Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

768 replies

Neeroy · 17/11/2025 09:04

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
ReleaseTheDucksOfWar · 17/11/2025 13:55

HearMeOutt · 17/11/2025 09:17

I disagree. People on 6 figures tend to buy bigger houses, have larger mortgages, live in more expensive areas which enable them to earn that 6 figures to start it. Yes it’s a ‘small violin’ situation but if they went round snapping up the 300k/400k houses, what would we buy? And like everyone else their lifestyles have declined in real terms. If you work hard and have high responsibility, like a consultant or surgeon or pilot, why shouldn’t you have a nice lifestyle?

So why aren't nurses on that sort of lifestyle instead of stockbrokers and salesmen?

Differentforgirls · 17/11/2025 13:55

OneAmberFinch · 17/11/2025 13:50

Exactly - especially if we are talking about people on 6 figures, which is very disproportionately going to be in London, with a job that requires childcare until 6pm, i.e. costs continuing after school age (that includes knocking off "early" to be able to make that, so you look like a non team player not being able to take the 6pm calls...).

So they had children they couldn't afford.

frostedpixie · 17/11/2025 13:57

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

No. They do not. Which is why I give absolutely no fucks about their 'outlays' and tax 'burdens'. 🙄

OneAmberFinch · 17/11/2025 13:59

I just think the thing those of us want to emphasise who are in this specific boat is, we genuinely do not have a lot of disposable income - it is similar to those of people on much much lower incomes, once you take into account the costs of paying market rate housing costs, nursery fees, extra savings needed because UC is not going to pay the mortgage, etc.

There is definitely a set of people who "just think they are poor because they're comparing themselves to the Joneses" - in fact 5 years ago pre-kids and while London rents were low during COVID I was in this category. But I did actually have thousands a month "spare" then. Now I literally don't. It is a different category.

Boohoo76 · 17/11/2025 14:02

Differentforgirls · 17/11/2025 13:54

Well the mantra aimed at UC recipients is " don't have children you can't afford". This is clearly the situation here. Having only £900 a month left to pay all bills including food, toiletries, cleaning products, heating, broadband, CT, clothing, etc means they are living well beyond their means.

And that’s what you are saying about someone whose income is spent on living in a basic two bed terrace, paying for full time childcare and travelling to work. What a sad state of affairs. They are contributing over £34k of tax and NI and therefore putting far more into the economy than they are taking out. But you still criticise them.

As for choices, no one should have children with the aim of them being supported by the state. But that is not is what happening here. Even if they got a reasonable amount of childcare support (as they would in the rest of Europe), they would still be contributing more than they take out.

Differentforgirls · 17/11/2025 14:04

Boohoo76 · 17/11/2025 14:02

And that’s what you are saying about someone whose income is spent on living in a basic two bed terrace, paying for full time childcare and travelling to work. What a sad state of affairs. They are contributing over £34k of tax and NI and therefore putting far more into the economy than they are taking out. But you still criticise them.

As for choices, no one should have children with the aim of them being supported by the state. But that is not is what happening here. Even if they got a reasonable amount of childcare support (as they would in the rest of Europe), they would still be contributing more than they take out.

Can't afford them though going by thier income/expenditure.

Digdongdoo · 17/11/2025 14:05

Differentforgirls · 17/11/2025 14:04

Can't afford them though going by thier income/expenditure.

They can afford them. They just aren't swimming in cash. It's really not the same thing.

Differentforgirls · 17/11/2025 14:06

Digdongdoo · 17/11/2025 14:05

They can afford them. They just aren't swimming in cash. It's really not the same thing.

Then why are you on here bleating that they have no disposable income?

Digdongdoo · 17/11/2025 14:07

Differentforgirls · 17/11/2025 14:06

Then why are you on here bleating that they have no disposable income?

Do you not know what "disposable income" means?

Boohoo76 · 17/11/2025 14:07

Differentforgirls · 17/11/2025 14:04

Can't afford them though going by thier income/expenditure.

Not being able to afford them means that you are relying on someone else to pay for them (ironically that someone else includes the single parent on £100k). That is not what is happening here. We’re talking about whether someone is rich or not.

