Weekend Reading – Millionaires Everywhere?
Welcome friends to some new Weekend Reading whereby I wonder if there are really millionaires everywhere?
First, some recent reads!
I argued retirement is not dead despite some 60-something author writing as much recently.
And, we just posted our latest retirement income update – money we need and want to spend as well in early retirement.
Weekend Reading – Millionaires Everywhere?
Source: Gettyimages.ca
Ben Carlson’s post from A Wealth of Common Sense caught my eye on this subject:
Quite the stats in the U.S.:
“Fidelity now has nearly 800,000 people with $1 million or more in their 401k plan. Fidelity also has 684,000 customers with $1 million or more in an IRA.”
And…
“UBS data shows there are well over 23 million millionaires in the United States alone. Almost half a million new millionaires were created in 2025. Around the world there were one million entrants into the two-comma club last year.”
The last decade has been kind to Americans and Canadians growing their wealth.
Here at home:
“The average Canadian household’s net worth topped $1 million in 2025, a 37 per cent gain from 2019, but some are still living on the edge despite being technically richer.”
Source: https://financialpost.com/
In terms of sheer numbers, Canada has just over 2.1 million U.S.-dollar millionaires, which is about 5% or so of our population. Mind you, as you might have guessed, a large share of these millionaires are asset-rich and not investment-rich; wealth has been driven much higher with surging real estate prices and related home equity.
Household vs. Individual Net Worth: According to Statistics Canada, the average net worth of a Canadian household recently topped $1.08 million, though the median household net worth sits much lower (around $520,000), showing that high averages are pulled up by top earners.
Further: the top 1% of Canadian economic families hold 24% of the country’s total net wealth and the top 10% hold 53% of it, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s (PBO) 2023 high-net-worth families database.
I suspect that stat in 2026 is now higher…
This brings up the subject of extreme wealth concentration that is increasingly receiving political attention in Canada and around the world.
For context, other interesting data:
- There are an estimated 86 billionaire families in Canada, with the greatest number living in Ontario (38).
- There are 3,380 families in Canada with at least $100 million in wealth, with the greatest number living in Ontario (1,570).
- Conversely, while just 3,380 Canadian families have accumulated at least $100 million in wealth each, a staggering 4.4 million people lived in families below the poverty line, with the greatest number living in Ontario (over 1.9 million).
Extreme wealth concentration is a growing problem not because it allows just a few people to live the lives of significant luxury, but because of the extreme concentration of power that can go with it. Wealth concentration reflects societal opportunities for the select few and reflects the massive inequalities and therefore lack of opportunities for everyone else not in the 1%.
If you are rich and wealthy these days, you should consider yourself lucky – although you may have worked very hard to get there. There are more rich people today than ever before. Yet wealth inequality is a real problem as the rich keep getting richer because they own the majority of the financial assets, and control the associated political and economic decision-making power that goes along with it.
Some wealth is good for most, too much wealth in too few hands is very problematic.
I welcome your thoughts on this subject, anytime.
More Weekend Reading – Beyond Millionaires Everywhere?
You might be interested in these case studies related to retirement income planning, even if you’re not a millionaire and/or you do not have millions invested but wish to retire.
And…
Stay well and stay invested.
Mark
I don’t believe wealth inequality is the problem. There will always be wealth inequality, sometimes for unjustifiable reasons and sometimes for very justifiable reasons (some people work much harder than others and may have worked harder to develop their intellect more than most), but IMO what matters is that the average person should have the opportunity to improve their circumstances. If the opportunities are there, why does it matter how much the ‘rich’ have? Having the opportunity to progress in life through personal effort allows for a decent lifestyle, not to mention that it generates significant personal pride and dignity…. the stuff of a good life.
