Page 12 | Upper class habits to stay rich

publicsectorlife · 2025-10-24T04:15:18+00:00

What habits do the upper class have to stay wealthy? What would they never buy that they would consider a waste of money? Our household income is very good. But yet we seem to be haemorrhaging money with high mortgage, commuting and childcare costs. But yet our friends with generational wealth (ie small mortgage) seem to be living such a different lifestyle with about 6 holidays a year. We can’t do much about having no inherited wealth but I think we must be missing a trick.

Lovehascomeandgone · 25/10/2025 22:12

The don’t pay for anything. Never put their hand in their pocket and are happy to take if you are paying.

ByTwinklyDreamer · 25/10/2025 22:42

Investments, I get a few thousand pound interest each month and my DH tens of thousands.

StationHouse89 · 25/10/2025 22:44

@ByTwinklyDreamer if you don’t mind me asking, what kind of investments do you make to get those kind of returns? This is a whole new world for me!

ByTwinklyDreamer · 25/10/2025 22:58

StationHouse89 · 25/10/2025 22:44

@ByTwinklyDreamer if you don’t mind me asking, what kind of investments do you make to get those kind of returns? This is a whole new world for me!

A range of individual shares, fixed rate bonds, S&S ISA’s, Premium Bonds, other savings accounts. I also have 1.5 properties I rent out and I keep that profit as a separate pot of money.

ByTwinklyDreamer · 25/10/2025 22:59

StationHouse89 · 25/10/2025 22:44

@ByTwinklyDreamer if you don’t mind me asking, what kind of investments do you make to get those kind of returns? This is a whole new world for me!

I’m definitely not upper class though. I’m middle class now and came from a working class background.

dizzydizzydizzy · 25/10/2025 23:44

Being tight.

Crushed23 · 26/10/2025 00:00

JudgeJ · 25/10/2025 21:33

A £300 everyday dress is probably no better in quality than, say, a £75 dress from places like M and S, a large part of that £300 will probably go on payments to named 'designers' who in reality only contribute their name. The same applies to loads of household items, I would never buy a set of knives just because they carry a famous name for example.
To get real, keepable clothes you need to spend far more that £300, you also need to keep your shape for years too! The Princess Royal wears clothes twenty, even thirty years old that presumably have worked out quite cheap if one considers high initial cost/number of years wear.

Show quote history

Expensive, “investment” pieces are a good way to stay thin 😁 if you gain weight, you can’t get wear out of them and they’re a waste of money.

Putneydad7 · 26/10/2025 06:44

anon666 · 25/10/2025 19:24

Trust funds.

Its amazing how much difference it makes to have an annual income without needing to work for it or pay income tax / NI on it.

If you receive money from a trust fund it is subject to income tax. The trust itself is also subject to tax every 10 years on its gains.

Putneydad7 · 26/10/2025 07:05

The levels of bile, envy and hatred of wealthy people on this thread is staggering. The ignorance of the facts is staggering.
Facts people should realise on here.
only the top 20% of earners make any positive financial contribution to society. That is they pay in more than they receive out. Everyone else is quite literally getting subsidised by them.
if you only have unearned income you can’t put it in a pension.
Trusts are subject to tax every 10 years and income tax when money is taken out.
the top 1% of earners pay 20% of income tax and so on and so forth.
the truly truly rich who have global assets and can choose their tax jurisdiction by living somewhere else have started leaving the UK in their droves and will continue to do so as more soak the rich policies are unveiled.
So to be clear the government is going to rely on London to once again bail out the country. All the talk of mansion tax, inheritance tax, stamp duty, increasing council tax bands, etc. will almost entirely hit the top 20% of earners/owners in London.
You might argue that that is fair, but remember if you are unaffected by the budget at least feel a bit grateful.
The country’s finances are in a parlous state because the population is aging and the government (of all colours) lavishes money on the retired (in terms of benefits, pension and healthcare) in order to reap their votes (see recent back down on universal winter fuel allowance).
To only raise taxes without having equally severe cuts to spending in just madness and when the IMF force us to slash spending the govt will no doubt say “it’s them not us”

