[joe783]

This was posted back in August of 2013 by the Hartford Business Journal, and they ranked the wealthiest zip codes in the state. I like this list because they take more into consideration than just income, such as house value and net worth. So any thoughts? I was a bit surprised that they ranked New Canaan at 9, I thought it would have been much higher.

CT's wealthiest ZIP codes | HartfordBusiness.com

[FairfieldConnecticut]

CT's%20wealthiest%20ZIP%20codes%20%7C%20HartfordBu siness.com]CT's wealthiest ZIP codes | HartfordBusiness.com

[Stratford, Ct. Resident]

NC at #9 is more a reflection on its residents ability(savvy) to keep the $$$ numbers private, and the fact that aren't nearly as many uber estates as you will find somewhere like Greenwich. 06903 is ranked at #2, but it isn't a realistic assessment. The "wealth" in 06903 primarily comes from Jewish doctors and lawyers that pull in big working incomes, and have to declare that income obviously. And, Gilbert Haroche and Gene Wilder have to add at least $1 Billion dollars to 06903's net "worth".

[AntonioR]

Am I the only one that wonders why this type of thread pop up so often in the Connecticut forum? It seems as if every month there is at least one thread about the wealthiest towns/neighborhoods/zip codes/streets. These type of threads come up so often that I wonder how can people enter this forum and not see all the other wealth related threads in the previous pages.

[FutureTown]

LOL! I'm flattered they say Newtown is richer than Fairfield. Seriously...I'm humbled. But, you're telling me Easton, Glastonbury and Simsbury are wealthier than Ridgefield?! o_0 This list seems off.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by FutureTown

LOL! I'm flattered they say Newtown is richer than Fairfield. Seriously...I'm humbled. But, you're telling me Easton, Glastonbury and Simsbury are wealthier than Ridgefield?! o_0 This list seems off.

Yeah, there is no way New Canaan is that far up on the list. And there is absolutely NO way that the above towns are wealthier than Ridgefield, which has pretty significant wealth.

[mrgmrg]

I don't know from where they get the figures for this chart. Take Easton: average gross income is $200k, average home value is $600k, and average net worth is $1.7mm?? That just doesn't add up to anyone familiar with personal finance at this level. Assuming that the house is completely paid off, I don't find $1.1mm in investments to be reasonable at the $200k income level (which is after taxes something like $130k), unless you're close to retirement.

[mrgmrg]

Just to build off that comment, the net worth figure of $1.7mm for Easton is significantly higher than the median net worth for a 55yo making $200k per year (by $600k). That just doesn't make a lot of sense in one of the highest COL areas in the country. Especially considering that even at high income levels, your home is likely to be a very significant portion of your net worth.

[hvexpatinct]

If the disposable income calc is based on AGI, it doesn't really tell you much about factors like inherited wealth, tax advantaged savings, etc. It is certainly possible that people have that kind of NW in Easton, and also that true HHI is a heck of a lot higher than $200K.

[mrgmrg]

Originally Posted by hvexpatinct

If the disposable income calc is based on AGI, it doesn't really tell you much about factors like inherited wealth, tax advantaged savings, etc. It is certainly possible that people have that kind of NW in Easton, and also that true HHI is a heck of a lot higher than $200K.

That's definitely possible, but I lived in Easton and it certainly seemed like most people were working, not landed gentry. Interest and dividends, such as payouts from trusts, are reflected in AGI anyway. It also doesn't explain the "mismatch" I perceive between owning a $600k house and having a net worth of $1.7mm. Assuming there's no mortgage, that makes primary residence 35% of net worth. Which is quite low, even for the affluent.