As I see it, the fixation with wealth inequality is symptomatic of a larger malaise, which I have seen up close for many years. I spend a good part of each year living in France (no, I’m not retired) and I have seen the country massively de-instrustrialize itself in the last 25 years, through misguided public policies, partly of the country’s own making, and partly through decisions made in Brussels by the European Union leadership. Over time, the public discussion shifted from wealth creation (job creation, start-ups, etc) to wealth redistribution/wealth inequality. Today, by far the most hated man in France (think Louis Vuitton) is the richest man in France. By all accounts, the country is on the verge of a civil war. The main takeaway for me: public policy decisions matter, a lot.
Which brings me to Justin Trudeau and his cronies. I find it hard to imagine a more misguided group of people leading a country. I’m saddened that my fellow Canadians voted for him three consecutive times. Public policy making based largely on virtue signalling amounts to dereliction of duty, with serious consequences. For example, a growth projection report issued a few years ago by the OECD (members include the world’s 38 most advanced economies) put Camada dead last up to 2060 (not a typo, 60). While projecting a year or two out is challenging at best, projecting more than three decades out is impossible. But what the OECD is saying is that the fundamentals for success in Canada are absent. One consequence of this long-term national governance crisis is that the more Canadians focus on wealth inequality/redistribution, like in France, the more ‘rich’ will head for the door and if they don’t physically exit themselves, their assets will (call it diversification). Worse IMO is how the future rich are exiting. Young talented individuals still share the Canadian dream but for them the Canadian dream increasingly resides elsewhere.
Consider what happened last February in the Netherlands. The Government passed legislation intended to tax unrealized capital gains (paper gains, not real gains) at 36%. Anticipating a massive flight of capital from the country along with a freeze on incoming high-net worth expats, weeks later the Dutch Government reversed itself and scrapped the entire proposal. IMO broadly fixating on wealth inequality and wealth redistribution pushes to the exit door those with options. I prefer to work to get the house in order to allow the ‘ordinary’ hard-working Canadian a chance at a decent life right here at home. I was personally given that chance and made the most of it.
That’s fair, Francois – although I do see things differently.
1. There is wage stagnation – wages have not kept up with inflation over the last 10-15 years for most.
2. Inflation is hurting many consumers – forcing them into various choices.
3. Healthcare is on the rise, and here in Canada, you can largely “skip the line” if you want to pay for private services of which only the wealthy have opportunities to afford.
I could go on including various communities that continue to be marginalized…
Not everyone is afforded the opportunity for “a good life” which is an issue.
I agree that public policy decisions matter, a lot….but they are not usually made of the most, rather in the best interests of “cronies” which is probably your point.
I can’t speak to the reasoning behind that Netherlands decision.
I can however speak quite clearly that the gaps between “haves” and “have nots” is getting larger which is not great news longer-term.
Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful comment.
Mark
That’s exactly why i only invest in North America and majority of them are VFV
VFV is a great fund.
Well done.
Mark
More millionaires and even more people sleeping in their shoes, I’d rather see it go the other way.
$1M 10 years ago equals $1.4M or more today so yes if you lower the bar more folks qualify that’s not news it’s not rocket science either. I have to admit I’m again struggling to find purpose in Carlson’s article.
Inequality is complicated, I do not frequent foodbanks often nor try to pay too much attention to anecdotal evidence esp. my own. I did instead asked Claude (lazy I know what was I thinking) to rate Canada on the Gini scale relative to other developed nations here is in part what it unsurprisingly said:
“Canada is solidly mid-pack — more equal than the US, less equal than Western/Northern Europe. Using OECD comparisons: Canada’s Gini before tax, at 0.406, is lower than the OECD average of 0.414, placing it 13th overall from least to most unequal. After taxes and transfers, Canada’s Gini coefficient for disposable income is 0.314, placing it 20th in the OECD — implying Canada’s redistribution is less robust than many peer countries.” {Source Webflow}
I translate that to: Canada is not a “social paradise”, our tax system favors the wealthy and amplifies inequality. There was quite a bit more, many caveats and definitely not the whole story.
Wrt foodbanks only a few developed countries have institutionalized them, Canada along the UK and off course the US use them as quasi and dismal solutions to food insecurity. Foodbanks do miracle work but should never have become normalized it is a national embarrassment. If interested one might look into the work of Tarasuk & Loopstra.