WhatdidIforget · 26/10/2025 07:14

Putneydad7 · 26/10/2025 07:05

The levels of bile, envy and hatred of wealthy people on this thread is staggering. The ignorance of the facts is staggering.
Facts people should realise on here.
only the top 20% of earners make any positive financial contribution to society. That is they pay in more than they receive out. Everyone else is quite literally getting subsidised by them.
if you only have unearned income you can’t put it in a pension.
Trusts are subject to tax every 10 years and income tax when money is taken out.
the top 1% of earners pay 20% of income tax and so on and so forth.
the truly truly rich who have global assets and can choose their tax jurisdiction by living somewhere else have started leaving the UK in their droves and will continue to do so as more soak the rich policies are unveiled.
So to be clear the government is going to rely on London to once again bail out the country. All the talk of mansion tax, inheritance tax, stamp duty, increasing council tax bands, etc. will almost entirely hit the top 20% of earners/owners in London.
You might argue that that is fair, but remember if you are unaffected by the budget at least feel a bit grateful.
The country’s finances are in a parlous state because the population is aging and the government (of all colours) lavishes money on the retired (in terms of benefits, pension and healthcare) in order to reap their votes (see recent back down on universal winter fuel allowance).
To only raise taxes without having equally severe cuts to spending in just madness and when the IMF force us to slash spending the govt will no doubt say “it’s them not us”

It's interesting how you equate "positive contribution" solely with finance. Conveniently forgetting all those people like unpaid and low paid carers, like nurses and doctors, like legal aid lawyers and street sweepers, and charity volunteers and sports coaches....

Contributions aren't solely monetary.

Putneydad7 · 26/10/2025 07:16

12345mummy · 24/10/2025 12:05

I understand your question OP. Based on my experience of the type of family that you are describing.
Rarely holidaying abroad and if so it would be France. Never doing instagram worthy things like pumpkin picking. Growing own food and baking bread, making jams, chutney etc. Cooking a big roast joint of meat and eating it for days after with the bread and chutney. Never driving a flash car. Using clothes for children for years like knitted cardigans, ditto toys. Having the thermostat on low and sitting round the fire on an evening. Rarely eating out or having take aways but entertaining at home. Generally just a slower pace of life doing things like dog walks, runs, reading, baking and gardening at the weekend, most of which don’t cost much money, if any.

You are dead right on this, my nephew and niece who haven’t a pot to piss in, came to visit us a few months back. They bought a small pot of chocolate covered strawberries for £10 because they’d seen it on insta and no doubt posted their own. They also drive new cars on finance. I’ve never had a new car ever. I could never understand why anyone would pay the “drive it off the forecourt” depreciation. I’ve never had a loan except a mortgage. Never borrowed on a credit card, that way folly lies.
They have all kinds of different debt be it phone contracts for latest iPhones, Klarna, etc.
if they were my kids I’d say, stop going out, get a weekend job and clear your debts.

Wimin123 · 26/10/2025 07:28

Lovehascomeandgone · 25/10/2025 22:12

The don’t pay for anything. Never put their hand in their pocket and are happy to take if you are paying.

Yes we know the type.

Putneydad7 · 26/10/2025 07:35

WhatdidIforget · 26/10/2025 07:14

It's interesting how you equate "positive contribution" solely with finance. Conveniently forgetting all those people like unpaid and low paid carers, like nurses and doctors, like legal aid lawyers and street sweepers, and charity volunteers and sports coaches....

Contributions aren't solely monetary.

Show quote history

Not really I used the term “positive financial contribution”.
The people who litter pick gratis in my local park make a contribution to society, it is really admirable, but it can’t be described as a financial contribution. If they didn’t do it the park would get messy and maybe, just maybe the council would pay someone to clean it up, in which case their volunteer time would be considered financial. Most doctors are not low paid, so please don’t include them in any comparison.
from a quick google and this is before you add in private sector earnings.

The average salary for a doctor in the UK varies significantly by experience and specialty, with junior doctors earning from around £38,831 to £52,656 and consultants earning between £109,725 and £145,478. Salaried GPs earn between £76,038 and £114,743

WhatdidIforget · 26/10/2025 07:49

Putneydad7 · 26/10/2025 07:35

Not really I used the term “positive financial contribution”.
The people who litter pick gratis in my local park make a contribution to society, it is really admirable, but it can’t be described as a financial contribution. If they didn’t do it the park would get messy and maybe, just maybe the council would pay someone to clean it up, in which case their volunteer time would be considered financial. Most doctors are not low paid, so please don’t include them in any comparison.
from a quick google and this is before you add in private sector earnings.

