To think the problem with wealth inequality is that rich people don't know how rich they are?

Reasons aren't excuses.

I did read your previous reply and all I saw excuses. I grew up in a low income home with a dad that was in and out of work and a mum who became seriously ill in her 40’s. I was severely bullied at school, had undiagnosed autism that was treated as mental illness and tried to commit suicide at 16. I also missed a lot of school between 13-16 due to asthma that was exacerbated by my parents smoking.

But I still managed to qualify as a solicitor and earn the elusive six figure salary.

Someone’s got to be the net contributors in the economy, eh?

Your jealousy and spite toward the previous poster is palpable.

But some people do just mess around and coast through life though. It's stupid to pretend otherwise. Not every well off person was born with a silver spoon in their mouth, not every poor person has been held back by endless barriers.
Of course not everyone has the same chances in life. But some people do just piss away every chance they do get, and some people their best to seek out opportunity. It's not black and white.

An interesting thought experiment for those interested in talking about wealth rather than incomes.

Would you consider someone with £1,000,000 in the bank as wealthy?

I'm guessing yes...

Would you consider someone living in a council house as wealthy?

I'm guessing no...

-

Shelter estimates that in London, the difference between average social rents and private rents is over £1400. This would be higher in zone 1/2 areas - in my area I have seen £2k+ differences.

What is the value of the real annuity you'd have to have in order to generate that difference? Let's say the social housing tenure is 50 years, age 25 to 75. You want a sum in the bank today, which you will slowly draw down on to generate £1400 a month for 50 years. Social tenancies are relatively safe so let's assume a risk-free rate of 1%, although you'll be taxed on it, so let's say it's 0.6%.

The private renter would need to have ~£700k today right now in the bank to get the same "value" as the £1400 rent difference (or ~£1M+ for £2000).

(This is assuming the private renter dies neatly at 75. Add another ~£100k for every extra 10 years she needs to live.)

Do you view, say, someone who sold a business and got a payout of £700k-1M, in the same "bucket" as someone who just got allocated a London social house? Why / why not?

--

We are very bad at conflating incomes with wealth, but there are also significant distortions in the market (such as council housing, but similar applies to other benefits, and even arguably "mortgages from 20 years ago" which have value in their protection from market rents) which make it very hard to compare either wealth or incomes "head to head".

Lucky that you had a family member willing to do this 🙄 we don’t have one, for example. Childminder is not much cheaper, maybe 1700 pcm.
And obviously people get free childcare hours now which reduce the costs. And even more hours if they are on benefits.

you know who doesnt get ANY until kids are 3?
people on 6 figures 😀
once ONE parent earns over 100k, no free childcare hours and back to 2К a month. (The only alternative is to reduce salary or do pension sacrifice so that the government gets less tax £ AND has to fork out for free childcare)

so actually people on less than 6 figures don’t realise how well they have it.

I don’t think £100k automatically makes someone “rich.” Context matters. Someone on £100k with no family help, high rent, and no child benefit isn’t in the same position as someone earning less but getting parental support or cheaper childcare.

Calling them “rich” just distracts from the real inequality at the very top.

And on your point about childcare, cars, and lifestyle choices: it’s great that you’ve managed things in a certain way, but those options aren’t available to everyone. Some people don’t have family support, can’t access cheaper childcare, or don’t have the financial buffer to buy a car outright. Using your own situation as the standard for what others “should” be able to afford doesn’t really land, different circumstances create different pressures, regardless of salary.

Reading more of the thread, people saying e.g. £2k on nursery fees and e.g. £400 on car finance. I couldn't afford £2k of nursery fees so I had to use a cheaper childminder and get help one day a week from a family member. Thank goodness I had that because essentially it was double pay that day. I have also NEVER had car finance. I can't afford that per month! I bought a car when I got my first job and then saved immediately for the new one. So when the old one needed fixing I used the car savings to fund it. When it got to the end of its life and became costly to fix I would part ex it for a new one. I've only ever bought and driven what I could afford. My car is currently 11 years old and because it's a boringly reliable brand it'll last me a good few years more. Is it desperately dull? Yes. Would I love a shinier, newer one? Yes. But when you don't earn £100k you don't get to make the nice choices.

