To think the problem with wealth inequality is that rich people don't know how rich they are?

[Neeroy]

Article in the Times today saying that people earning six figures 'don't feel rich'.

Because they are surrounded by six figure earning peers they are comparing themselves to people who have more rather than the 90% of the population that have far less. This is why the budget is poorly received in the news, because rich people think they already shoulder too high a burden when in fact compared to everyone else they still have far more disposable income. Even if they have to cut down on the number of holidays they go on. They aren't sitting in the dark under a blanket. Or only making food that doesn't require turning on the oven.

I don't think they realise how so many people have to live.

www.thetimes.com/article/1fb46414-8f65-436f-8f95-451d69626148?shareToken=8061d939633164c0dfbd805240c8e008

If your husband was made redundant you would not be screwed. You might have to downsize, drop some of the hobbies, not pay for uni fees, but you would not go hungry.

Screwed is when a lone parent with a small mortgage gets made redundant and cannot find work within a few months. UC is not enough to support a small home and a child.

Many people in this country don't know how rich they are, including people who'd probably consider themselves quite poor but due to combinations of paid off mortgages, lifetime social tenancies, benefits that pay for specific bills etc they don't realise the value of what other people are paying on the open market. These are genuinely the equivalent of significant financial assets generating meaningful monthly returns - if that's not wealth, what is?

Me and DH come from lower middle class / working class backgrounds and have people in our lives who are genuinely struggling. We wouldn't trade, but they also often don't quite appreciate our struggles (e.g. constantly being surprised when we mention working until 11pm - "do you get overtime?! your manager sounds abusive!" no that's what the salary pays for... Or being told to relax more by people working 1 day a week...)

Most people you might call rich just have well paid jobs, they are not running businesses and employing people on poor wages or producing inferior goods. And most small business people struggle to make a living. How many rich business owners do you know? Your local corner shop owners, the garage you take your car to, the local baker or butcher? A rich person would much more likely be a banker or a lawyer, a doctor or other professionals. The really really rich are very often inherited money a very few self made multi millionaires who had the right idea at the right time and made it work, often when people around them thought they were mad to try.

True I guess it depends on whether you mean the mean, median or mode when you say middle class. But I have seen some people who are way better off than the average Joe no not quite Jeff bezos rich but still just admit you’re well off why the obsession with downplaying how much you have

Some flawed assumptions here

On the assumption that people on say 100k have plenty of spare change therefore ought to (want to) contribute more, the following factors should be taken into account

1. No safety net. By the time people reach 100k earnings, usually mid-life and at peak earning potential but also at the highest risk of redundancy, many have mortgages, car finance, young adults and elderly relatives to support. These people are aware there is NO safety net available to them. No UC, no benefits, no social housing. A redundancy means the whole house of cards spectacularly falls down - the house repossessed, for example. That means they need to plow extra into savings to cover the risks of ill health or redundancy. A pound siphoned away by the gov is a pound siphoned away from their emergency savings.
2. Keenness to support family more than they want to support the rest of the nation. This also means that every extra pound siphoned away by the government is also likely siphoned away from the high earner’s children’s future: the university/house deposit savings fund, the driving lessons.
3. No spare change for fripparies. This is the main thing. People think the odd penny here and there on national insurance means said ‘wealthy’ people will simply only need to give up their avocado toast. No. High earners have every penny accounted for because they’re all thinking about their retirement and how the hell they’re going to fund it.

I do agree with your observation, OP.

I think a lot of wealthier people ( I am talking e.g both spouses earning six figures, but not necessarily hedge fund managers) think "but I worked hard at school/Uni and put in long hours for years to earn what I do so why should I have to subsidise people that didn't work as hard?".

Which is the problem with privilege. You don't see that you had a platform to study, get the work opportunities you had etc whereas most people didn't. And when you only see similar people around you, it's harder to have any perspective on that privilege.

They got that way through hard work. Even those who have inherited money, their parents will have worked their backsides off.

No.
It may have been their great-great-great-great grandparent who worked hard.
'Family' money is often preserved over many generations, with very little real work being done to maintain it. That is the nature of investment and trusts.

Success is earned. Many risks have been taken.
Unless of course you just inherit - see above.

or worse, they've ended their lives,
Emotional blackmail in support of right-wing ideology. Please excuse me while I throw up.