The average salary for a doctor in the UK varies significantly by experience and specialty, with junior doctors earning from around £38,831 to £52,656 and consultants earning between £109,725 and £145,478. Salaried GPs earn between £76,038 and £114,743

Show quote history

But that's exactly my point. If people didn't do all sorts of things for free or for low salaries we would have to spend many multiples of what we do now on public services.

And doctors are a good example of that. I do class their salaries as low relative to their potential earning power as people with top academic grades, and their potential earning power if they worked in the private sector.

Putneydad7 · 26/10/2025 07:56

Here is one piece of advice, as soon as you can, get invested in the stock market. I used paper round (showing my age) money to buy shares when I was 15 (had to set up an account in my dad’s name as I was u18).
Then instead of scrolling insta, do some research into stocks, you don’t need an economics degree. Find out what is the next big thing on the horizon. Then find out who supplies the picks and shovels for that development and invest there. Ask yourself, when did you first hear of Bitcoin, did you think I wonder how they mine that? That might well have led you to Nvidia who made the chips so essential to mining.
So right now gold and silver are high, have you missed the boat there? Possibly, but if the price stays where it is, what will happen, gold miners will make more money and will want to increase production. Spend a couple of evenings going down those rabbit holes and create some wealth.
Money never sleeps.

FrostAtMidnight · 26/10/2025 08:20

Putneydad7 · 26/10/2025 07:05

The levels of bile, envy and hatred of wealthy people on this thread is staggering. The ignorance of the facts is staggering.
Facts people should realise on here.
only the top 20% of earners make any positive financial contribution to society. That is they pay in more than they receive out. Everyone else is quite literally getting subsidised by them.
if you only have unearned income you can’t put it in a pension.
Trusts are subject to tax every 10 years and income tax when money is taken out.
the top 1% of earners pay 20% of income tax and so on and so forth.
the truly truly rich who have global assets and can choose their tax jurisdiction by living somewhere else have started leaving the UK in their droves and will continue to do so as more soak the rich policies are unveiled.
So to be clear the government is going to rely on London to once again bail out the country. All the talk of mansion tax, inheritance tax, stamp duty, increasing council tax bands, etc. will almost entirely hit the top 20% of earners/owners in London.
You might argue that that is fair, but remember if you are unaffected by the budget at least feel a bit grateful.
The country’s finances are in a parlous state because the population is aging and the government (of all colours) lavishes money on the retired (in terms of benefits, pension and healthcare) in order to reap their votes (see recent back down on universal winter fuel allowance).
To only raise taxes without having equally severe cuts to spending in just madness and when the IMF force us to slash spending the govt will no doubt say “it’s them not us”

Completely right. The top 0.1% pay more income tax than the bottom 50% together.

Of course it’s true that there are other ways of contributing to society than paying tax but that doesn’t change the fact that it is primarily the rich who fund public spending. That’s not necessarily wrong- we should pay proportionally more than people on lower incomes- but the amount of nonsense on threads like these makes sad reading.

CandidLurker · 26/10/2025 08:21

The people who say they’ve never had a car on finance. I couldn’t afford my first car until I was about 25 and had paid off my student overdraft. All my earnings when on rent, commuting, food. If I wanted a car I had absolutely no choice but to take out a loan to buy one. There was no parental help or an old but reliable second hand car at home for me to “inherit”.

of course paying interest is not a good idea if one can avoid it but sometimes it’s unavoidable.

As I’m now quite old I’m better off. Bought a good quality car new 7 years ago for cash and have no intention of replacing it. I hate paying interest on anything but when you are younger and money is tight it can’t be avoided.

ishimbob · 26/10/2025 08:28

CandidLurker · 26/10/2025 08:21

The people who say they’ve never had a car on finance. I couldn’t afford my first car until I was about 25 and had paid off my student overdraft. All my earnings when on rent, commuting, food. If I wanted a car I had absolutely no choice but to take out a loan to buy one. There was no parental help or an old but reliable second hand car at home for me to “inherit”.

of course paying interest is not a good idea if one can avoid it but sometimes it’s unavoidable.

As I’m now quite old I’m better off. Bought a good quality car new 7 years ago for cash and have no intention of replacing it. I hate paying interest on anything but when you are younger and money is tight it can’t be avoided.

I couldn't afford a car in my 20s either - I therefore didn't have one. There's always a choice.

CandidLurker · 26/10/2025 09:10

ishimbob · 26/10/2025 08:28

I couldn't afford a car in my 20s either - I therefore didn't have one. There's always a choice.

