To think people’s idea of what ‘a rich’ person is, is totally skewed?

[Y0208680333367]

For example:

Who do you think of as rich?

When the government talk about wealthy people who do they mean?

Tax the rich. Who are ‘the rich’? Etc

Yes 125k

Lol not when it's the only income and gets taxed so heavily that it's just over 6k a month for five if us.

The cash is surely flowing in. And we definitely haven't created an even more elite two tier school system whereby the really rich people just pay the increase and anyone struggling a bit to pay the fees just switch to state.
We definitely haven't ensured that the most elite of society can even further segregate themselves from the rest of us.

For me its someone who is wealthy enough to live off the income from their assets (they might have a job or business too, but they essentially could afford not to work due to property income/interest/dividend/trust income etc)

I send my son to private school because he is partially deaf and the SEN provision is totally non existent for him. We don’t go on holiday we don’t buy smart clothes or have nice cars. I watch every penny and worry constantly about money. Am I rich? You are totally ignorant. I hope you and none of your family members ever have to go through the pain of having a disabled child that you desperately want to help but are persecuted for doing so.

Someone earning 200k pays 41% total tax, someone on 40k pays 19% (and may be eligible for certain benefits)

DingDongJingle

People mean anyone who is richer than them. They personally don’t want to pay for tax, they just want anyone who has more than they do to pay more tax.

Totally this!!

Anyone with over £2-3million in assets is relatively rich to me.

@Darkmodish Oh but it’s much easier to heavily tax those on £100k who are mortgaged to the hilt

Gee golly jeepers, if only people were able to choose which house they buy, because then they would be able to choose a house with a mortgage they can afford.

I dont agree that anyone with more than me is rich. I live in social housing and earn about 20k a year so no way people on 30 or 50 I would say were rich. Better off than me maybe but by no means rich.
I feel like over 150k is well off depending on where you live, I'm in an expensive town.

To me rich would be over maybe about 1.5 mil and a large house mortgage free. Saying that my son has a friend whose house is worth 1.3 mil and go on 5 or 6 holidays a year but both parents work so I'd not say they're rich.

They're very well off and don't have to worry about money at all but not 'rich'.

A country can’t tax its way to prosperity. Taxing those with good incomes and wealth they’ve built up, whether through good fortune (eg their own parents invested it for their children), or their own wise investments/entrepreneurial activities is only going to disincentive a country which already has terrible productivity stats.
Which economies are growing most quickly? Yes, the ones with low tax regimes (eg UAE).
How about the government stops wasting the money it already collects in tax and focuses on growing the economy so everyone benefits rather than stealing the assets that many people have worked a lifetime to accumulate.

I think we are saying the same thing: higher earners bear a greater burden once the rate is applied to their earnings.

I'm not sure. They're definitely paying different rates

Someone who can afford more than one property, private education for their children, enjoy expensive hobbies such as skiing/horse riding & have private memberships to gyms, theatres etc
I mean people who can comfortably afford all of the above, not thise who stick all this on credit cards to 'appear' wealthy....

I think rich means you have enough money to live off the interest without drawing down the principle. It means never needing to work in your lifetime.

Anyone who has to work for a living can have their financial stability disappear in an instant. One accident, one illness, or one bad business decision can take away everything someone has if they depend on a paycheck. No matter how big that paycheck is, that means they aren’t rich.

Rich means being able to cover your financial obligations with something left over.

@MidnightPatrol There is definitely currently a confusing dynamic whereby a ‘top 1-2% salary’ affords people a surprisingly ordinary standard of living - particularly in London.
I think technically these people should be ‘rich’ but due to high housing costs (and high taxation tbh) their lives look rather more ordinary than one might expect.
Thats why the wealth vs income piece is so important.

Those people don't have an "ordinary" standard of living.

Whenever someone on £100 - £150k provides a breakdown of their monthly expenses, you see private education for children, a fancy house, an expensive car on one of those weird 'PCP' deals, eating out multiple times a month, expensive hobbies, more than one foreign holiday a year, activities for children, etc. etc.

And then they say they're not rich because they have no money left at the end of the month... after they bought a bunch of stuff which people on normal incomes couldn't possibly dream of affording.

By the way, the 'high taxation' thing is nonsense. Taxation is avoided through salary sacrifice schemes.

@Darkmodish

To paraphrase the terminator..
They want your assets and your wages.

It's progressive, basically.

Whenever someone on £100 - £150k provides a breakdown of their monthly expenses, you see private education for children, a fancy house, an expensive car on one of those weird 'PCP' deals, eating out multiple times a month, expensive hobbies, more than one foreign holiday a year, activities for children, etc. etc.

100k will cover a mortgage, childcare and bills these days and not much else. When you bought your home will make a much bigger difference in how much disposable income you have.

Yes. My response was to your comment where you suggested it's one rate which = a higher sum because that rate is applied to a higher salary. Which is incorrect

I think it is the level of security.
Someone earning excess of £150k in a large mortgaged home, flash car, luxury holidays and a kid at private school are certainly wealthy. But if they were to have an accident or illness meaning they would never be able to work again then within months they may have to sell to downsize to an average home so no mortgage and pull out of private education and serious lifestyle changes. A truly rich person would have no worries as their life wouldn't depend on an ongoing salary.

If you were on £150k salary, home owned outright and 2 million in the bank you would be rich. If the same accident occurred then you could invest in assets to keep an income coming in for the rest of your days

It’s amazing how the 90% below you live at all isn’t it? I mean they can’t all have bought homes decades ago

Totally subjectively, I think anyone with more than £100,000 in the bank is ‘rich’.

Trying to be a bit more objective about it though, I guess anyone with a passive income large enough that they are financially independent and don’t have to work (unless they want to) and yet still afford to live a very comfortable lifestyle is “wealthy” and should be treated as such by the government when it comes to taxes etc.
I haven't done the maths but I think you’d need several million invested to live like that.

How about the government stops wasting the money it already collects in tax and focuses on growing the economy so everyone benefits rather than stealing the assets that many people have worked a lifetime to accumulate.

very difficult with an ageing population and huge housing inequality