And as for choices, no one has control over the other parent fucking off and not paying a bean towards their child.

babyproblems · 17/11/2025 14:09

calamanka · 17/11/2025 09:20

The problem with wealth inequality is that NOBODY should be having to sit in the dark under a blanket, or only making food that doesn't involve turning the oven on.

And equally nobody should be a tax-avoiding billionaire.

The system that enables these things to happen is at fault. The way that six-figure earners "feel" about their financial situation is kind of irrelevant to the actual problem.

This

Christmascats4 · 17/11/2025 14:10

I read somewhere that we are giving the royal family a huge amount of money every year .
They are already wealthy people..why do they need more ..just greedy

Differentforgirls · 17/11/2025 14:13

Differentforgirls · 17/11/2025 14:06

Then why are you on here bleating that they have no disposable income?

Btw, I have no mortgage, no debt, no children I have to support etc. I pay my CT annually, and there is no way I could live on £225 per week to pay every single bill I still have like food, toiletries, heating and cooking, petrol, insurances, telly, broadband, phones, haircuts, clothes etc.

Differentforgirls · 17/11/2025 14:16

Digdongdoo · 17/11/2025 14:05

They can afford them. They just aren't swimming in cash. It's really not the same thing.

I'm not sure how thay can afford them...

Applesonthelawn · 17/11/2025 14:18

People have to be financially incentivised to actually bust a gut every day trying to be excellent and contribute fully to the economy. There is carrot as well as stick to that persuasion. Being an underachiever is not meant to be pleasant or bring rewards. I don't mean that unkindly but it is a brutal truth.

Differentforgirls · 17/11/2025 14:18

Digdongdoo · 17/11/2025 14:07

Do you not know what "disposable income" means?

Yes, zero for the person you're on about.

Digdongdoo · 17/11/2025 14:19

Differentforgirls · 17/11/2025 14:16

I'm not sure how thay can afford them...

I'm not really sure what your point is anymore. Are they rich, or are they so poor you don't know how they get by?
You see how it's really not so black and white after all?

caffelatte100 · 17/11/2025 14:20

Gair · 17/11/2025 13:41

Wealth and income are two different things. You can be high income but low wealth - e.g. families with high outgoings living in high cost areas. You can be low income but high wealth - mortgage free, lots of assets, working part-time or retired and living off savings/investments/pensions.

Currently, the high income person is the one paying most, if not all, of the tax in the UK in the above situation.

I previously lived in Switzerland, and they have a wealth tax as well as income tax, VAT etc. It is not just for very wealthy people - e.g. if you own your home, you are already going to be liable for wealth tax. Depending on which canton and municipality you live in, the amounts and allowances (deductions) are different, but it is usually progressive, and covers your worldwide assets minus debts. The wealthier you are the more you pay. Housing is not assesed at market value but to a formula well below this level. Pension savings and certain personal possessions are excluded. The rates are from less that 0.1% to just over 1%. Some rich people move canton/municipality to minimise this tax, e.g. Nidwalden or Schwyz, but if you're not from those areas, the main attraction is tax saving tbh.

Switzerland does not have IHT (abolished some time ago), but does charge income tax on bequests if you are not direct line related - so, children no tax, parents no tax, friends and extended family taxed by degree of relatedness. Before Covid I did a back of the envelope estimation on what a 5 pro mil (0.5%) wealth tax would raise in the UK . I came up with approx £45 billion per annum. Even if generous deductions reduced that by half it's a big chunk of money - annually!

The very wealthy would not leave if it's 0.5% per annum charge that everyone with wealth is expected to pay. It's charging multiple percentat arbitrary starting points (£10 million, £20 million, £50 million) that scares off the very wealthy. Switzerland is discussing this problem now, since the Young Socialists (far left) propsed having a referendum on bringing in IHT of 50% on people with over £50 million. The vote is at the end of this month, and the Young Socialists are likely to loose (barring a major upset), since the Swiss are very pragmatic, and do not want to kill the golden goose! Imagine the wealth tax those people pay every year! A few have been spooked and left already, so let's see what happens!

Very interesting… a different way of approaching taxation. Thank you for this post. Switzerland often dues things differently. Or do other countries do this as well I wonder.

AllTheChaos · 17/11/2025 14:21

YorkshireGoldDrinker · 17/11/2025 09:38

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

Success is earned. Many risks have been taken. Do you ever roll your eyes when a business owner complains about taxes? You shouldn't, because taxes have increased and many business owners have had to abandon their dreams, or worse, they've ended their lives, bringing major upset and pain to their families.