Someone called it lifestyle creep. The more you earn, the more you spend. So then the credit or outgoings obligations feel like a millstone around your neck. But if you lived in my house, drove my car and used my childminder you'd have a lot more money to spend!

Britain lacks aspiration and which I guess must be due to high taxation combined with high COL and housing. You see a lot of people on here saying it's not worth going to uni, which suggests that they don't see much evidence that it leads to a better lifestyle. I wonder if part of the reason a lot of people are economically inactive is because if they did work, it wouldn't add a lot more to their lifestyle.

I'm currently in this situation - DH and I both FT and currently trying to buy a bigger house but wondering if a massive 25 year mortgage in our early 40s is really worth it. The other option is to stay in a smaller house and go PT and have an easier life, but if everyone like us does that then presumably the country as a whole becomes less productive.

It's hardly an intrusive question. It's a thread about income and you've made assumptions about mine (and others) and wrongly insulted me over it multiple times. You are a hypocrite.

I didn't say money doesn't matter. I said that accumulating it shouldn't be an aspiration. There is more to life than a massive bank balance.

But well done for not calling me a "hypocrite" or asking intrusive questions like you have been doing up to this post.

Reading more of the thread, people saying e.g. £2k on nursery fees and e.g. £400 on car finance. I couldn't afford £2k of nursery fees so I had to use a cheaper childminder and get help one day a week from a family member. Thank goodness I had that because essentially it was double pay that day. I have also NEVER had car finance. I can't afford that per month! I bought a car when I got my first job and then saved immediately for the new one. So when the old one needed fixing I used the car savings to fund it. When it got to the end of its life and became costly to fix I would part ex it for a new one. I've only ever bought and driven what I could afford. My car is currently 11 years old and because it's a boringly reliable brand it'll last me a good few years more. Is it desperately dull? Yes. Would I love a shinier, newer one? Yes. But when you don't earn £100k you don't get to make the nice choices.

Someone called it lifestyle creep. The more you earn, the more you spend. So then the credit or outgoings obligations feel like a millstone around your neck. But if you lived in my house, drove my car and used my childminder you'd have a lot more money to spend!

I'm not a high earner.
It would be interesting to know the basis of your "money doesn't matter, I'm not greedy" spiel that's all.

I'll tell you what - if you're a high earner you lack in social skills.

You've got plenty of opinions about other peoples money, why so cagey about your own?

None of your business!

So you were a 6 figure earner yourself?

Can you please point me to the post where I said you weren’t?

Show me your financial details, and I’ll be able to help you work it out.

Can you please point me to the post where I said you weren’t?

Show me your financial details, and I’ll be able to help you work it out.

Thank you! The person alse seems unaware that many Local Govt employees earn 6 figures!

Just because someone worked in local government you feel able to make such a sweeping statement, that they haven't "contributed" to society? Ridiculous! And offensive. Perhaps our society fails adequately to recognise the contributions made to society by employees of local and national government, but that doesn't mean they don't contribute. Public sector institutions didn't come into being because people wanted to waste money but because they addressed needs that otherwise went unmet or were met only ineffectively and inefficiently.

If a local road needs to be repaired, and a council highways department employee identifies the problem and employs a private contractor to carry out the work, then does that highways worker merely drain the public purse, making no useful contribution, while the contractor's HR manager or finance director is somehow heroically contributing? Of course not. And does a police officer not contribute while a privately employed security guard in a shopping centre does? No.

This attitude undervalues contributions that can't be measured in the crudest financial terms. It also fails to recognise the monetary value of the work the public sector does. Businesses can't create wealth without roads and other infrastructure. They need an educated pool of potential employees. They need law enforcement and social programmes without which crime would soar, towns and cities would be unpleasant and lawless places to be, and businesses would lose out on passing trade and have to spend vastly more on security.