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

Generally rich people are older 60-80. Something like 10% over 60s are millionaires. Boomers benefitted from low house prices and DB pensions and they’re now sitting very pretty. I know someone will be quick to say I’m being ageist and they’re struggling in their state pension and of course there are poor old people too. But proportionately this age group are the wealthiest. Would Labour introduce a wealth tax? Some other countries have this such as Norway. But I don’t imagine they will

“The rich” is anyone earning about £50k (or more) more than you do. Very few people actually think of themselves as rich.

Yeah cause that’s an option for most people🤣unless you run your own company most people don’t really have much say in how they are paid.

I read a stat recently that the highest 10% have pre tax and benefit income of 12 times the lowest 10%, but after the high earners are taxed and after the low earners get benefits the high earners only have 3 x what the low earners have.

I think on mumsnet there are a lot of low earners that assume those on a high salary are loaded, without appreciating the level of tax the high earners have to pay, and the level of benefits they (the low earners) receive. Over £100k while living in a city doesn’t go far.

To me, rich is someone who can afford private education, has extensive savings, or huge disposable income.

Quite.

Even if your are in that situation - having paid corporation tax + higher dividend tax your rate will still be over 50%.

On Mumsnet hardly anyone considers themselves rich. However much you own or earn, the rich are always only those who own or earn more than you do.

Lots of rich people choose to take advantage of the state education system. I know lots of millionaires that do this.

Lots of people can technically afford private school if they made enough sacrifices or had family help.

if you own your own home you have security that most don’t though. You’ve no housing costs. We’d lose our house if either of us lost our jobs. An awful lot of others live in the same situation. It’s a level of stress you don’t have to experience.

"Only" three times as much. For low earners having their income triple would make an absolutely phenomenal difference.

I 100% agree with this. A household income of £100k inside the M25 (with no family money for a big deposit) would get you a terraced 3 bed in a not particularly nice town and maybe a staycation a year or a modest foreign holiday if you're careful. But it would also mean you probably don't have to worry too much about what goes in the trolley or lunch out now and again (£50 here or there doesn't make as much of a dent when your mortgage is over £2k a month). In other areas of the country, you could get a large house for much less and feel much more well off.

When a pint at the local pub is £7 rather than £3.50 and getting to work costs £15 a day to get the 20 minutes into the London office, things just don't go as far.

Yes, we moved our eldest to independent school as she has SEN and her needs weren’t being met in the state sector. There were many far, far wealthier families than us in her state school. One of her friends from her state school lives in a house about 10x the value of ours.

King Charles and Prince William are rich. I read that they receive 20 million a year from the Duchy of Cornwall.

People absolutely should feel the benefits of their higher earnings. Many higher earners I know are now just reducing the number of days that they work - why bother when huge parts of it will be taxed away?

As other posters have said - I wouldn't necessarily find paying more tax if I thought it was being spent well. There is no social contract - people get given benefits with no need to add back into society. I don't understand why we cant have a work for benefits system where everyone is paid minimum wage.

'Rich' is a personal perspective, which is why we have a defined income /earnings level for tax bands , to get a line drawn in the sand.

Personal opinion? Anyone that has enough money that they use any and every tax avoidance scheme going, wether it be businesses registered in tax havens or the purchasing of farms to avoid inheritance tax ( I'm glad that loophole is being gently phased out).

Tax dodgers cost this country far more than 'illegal immigrants ', but somehow they get a free pass.

If you can afford to buy a nice home in London than that’s pretty rich - you need to be rich to live in the nice parts of London. That’s the “just because you can spend it quickly doesn’t mean you are not rich”

most people make do with slightly less nice or commute or build up a decent deposit either based on moving up the ladder or more often based on an inheritance .

because most people working in London are not rich - your teachers and nurses are not rich but still manage to live

I agree, it’s a range of answers I provided.

This is a helpful indicator for individuals.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1802/calculator/index.html

Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery.

Those with more than 2 children according to mnetters!

Salary sacrifice will only get you so far. See also pensions- there is an annual allowance. For context we earn circa £300,000 ( I think). We have a big house in a cheap part of the SE, 2 forgien holidays a year and support DC at University without too much pain. Investments ( including pensions) of just over 1 mil. But rich ? Truly rich ? Nah comfortable middle class more like.

Exactly this. Look at a breakdown of how your local council spends money and you will see it's monopolised by a few groups whilst everyone else gets less and less basic services. We have to address this and get a grip of unfettered spending in some areas. It will be painful and difficult but ordinary taxpayers (rich and not at all rich) and getting a very bad deal.

To me Rich means that you have an income that is independent of employment. Meaning that you have enough wealth to generate income, or you own a successful business, or have a lot of land or property.

The 100k earner with a mortgage isn't rich, although they can be called comfortable. They rely on employment and if that stops they can quickly be in trouble financially.

I don't fall in either of those groups.

I own my own house (albeit only worth £250k) and have a defined benefit pension. But I am 65, have struggled financially throughout my 30s and 40s, and worked full time for 45 years. My DB pension is only £15k a year, so combined with my state pension will have an income of £27k, of which I will pay £3k a year income tax.
I consider myself comfortable, but by no means rich,

This was interesting. We came out very mixed - top 10% for income, bottom 10% for disposable money and savings, about midway for property. But with high mortgage costs from buying recently, and high childcare costs and commuting costs, we are in an expensive phase right now.

Thought when we reached our income levels we would be rich (two six figure incomes). We are comfortable, but I’m not sure the trade off for these careers has been worth it