Do you consider this ‘wealthy’?

Seriously wealthy and scummy to boot.

Pretty typical Tory Tight Bastards pleading poverty and expecting others to subsidise them so they can carry on enjoying the high life at someone else’s expense.

Next time tell them to sell a kidney if they’re struggling to pay for dessert/the school fees.

Incredibly wealthy, obviously. Easily in the top 5%.

If their two rentals are 50% mortgaged they may not be making much profit on the lettings so perhaps would be better off selling them.

As to whether they are "wealthy" there isn't a defined term for it. They are obviously better off than many people their age (we tend to have to by age as most people start off with not much, have children (very expensive) and pay off a mortgage over 30 years - I paid off mine last year having taken the first out 40 years ago - so tend to be a bit better off when older IF but only if they don't have rent to pay.. I would say I was "well off" rather than wealthy and have no pension other than state if I reach that age and starting to get a few savings but only because after 40 years this is the first year I am not supporting children other than those who live rent free at home but those two buy their own food so I am not even paying for their food now.

Definitely wealthy. I'd consider somebody with two kids in private school and managing a mortgage to be very well off, let along with multiple properties as well. It's not a criticism, happy for you that you're doing well.

Lots of people work hard for minimum wage. Lots of people work hard for carers allowance. And "owning property" as a means of income is the opposite of working hard.

Expecting people to pay for dessert as they are poor,but still affording several expensive holidays a year?

Fuck off.

Very comfortable, but personally I wouldn't say wealthy, that's another category altogether if you ask me.

And as another pp said, people who can control their spending to just spend on what they really believe is worth their money, are the ones who start to accumulate money.

Obviously this isn't possible if you are on the lowest of budgets, but if you choose to live like you are on the lowest of budgets, even when you aren't then you can save.

Often people say they can't afford something, when they actually mean they choose to not spend their money on something because they don't think it's worth it.
It's more socially acceptable because otherwise it appears you are casting judgement on the choices of others, however it can be annoying to those who really cannot afford things in the real sense of the term. They feel that these people are "pretending" to be poor. But it's generally just a way to quickly deter others from prying, and will guarantee that people won't try and pressure them into spending what they don't want.

£10k per year on holidays isn't struggling.
Maybe SIL should get a job then they could have an ice cream.

I know many people who can afford those things and they are not wealthy.

The family described are accumulating wealth but they aren't wealthy yet. Each rental may only be generating a few hundred pounds a month profit. That's not going to cover the school fees.

Yes and there are some people in poor countries who are genuinely starving but I don't see someone's language being policed when they announces they are "starving" just before lunch.
Is there an official somewhere who determines whether someone is "genuinely struggling" before we are allowed to use this word? Or do we accept that people may struggle in different ways and in different circumstances? Ot even feel like they are struggling if they have to make decisions they otherwise wouldn't have made (like selling a house).
It's like saying to someone "you shouldn't be depressed. Other people have it much harder than you". It's just not done, is it?
Struggling - striving to achieve or attain something in the face of difficulty or resistance. That "something" looks different for different people. I am struggling to run an 8 minute mile. Does existence of wheelchair users mean I am not allowed to say it?

Comfortable
Not wealthy at all imo.

Wealthy.

I'd say comfortable

And the £3000 holidays several times a year and kids in private school? If they can afford those things they are wealthy. Not super rich. But wealthy.

Wealthy

Well off until you said the rentals are 50% ltv so might not be providing a monthly income. Comfortable. Definitely not wealthy.

That’s why they are wealthy! SIL obsessed with saving every penny and they have similar assets. When I listen to the lengths they go to save money it’s exhausting and I’m surprised she has time to think about anything else.

Such an articulate and concise way of putting it. Absolutely this.

It’s about being tone deaf. People are actually genuinely struggling. Eat or heat. Can’t fix the car. Can’t pay for the bus fare to work. No fixed abode.

If you look at global and UK averages of course they are wealthy.

So it's about semantics then. Gotcha.

Again, 3000 on a holiday SEVERAL times a year. They are NOT cash-flow squeezed. They are making choices about where to save and where to spend but they are in no way struggling, squeezed, cash flow poor etc. they are tight when it comes to paying for desserts.

Maybe SIL could get a job to pay for puddings?!

This

I'd expect at least £1m + in liquid assets and overall net £5m + to start falling into wealthy bracket.

I would say they are wealthy.

I think it is perfectly ok to be wealthy but tight. But I think it's insulting when wealthy people say they are 'struggling'. They may have over committed themselves financially, but they have options that most other people don't have.

It's fine for them to not have a dessert if they don't want to pay for it. That's their choice . It's considerably less fine if they'll have it as long as someone else pays!