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

And use less government resources.

I think this is the answer. It's relative.

A mortgage free house means you have access to 500k, you could sell and rent and have that money. Living like the unwealthy but with all that money. The pension means you have security for old age. The salary alongside that means you have a partner who massively outearns you or generational wealth. You have options not available to most

Yes, the idea is skewed.
Nice expression, though.

I've heard this before, but I don't think rich is exclusive to people who can live on the interst on their savings or non-earned income. A stock broker who has champagne for breakfast is rich. A film star who gets millions per film is rich.

I remember reading here that it was someone who can fly first class. At the time my idea was someone who could shop in John Lewis...

I know someone is rich when can hold a conversation regarding generational wealth planning with me. Anything else and it can be all smoke and mirrors.

The answer to both those is it depends.

In an unequal society if the top what ever percent have 30% of the wealth then its fair they pay 30% of the tax.

In terms of government resources, things like defense, public security, judiciary, foreign aid, transport, probably benefit those with wealth the same if not more.

Things like education are indirect benefits and health is also a public issue. No point you paying for your vaccine if noone else can afford theirs. pensions which are one of our big spends arent means tested neither is pip.

Being 'rich' is living within your means, some people have big incomes spend it all and then complain, others on the same income save and spend wisely are suddenly rich and should be taxed more. At least taxing income means you pay your dues before choosing to spend the rest or save it for a more comfortable future. I don't think savers should be taxed more than spenders on equal incomes.

According to some of the posts on this thread, I’m rich. Which is news to me honestly as someone who grew up in poverty in an abusive household, who barely scraped my way out of there. I’ve funded what I have by working minimum wage in up to three jobs at a time, and had a period on benefits which I was grateful for. And now I’m rich! I haven’t had any time off work for decades because I can’t afford the time off never mind use it to go on holiday. I share a car with my husband as we can’t afford two, neither of us have a penny in any pension, and I’ve been saving for years to attempt to give my kids the chance to go to university that I didn’t have. And I’m not sure I’ll succeed there as costs are going up faster than I can save.

Rich people don’t worry about money. They move through life assuming there will be enough money, and make all their plans without factoring in costs. That’s what rich is!

Of the things mentioned, we have hobbies and holidays, including long haul. They still need to be strictly budgeted and are by no means 'luxury'. We don't have expensive taste in material things and we eat out maybe a couple of times a month.

We do save a bit of course, but we really don't have as much disposable income as many would think.

Our house is not huge (no land) but it's in a lovely place in an expensive part of the country.

Im in no way saying we aren't well off, of course we are. But the things listed in the previous post are written as if people have all of those. When yes, we can have nice things but no way could we afford all of that. If we had children we would need to sacrifice the hobbies and holidays.

Anybody who earns enough to get a mortgage approved to buy a 2 bedroom house. Because we're never going to get one.

Actually, thinking about it, anybody who can pass affordability checks for a rental for the same, as we'd never pass those, either.

What do you do for work?

If you consider rich; to be someone who owns a house worth over £500k outright and have a defined pension scheme, how do you tax those assets? I fall into that category but have to budget like everyone else after council tax, bills and food are paid for. We're not in the least bit extravagent (sp?) but instead have worked - and continue to work. If the Government come after assets to raise tax, then what do we do? Do we sell the house we love? Who will buy it> Do we leave the country?

No many rich people do worry about money - some obsessed

many of them spend way more than they have - often tying their money up on investments like homes - and that’s why they feel poor and need to scrimp and save in other aspects of their lives

Someone who has the means to live a lifestyle considered luxurious in their society without the need to work.
Anyone who depends on earned income to live a luxurious lifestyle I'd class as currently affluent.

Defined benefits pensions are taxed so it would be a bit much to double tax them

with home ownership people who bought 30 or 40 years ago could be having an expensive house without having the lifestyle and income to support living in that home today - I don’t think making them have to sell up for a cheaper home - which will in practise mean an older person having to relocate - will really help

i still think those properties and that wealth gain - unearned wealth from buying cheap - should be properly taxed though - and inheritance or when the home is sold is the time to do that

It's the Two Ronnies sketch but with money!! 😂

• The sketch features three men of differing social classes standing in a line, with their relative physical heights visually representing their social standing. John Cleese, the tallest, represents the upper class; Ronnie Barker, of average height, the middle class; and Ronnie Corbett, the shortest, the working class.
• Dialogue: The core of the sketch is the interaction and perception each character has of the others:
• Cleese (upper class): "I look down on him [Barker] because I am upper-class."
• Barker (middle class): "I look up to him [Cleese] because he is upper-class; but I look down on him [Corbett] because he is lower-class. I am middle-class."
• Corbett (working class): "I know my place. I look up to them both. But I don't look up to him [Barker] as much as I look up to him [Cleese], because he has got innate breeding."
• Punchline: The sketch concludes with each character stating what they "get out of it". Cleese gets a "feeling of superiority", Barker gets "a feeling of inferiority" from Cleese but "a feeling of superiority over" Corbett. Corbett delivers the memorable punchline: "I get a pain in the back of my neck."

Which supports the, 'anyone who has more money than you'. They are not rich in any sensible definition they are just slightly better off than you are.

Data management. But I'm older and visibly disabled, which appears to mean that I always finish second at interview once they see me.

I prefer to define "rich" in a sense where money is either a byproduct or a cause, with the primary trait being "doesn't have to work". The money just facilitates that.

I'm 48, and the main thing I lack is time...so, to me, anybody who has more of it than I do is rich. I wouldn't consider somebody working 80hrs/week to get that money "rich", they've just traded something they can never make more of for something they can.

Nowadays north of Watford Gap, people's idea of 'rich' is simply someone who doesn't look like they're struggling.

I'm in a northern city and 99% of people here look like and state that they're struggling, other than a few wealthy enclaves in the larger urban area. I have a professional job, an advanced degree, a house with a large garden and cashmere sweaters. I get almost daily comments about being wealthy from strangers and people I know alike. In the south I'd be the bang average person, here most days I feel like a Guinness going through Cloonboo.

Unfortunately there's so much geographical inequality in Britain now that the idea of who the rich are for someone in Middlesbrough, Oldham or Bradford will vastly differ. Also whether you are rural or urban, as there are many people with limited resources in urban areas that have no idea how good life can be for people in the villages 5 miles down the road. All they see is struggle and derelict run-down spaces. Whereas people in more privileged areas don't know what crisis the media is talking about unless they venture frequently to the nearest city.

There is no standard definition for rich.

On a world view, we're all rich (running water, sanitation, healthcare, education...)
In most definitions, I would be considered rich (home owner, can pay bills on time, spend extortionate amount on childcare and clubs)
I wouldn't consider myself rich (tiny 3 bed terrace, can pay bills on time but have next to nothing for luxuries)

Its relative
When The DC were at State Primary we were rich
When they were at Private Secondary we weren't
When they went to State 6th form we were rich
Now DD is at Uni we aren't

So its not so much how much money you have but how much money the people around you have IMO

From these answers I suspect very few agree with me, but actually I would regard myself as rich because DH and I both own more than the average salary (£120k between us), no kids so no child care fees, small mortgage because we've been together 35 years and have never needed anything bigger than a 2 bedroom flat (because no kids...) no car because we planned our lives around public transport. It means we have enough to quietly help the extended family, don't need to think hard about putting the heating on etc etc. We also both believe in good public services, the value of education and saw the huge difference the introduction of working family tax credits made to those around us and are therefore in favour of higher income taxes coupled with better state support for families. Anything that narrows the gap between rich and poor and creates a more equal society is to be welcomed in my view.