Millionaire Density

[jesseps]

Top 20

1. Monaco (29.21%)

2. Zurich (27.34%)

3. Geneva (17.92%)

4. New York (4.63%)

5. Frankfurt (3.88%)

6. London (3.39%)

7. Oslo (2.90%)

8. Singapore (2.80%)

9. Amsterdam (2.63%)

10. Florence (2.59%)

11. Hong Kong (2.58%)

12. Rome (2.54%)

13. Dublin (2.40%)

14. Doha (2.31%)

15. Toronto (2.29%)

16. Venice (2.25%)

17. Brussels (2.11%)

18. Houston (2.09%)

19. San Francisco (2.07%)

20. Paris (2.04%)

Spear's

[Rocco]

25076. Montreal (0.01%)

[ProposMontréal]

Intéressant, Montréal doit se situé dans le peloton avec entre 1 et 1.5% environ.

Je me demande comment ils font leur calcul. Des villes comme Hampstead ou Westmount, puisque petite et est reconnue pour avoir son lot de millionnaire pourrait se situé assez élevé sur une telle liste.

[SynosiK]

Net assets of 1M$ excluding primary residence...

 

Donc un chalet, 2 autos et un REER garni pour la retraite ... pas trop dure d'etre millionaire...

 

Ou bien si on loue (no primary residence), c'est claire qu'un million c'est faisable quand on dit ''net asset''.

 

Celui qui a une maison de 5M$, mais 800 000$ en banque n'est pas millionaire, mais celui qui n'a pas de maison et 1.1M$ en banque l'est?

[Habsfan]

j'Avoue que je suis curieux de savoir comment ils en arrivent à déterminer que quelqu'un qui a une maison d'une valeure de 5 millions$ n'est pas un millionaire....

 

Aussi, savons nous au quel rang Montréal arrive?

[JCC-Fromthere]

Net assets of 1M$ excluding primary residence...

 

Donc un chalet, 2 autos et un REER garni pour la retraite ... pas trop dure d'etre millionaire...

 

Ou bien si on loue (no primary residence), c'est claire qu'un million c'est faisable quand on dit ''net asset''.

 

Celui qui a une maison de 5M$, mais 800 000$ en banque n'est pas millionaire, mais celui qui n'a pas de maison et 1.1M$ en banque l'est?

 

Un individu avec une maison de $5M et seulement $0.8M investissable, c'est rare. Je ne crois pas que ce soit statistiquement significatif.

[vanatox]

Selon cet article qui utilise la même source (WealthInsight), il y a 52 000 millionnaires à Montréal. Je ne sais pas si c'est pour la ville ou bien la région métropolitaine. Donc utilisant 1 700 000 pour la ville on obtient une densité de 3.05% et pour la région métropolitaine de 4 000 000, 1,3%.

 

 

 

"In a new ranking of the world’s richest people released this week, the consultancy ranked Canada seventh in the world for the number of millionaires. The U.S. was in first place, with 5.2 million millionaires compared to Canada’s 422,000.

 

Toronto ranked 15th in the world for the number of multi-millionaires, with 118,000 people in that category. That puts Toronto in the same league as Los Angeles (126,000) and Chicago (107,000).

 

Overall, Toronto had 28 per cent of Canada’s millionaires, WealthInsight reported.

 

Other cities with sizable millionaire populations include Montreal (52,000), Calgary (32,000), Vancouver (25,000) and Edmonton (14,000)."

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/05/11/richest-countries-cities-world_n_3254976.html

Modifié 24 juillet 2014 par vanatox

[SynosiK]

Un individu avec une maison de $5M et seulement $0.8M investissable, c'est rare. Je ne crois pas que ce soit statistiquement significatif.

 

It is actually very common. When someone in a family makes a lot of money through his business, he can purchase houses worth multiple millions and "give" them to his family members with enough money to keep the expenses covered. After a year, there is no capital gain tax on these now main residences.

 

There's also ways to create family trusts where each beneficiary control a specific part of the common assets like a house. The beneficiaries are not the same people that put the money in.

 

I know a lot of people doing this. When someone is successful, his entourage get's the lifestyle and the assets of a millionaire without the tag on paper according to these articles.

[JCC-Fromthere]

It is actually very common. When someone in a family makes a lot of money through his business, he can purchase houses worth multiple millions and "give" them to his family members with enough money to keep the expenses covered. After a year, there is no capital gain tax on these now main residences.

 

There's also ways to create family trusts where each beneficiary control a specific part of the common assets like a house. The beneficiaries are not the same people that put the money in.

 

I know a lot of people doing this. When someone is successful, his entourage get's the lifestyle and the assets of a millionaire without the tag on paper according to these articles.

 

Which is pretty much saying that these people are not millionaire; they just have a big house that they can do nothing but live in. I think that's the very point of excluding the primary residence. Still, I would like to see how common is very common.

[SynosiK]

Which is pretty much saying that these people are not millionaire; they just have a big house that they can do nothing but live in. I think that's the very point of excluding the primary residence. Still, I would like to see how common is very common.

 

Wealth sharing has to be...

 

If as vanatox says, 1.3%-3% of the population is millionaire, but only less than 1% makes over 250 000$ a year, there's a clear wealth share going on at the top.

 

We could assume the top 0.01% shares with some people...