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

Lol, I most certainly do look at my payslip; last year I paid total tax and NI of about £80k.

My pension to which I contribute 5% of my pay (as does my employer) is under salary sacrifice.

I’m interested in what salary sacrifice you know of would enable me to avoid the £80k per year tax and NI I pay, if you are able to share?

Come off PAYE, call yourself a limited company, pay yourself in shares

Which is why I have an issue with the current tax system.

For many people I think it means somebody else who has some money that they think should be spent on them.

Very few people have actually said. They're just damning other people with what they presume they think.

I think a private jet owner is rich. I think a private jet renter is a wannabe.

Rich is indeed subjective and relative.

Most people in the UK and the West are comparatively rich on a global level. I suspect most people don't feel rich though and they obviously aren't prepared to voluntarily financially assist those who are much poorer than them in other countries who are literally starving to death. The same people though act shocked and morally outraged that the relatively rich in this country aren't desperate to subsidise those that are poorer than them in the UK. The wealthier you are, the have higher bills and costs you tend to have and you therefore don't feel rich either.

I also think there is a strange idea that being rich is bad or morally wrong when of course it isn't. We need wealth creators desperately and people with money in the UK

Completely agree with this. The entitlement some people have towards other people's money is very worrying. Even if you don't consider yourself wealthy, be very wary of the precedent this sets. Nothing will be truly owned by the individual at the rate we're going and the state will have their grubby mits on everything you work hard to earn and buy.

That’s me. In my tiny overcrowded house in outer London with my small Civil Service pension and three young adults to support. I’ll try to remember I’m rich when I’m sitting in my heated blanket to avoid putting the heating on.

Im actually doing fine because I’m very careful with money. I would be OK with paying more tax if I felt it was being spent wisely. I don’t.

The PP who said people have a choice about buying an expensive house. 😆. Why dont all of us in the SE just buy a cheap house?! …

But a lot of us are paying for those assets via income? Will they differentiate between those who are mortgaged and those who own assets outright? Will they hell, so yes, it will be another tax on income.

Similar here, what salary sacrifice?? To be honest, childcare for two eats up most of my salary (over £5k a month), there isn’t much left to sacrifice anywhere. We drive an old car, rarely eat out, never get takeaways, mostly activities are dog walking or having friends over/going to friends houses. We budget. Children will be going to state school.

Most people on mumsnet are fairly rich to me. Earning over £100k I'd say. It annoys me when they say the tax should be spread more equally. I can't afford to pay more on minimum wage but they can afford multiple nice holidays but think they should pay less tax.

They aren't paying less tax than you if you're on minimum wage. I imagine you are paying very little tax indeed and are probably a net beneficiary of the welfare state whilst they are already net contributors.

People that earn more should be able to benefit from their higher earnings through nice holidays etc. It's what incentivises us all to work hard and better ourselves. It's also what drives economic growth. You need people to take risks and make sacrifices and they will only do this if they are financially rewarded.

£100k after tax is £5700 a month. £150k after tax is £7000. A nice monthly income.

In London an ‘average’ house is going to be £3k+ a month mortgage. So most of that income. Not a fancy house - a three bedroom terrace that would be considered entirely unremarkable elsewhere.

I’d say private education is quite unlikely on this kind of income - one place is going be £2-3k a month now in London. The same for a nursery place - which of course, you won’t be eligible for funding for.

They are not living on the breadline - but they are not ‘the rich’, by any stretch of the imagination. They aren’t going to be driving luxury cars and flying business class on holiday.

Regarding ‘the high taxation thing is nonsense’ - I can assure you it isn’t, and having to salary sacrifice income to cap your income at £100k rather proves the point of the issue of high taxation…!

Quite agree. I've seen post on here from folk earning £8k a month net and worrying about how they will manage. But tbh Fergie can't manage on her squillions and had to go running to Epstein for loans. Its about greed and entitlement and living beyond your means.

I meant they want to pay less than they do. I know they pay a lot more than me. Not everyone who is rich, works harder/takes more risks. Many people just had privileged lives that gave them more opportunities. Born into money. Yea fine us low earners will pay more ta. and struggle to pay the bills, great idea. We can reduce taxes for the rich, so they can have an extra holiday.

Regardless of how comfortable/wealthy anyone is the actual point is do people want to pay more or less tax and what do they think of the current systems and the fairness. That boils down to an individuals political stance.

We were higher rate taxpayers for a few decades, housing is the real problem. I’m one of the ones in a house thats increased substantially as unearned income and now face the wrath of some of the younger generations. It’s purely an accident of being born in the 1960’s just like my Grandmother lived through the Great Depression. In all this the intergenerational mistrust keeps those in power laughing at us all.

If the person did that they would pay corporation tax on all earnings odd 25% plus then dividend tax of 8 or 30 odd % or employer / employee national insurance and PAYE to take the money out,

It used to be the case that being incorporated saved on tax but now no more. Th3 only advantage is that you can retain profits and off set some expenses. You also have admin charges eg accountancy fees as opposed to your employer doing Pay Roll.

Also you have no security of employment as you are not an employee.

If it was talking about taxing the rich id be looking at assets of 7 million.

I cant work out the income level. I looked at the tax paid on paye at 500k and it was huge. I dont think you can just keep taxing earnings as it stops people bothering to earn more.

The top 1% of the country.

A) No most people can’t do this. Most people on this kind of income with be PAYE and legally they are employees and can’t set themselves up as independent contractor just because - there have been significant changes to make this very difficult.

B) You wouldn’t be ‘paying yourself in shares’, you’d pay yourself in dividends.

And the tax rates for a higher earner - what do you imagine they are? Have you considered corporation tax as well as dividend tax at higher rates?

I read the other day there is to be a tax levied on properties valued at £2m or over. I wouldn't object to that but I expect plenty of folk will.

Nobody is suggesting the so called rich pay less tax. Reeves has made it clear that this isn't on the agenda. The question is how much *more" tax should they pay?

I have worked a variety of low paid jobs as well as some high paid jobs. I can definitively tell you that the stress and responsibility associated with the higher paid jobs was very different than the low paid jobs where I wasn't expected to work extra hours or stay away from home for days on end. I'm not saying that all well paid jobs are more difficult than low paid jobs but the reality is that if all jobs were paid the same then lots of people would prefer to work in a low stress role where the hours and responsibilities are less. Where you don't have line management responsibilities and a multi million pound budget to manage.

I've always thought that "working people" was basically just a euphemism for "working class"
Rich is subjective and it's mumsnet that's skewed. It seems to have a much higher % of middle class/ very well off users than the general population. All of which are very hard done by.

Rich rich:

Mortgage free
Disposable income greater than 10k a month

Lucky and rich(ISH):

Minimal debt
Loving family
Friends
Healthy
Enough money for the occasional splurge

I would love to live in a parallel universe and give this a go and see if it works. I believe what you’re suggesting would disincentivise investment and entrepreneurial behaviour (a typically left wing stance).

Do you actually believe it would grow the economy? If so, how? Genuinely asking BTW, not being goady.

Everyone will have a different view. Some people will look at me and dh on a combined incline circa 100k and think we’re rich. I know we’re doing ok and I don’t have to worry about food on the table but I worry about money at times and we are careful.

id probably think someone on 200k was rich but I appreciate the person on 200k may not feel rich especially if their outgoings are high. And it’s too simple to say well they can always cut their outgoings.