Do you consider this ‘wealthy’?

[haleeeee]

Two kids in private school since primary. Two buy to let’s of around 250k value each. One holiday home value 280k. Own home mortgage free. Income allows for a few holidays a year circa 3k each time.

Wealthy? Well off? Or just better than average?

Top 10%

They are financing mortgages on the rentals. That’s not wealth. It’s really a business. Plus if they need to sell assets to afford private education, they are not wealthy. Wealthy people don’t need to do this.

Absolutely wealthy.

You could say that about many of the people who own stately homes. They're still wealthy.

If they have enough surplus assets to sell beyond the family home to fund private education for multiple children of course they're wealthy.

And owning a few rental properties isn't a business, it's passive investment.

If you run them yourself, it’s a business. Loads of people run them as such. It’s hardly passive! If you have to sell anything to fund private education, you are not wealthy. What families in stately homes use state education? They are wealthy.I agree. Most have family trusts. They don’t sell anything to afford school fees! As if. Well maybe the odd Canaletto or Chippendale chair!

They sound like very wealthy humblebraggers

@category12

they do make a choice to not eat dessert when they go out for lunch! Or they avoid going to lunch

I’d avoid it too if it meant more holidays etc!!

For some people it is worth paying school fees and being careful with money rather than spending on eating out

just because they have no mortgage and kids in private ed it doesn’t mean they can spend what the hell they like! Even if it comes down to a pudding!

Nobody said they can spend what the hell they like, but they're not in any shape or form struggling.

Any fool can spend all the money they've got and then complain about being hard up.

It doesn't make them poor.

It just makes them struggling to meet the standards they have set for themselves @PigletJohn However wealthy people could have deserts and school fees! New cars, several houses. Not go near a buy to let, and still easily afford school fees. And lots of very expensive holidays.

But it is a CHOICE.

They have enough spare money to private educate their children, and absolutely it is up to them how they spend their own money, but if they don't want to buy a dessert it is because of CHOICES they have made, not because they literally do not have enough money to buy the dessert. They DO have the money, they're just choosing to spend it elsewhere.

🙄

Every rich person i know believes they got there purely from hard work, plenty of poor people work equally as hard or harder. Two or three jobs and still struggle.

The reality is that hard work and a great deal of being in the right place at the right time i.e. Luck and privilege are also required.

sounds very well off to me. not anything to feel guilty over,but more than one house when most people can't buy ONE, private schools, several holidays a year, that's definitely wealthy.

They can indeed be struggling to afford what they want to. ‘Struggling’ doesn’t just apply to the least well off, and you can struggle to afford the things you want, not just the things you need.

I wouldn’t call them wealthy. That isn’t the same thing as calling them poor.

Hard work does not equal being wealthy, it never did. Getting into the right career or owning a business makes a difference. I see people working hard but they don’t have origin ideas, start companies or become highly paid financiers or lawyers. It’s not luck. It’s about being more capable at skills that make money. Obviously some inherit but others do make it for themselves. All will work hard doing so.

Claiming to be "struggling" to pay for luxuries is just tone deaf and wanky.

I daresay Jeff Bezos might "struggle" to encrust his rocket with diamonds but it's not actually any sort of struggle or deprivation, is it?

It's just greed and/or status stuff.

Yes. There's surely no possibility that bring in the top 5% can be considered less than wealthy.

I'd consider the richest 20% rich.

Personally, I'm better off than 40% of the UK according to the IFS measure and I consider myself "comfortable". I have enough for food, rent, energy bills, holidays and extras such as eating out.

Wealthy

Possibly wealthy, rather depends on how leveraged they are.

If all the properties are mortgage free, and there is income other than from the BTL's then yes, wealthy.

Why? Because it doesn’t centre those with less? Why does it need to if those with less aren’t the topic of a conversation? Should those in poverty in the UK never speak on their struggles unless they piously check their privilege in comparison to those in poverty in Sudan then?

Someone with more than you can speak of their own struggles without you having to make it competition, or about you. Tbh I’d say it more tone deaf to consider yourself entitled to dictate someon else’s tone.

To struggle is to make one’s way with difficulty. It isn’t a word exclusively reserved for those with the least.

Well off only, wealthy looks A LOT different from that!

What percentage of the population are you prepared to describe as "wealthy?"

The richest 10%?

The richest 5%?

The richest 1%?

No, because it's not a struggle. It's not a struggle to realise "oh dear maybe we can't stretch to our fourth holiday abroad this year" or "maybe I'll put off replacing the tesla for a couple of months" or "oh no, we have such a big house and lifestyle choices that we don't have much disposable income left". That's all choice.

If you can't afford your needs, that's a struggle.

once again: struggle isn’t a word reserved for the exclusive use of those with the least, however much you may like to believe that it is.

That something is a choice, a want or a need is irrelevant.