To hate The Sunday Times Rich List

[Whenwillwe3meetagain]

It's the only time the magazine goes straight into the recycling.
Apart from those on it or who aspire to be on it, who is it for? I find it pretty distasteful.

@The80sweregreat

Thing is as well, giving huge amounts when you have loads is easy, tax reasons or not. Especially galling when certain givers make a big thing of it.

Its like the old parable of giving money - church is collecting for poor, wealthy merchant gives 10 sacks of gold and struts around taking the praise, in reality it is nothing to him. Widowed old peasant women gives 1 of the 2 coins she has which is all her money in the word and leaves quietly - she has sacrificed more to help others than him.

Yes I agree! It’s the quiet ones that are to be praised. We don’t get to hear about them though.

Even if it’s for tax you’re still losing the money to the charity arent you? Donating doesn’t give you more money than you had before.

I agree though, it’s fairly grim

Depends how much they give? Will the Times run that list?

Wealthy individuals who shit on about philanthropy and charity are usually giving money for tax reasons.

I've always felt confused when people say this. I'm fairly sure that whatever the tax consequences of giving money away, it doesn't lead to the giver having more money than if they'd given nothing. I wonder if the people who say this have no grasp of how tax works?

I always read it when it comes out; it feels like a gaudy insight into other peoples lives, like something that belongs in OK Magazine.

Agree firesuit. Including, weirdly, George Osbourne who you would think understands how this works. He got a bee in his bonnet about this a few years back. You still have to actually give away the money to a charitable entity registered with the Charities Commission - not just some made up thing.

I don’t think there is a real issue in this country although I’m open to being told I have missed a massive scam if I have.

However I’m very concerned about philanthropy elsewhere for other reasons - ie Jennifer Pritzker (Previously James) giving away fortunes to fund trans propaganda and child transition clinics. There are a few very wealthy white men in the US doing this stuff and that is extremely alarming - anti democratic in the extreme and of course in this particular instance massively anti woman.

Again it depends who they are giving to I guess.
I bet a lot of the ‘big names ‘don’t give much.
Too many islands and holiday homes to run.

I doubt they have to agree to go on the list - I actually know a couple of people who have been on it and I'm pretty certain they would rather have not been. I should imagine the Information used is in the public domain if you go looking for it. People's names are in the paper for various reasons all the time, you don't have to give your agreement.

I've got the paper and the angle the ST is taking is that 94% of the people on it are self-made as opposed to the wealthy landowner, family money type (although I haven't read the whole article yet so I don't know how true it is). This has changed from only 43% in 1989 when the List was first published. Isn't this a good thing? I do have socialist tendencies and would like a more equitable society. No-one should have to live in poverty and there should be enough money for things like the NHS and social care, but wealth needs to be created to fund this.

As The Independent pointed out today, it's ongoing proof that trickle-down economics is a lie.
These levels of inequality are both immoral and economically inefficient… We are producing more than enough wealth to provide everyone in the UK with a decent standard of living, yet we are allowing that wealth to remain at the very top.

To be totally fair people who need food banks are not reading The Times are they ?

How did you come to that conclusion MrsJay?

I definitly wouldn't want to be on the list. I also wouldn't want to read it. Unless one is a gold digger or a burger why would one? But I certainly don't have the contempt for the people on the list that some posters have displayed. They have worked hard and done well for themselves. Good for them. Why be bitter about it?

It's only a guesstimate, not the real figures - some people should be on the list but have managed to keep a low profile, or possibly shouldn't.

MN posters who believe that someone is rich if they earn more than the average salary could still have a look and realise what being REALLY well-off means in terms of figures, even on a rough estimate.

Good question as to what purpose the list serves.. I’m sure there are lots of companies that find it useful for targeting their marketing eg yacht manufactures, charities etc. I think it’s also interesting to wanabees. I suspect there’s quite a split between who wants to be on it and not. I know a couple of the listed individuals who have been on it for years and I know for a fact they confirmed their stated wealth figures and would be furious to be left off 😂

MN posters who believe that someone is rich if they earn more than the average salary hmm could still have a look and realise what being REALLY well-off means in terms of figures, even on a rough estimate.

It’s a matter of perspective, isn’t it? If you were from a deprived background and everyone you knew was on a low wage, your perception of “well off” would also be distorted. There’s no need to sneer and about it.

Would be interesting to know how The ST monetises the list, it must cost a fortune to research. Do they sell the list onto companies etc. Hmm, who knows.

Ethics and the rest aside, it was really bloody disappointing when I opened the Times app this morning and the Magazine was the Rich List. I want an interesting selection of articles to read (as a distraction from compiling a shopping list) not a list of rich people.

useful for charities to know whom to approach? I don't buy the paper when this is in it ...because I find it boring ... but I guess, if it's accurate, it's a useful document for future historians tracking social mobility/class/changes in industry etc.

Battleax

In the context of threads where people mock or abuse posters who ask for help or advice, but did not deserve either earning an above-average salary, yes I am sneering.

I am talking about posters who refuse to understand someone can struggle if they earn more than £6k a year.

Some people I knew a few years ago. (And are some of the genuinely loveliest, unassuming people I've ever met) are in it. It made them sound very materialistic, which they aren't.

Imagine opening it up and seeing you earn less than you thought? 😀

Much of the list is speculation and guesswork, and much of the wealth attributed to entrepreneurs is ‘on paper’, ie the current market value of shares in their businesses, which may be highly leveraged, cannot easily be liquidated and may or may not generate significant profits.

Of course, many of the people on the list really are very rich indeed in terms of real money and real assets, eg Bernie Ecclestone or JK Rowing.

Some people are so poor that all that they have is money.

It's all guesswork.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Tang
This man was on the 2017 list worth millions but died recently and was actually in debt.

Derxa - exactly, and David Tang is a good example. He lived so lavishly no one could have guessed he actually owed a fortune.
There's a large estate near where we live and the family who owned it used to be on the list.
Then the owner died and he left £2 million in his will which was published.
The family are worth far more than that but the house and farms had been handed over to the next generation several years before.
However the Rich List editors took the grandfather's will as being the total worth of the family and they vanished - much to their relief - from the Rich List.
It's mostly guess work.