It’s called lifestyle creep. The more people earn, the more they spend. They buy bigger houses, more expensive items etc, so they still end up feeling like they haven’t got any extra cash.

They are under the illusion that they aren’t well off because luxuries become the new necessities.

If you earn less than 100k a year

• 30 hours weekly term time funded childcare from 9 months on (this is new, it used to be just 3 year olds)

• If you are additionally on universal credit, you get 85% of further childcare costs paid by UC.

If you hit 100k you get no free hours until 3, when you get 15 hours a week term time, and no help towards anything else. You can not claim back the tax on the childcare expenses you incur either, as someone on 99k can.

The rest of the difference between the incomes of both hypothetical mothers would be made up in housing costs so is region dependent

It’s not about putting people back in “their places” but acknowledging that we cannot call parents on 100k “rich” if we are calling parents on benefits poor because they demonstrably are not richer at all.

Unless you have extreme levels of savings, pretty much anyone paying for childcare is struggling.

I think I'm an outlier here:

A) more than happy subsidizing people who didn't have the opportunities I did

B) am the only person in my family to go to uni (was at the time, still am) - got no financial support from family.

And I still maintain there was not a huge amount of "working hard". The hard work was happening to fall in to careers I had a natural aptitude for.

This!

The 'higher earners' aren't really where the taxes need to happen - thats just a distraction. Thats not REAL wealth - when looking at the scale and distribution as SalmonOnFinnCrisp's post highlights.

And another flawed assumption: that people on 100k don’t deserve that salary.

To get to 100k you need, typically, significant levels of qualifications and to have worked incredibly hard to move up the ranks. When you get there, you’re then saddled with frightening levels of strategic and line management responsibility. These people do not sleep at night. Not everyone on 100k is a tech bro part-timing from Bali.

No, they said “even more spare cash”, suggesting that they had spare cash in the first place.

I think what you're advocating is a race to the bottom. "You haven't died though you're finding it hard to manage your DT1, as you get a tenner more per week than the guy who did die - think yourself lucky".

Appalling.

Good point

Clearly, the token banker on 120k from the above post and her consultant husband on maybe 120k are not milking anyone on zero hours contracts. Sane as 99% of low 6-figure earners in this country

I agree, I don't earn that much but I'm in the fortunate position of having a tiny mortgate (bought house 15 years ago with hefty BOMAD deposit) no childcare (teenagers) no car loan and no student debt so my net pay of £3300 goes quite far probably furtehr than the 100k earner with childcare and a fat mortgage. Despite my headline salary being around half.

Most UK citizens don't realise how wealthy they are comparative to international standards.

On paper you might consider us high earners…. I earn a very average wage but DH earns 4 times my salary. However we also have a profoundly disabled child with complex needs. We pay privately for a lot of his care because it’s so hard to get it funded and it means we have absolutely no spare money. We drive a second hand car that we share, live in a small house that badly needs renovating, shop at Aldi, don’t go on foreign holidays, skip lunch in favour of toast and cuppa soup…. and money is tight. 30 minutes of private speech and language therapy is £75. Physio is £90. 2 carers for a day is £200. Specialist car seat is almost £1000. Specialist buggy is nearly £2000.

It's easier to believe any form of success, whatever that looks like, is down to luck and privilege. It takes away choice, freewill and onus and leaves everything in the hands of fate.

You'll have the spare cash when your child goes to school. The fact you have less disposal income than your Dad is because of the choices you have made re housing etc.

YABU OP the problem isn't with people on 6 figure salaries, the problem is with multimillionaires who hide their wealth, or buy up property driving up prices etc.

I'm no where near a 6 figure salary but I don't believe in villainising those who are. They are tax net contributors and we need more net contributions not less.

Yes You are rich on 120k and sounds like no dependants. But you have not managed your income well. Living in a small flat in central London vs a larger flat or small house further out is a choice. Can’t afford to fix your car? I don’t believe you. I think you are exactly what OP is talking about.

Question, do you think there should be social housing in London inner zones? They could just move out right?

Being rich doesn’t correlate with being clever or even competant at managing finances of household and life which kind of proves we are not a meritocracy