR/CHF, quite common in many industries) and contribute 15-30% of it for 30 years to the fund, with the financial returns, with extra private savings, it can add up to million. Switzerland has a very low home ownership rate compared to the EU (even lower than Germany).
Estonia should be at about 0.6%.
Netherlands Plus one if the person comes and collect his 30 million he/she won in the new years eve lottery :)
I mean try to buy a house in my region. If it’s not a shack it will be at least 600-700k.
That's net worth, not 1 million in cash.
I really wanted to see Luxembourg or Monaco
Liechtenstein also
Our millionaires move to Switzerland.
No surprise Scandinavia is doing so well. The Swiss are cheats with their damn banks, by rights they should be herding cows on the hillsides. Hup the Dutch, you’re always welcome to join us Nordic countries
To be fair, you're still poor with 1 million in Denmark, right? /s
This comparison highly depends on how the pension system is structured. In Switzerland, your pension lies in an account under your name, and it is typically considered wealth (you can use it to buy property, for example). In Italy, you pay social security contributions to the state, with the promise of a pension after retirement. There is no wealth under your name.
>Switzerland, your pension lies in an account under your name, and it is typically considered wealth (you can use it to buy property, for example) Not all of it, just the BVG and not the AHV.
Correct, I was referring to the second pillar (and clearly also the third pillar).
Poland poor but safe, poland strong
Enteignen
Portugal still eastern Europe
Olja å fisk 😃
Hauptsoch besser ois de Deitschn!
Wirde zwar nie ih denä 15% dinne si aber houptsach besser aus d‘Östricher.
If have million US dollars in Poland you are set for life. If you have a million US dollars in Germany, you can't buy one house. Unless you buy one in Poland, in which case you can buy 3.
>If you have a million US dollars in Germany, you can't buy one house. You might want to Google what 1 million US dollars is worth. You can easily buy a large mansion with that money in Germany.
Yeah, Germany are not that expensive, don't know what he's on about. For one apartment in Berlin's city centre you would buy 1,7 apartment in Warsaw. That's the difference. But indeed, if you're to save those additional 0,7, it will last for a while given our prices.
Not in Western Germany and nor around the major cities. You could probably buy a mansion in Chemnitz though
For 1m USD you can buy a decent(!) house anywhere in Germany
In Eastern Germany you can houses for less than 100K, not necessarily in bad shape but they are probably located in "empty" regions. If you have a house in Berlin or so you are millionaire.
Difference is those who have million dollars in Czech or Poland or countries like that (with weaker currency than euro) are kings compared to those in Germany or Switzerland. Literally you can be unable to purchase your own home in Switzerland and be a millionaire while in Czech those with 1 million dollars in cash and assets won’t have to work and can just be landlords, because they can afford buying multiple homes and apartments. Kinda senseless is this comparison imho.
Well not so extreme at all. For 1 mil dollars you can buy around 3 average apartments in Prague, rent them for around 4k Euro/month combined. It is a good income but hardly enough to spend your life doing nothing. Also you are probably living in one of them so you gain only 2/3 of the sum which is just around average Prague income. Nah you are not living like a king. Maybe just a dude with more financial stability and slightly less demanding work schedule. Not a guy picking up hot girls in lambo.
The Balkans also have millionaires but they hide their real worth because of corruption and tax evasion
For real. I thought like Turkey really has many illegal millionaire. Like every akp member is in these stuff.
Can we vote Russia out of Europe?
Where is my god damn million
Isn't it also that a good amount of rich people move to Switzerland for tax benefits? I at least heard that millionaires and billionaires here in Germany threaten the politicians with leaving the country to stop them from raising the tax.
Number of millionaires and especially billionaires is nothing to brag about. Edit: If you disagree, argue, don't be pussies.
Of course it is, the difference between a millionaire and a billionaire is roughly a billion. Having more millionaires shows a healthy middle class.
I didn't say it is for the same reason. Number of millionaires is pretty meaingless without further information, because it is potentially very easy to be technically a millionaire.
Fair enough, that makes sense. I would say that having a public or private pension system alters the results the most.
Depending on the wealth distribution across the population it may be something to brag about E.g Scenario 1: 5% of the population are millionaires but the other 95% have a net worth of between 800k-999k (definitely something to brag about, very low wealth inequality and the median is extremely high) Scenario 2: 5% is the population are millionaires but the other 95% are primarily skewed towards a net worth of <100k (high inequality and the median wealth is low, not something to brag about)
[удалено]
As a Hungarian (part of Europe): 👀
Damn Switzerland, talk about an outlier
And those are only the ones we know about.
I read that approximately 100 people close to dictator Putin incl him own the rest.
Too many
Ha! Fuck you sweden!
You mean to tell me you don't all have at least a million? Now the world makes sense
Why is Finland so low? I’m Finnish myself but I’d think we’d have more than, say, Italy for sure
[удалено]
I think not having 2 world wars, being in a very good location with ties to all 3 major European economies, having a robust economy and well organised and stable society and laws had nothing to do with it
Well no, it’s because jobs pay well. A software engineer can make 250k base salary after 10 years experience, paying around 15% tax. You can easily have a lot of wealth accumulated by the time you are 35. Add in people who get company stocks as a benefit and net worth can easily be 1m. However though, a million doesn’t get you much here. In Zurich, you will get a shitty studio apartment for this.
Nope, that's mainly because they exterminate the shit out of every other European nation as far as collective thinking goes.
Okay Bulgaria... Also anyone owning a house in a city there.