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

options not available to most

I think this is an over simplification.

We are mortgage free because we chose to live frugally and ploughed our money into securing the home over our heads. DH and I grew up in poverty in single parent households. Our mothers both worked manual jobs. Most of the time they had two jobs to make ends meet although they were always in debt. We both lived in some really terrible homes - coucil, housing association and private rental. We know what its like to keep, the curtains drawn, the light offs and the tv on low to avoid the balliffs. We went to crap schools and lived in deprived aeas. We have earned money by working long hours rather than having high salaries. We were able to move up and upgrade by buying fixer uppers, taking the risk and stress of renovating to improve them, before selling.

All of these options are/ were available to everyone. It isnt easy, it wasn't easy for us, but they are available to most people. We were the unwealthy who could not afford turn down a job because we thought it was beneath us. There are millions of people like us who have come from nothing and have more choices now because of choices made then.

Me too but it's not my reality now anymore than it's yours

Would your mum have considered your current situation rich?

Without the income no amount of frugal living would make that happen.

Well I think if you can afford to go to a theme park at all then you are rich 😀

I think you need to have several million in assets before you can be considered rich. Hardly anyone is getting rich who is paying PAYE I’m afraid.

I wouldn’t mind paying so much tax if it wasn’t clearly squandered and I also wasn’t treated as some awful human being who is morally bankrupt because I have a higher wage than minimum wage. It’s not my fault people don’t have more money - even if the government took 100% of what I earn over 30k it doesn’t mean you would see more of it if you’re on 25k.

It’s not people’s fault that house prices are what they are. I don’t know what the answers are with that one, but unless someone does something radical to address it there isn’t much you can do about it.
If I think of rich people I think the Royals , people like Jeff Bezos , CEOs who earn millions. I don’t think of the average person who may have a few assets built up over the years.

It's a funny one..I'd say old money wealth, assets without debt (ie owned outright)..high income doesnt necessarily make someone rich. Eg. My friend earns far, far higher than me but I'm up north with multiple properties and she lives in a small flat in London that takes almost half her wage up.

In that case you would class my parents as rich.
They own their 4-bed house now after paying a mortgage for 30 years, and in the early days with 17% interest rate. They're retired so can go on holidays at any time of the year they like, so are not bound to expensive school holiday season.
They're not rich!

What this thread shows is that it's all relative to your own experiences.
I go on multiple holidays a year, but I work for an airline so pay pennies for flights.
My kids go to private school, but I don't live in the UK so fees are about a quarter of what I see on MN.
I buy good quality meat in the butchers because that's important to me.
I bought a brand new car earlier this year, because I wanted one.

But I can't afford a cleaner.... so I feel poorer than most of my friends.

Edited for typos.

My mum would have have anyone who cpuld adfird to rent a colour TV and a video recorder was pretty well off. It's was a skewed perspective not one you would use to make policies.

Yes, I needed income to be able to be frugal The income you talk of came from working, sometimes two jobs: cleaning, factory, retail as well as evening ckasses to make up for leaving school with virtually no qualifications. These are options available to most people.

I was brought up in a poor household ( council home, no car , hardly any treats) but we had good food and heating on and walking everywhere kept me slim and healthy. I know it was ‘ different times ‘ but people seemed happier with the basics , but life is less like this now. You are judged more on what you have and what you do. More pressure on people to appear richer than they may be I guess.

I always have to come on these threads and make the point that living somewhere where houses are very expensive doesn’t somehow mean you have more money.

I have always had to compromise whilst living in London in a way that my siblings haven’t. After 35 years of work my house is ‘worth’ more. It doesn’t mean I have more money than them. Because I live in with my children.

It means you have a valuable asset that you could if needs be turned into cash … and buy homes in the country driving out the people born and bred there ….so you can see why there is little sympathy for the fact that your cash is tied up

This thread demonstrates quite how many people think they are entitled to other people’s money. On other threads there are people urging posters to have another kid if that is what they want, to cut down hours to avoid going into a higher tax bracket or take their kids to Disney etc. You can forget about financial responsibility if you are endlessly being subsidised by other people. The problem comes when there aren’t enough richer people subsidise them and Reeves’s net has to be spread wider.

Well there is that. I am lucky enough to have rich inlaws who pay for us to have a membership for one of the local theme parks for our joint Christmas present. One of those ones with a couple of rollercoasters, a log flume and a soft play, not alton towers. Although now the dc are older they have been asking if we could get a pass for alton towers instead. I'm thinking about maybe going to alton towers once instead of the yearly pass as it would be about the same price but i like the freedom to just go for a pre paid trip to a soft play when the weather is awful and the dc are climbing the walls.

I don’t think you understand. My three children and I all work in London. So how can I realise my asset without all four of us leaving our jobs? We would have nowhere to live!

It’s a huge problem to define. That’s why governments don’t really know what to do.

It’s unfair to go merely by house value. We who have to live in the SE(esp around London) wish that 3 bed semis didn’t cost nearly a million.

i think people who work hard, achieve and do stressful jobs (lawyers, surgeons, headteachers, inventors etc etc) should be rewarded well but I’d maybe set the limit at 10 million in terms of assets. No one needs more than that to enjoy life.

I don’t believe in the principle of equality above all else. How would that work? Why would you study and work at a supremely stressful job just to earn the same as anyone else?

Bit that’s a simplistic plan…I do realise.

Yes but you won’t be working all your life - you might even chose to save less into a pension because of your assets

There is a big difference in relative wealth and income based on age. If a 20 year old had what your parents have they could be considered rich.

Buying a house cash at 20 is 'mortgage free', having a mortgaged home which is now paid off because you made the payments each month is totally different and I wouldn't consider that to be rich.

Couldn't agree more. The worst thing is seeing my deductions and knowing how much of it is wasted (former NHS so I've seen the first hand). I wouldn't mind if it wasn't being squandered

Where had this idea come from that any of us have a right to live in a particular place?

i certainly have never been able to afford to buy in the place I grew up. It never occurred to me to resent that.

If we do indeed have some kind of right to choose where we live, can I live in Richmond, please, right next to the river?😀

I really agree.

Currently there is an atmosphere in which people who have managed to obtain qualifications, generate a decent salary, take care of their children's education, manage, often, to pay for private healthcare so are not burdening the NHS etc are being made to feel they are, as @SomethingFun has observed, somehow morally bankrupt.

And it is true that hitting those people hard doesn't really feed directly back into benefits for those who are not in that position. It doesn't help B if A starts using the NHS. It doesn't increase B's salary if A is taxed harder. You have to have a very clear idea (and lots of faith) about how that is expected to feed back into the community if you feel that is necessarily a win.

I think the takeaway from this thread is that apart from a very, very slim few, the majority of people feel they are struggling to keep doing what they do - whether that is owning outright, paying for schooling, just getting by or whatever.

As @CoffeeCantata has observed, it's a very complicated problem, and I think the people who claim they see an easy fix are generally the ones who can't really see it for what it is.

Exactly! That was my point. The PP I quoted said someone who owns their house and goes on one holiday is rich. My point is... not necessarily. It's all relative.

I'm a lone parent on 23k a year. Own my little home.

Rich is an individual (no kids) on 150k plus a year and owns a home. This may be skewed for London though.

They don't care. You have something they don't therefore you should be happy to forgo some or all or of it, even if they had a similar opportunity to be in the same position as you.

Rich means that cost is irrelevant.

Wealthy means that you can afford nicer versions of the things that ordinary people have.

Poor means you can't afford anything at all.

I tend to think in these three categories as well - though to me poor is struggling to afford what you need, and can't afford anything at all is destitute.