Do you consider this ‘wealthy’?

The private schools could cost £70K pa which means they need to earn double that as they'll pay 50% tax on £150K-ish.

Private school is a marker of absolute wealth for me without all the other stuff. To think people have the money to pay for schooling blows my mind.

Thing is it can be true that on paper they’re wealthy but don’t necessarily have much disposable income post private school fees. That’s obviously a choice that makes them privileged but it is quite possible that they still have to be pretty controlled.

so…

• 700k property and no mortgage - fab but doesn’t generate an income
• 2x £250k btl- might just be coverage the mortgage on these- obviously will be a good asset later down the line but might not be generating them much more than the mortgage.
• Holiday home @ 280k- again great but might be a cost re maintenance and mortgage if they’re not renting it out (not everyone does).

once the mortgages are paid off they’ll be laughing but they’re not necessarily making money at this point.

What job does your brother do?

Or they could have had an inheritance, won money etc

Private schools are around £35K pa. For seniors. Can be more if a very top public school.

That means £70K pa net, so they will need to earn over £150K just for schools
(Unless the kids are in tiny prep schools where the fees may be £10K-£15K)

You mean they were given a house?

And the have 2 buy to let, one holiday home and 2 leased cars?

Certainly better off than most people, but someone would have to be a multimillionaire to be "wealthy".
But it's all meaningless, because if you spend more than you earn then you definitely are struggling - whether you're a prince or a pauper.

Very wealthy, I’d say! Why do you want to know if others regard you as wealthy or not?

There is a lot of confusion about wealth. Having a high salary (+100k) does not, for example, mean you are wealthy, esp if you spend it all & get in debt. Wealth is net worth, so this couples main net worth is< £1M, assuming that all their equity is in property. They could have more equity, in stocks & shares, pensions, etc. I would consider them well-off, but not wealthy, esp in this day of billionaires

Wealthy overall but their outgoings are probably high, 3 in private school, cars and holidays is a lot. If the rentals are mortgaged then the rent is possibly just covering that so while the 2 properties are assets it's not adding anything to their income (yet).

Obviously they aren't struggling so shouldn't be complaining (especially to someone they know might be) but they might not be in a position to splash the cash on things they aren't bothered about, like eating out.

Well off

I would say very well off, but wealthy would depend on the wider financial picture. Things such as ensuing, investments, independent funds/income etc.

Wealthy, in my opinion, would be not needing to work, although many would choose to. I would necessarily include rental income in not needing to work, as running a rental portfolio is work.

I’d say they are well off, which is a colloquial term. I personally define ‘wealthy’ by HMRC standards, which is an income of £200k or more, or assets of £2m or above.

So no, not wealthy.

Given mortgage rates are what they are at the moment, you might find that their two properties "paid for themselves" previously but now aren't making a profit or earning as much income (and the kids school and their cars) and now they have contractual or other commitments (the cars, the kids school) but not the cash to comfortably back it up. Combined with only BIL working, even if he does have a good salary, it has to stretch further if the profit on the rent (if there was any!) isn't as much as before. Kids and their activities also get more expensive as they get older and when you add in private school and the "trips" (New York, skiing) you might find his single salary isn't enough to maintain 2 leased cars, private school and the extra curricular because the rent profit likely doesn't make up for a second income.

People usually adapt their lifestyle to the amount they earn, asset wealth isn't cash wealth and if they've worked hard to buy the two investment properties, they'd perhaps rather watch their spending than sell them unless it really is a rainy day.

I find it odd to have such strong opinions on your in laws finances when they're watching what they spend. It's none of your concern if they don't want to spend money on dessert unless it's gifted. I have friends whose parents have gifted them huge sums for houses (even paid outright as your in-laws) and I'm not resentful of it.

As I class wealth, I’d put them in the very well off category.
And while anyone being thrifty is absolutely fine, not paying for dessert but expecting other people to is just mean behaviour. So in that sense they are spirituality poor. Can’t bear people claiming poverty.

Same!

Do you think you're clever by calling people dicks?

They aren't wealthy.

Obviously wealthy, and annoying! Why don't you call them on it? I would have to point out how insensitive they are when they say they are 'struggling'

It’s possible to be well off and as tight as a gnats arse. The two are not mutually exclusive

Depends what other pension provision he has in place too, for retirement Maybe the buy to lets are his pension and he has nothing else in place.

But if he will have a decent workplace pension plus full state pension and she's also built up some pension then they'll enjoy a very very nice retirement indeed with the income from their buy to lets on top, and they'll no longer have school fees to pay. So they are comfortable now but will be wealthy pensioners.

they didn't get wealthy by buying frivolous deserts. Buckle up those belts for a 3rd buy to let.

Yes, they are wealthy.

I’m guessing after all their expenditure, they don’t face much left out. A case of asset rich but cash poor. Maybe they feel stressed having to pay and manage all of it.

@DrCoconut

well they ARE. They're choosing not buy extras, like dessert. They're not asking anyone for anything, or I'm sure the OP would have said!!

but they don't own their cars, and have mortgages on the other properties.

not wealthy, and def not rich.

better off than many, but less well off than some

The BTLs are more about capital investment rather than income generation. If they have mortgages on them, are higher rate tax payers, pay agent fees, repair costs, etc they could well not be making much. So while obviously it’s great to have them I agree they’re more about being asset rich rather than having income.

but yes they are still wealthy to have them, a holiday house and being mortgage free. If they are struggling with income sell the holiday home. Is the holiday home their personal holiday home or do they rent it out? Why have a holiday home and pay for holidays?