AIBU to think most people have no idea how wealthy people live their lives?

[AnneValentine]

Just that really off the back of a lot of threads but most recently one where multiple people were adamant that the only way it’s possible to have no savings if you have salaries of £200k plus unless one of the couple is squirrelling savings.

Followed up with how do they pay for a broken down car with savings? Hasn’t even dawned on them that people on those salaries don’t have cars that are breaking down.

Is it so hard to believe that money literally eliminates money worries? That you can create a level of security that means savings and such aren’t needed?

I actually agree with the OP...I think ...this thread is hard to follow! ...in that the wealthy don't have "savings" as in "cash set aside for emergencies or specific goals", because they have sufficient liquidity that they can deal with those things without putting money aside for it. If they need a brand new car they can just buy it. Ditto holidays, new boilers. Savings to me is putting money aside for the future. Wealthy people are generating so much income constantly and have such a base of assets that they have no need to "put money aside for the future" in order to buy what they need in the future. It doesn't mean they don't think about the future, but it's more about how to maximise returns and minimise tax liabilities vs to enable them to pay for things in the future they they wouldn't be able to afford without setting money aside now. It's more about ensuring good future income streams - more akin to making a plan for getting pay rises than savings, weirdly.

Yes it is. Ok, I'm done with the thread now! It probably helps to be on morphine and I am not.

There are two recent comments from people who’ve understood. Read them. They aren’t on morphine.

Of course people earning 200k+ can be made redundant! I know plenty.

I’m talking about my husbands position specifically. They aren’t. It’s not a position you can make redundant.

Yes, also you could have said "earning lots means I don't have to worry about money because we earn enough each month to have a buffer of several grand, which is more than enough for a broken boiler, new car etc. having assets also means it is possible to dip into these in case of more massive needs for spending." People would have understood what you were on about, and probably agreed with you.

You've been belligerent on this thread, saying almost everyone else was wrong/ can't possibly understand you. Huge numbers of people couldn't understand you. This isn't because they can't possibly understand the life of someone with high earnings, but because you weren't making sense. Now I understand why. I hope you get well soon!

What are these jobs you can’t be made redundant from? Presumably he doesn’t own a company as that could go bust. Member of the royal family?

I refuse to believe OP isn't on a wind up misson.

Firstly, I earn no where near £13000 a month, but this is still not what I would consider wealthy. Very well off, even rich, yes. Wealthy, no.

Secondly, I don't know how any times you can deny this OP but the excess money built up in your current account IS savings. Just because you don't transfer it to a savings account, dosnt make it not savings.

So £13000 lands in your current account each month. You, for example, I obviously have no idea on actual numbers, spend around £9000 on an average month on mortgage, bills, food, eating out, clothes, petrol etc etc.

So on an average month, £4000 of unspent salary stays in your account. So after 4 months you have built up (saved!!!!!) £16000.

You then decide to book a holiday and pay it from your current account.

This is paying it from savings!

My guess is judge

The problem is that the OP started out claiming that wealthy people have no “savings”. That seems to have now morphed into not having an emergency fund.

I have a household income a fair bit lower than OP’s and am not wealthy, but we live well within our means. We don’t really have an emergency fund either. When the boiler went we could cover it from our current accounts, likewise booking holidays wouldn’t usually require us to draw down from our savings.

But that doesn’t mean we don’t have savings. If I needed to pay out a big unexpected expense then between my credit card and current account, I would be confident I could cover it. However, I have savings in relatively easy access accounts that I would move across in order to pay off the credit card in full. I wouldn’t touch my investments for that sort of thing, but have other options.

The OP didn’t say “wealthy people don’t have boiler breakdown funds”, it said wealthy people don’t have “savings”. The OP then clarified that she has lots of savings, just in relatively illiquid forms.

Its a truly nuts thread.

Just jumping back to say that you retroactively made that comment specific to your husband's position only after many people pointed out how wrong you were in your initial assertion that people on those salaries don't get made redundant, but make others redundant. You meant it generally, then you backtracked when proven utterly wrong. Just another contradiction!

And yes, I read the comments from non-stoned people which made sense. They were not making points that you had made though. You've decided they fit what you'd like to say now, but most of what you've written does not add up to those posters' comments. Your posts have been inconsistent, sneering and mostly very wrong.

And now I really will go!

Positions that are required from a regulatory point of you. The position cannot become redundant. It has to exist. So unless there’s a law change - takes years - where basically the FSA decides banks no longer have to be regulated and they change the regulatory requirements his position has to exist. The only way it would stop for him would he if he broke the law. And then he’s off to prison.

I'm sorry to read about your miscarriages and disabled child. I assume part of your £13k is for your child?

But surely they could decide someone else would be better doing that job instead of him?

We could all tell you’re someone active in the PTA 😂😂

Including every minor detail is not necessary. And in the context of the point of my post and not the weird tangent it went into it’s definitely not relevant. Savings for a boiler wouldn’t cover him losing his job anyway, or anyone else of that kind of salary. expanding because I stupidly wasted time engaging with people who didn’t get it isn’t the same as back peddling. The fact that you’ve got some screaming BOILER whilst others think a cash pot of savings mitigates against redundancy says it all really.

Don’t you like people who raise money for schools that your kids benefit from?

Or his company or organisation could merge with another and they wouldn't need two people doing the function

If he is shit at his job, he can still be removed from post. Managed out.

Have skipped a lot of this thread but now wondering if I do actually know you.

That’s not a redundancy.

He personally could still get made redundant though OP - the role has to be done sure - but there are all different types of corporate restructuring that can be done to get a role made redundant. If they ever wanted him out he could be out.

the role may be essential- your husband doing the role is not

Which isn’t redundancy. If you’re suggesting he could get performance managed out, of course he could but given how niche his job is and how good he is seems unlikely.

I think we are what you mean in that we have pretty high monthly income. Pensions. Two properties, ISAs, ISAs for our kids. We don't have a "rainy day fund" if that's what you mean. If a rainy day came we would have to sell assets, shares etc. It would be quite unlikely to happen to both of us at the same time and we would be fine with one or other of our incomes. While we are both working we can afford to fix most problems from our pay cheques, just means we have less to put into ISAs or wherever.

however YABU to not think that investments are just the same thing as savings. What does it matter? It's the same thing. It's basically not living from paycheque to paycheque.

Literally no they cannot. Legalisation requires his actual role, they cannot repackage it as something else because the law requires it exists. Redundancy is not an option. You cannot make people redundant, only positions. People in those positions obviously, but it’s the position not the people. You don’t sit there and say “let’s boot Bob”. You say surplus account managers. Let’s make 3 redundant and then follow a consultation process.

For me it’s the difference of immediate access and risk involved. But I do get some people don’t agree with that distinction.