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

A quick google says that about 1.35 million people in the UK earned more than £100,000 in the 2022/23 tax year.

The UK population is about 69 million.

So these earners are in a minority. And their votes are going to be in a minority. I would question whether the way they feel is "the problem." However they feel, they can be massively outvoted by the people who earn less than them. So why do we have a system which allows (even promotes) massive wealth inequality?

(Genuine question btw).

I guess what I’m saying is that “six figures” isn’t a great benchmark for “rich”. And I grew up in poverty in Stoke so I get what you’re saying - clearly I’m much better off than people on or below the average salary but I really dont think I have an amazing lifestyle for the hours and stress I have TBH.

I think the discrepancy in cost of living across the country is not talked about often enough in context of incomes.

£100k is £5.7k after tax.

A small house in my area will cost £700k+. Thats £3.5k a month in mortgage repayments. Unremarkable property.

A nursery place will be ~ £2,300.

That’s the entirety of the take home pay on £100k to live in a small terraced house and have one child in nursery so you can go to work.

Thats why these people don’t feel ‘rich’ - their life looks no different to yours really as the local cost of living is so much higher, and it isn’t affording them a better standard of living.

Most of my colleagues earn £100k + but many of them are also paying up to £3k per month in childcare. They don’t have huge amounts of disposable income and the single parents in particular are having to watch every penny. What makes it worse is people like you OP belive that they are rich and are living a luxurious lifestyle. They really aren’t. One of my closest friends earns half that but has far more holidays than my colleagues because (1) her mam looked after her kids and (2) she lives in a part of the country where it’s still possible to buy a three bed terrace at a reasonable price.

And as for the “how did they get this way, off the back of other people” - again, I come from a single parent family and poverty in Stoke.

I’m solo self-employed. I definitely did not get “rich” off anyone else. I paid my own way through uni working 16-35 hours a week on top of a full time law degree.

a) they pay 50% of tax so are a hugely important group to the UK’s economy.

b) wealth and income are very different

I earn well, not 100k but a decent amount of money. So if I said what I earn it sounds great. But my OH has been in and out of work for the last three years, mainly out of work, so them it's not so great. I'm labouring the point but what I'm trying to say is it's so individual.

@Neeroyrather than looking at the wage, what lifestyle do you picture a rich person to live? Not middle class, rich.

Now think if someone on £125-150k is likely to be able to afford that lifestyle on that wage.

Ehrm. I have to disagree with your statements. Some people have earned their wealth through hard work. Many have inherited from generations that have not earned anything by hard work at all. They were born into wealth that generated new wealth by investors.

I take it you're American telling us we should be inspired by the wealthy and their nepotism rather than questioning how reasonable it is that some have accumulated wealth they (or even their family in generations forward) will never be able to spend while others through accidents/disabilities struggle to survive. That's just indecent.

But I bet you are not among the superrich. 'Off the back of other people' relates to the fifty families who own 50% of Uk's wealth. or equivalent families the world over. I never want to give the impression I judge people on £100k for being exploitative! I have a few friends and a few clients who are 10 times wealthier than me, all from their own efforts. One, like you, from extreme poverty. I hugely admire and like these people. And they spend their money, and share it.

The people I despise are the ones who accumulate wealth aggressively when they couldn't possibly spend a fraction of it. There is no trickle down. The money is blocked, locked away in bank accounts, benefitting no one.

It’s corruptive, no one ever looks below, we all look above to where we aspire to be.

"Rich" for me is Kardashian rich, private jets, so much money you cannot even work out how to spend it.

Not just being able to buy whatever I want in Sainsbury's 😅

100%.
The really rich- the people with £100 million plus investments, live in staff and homes across the world- know perfectly well they’re rich.
They just don’t want you to notice them. They want you hating Susan instead.

If we're talking about billionaires, maybe. I think it's obscene that Jeff Bezos has more than 220 billion and yet tax payers are having to pay benefits to Amazon workers who can't afford to live on the shitty wages he gives them.

But people who earn more than 100k? That includes jobs like doctors. I think you're being ridiculous to blame them for creches being so expensive.

