The UK graph is one of the most interesting because the historical graph with the correct denominator — % of total wealth rather than % of GDP — from the World Inequality Database, Piketty’s lab, looks so different.
There is a clear upward trend since the 1980s, but:
1⃣ The levels are far less impressive, since the top 0.001% owns roughly 2% of the nation’s wealth.
2⃣ In retrospect, levels remain much lower than the average for the 20th century.
This, of course, does not take into account that the UK has since developed a large welfare state. In particular, these graphs leave out the value of accrued pension claims from the UK state pension, something that most workers in the early 20th century could not count on.
If, instead of looking specifically at the top 0.001%, we look at the top 1%, which is more relevant for 99% of people, there was a huge collapse in wealth inequality in the UK between 1900 and 1980, and basically no change since then. And that is before taking state pensions into account. The same thing is true when you look at the top 10%.
Again, these are not my numbers, but those reported by Piketty and Zucman’s lab. The only difference is that I compute the shares correctly: the wealth of the top 1% as a share of total wealth of the UK rather than its GDP.
Every group’s wealth has increased as a percentage of GDP since 1980 because asset prices have increased: house prices notably. Using GDP as the denominator does all the heavy lifting here and is a fallacy.
In the 1980s, the 0.001% wealthiest families living in the UK — roughly 200 families — owned wealth equivalent to 5% of UK GDP.
Today: 20% of GDP.
If they spent all their wealth, these 200 families could buy ~1/5 of all the goods & services produced in a given year in the UK.