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

I understand what it is to be poor. I was raised in a poor family, I spent a year homeless as a child, many of my family are still poor. The fact I now earn a lot of money has not changed that.

My friend says "everyone feels poor" . which is true I think .ATM COL is so high and everyone feels stretched at some level. I dont think it helps when people look back at the 70s and 80s and compare themselves to their parents lives . Food was expensive back in the 60s ,and families spent more of their budget on a Sunday roast .less on crisps which were seen as treats. Many more women work. and the standard of living is high now and demands 2 incomes

Why do you assume everybody who is a high earner had this?

The reason the vote is fairly evenly split is because this works both ways. Rich people don't understand what it is to be poor, and vice versa.
The issue people on £100K+ have is that they are disproportionately hammered.

The issue people on low salaries have is that they can only afford a very basic life.
Tax system needs to be more equable or there's no incentive to be a high achiever and productivity suffers as a result.

Cost of living crisis also needs to be addressed.
Two separate problems but with a natural tension between the two.

So for a few years the single mother on benefits may have more disposable income that her peer earning 100K (are you really sure that's correct?).
And are you sure someone on NMW gets entirely fully funded full time childcare ie cover for the single mother working full time hours.

Anyway, once they're at school the NMW single mother will be firmly back in her place.....

As a disabled person (disabled through medical negligence) and an ex high tax rate payer, I am incredibly grateful for those who contribute the most money to our economy. They deserve to enjoy their wealth.

You can repeat this until you are blue in the face of this makes you feel better. This doesn’t make it true.

every poor person in the UK is rich if compared to a village in Malawi or India. They think otherwise only because they are surrounded by people in the UK.
so, they are rich. No matter what they can actually afford.
makes sense? No?

I would say that the 'City' jobs which pay very highly are also very ruthless about getting rid of people who are not performing. Certainly there are aberrations in all companies, but given they are happy to pay people off to avoid drawn out negotiations or performance management plans. Some banks cut the bottom 5-10% of relative performers annually, irrespective of their absolute performance.

But in turn they're worlds away from the seriously wealthy, asset rich, financially free people at the top, so they're still in the middle. Basically if your life style depends on your labour, you're a worker. Workers just get sub divided based on the type of work they do and, in some people's definitions of class, how much they're paid.

I haven’t said people on six figure salaries work harder than teachers or social workers.

I’ve said that they will have worked hard to get (and keep) those jobs. Which it sounds like you both have - recognising you need to change career, being the first move.

If you earn 100k and pay into a pension let's say 12.5% of your salary, you are only taking home just over 5k a month (assuming your student loans are paid off). This is not a lot of money especially if you live somewhere expensive, have a child/children in nursery. It sounds a lot but if you have high rent/mortgage, run a car etc this will soon be eaten each month just on basic living costs. Of course people live on far less but if you have worked hard over many years studying/learning a trade and have a stressful job with a lot of responsibility you would have thought once you are on this kind of money you will be able to afford nice things. It just doesn't go far at the moment. People on this sort of money are going to feel the pinch as they are more likely to have high outgoings, they may have bought a house when rates were low and now they are facing huge increases in monthly payments. People on 100k 15 years ago likely felt very comfortable, it isn't what I'd call "rich" now. A decent salary compared to many yes, but not well off. I have lots of friends on more than this, they all stopped at 2 children for financial reasons!

Middle Class is rich.
Only those surrounded by other Middle Class, and Upper Class, could possibly think otherwise.

I don’t think we’ve updated what we perceive to be high incomes.

I’ve seen the numbers be crunched and a single mother on 100k has less disposable income than a single mother on minimum wage and benefits. It’s almost entirely down to childcare of course, because someone on 100k gets zero help and someone on benefits gets almost entirely fully funded. Even someone on 99k gets help.

The 60% marginal tax rate (not including student loan repayment, which would make it 69%.. and not including NI, which makes it early 70s%) at 100k is crazy. As is the fact that at 100k exactly you lose all your childcare benefits. It’s a very strange cliff edge that successive governments have (purposefully??) created.

”Relative terms” is meaningless.

Somebody on 35k a year has relatively more than somebody on 20k a year. Doesn’t make them “rich”.

On this thread (and other similar ones) three things always stand out.
One is that some people believe people with higher incomes work harder than people on lower incomes. While this may be true in some cases it definetely isnt universal. Do people think that teachers, nurses, care assistants and refuge collectors dont work hard? Some high income people work hard, but so do many middle and low income earners.
Second people seem to see monetary tax contribution as people's only contribution to a functioning society. It is only one aspect. How do people think socety would function without the work provided by care assistants and refuge collectors? We need the services provided by low and middle income workers.
Third people often point out that people on higher incomes have limited disposable income after fixed costs such as housing and nursery costs. This is true, but what they often fail to recognise are the benefits of those fixed costs that are unavailable to lower income earners. Mortgages costs are high but they go towards an appreciating asset unlike rent. Being able to afford higher rents or mortgages gives you access you to neighbourhoods with lower crime, better schools and better facilities. Money buys choice that can impact your standard of living.

The CoL is impacting everyone, but we all deserve a decent standard of living.

Nah. Neither DH nor I work anywhere near as hard for our salaries as we did when we were teachers and social workers.

No, it’s middle class. Upper middle class max.

Rich is when you stop budgeting for childcare, holidays, or housing. Below that you can be comfortable or upper-middle, but you’re still constrained by costs.

Ah yes, the privilege of a safe and secure upbringing and loving parents.

In all fairness free meals you have to earn less than 7.4k and 8k is hardly rich. And council waiting list here is ten years even if living in a homeless shelter (no this is not London)

I don’t lament rich people though I’m just saying

Are you quoting the wrong person?

Wow - yep that sounds out of touch.

What are these politics?

Just because someone on NMW in this country is struggling to do a basic food shop doesn’t mean they’re not richer than the vast majority of the rest of the world, in relative terms.

That's quite a naive view.

Um, I'm not complaining, I'm actually telling others to stop complaining.
I'm also not a 'rich bastard'.