If you have a job, it's because someone worked their backside off and ploughed through several sleepless nights wondering how the hell they're going to pay their employees.

Don't belittle success, be inspired by it or fail. That's it.

Edited

That doesn’t detract from the fact that some business owners are exploitative sharks. Look at how Amazon warehouse workers have been treated, especially in the US.

Differentforgirls · 17/11/2025 14:26

Digdongdoo · 17/11/2025 14:19

I'm not really sure what your point is anymore. Are they rich, or are they so poor you don't know how they get by?
You see how it's really not so black and white after all?

Not rich, but living well beyond their means because of the choices they have made. Sorry their partner left them with a shitshow (really am), however, they are in the same position as a single parent on UC and the only one out of the two who would be judged on here as "unable to support a child", is the latter.

THAT's the point I'm making.

Differentforgirls · 17/11/2025 14:27

Applesonthelawn · 17/11/2025 14:18

People have to be financially incentivised to actually bust a gut every day trying to be excellent and contribute fully to the economy. There is carrot as well as stick to that persuasion. Being an underachiever is not meant to be pleasant or bring rewards. I don't mean that unkindly but it is a brutal truth.

Could you give me an example of an "under achiever"?

Digdongdoo · 17/11/2025 14:31

Differentforgirls · 17/11/2025 14:26

Not rich, but living well beyond their means because of the choices they have made. Sorry their partner left them with a shitshow (really am), however, they are in the same position as a single parent on UC and the only one out of the two who would be judged on here as "unable to support a child", is the latter.

THAT's the point I'm making.

They're not in the same position though are they? So I'm still not sure what your point is.

ZenNudist · 17/11/2025 14:32

SalmonOnFinnCrisp · 17/11/2025 09:22

Yabu....

And falling for the rhetoric.
Susan and Doug making 130k each working 60 hour weeks and juggling like fuck trying to raise two kids isnt the problem.

This is the problem...
50 families own more more than 50% of the uks total wealth

@SalmonOnFinnCrisp nails it.

We are Susan and Doug. So much of the past 25 years have been dedicated to working 12 hour days and evenings/weekends. Dh flying back from family holidays to deal with work crisis. Me taking work calls from days out at the zoo or theme park. The amount of pressure we are both under now is hard to cope with.

My kids aren't in private school
We get a fair amount of holidays but he odd week in Europe, not zanzibar, skiing and Thailand.

No designer clothes. Our cars are 7 years old (premium marque but nothing fancy).

Bedraggled furniture, no time to replace. Semi detached house, shared drive, right on a main road.

Not much pension. Can't afford to retire.

I live the same or worse lifestyle than friends earning much much less than me.

I guess we are spending it on meals out at our local independent coffee shop and Italian. We are often knackered and a meal out at the weekend is a bit of a chance to decompress. You'll excuse me if I don't consider this rich. I'd have thought lobster and champagne, not a pizza and a glass of house red was the rich lifestyle.

Don't get me wrong. I know I'm privileged but it's not what I was sold as the lifestyle that comes from working hard and doing every right, always putting your job first over friends and family.

My bosses kids went to private school and they went on 3 week trips to Australia. They had second homes in lovely places.

Rich lifestyle certainly not the same now I'm the boss.

Differentforgirls · 17/11/2025 14:33

Digdongdoo · 17/11/2025 14:31

They're not in the same position though are they? So I'm still not sure what your point is.

Just goes to show that some people in high paying jobs who "work really hard" can't understand plain english...

Zuma76 · 17/11/2025 14:34

Jugendstiel · 17/11/2025 09:31

I really think we have to challenge this logic. Those rich who pay more tax... How did they become rich? By employing people on zero hours contracts, at below the cost of living. By cutting worker benefits. Not investing in creches etc so people - usually women, spend their entire wages or salary on childcare.

Can we please stop perpetuating the myth that the saintly superrich subsidise us with their power to employ and their high taxation. Stop and think how they got that way!

This is making an assumption that everyone you consider ‘rich’ is responsible for underpaying their staff. A huge number of ‘rich’ people have no responsibility for staffing.

Swipe left for the next trending thread