Louder for those at the back!

Also '6 figure earners only compare themselves to other 6 figure earners' - couldn't the same be said for lower earners. What with social circles and all that.

No - the top 50 families own more than the combined assets of the BOTTOM 50% of the UK population, not more than 50% of the total population. Important distinction. Also if you look at whose those families are, a lot of that wealth is not primarily derived from economic activity within the UK, so it's arguable who should be benefiting from that. That is actually part of the problem, in that extreme wealth is now extremely "global" so hard to pin down in terms of effective taxation strategies.

But yes, I agree with you that heaping Doug and Sarah, and even Jane and John with a combined salaried income of £1million in with Jeff Bezos and the Mittals is unhelpful.

The sweeping generalisations here. Holy crap.

I'm English.

I disagree with the notion of 'wealth inequality' because it encourages mediocrity and decline. Envy damages everything it touches regardless of the form it comes in and I don't entertain it.

With social media everyone can compare themselves to everyone.

Erm I hope you realise you don't get an accurate picture of someone's real life and financial situation through social media?? It's a mirage.

Totally agree with this - do you have a source for that? It’s utterly shocking.

Absolutely, wealth and income are very different. (I went for income, because that's what the OP is posting about, but clearly wealth is also a massive factor.)

Another quick google says that about 5.8% of the UK population own total assets of £1 million or more. So, a much bigger percentage than the six-figure earners, but still definitely a minority. (£1 million is obviously an arbitrary figure - apparently if I make the figure £500K in assets then that's about 23% of the population, which is pretty sizeable. Maybe £500K in assets is enough to make you protective to the extent that you vote against political parties who favour higher taxation/wealth redistribution?).

And yes, the six-figure earners do contribute a lot of income tax, but I don't think that too many of them would up sticks and move countries if the top rate of income tax went up by a few %. So a government could afford to piss them off a bit. I'm not suggesting that this is the best solution, though (a wealth tax on the very wealthy might make more sense, although I guess that population is more likely to just move elsewhere if they don't like the tax system.)

What really puzzles me are the large numbers of lower earners who vote for political parties who are very much against wealth redistribution/higher taxation for high earners. It seems to be at least partly an emotional thing ("benefits scroungers shouldn't be subsidised by working people"). Some media and politicians are totally playing into that emotion, and exploiting its power to influence those voters. Whereas I think that actually better public services and less income inequality would benefit pretty much everyone overall.

Sorry, just rambling and thinking aloud here.

I pondered this recently. I work in a small company, where 75-80% of people are very very rich and the rest are the polar opposite, struggling to the extremes to make ends meet. The richer people are full of life and energy and happier looking and tell the poorer folk to lighten up and then go on to tell them all about their adventures, ignoring the struggles if the poories. The poor folk don't say much back and let the richer ones rattle on. Im not particularly begrudging them that but when it's in front of you in the extremes, it does look very odd. Its like the reality of the other peoples situation is disregarded, in a 'not my problem' kind of way and the richer folk carry on regardless

This is a forum where people understand when people with triple-hundred-figure incomes might struggle to pay the school fees but not understand why an ill or disabled person or single parent might struggle to put food on the table. So yes, as a microcosm of wider attitudes, yes. But it's not only the well off that don't realise they're well off, there's this chronic fawning towards them as well by people with fuck all. Sometimes people with fuck all don't seem to realise they've got fuck all.

I vividly remember seeing a part of one of those poverty porn programmes years ago where a skint family and a wealthy family swapped houses for a week and I will never, ever forget a single mother working two jobs saying something like 'it just goes to show you what can happen if you work hard'. She was working two jobs and raising her children and her hard work wasn't getting her anywhere near stable housing never mind nice housing.

Yes absolutely, and that's part of the problem. 'Keeping up with the Joneses' will bankrupt you when the Joneses are only posting the highlights on SM.

This is definitely the case. I was at university with friends who’d gone to private schools. There is simply no way the equivalent job would pay for that kind of education now - think GP dad, stay at home mum, two kids in private school all the way through, nice lifestyle including holidays abroad. No way could a GP fund the equivalent now.