We have lots of emerging challenges here in Canada. Confident we can continue to improve but will take strong leadership and some tough decisions in many areas!
Foodbanks do miracle work indeed – food secruity is huge…
Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
Mark
Your net worth including your house really doesn’t provide much insight into a family’s wealth. Very few people tap any equity in their house until maybe they move into an old age home. I saw a stat of the amount Canadians have in their RRSP’s and (forget the exact amount but) was surprised at how low it was ( at age 50). I agree about the other comments about saving 10% and would add it needs to be invested well. If I knew 20 years ago about investing what I have accumulated over the years I am sure the journey would have been shorter. And I’m far from and expert and still learning.
I hear ya Steve on the RRSP, still an amazing account for wealth-building.
Not perfect and not an expert in everything here either, I just try to do the basics well and consistently!
Continued success to you.
The issue is if you include mortgage as your debt, then you should include your house as asset. You can’t just include one side of equation
In terms of net worth? Yes, ideally all Assets – Liabilities = Net Worth.
I see it in the big city – homeless people living in encampments, on the subway, and long lines for the local food bank. I donate to multiple foodbanks – 4 of them. As a teenager, we had to use them to have enough to eat. It can happen to anyone who is living paycheque to paycheque.
Several years ago my hubby and I were walking and saw a long line up. He thought people must be waiting to buy tickets to a concert or get into a show. People dressed in everyday clothes, some coming from work. We found out it was a new foodbank. The working poor is a reality given limited and expensive housing and a low minimum wage.
The challenge is finding the 10% to pay yourself first. It really is magic. I’ve told my kids that side gigs are the way if you can’t get a high paying job.
Yes, just replied on the food insecurity here in Ottawa. Not great.
As for the 10% pay yourself first, excellent advice. In hindsight, the biggest challenges I found to that mantra myself are sustaining it when I didn’t want to (would rather spend the money??) and tinkering with my portfolio. Otherwise, the journey has been rewarding to get to early retirement!
Cheers back.
I think you will agree Mark that the old maxim “It takes money to make money” applies to this article.
If you can invest even small amounts when you are young they can grow and lo and behold (maybe) you are a millionaire before you know it.
Just to keep things really simple, in the tens, if you can buy 100 shares at $10 and 10% interest you’ll have gained $1000 at the end of the year. Now if you keep investing and get to 1000 shares at $10 and 10% interest you’ll have $10,000 more by years end. And it just keeps snowballing from there. Another saying is “Time in the Market”
Ricardo
Yes, it seems long-term wealth creation (in common stocks) seems easy to do but the saving and investing discipline is hard in practice.
Compounding does most the work after 10-20 years with investing – hard parts are:
1. Getting started, and
2. Staying out of your way.
Thanks for your comment.
Mark
“Yet wealth inequality is a real problem…”
Back in January I contacted one of the local food banks just to check in on how their December fundraiser had gone and just generally inquire how they were doing. I was kinda surprised…
“Since March 2025 our hampers have doubled now. So we are having to be careful with spending. Cut back giving hamburger and canned tomatoes.”
Keep in mind this is small community Manitoba. I don’t know the demographics of this increase in demand. Not sure it should really matter to me. But there are a lot more people seeking assistance in our community than I had believed.
Food banks are struggling here in Ottawa too…stats show from them 1 in 4 families have some level of food insecurity.
That’s quite surprising and scary.
Mark
Was discussing food banks this weekend with a couple of curmudgeon “friends” and was told in no uncertain words that in this case, my use of the term “food bank” was incorrect. Our two local entities should be referred to as “food pantries”. Of course I vigorously mocked this assertion, but when I got home and after a bit of googling I have to admit they seem to be correct. Although in my defense, “food bank” is in their official legal title. I guess I’ll have to eat a bit of crow at the next Mensa meeting. 🙂
FWIW:
https://www.ottawafoodbank.ca/
There are many food banks but pantries might be a more “inclusive” term.
Thanks for your comment!
Mark