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

@OneAmberFinch the fact your boss frowned meant you didn’t move out?

Meant I moved out 1h from the office instead of 1.5h yes (staying within the main London area for tube/bus/taxi options if train is unavailable). During busy times it is not unusual to stay in the office past 11pm and be back for 9am.

The boss's opinion is relevant because it reflects certain industry expectations which become difficult to meet when housing is at such a premium.

As I said earlier @Neeroy- I do think this boils down to the lowering of lifestyles. If you earn an amount that puts you in the top 10% of the population, but your lifestyle is still lower than your parents lifestyle when they were your age (and they had “lower paid job” in relation to average income at the time), you are unlikely to feel rich. If you haven’t been able to get anywhere near the lifestyle levels someone in the top 10% had 20/30 years ago, the fact that your wage puts you in the top 10% might not be obvious unless you go look up the figures.

We really have as a country lowered our standards and expectations of what sort of lifestyle we should be living (at all levels of society except the 1%). A lot of it is self inflicted, and there doesn’t seem to be any political will to talk about it, let alone fix it.

Did you ever have any pleasure apart from making and saving money?

Can I ask what your usual hours are?

I have been one fortunate recipient of HPI. Not huge amounts but still some.

According to some I got this by "working hard all my life" and "being clever".

When in reality I might have easily got it by sitting on my arse and waiting while successive governments completely mismanaged the property market to the detriment of anyone who didn't own property.

The reader can decide for themselves ...

But no, I do realise how fortunate I am.

Does it really need pointing out that to many money is a priority because friends, family and experiences are the priority?

Most people need to have money in order to prioritise friends and family.

It's the difference between obtaining safety and being privileged enough to never have to worry about such a thing

No. Because your whole premise is wrong.You don’t need money to prioritise friends and family. What if your friends and family are either skint, or just getting by, or are comparably wealthy? Matters not a jot. If you need money to have good relationships with your friends and family, then you should rethink those relationships.

9-10 is our standard day.

9am to 10pm?

Yes (you would take lunch/dinner breaks during this of course)

That’s awful. Where’s your work/life balance?

You have completely misunderstood my premise.

Which was? That you need money to prioritise your friends and family?

This is what some people don’t seem to understand. That a six figure salary comes with sacrifice - you sacrifice work life balance, time with your kids. Because you are trying to make a better life for your family. You are taxed almost out of existence to pay for people who won’t make the same sacrifice.

I certainly wouldn't. Why would you spend more time at work than with your children?

What do you pay for me eg?

Because you want to give your family a stable life where
you can put the heating on whenever you want, not have to think about the cost of food, go on holiday, maybe even give your children a fantastic education so you are giving them the best start in life you possibly can.

The government spends £13k (in 2022/23) per person including children. To be a net contributor for a family of 4 say the family has to contribute £52,000 a year in taxes. That’s almost a six figure salary and that’s just breaking even! That’s not being a net contributor. The net contributors are subsidizing all those people who aren’t.

You're obsessed.

Btw, subsidise, doesn't have a z in it.

Yes this. People brainwashed into believing the working people earning well are the ‘rich people’ and are the problem.

Some people have more than others that’s the way it’s always been, someone will have more money than you do. But working people earning six figures are not the problem ‘they’ tell us these people are the rich so they can impose more taxes. Actual rich people don’t pay income tax, or very little, so it doesn’t affect them

I do think a lot about this you are right. Of course some people are on low wages and they should pay less tax etc and some people are disabled or ill and they can’t work so society absolutely needs to provide for them. But some people game the system and that is not right. There may not be lots of those people but the fact that there are any offends my sense of fairness. The government is going to raise benefits in line with inflation, but it won’t lift the levels upon which the higher taxes are paid in Line with inflation. The balance is not right.

It bothered me so much that I moved to Dubai last year. 257,000 other Brits also emigrated last year.

So many generalisations on this thread, with such extreme examples of every situation.

what's to say that Susan is savvy enough to know that paying £300 for a dress is a ridiculous waste of money or that she doesn't need to be a victim of Russell and Bromley prices to buy good quality. And what's to say that she doesn't give a shit if she's told she's in the top 2% earners. Big deal.

She's someone who has her own mind and decides to live within her means, doesn't go on social media and end up with life style inflation because of over reacting to all the crap that gets spouted in there. There are plenty of people in this category who aren't fixated on what they earn or comparing themselves to others, they're content to be getting on with their life and living within their means, budgeting according to their income. If you're earning £120k you're going to be well-educated and likely to be making good life choices for yourself and your family. The reason you're in the position you are is because you know it gives you options in life, you aren't painting yourself into a corner.

id just love to know how people on here have an encyclopaedic knowledge of people's income, and how much all their colleagues pay for child care. Do you really know or are you making it up for effect?

So what did you subsidise me for before you moved to the human rights capital of the world?

So you made a decision not to move, despite wanting to and despite it presumably impacting your family, because your boss…. Frowned when you mentioned considering a thirty minute extra commute? @OneAmberFinch

You work 9am-10pm @OneAmberFinch

I suspect you’re being fleeced.

My ex husband (with whom I’m thankfully very amicable!) is on £172k plus bonus, and works 10am-8pm (and the odd very late meeting with oz team).

The only industry I can think with those hours is corporate law with a focus on Australia and Asia, but even that industry has done quite a shift in work / life balance according to my sister (sr partner at magic circle firm)