Inspired by this article:

We may all dream of winning many millions in a lottery rollover – but it seems that a little less than £100,000 would satisfy the hopes of most families.

That’s how much would leave people feeling ‘financially safe and comfortable’, if it was in their account.

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz2EjRr6ERn

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

http://www.dailymail...omfortable.html

It's pretty hilarious really and also informative that 93K pounds can't change your life in Britain but it helps most people feel peace of mind, and also the facts about the really low levels of cash access people ACTUALLY have.

To determine your cash access level is a personal thing, but myself I included anything I could conceivably get my paws on rather quickly, including retirement accounts where I would face a penalty, but I have not included illiquid things like REAL ESTATE.

Certainly, if I was living and working in the UK with a nest egg of £100,000, I would feel pretty comfortable.

I lost a lot in the financial meltdown and now, living in Thailand with only a small income and not much more than £100,000 in the bank, I am distictly uncomfortable.

£100,000 is great when it is there as a fall back, but when it is all you have got, without an income. it is not so much.

100grands not alot anymore. Depends on age also wouldnt it? At 37, no way. At 67, yes.

If you want to do a comparison sensibly you have to put a worth on people's pensions or part pensions if they have them.

This would be the capital sum required to safely bring the same income as the pension and allowing for an inflationary rise the same as many pensions. Even for a basic state pension in the UK is would be way more than 100,000.

As for not counting your house.......why on earth not? Even if you can't draw the house price in 24 hours it is usually a very strong asset.

You have to add up the lot......unless you're asking the more trite question of how much do you like having in an emergency fund.

Refer to the article. It's not a bean counter financial advise issue. It's an EMOTIONAL issue. How people feel about it which doesn't need to gel with any objective reality.

Refer to the article. It's not a bean counter financial advise issue. It's an EMOTIONAL issue. How people feel about it which doesn't need to gel with any objective reality.

That would require reading the Daily Mail. A step too far.

With no assets? Long way from it.

Two properties in the West bringing in rental income.

Condo - not a showbox, fully-furnished here. With pick-up and bike. All owned debt free.

I'd consider that as financially comfy.

100grands not alot anymore. Depends on age also wouldnt it? At 37, no way. At 67, yes.

Agreed but if I had had £100k of spare cash (as that is what the article is really referring to) at 37 then I would have been very happy - and gone out and probably upgraded to a more expensive property.

The average savings level seems far too low to me and perhaps is a result of the typle of people (a whole 2000) surveyed? The life changing average of £1.8m mentioned however seems far more realistic.