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

I'm kind of confused by your posts. Are you saying we should be equally as sympathetic to these two examples, rather than only give our sympathy to the single mum on UC?

The current Duke Of Westminster (34 years old), inherited most of London when he was in his 20s, worth approximately 9 billion and paid not a penny in IHT. This is the sort of thing that drives me crazy. This country is positively feudal.
He's never made anything, or invented anything. He's just rich beyond the dreams of avarice because one of his ancestors was nice to the King/Queen.

Both. However, the single parent on UC will be judged more. I'm not judging either. Both are having a hard time financially and emotionally. I'm just (obviously badly) trying to point out that the mantra on here recently has been "don't have children you can't afford", which applies in both scenarios but the UC parent will be judged more harshly.

There’s a difference too between inherited wealth and wealth earnt. If you come from nothing and work your arse off through uni or training, incurring debt along the way, then you deserve every bit of that wealth, regardless. A lot of people though want wealth but without having to work for it.

H

When we were working, we had a combined income in the low £100s. Sounds like a lot, but we paid 5 sets of school fees and also gave 10% to charity.

You can do the sums, but after that, we lived fairly frugally - caravan holiday once a year, everything bought in the sales, very little eating out...

I imagine that most higher earners have expenses to match their income, which is why they don't feel 'rich' (in that they can impulse buy whenever they like), although hopefully will see themselves as privileged.

You can feel richer and poorer relative to your environment, and comparative experience.

If you’re suddenly struggling to afford things you could easily afford before, despite on paper having more money than you did, then of course you’re going to 1, notice, and 2, take issue with this.

Not every conversation has to centre those with less, or involve a performative checking of one’s privilege in order to mollify those that think this should be the case.

No, that’s not what I’m advocating.

I’m pointing out flawed logic that people on 100K -200K are not middle class and are rich just because there are much poorer people out there. Middle / working class / rich is defined by lifestyle options in economic terms (I’m not talking about British inherited class system).

Middle class in London is kids in good state schools, house in decent neighbourhood (eg Chiswick, Ealing Richmond but not Chelsea, and not detached), a car, savings and private pensions, couple of holidays a year, some mid range restaurant outings, kids hobbies etc., a cleaner and maybe a nanny share. Jobs usually professionals. The fact someone is massively poorer doesn’t make middle class rich.
the fact that in london you now need 200K for this especially with nursery age kids and new-ish mortgage also doesn’t make people rich, just because it’s low 6 figures. Rich is when you don’t have to budget for holidays, house or any spend.

it just means that inflation has been big and COL has increased massively

I mean yeah.

"I can't afford to support my kids because I'm spending all my money on paying for other people's kids"

and

"The free money I get from other people is not quite enough to support my kids"

are not comparable positions!!

I'm on a high income but still sat in my freezing, mortgaged to the sky house with a snoody on because the heating costs too much.

Cleaner and Nanny 😂Btw, not sure if you realise this - not everyone lives in London, or even England believe it or not!

This is where we differ. I'm more intelligent than you, therefore not as obsessed with money. Your tax goes to pay off the massive debt that the UK is in, nothing more.

It would appear that neither parent has spare cash. One is doing it off of their own steam and the other is in receipt of government handouts. To be clear: which parent are you accusing of “having children that they can’t afford”?

Yes I know that - my first post was that in London 200-250k is middle class because of cost of all the things above. I’m only talking about london because of its high property and childcare costs.

and btw no full time nanny on that income - nanny costs 55k a year so double of a nursery. But part time or nanny share max.

What's happened that means you can't afford to heat your home?

Where did you think the debt came from??

Our house was £290,000. Just under the national average cost of a house.

We pay £1400 a month in mortgage payments.
We pay £260 p/m council tax.
We pay £250 p/m gas and electric.
We pay £70 p/m water.
That’s £2k a month just to live in a warm house (of average value) with running water.
Then add on the cost of food.

We earn very good wages, much better jobs than our parents, but in relative terms, we’re much, much worse off.

Both, I hope that is a clearer "both" than the one I posted earlier. It probably isn't clearer given the content of your post.

Jesus Christ. Have a nice day.

Handout implies it is given freely. Most people who receive a benefit will have paid into the system which then gives them a safety net if they fall on hard time.
I am currently unemployed. If I do not find work and my savings are gone I will have to receive UC. I hope none of my friends will regard this as me receiving handouts. Hopefully I will be able to keep my home and support my son.

I wouldn't know as I have never employed either! It really is a different world down there.

They chose to work there. Don't sign a contract if you don't like the terms and conditions.

If you genuinely believe that then you are exceptionally naive

"Emotional blackmail in support of right-wing ideology. Please excuse me while I throw up."

Lol, feel free.

If the wealthy leave the country (they are), then mass-unemployment will ensue (already started).

After all is said and done, the market is highly-efficient and will respond to things quickly. You get what you wish for, so eat what you ordered. If that's losing your job, then so be it.

The government will continue to make money worthless by printing it, thus deepening the recession. Don't forget Rachel's budget next week, I assume the vaseline will be in the post very soon.

You're assuming we're getting vaseline? More optimistic than me ;)