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

Jesus Christ. Have a nice day.

Both, I hope that is a clearer "both" than the one I posted earlier. It probably isn't clearer given the content of your post.

Our house was £290,000. Just under the national average cost of a house.

We pay £1400 a month in mortgage payments.
We pay £260 p/m council tax.
We pay £250 p/m gas and electric.
We pay £70 p/m water.
That’s £2k a month just to live in a warm house (of average value) with running water.
Then add on the cost of food.

We earn very good wages, much better jobs than our parents, but in relative terms, we’re much, much worse off.

Where did you think the debt came from??

What's happened that means you can't afford to heat your home?

Yes I know that - my first post was that in London 200-250k is middle class because of cost of all the things above. I’m only talking about london because of its high property and childcare costs.

and btw no full time nanny on that income - nanny costs 55k a year so double of a nursery. But part time or nanny share max.

It would appear that neither parent has spare cash. One is doing it off of their own steam and the other is in receipt of government handouts. To be clear: which parent are you accusing of “having children that they can’t afford”?

This is where we differ. I'm more intelligent than you, therefore not as obsessed with money. Your tax goes to pay off the massive debt that the UK is in, nothing more.

Cleaner and Nanny 😂Btw, not sure if you realise this - not everyone lives in London, or even England believe it or not!

I'm on a high income but still sat in my freezing, mortgaged to the sky house with a snoody on because the heating costs too much.

I mean yeah.

"I can't afford to support my kids because I'm spending all my money on paying for other people's kids"

and

"The free money I get from other people is not quite enough to support my kids"

are not comparable positions!!

No, that’s not what I’m advocating.

I’m pointing out flawed logic that people on 100K -200K are not middle class and are rich just because there are much poorer people out there. Middle / working class / rich is defined by lifestyle options in economic terms (I’m not talking about British inherited class system).

Middle class in London is kids in good state schools, house in decent neighbourhood (eg Chiswick, Ealing Richmond but not Chelsea, and not detached), a car, savings and private pensions, couple of holidays a year, some mid range restaurant outings, kids hobbies etc., a cleaner and maybe a nanny share. Jobs usually professionals. The fact someone is massively poorer doesn’t make middle class rich.
the fact that in london you now need 200K for this especially with nursery age kids and new-ish mortgage also doesn’t make people rich, just because it’s low 6 figures. Rich is when you don’t have to budget for holidays, house or any spend.

it just means that inflation has been big and COL has increased massively

You can feel richer and poorer relative to your environment, and comparative experience.

If you’re suddenly struggling to afford things you could easily afford before, despite on paper having more money than you did, then of course you’re going to 1, notice, and 2, take issue with this.

Not every conversation has to centre those with less, or involve a performative checking of one’s privilege in order to mollify those that think this should be the case.

When we were working, we had a combined income in the low £100s. Sounds like a lot, but we paid 5 sets of school fees and also gave 10% to charity.

You can do the sums, but after that, we lived fairly frugally - caravan holiday once a year, everything bought in the sales, very little eating out...

I imagine that most higher earners have expenses to match their income, which is why they don't feel 'rich' (in that they can impulse buy whenever they like), although hopefully will see themselves as privileged.

H

There’s a difference too between inherited wealth and wealth earnt. If you come from nothing and work your arse off through uni or training, incurring debt along the way, then you deserve every bit of that wealth, regardless. A lot of people though want wealth but without having to work for it.

Both. However, the single parent on UC will be judged more. I'm not judging either. Both are having a hard time financially and emotionally. I'm just (obviously badly) trying to point out that the mantra on here recently has been "don't have children you can't afford", which applies in both scenarios but the UC parent will be judged more harshly.

The current Duke Of Westminster (34 years old), inherited most of London when he was in his 20s, worth approximately 9 billion and paid not a penny in IHT. This is the sort of thing that drives me crazy. This country is positively feudal.
He's never made anything, or invented anything. He's just rich beyond the dreams of avarice because one of his ancestors was nice to the King/Queen.

I'm kind of confused by your posts. Are you saying we should be equally as sympathetic to these two examples, rather than only give our sympathy to the single mum on UC?

This is making an assumption that everyone you consider ‘rich’ is responsible for underpaying their staff. A huge number of ‘rich’ people have no responsibility for staffing.

Just goes to show that some people in high paying jobs who "work really hard" can't understand plain english...

@SalmonOnFinnCrisp nails it.

We are Susan and Doug. So much of the past 25 years have been dedicated to working 12 hour days and evenings/weekends. Dh flying back from family holidays to deal with work crisis. Me taking work calls from days out at the zoo or theme park. The amount of pressure we are both under now is hard to cope with.

My kids aren't in private school
We get a fair amount of holidays but he odd week in Europe, not zanzibar, skiing and Thailand.

No designer clothes. Our cars are 7 years old (premium marque but nothing fancy).

Bedraggled furniture, no time to replace. Semi detached house, shared drive, right on a main road.

Not much pension. Can't afford to retire.

I live the same or worse lifestyle than friends earning much much less than me.

I guess we are spending it on meals out at our local independent coffee shop and Italian. We are often knackered and a meal out at the weekend is a bit of a chance to decompress. You'll excuse me if I don't consider this rich. I'd have thought lobster and champagne, not a pizza and a glass of house red was the rich lifestyle.

Don't get me wrong. I know I'm privileged but it's not what I was sold as the lifestyle that comes from working hard and doing every right, always putting your job first over friends and family.

My bosses kids went to private school and they went on 3 week trips to Australia. They had second homes in lovely places.

Rich lifestyle certainly not the same now I'm the boss.

They're not in the same position though are they? So I'm still not sure what your point is.

Could you give me an example of an "under achiever"?

Not rich, but living well beyond their means because of the choices they have made. Sorry their partner left them with a shitshow (really am), however, they are in the same position as a single parent on UC and the only one out of the two who would be judged on here as "unable to support a child", is the latter.

THAT's the point I'm making.