Honestly at this point it's almost worth excluding housing. You have a generation from about 45-60 who bought their London houses for around the 50-200k mark who have an asset worth 0.8-2.5M and are earning 200-300k a year. You then have those a bit younger with similar incomes but who had to "buy high".

Both are "rich" but I would probably only classify the former group as "wealthy" as they're sitting on huge assets.

Only on Hacker News is possible to read comment that unironically ask if being a millionaire is wealthy? Look at the percentile, look at the median and average income, median and average wealth, look at the distribution of wealth: in whatever way you look at it, yes, the equation millionaire = wealthy is true.

I guess we're getting into semantics here, but I would imagine someone with a net worth above a million USD would be considered to have above average wealth in a majority of countries.

A million, whether dollars or pounds, in NET wealth is being a wealthy citizen in the UK and I suspect all Western countries. It's probably far better than the top 10%.

The report mentions that they are HNWI. Defined in Wikipedia by: High-net-worth individuals (HNWIs): People or households who own liquid assets valued between $1 million and $5 million.

I assume liquid assets doesn't account for Real-Estate?

lol yes