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

It's very short sighted to tell anyone on £100k that they are rich, so shut up and pay up. The plan is drag ever more of us into that bracket. Careful what you wish for.

£100k is not rich, very comfortable, but unless you've been bringing that in for decades or have wealth and privilege from other sources you just aren't rich.

Higher earners spending less isn't good for anyone.

Forget the six figure workers, and look at their bosses boss. That's who you should be angry with.

I've seen similar posts but only in the context of blended families. So people basically saying if you can't afford to move to a 5 bed house then simply don't move in with the new BF/GF since it's not fair asking unrelated kids to share rooms. I agree with those posts actually. But obviously if you've got 3 related kids then it's perfectly fine for them to share.

But saying 'just cut down on your expenses and you'd be fine' is a slippery slope imo. You could say the same to people on a lower income. Just lower your heating by a couple of degrees, never eat out, cancel all your subscriptions etc. Sure, it would save money but in the end you'd be living a pretty joyless life.

You are unlikely to be rich in 100k salary especially if you live in se and have a child. In which case you’re probably struggling to pay mortgage and childcare!

typical socialist politics of envy - we should encourage and reward aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit unlike Labour who’s actively destroying it

"super rich" and "wealth hoarding" is very very different to people earning £100k

There's a philosophical component here.
The thinking is not about wealth redistribution and the provision of 'more' by the state. Rather, it's the belief that the state should be 'small' and people should be left to support themselves. Unless they're really on their uppers and then the state should supply enough for that. But no more.

Rich and high earning are entirely different things. You can be in the top 1% of earners with a salary of £160,000. But assuming a 4x income multiple that top 1% salary would not get a 100% mortgage on the average property price in London which sits around £660k.

@AllJoyAndNoFun What does 'the BOTTOM 50% of the UK population mean in this sentence? Does it mean 50% of the set of lowest earning, or does it mean (which I presume it does) 50% of the British population overall, but the poorest 50%? If so, it is still 50% of the total population and the same shocking statistic it appears to be.

I've never complained about people earning £100k

If I hadn’t seen such riches, I could live with being poor 🎤

Not helpful to the thread, I just needed to get this out of my head.

Earnings are irrelevant, if outgoings are the same.

If someone is paying a London mortgage, plus student loan, plus childcare for two children, that could easily be £6,000 a month before bills. Add in council tax, food and basics like uniform/school shoes and I can see how people don't feel well off.

I moved out of London as soon as I could, bought a doer-upper and had only one child, for all those reasons.

"Even those who have inherited money, their parents will have worked their backsides off."

How far back are you happy to go on this? There are aristocratic families in this country whose wealth accrued through land gifted to them a thousand years ago, when William the Conqueror arrived!

50 families in the UK own 50% of the wealth. That's not been earned by someone losing sleep over paying their employees, that's earned because money makes money, and because they have more than they could ever spend and therefore more than they need.

IMO, that wealth should be taxed, in the same way as it would be for a working person earning a salary. Why is work taxed but wealth, even at this obscene level, somehow ringfenced?

Similarly, I disagree that it is inevitably the case that the parents will have worked their backsides off. Aside from the huge levels of independent, hereditary wealth in this country touched on above, there are plenty of children who stand to inherit vast property portfolios bought by parents in the 90s/00s, whose only real 'hard work' was benefitting from rapid increases in property values and rental income. They bought at the right time and now their children will never need to worry about money, whilst other children will never afford a home of their own, however hard they work. I know someone who stands to inherit about 30 properties, and in the meantime is living off rental income from some of those properties that she didn't buy. As I understand it, she receives that income as dividends, so pays far less tax than she would as a salaried worker.

I think the tax system needs to be fixed to address these issues, so that people feel that working hard pays. That means a tax on assets or income deriving from assets in the same proportion as would be paid by a salaried worker. Otherwise the productivity crisis will intensify, as people simply disengage from a system they feel is rigged against them and in favour of the asset owners.

I think the problem is that everybody wants someone richer than them to pay the tax, hence the talk of the super rich and corporations.

It's all very well being a caring, sharing Labour voter on £50 plus grand .......until they take your money to fund the benefits spending that you say you agree with.

