You absolutely must take into account what counts as assets in each country.
In Germany, the statutory pension is generally excluded. With an average of 20 years of benefits and 1,000 euros per month, that adds up to over 200k…
In Germany, the statutory pension is generally excluded. With an average of 20 years of benefits and 1,000 euros per month, that adds up to over 200k…
•
1717
•
@Wealth-Accelerator Good point—that’s excluded in all countries, which makes sense to me in a way. The UBS Wealth Report measures only readily available assets (stocks, cash, real estate) that can be converted into cash at any time. Pension entitlements are excluded from that.
(By the way, I don’t consider my pension entitlements to be assets either... 😉)
(By the way, I don’t consider my pension entitlements to be assets either... 😉)
•
66
•@Part_Time_Joe Me neither 😉
I've just noticed many times that countries that already have something like a stock-based pension plan rank much higher, because it's factored into the calculation.
I've just noticed many times that countries that already have something like a stock-based pension plan rank much higher, because it's factored into the calculation.
•
22
•@Wealth-Accelerator So, according to the report, this is factored out—at least that's how I understood it. But if you take that into account, the order could certainly change again... it's quite possible 🙂
••
@Wealth-Accelerator What the numbers also don’t show is how much the government provides in the form of services.
For example, in many countries, daycare, quality education, and health care are either more expensive or of lower quality.
The taxes paid for these services don’t contribute to one’s net worth, but they still raise the standard of living.
Purchasing power is also a factor to consider: for $100, you can buy more goods and services in Germany (lower wages also mean lower service costs) than in the U.S.
And rents in Singapore are two to three times as high.
In other words, they also need more money to achieve the same standard of living.
That’s why such figures should always be taken with a grain of salt.
My favorite example is always that the poorest U.S. state, Mississippi, has a per capita GDP of about $53,000, while Japan’s per capita GDP is about $35,000.
But if you look at the reality of daily life, probably no Japanese person would want to trade places with that guy from Mississippi. 🤓
For example, in many countries, daycare, quality education, and health care are either more expensive or of lower quality.
The taxes paid for these services don’t contribute to one’s net worth, but they still raise the standard of living.
Purchasing power is also a factor to consider: for $100, you can buy more goods and services in Germany (lower wages also mean lower service costs) than in the U.S.
And rents in Singapore are two to three times as high.
In other words, they also need more money to achieve the same standard of living.
That’s why such figures should always be taken with a grain of salt.
My favorite example is always that the poorest U.S. state, Mississippi, has a per capita GDP of about $53,000, while Japan’s per capita GDP is about $35,000.
But if you look at the reality of daily life, probably no Japanese person would want to trade places with that guy from Mississippi. 🤓
•
11
•@TotallyLost 100% agree!
•
11
•@TotallyLost That’s a valid point. I suspect that private wealth is, to some extent, negatively correlated with “social wealth.” The more services the government provides, the “poorer” private citizens become. After all, the whole thing has to be financed somehow.
Ultimately, it’s probably a decision about how much personal responsibility I, as a government, trust my citizens to take on—or, conversely, how much of that responsibility falls to the state. If there were no free daycare centers, health insurance, etc., people would simply have to make private provisions for such eventualities...
Ultimately, it’s probably a decision about how much personal responsibility I, as a government, trust my citizens to take on—or, conversely, how much of that responsibility falls to the state. If there were no free daycare centers, health insurance, etc., people would simply have to make private provisions for such eventualities...
•
11
•@Wealth-Accelerator It's probably gone for everyone under 50, too :D—except for the posts that are gone :D—maybe, we'll see; it could be!
•
11
•
@Part_Time_Joe But only to a certain extent. If you look at the list, countries like Norway, Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands are also relatively high up. And they do have a fairly well-developed welfare state. Canada also ranks significantly ahead of the U.S. Now, the welfare state in Canada is certainly not quite as developed as in many European countries. But it’s still significantly more developed than in the U.S.
So yes, social spending is a factor. But the picture seems to be nuanced, both for countries with and without a well-developed welfare state.
So yes, social spending is a factor. But the picture seems to be nuanced, both for countries with and without a well-developed welfare state.
•
11
•@Grobijan Yes, that’s true. But when it comes to Norway in particular, this is mainly due to two factors:
1) Funded pension plans: The UBS Wealth Report includes these (since there are actual assets involved), whereas pay-as-you-go pension plans are not counted. Sure, we have a claim against the pension fund (not the government)—but how much we’ll receive in the future, or what that will be worth, is a whole other story.
2) In Norway, the homeownership rate is significantly higher at 72% (compared to about 47% in Germany). The same is true, by the way, for Belgium (70%), the Netherlands (69%), and Denmark (61%). This naturally means that they have benefited particularly from asset-price inflation (or the real estate boom).
The thing is this: High social security contributions and taxes aren’t necessarily a bad thing per se, as long as the government handles the money responsibly. While Nordic countries generally do this and think long-term, that’s not the case in Germany. In that case, I believe it’s better to leave people with more money so they can use it more effectively for themselves.
1) Funded pension plans: The UBS Wealth Report includes these (since there are actual assets involved), whereas pay-as-you-go pension plans are not counted. Sure, we have a claim against the pension fund (not the government)—but how much we’ll receive in the future, or what that will be worth, is a whole other story.
2) In Norway, the homeownership rate is significantly higher at 72% (compared to about 47% in Germany). The same is true, by the way, for Belgium (70%), the Netherlands (69%), and Denmark (61%). This naturally means that they have benefited particularly from asset-price inflation (or the real estate boom).
The thing is this: High social security contributions and taxes aren’t necessarily a bad thing per se, as long as the government handles the money responsibly. While Nordic countries generally do this and think long-term, that’s not the case in Germany. In that case, I believe it’s better to leave people with more money so they can use it more effectively for themselves.
••