Ya, they don't understand. I saw a post on Mumsnet recently about her son in law, I think it was, gifting her 1000 toilet rolls. She wasn't happy and didn't know what to do with them. I'm not criticising the poster but having been a single mum who struggled to make ends meet, the anxiety relief and comfort you feel when you have an excess of essentials like that is huge. You feel rich and more secure, breath a sigh of relief that you're ok now when you have these things. You breathe out

Success is rarely earned
and even when it is , there will usually have been additional support - like how my parents prioritised my education and ensured I got to a suitable school for me even though that wasn’t easy

people who work their backs off are care workers , teachers , nurses , and they don’t get rich but at least they contribute greatly to our lives

This

I dont think anyone depending on their high stress jobs is particularly rich. The rich are those where if they were no longer able to work from today, their life would be unaffected.

I dont begrudge those on the 6 figure salaries. I see my boss and the work, responsibilities and hours she puts in and however much she is on she would be worth every penny to the company. They could have a moment of madness and offer me that role for that salary and I would turn it down as wouldn't be suitable for the stress levels I can handle. The ones earning it day to day are not given it for an easy role that anyone could handle, they are making the sacrifice

I am sure refugees risking their lives and their family lives to come here will agree on that one

When people say "rich" what they mean is "richER than them"
that never helps.

I earn around 240k a year before tax. No mortgage. House worth about 500k maybe in the SE. I don't feel rich. I feel comfortable, that's all, but also know it could all easily go tits up quite quickly.

This also shows its own lack of understanding though…

You assume the six figure salary earner is in a big house with an expensive leased car, and could save money by living more modestly, children sharing bedrooms…

… well, that modest two-up, two-down would be a £3k+ mortgage or rent payment here. Children sharing bedrooms very normal. People often don’t have a car at all and use public transport anyway as it’s more convenient.

I don’t think the six figure salary earner necessarily has the lifestyle you expect…!

I think there’s a lot of truth of in that. Between us DH and I pull in low six figures, and are, by any standards, comfortable. We don’t struggle to pay our mortgage or bills. Our kids don’t go without. We can afford treats like the occasional meal out, day trip or take away. We have a holiday every year without going into debt. We have enough saving to ride out most emergency situations.

But we live in a small terrace in an expensive area, send our kids to state schools, and drive a 15 year old third hand car. All of our friends earn a lot more, mostly between them but in a couple of cases, due to one very high income. They have nice cars, huge houses, expensive holidays/hobbies (skiing, horse-riding, sailing) and their kids go to private schools. Compared to them, we definitely don’t feel rich.

But I grew up poor, and DH lower-income, and so we know how fortunate we are. We are constantly telling our kids - who thankfully have never known poverty - how fortunate we are, and that many/most people don’t have that simply luxury of not worrying about money.

He does have 900 kids to pay for. 😂

Stephen Bartlett said that the most anyone needs is to earn £75,000 a year. This was a couple of years ago, so it might be a bit more now.

I also heard some philosopher say that noone should be allowed to have more than £10m in the bank and that the rest of the wealth should be redistributed so that we all have more.

Do you remember during the pandemic where people were calling for them to write off our mortgages? Just imagine if they did that. It is within their power to do so of course, but they wouldn't. Imagine the morale of the country if they did. Instead it's always fucking doom and gloom and the brutal prospect of making the refugees suffer. Nothing nice to look forward to. I have never in my life supported the Tories, but when Kemi Badenoch announced the abolition of Stamp Duty it gave me something to smile about. I have no idea of the fiscal viability but it made me happy.

I think the problem with wealth inequality is that too many people don't understand that wealth and earnings are not at all the same thing. That someone who's on 6 figures may end up with less wealth than their neighbours who never earned anything like that much, simply because of when the neighbours were born.

Here is an example. We’re ‘rich’ - we earn c.£150k, and take home about £7.5k a month. We run one car, have a mortgage of about £3k a month (it was £2k before interest rates went up), and have nursery fees of £2k a month. We can just about afford a cheap family holiday a year, we do have savings from pre-kids but right now saving isn’t possible.

We live in a 4 bed end terrace that needs work doing. We prioritised location and proximity to good schools as there’s no way we could afford private.

We would struggle to pay much more tax as our outgoings are so high.

OTOH, our next door neighbours bought the same house for £50k years ago, fully paid off, and both have nice pensions. Their income is a fraction of ours but they very much have more disposable income than we do!

Stephen Bartlett isn’t exactly practicing what he preaches then is he…?

people who work their backs off are care workers , teachers , nurses , and they don’t get rich but at least they contribute greatly to our lives

How do you know their parents didn’t prioritise their education and ensure they went to a suitable school? Teachers and nurses are professions requiring university degrees.