Show quote history

My career would have been dead in the water if I hadn’t had access to a car in my 20’s.

August1980 · 26/10/2025 10:15

Putneydad7 · 26/10/2025 07:05

The levels of bile, envy and hatred of wealthy people on this thread is staggering. The ignorance of the facts is staggering.
Facts people should realise on here.
only the top 20% of earners make any positive financial contribution to society. That is they pay in more than they receive out. Everyone else is quite literally getting subsidised by them.
if you only have unearned income you can’t put it in a pension.
Trusts are subject to tax every 10 years and income tax when money is taken out.
the top 1% of earners pay 20% of income tax and so on and so forth.
the truly truly rich who have global assets and can choose their tax jurisdiction by living somewhere else have started leaving the UK in their droves and will continue to do so as more soak the rich policies are unveiled.
So to be clear the government is going to rely on London to once again bail out the country. All the talk of mansion tax, inheritance tax, stamp duty, increasing council tax bands, etc. will almost entirely hit the top 20% of earners/owners in London.
You might argue that that is fair, but remember if you are unaffected by the budget at least feel a bit grateful.
The country’s finances are in a parlous state because the population is aging and the government (of all colours) lavishes money on the retired (in terms of benefits, pension and healthcare) in order to reap their votes (see recent back down on universal winter fuel allowance).
To only raise taxes without having equally severe cuts to spending in just madness and when the IMF force us to slash spending the govt will no doubt say “it’s them not us”

I say this all the time…

HRchatter · 26/10/2025 10:34

Putneydad7 · 26/10/2025 07:05

The levels of bile, envy and hatred of wealthy people on this thread is staggering. The ignorance of the facts is staggering.
Facts people should realise on here.
only the top 20% of earners make any positive financial contribution to society. That is they pay in more than they receive out. Everyone else is quite literally getting subsidised by them.
if you only have unearned income you can’t put it in a pension.
Trusts are subject to tax every 10 years and income tax when money is taken out.
the top 1% of earners pay 20% of income tax and so on and so forth.
the truly truly rich who have global assets and can choose their tax jurisdiction by living somewhere else have started leaving the UK in their droves and will continue to do so as more soak the rich policies are unveiled.
So to be clear the government is going to rely on London to once again bail out the country. All the talk of mansion tax, inheritance tax, stamp duty, increasing council tax bands, etc. will almost entirely hit the top 20% of earners/owners in London.
You might argue that that is fair, but remember if you are unaffected by the budget at least feel a bit grateful.
The country’s finances are in a parlous state because the population is aging and the government (of all colours) lavishes money on the retired (in terms of benefits, pension and healthcare) in order to reap their votes (see recent back down on universal winter fuel allowance).
To only raise taxes without having equally severe cuts to spending in just madness and when the IMF force us to slash spending the govt will no doubt say “it’s them not us”

What level of gratitude would you like to see? Expressed just out of interest?
In every country around the world there are cities that are net contributors and those that aren’t, in Australia Western Australia has held up the rest of the country for friggin decades.
In the UK, you could argue it was London. I would argue it’s not necessarily, but that’s one for another day.

Crikeyalmighty · 26/10/2025 10:45

as I’ve said before on this thread the country has things arse about face and has for very many years - if we stopped making it that people were forced into insecure private rentals and built far more good social housing, stopped ‘any’ right to buys then in vast amounts of the country the amount needed to subsidise rental housing would drop hugely - maybe not in cheap areas up north and midlands but everywhere else it would. Start offering vast tax incentives to insurance and pension companies to build such - and fix the rents. As I said on my previous post I worked out on entitled to that if I was on my own and did jack shit ( I’m 63) and rented, if I did 12 hours work a week at £14 an hour I would literally be £221 a month better off - it’s not exactly incentivising - at the lower end of pay scales and especially on your own or if you have kids and rent whilst I don’t agree with people doing as little as they can, I can see being very hard headed why people do it, especially if they have maintenance on top ( that doesn’t count for any reduction) - maybe those talking giving everyone a basic £200 week payment until pension kicks in and then what you earn on top after tax is yours might incentivise ? Just a thought - and yes I think it has to be across the board so as not to disincentivise those in the middle

HRchatter · 26/10/2025 10:48

Crikeyalmighty · 26/10/2025 10:45

as I’ve said before on this thread the country has things arse about face and has for very many years - if we stopped making it that people were forced into insecure private rentals and built far more good social housing, stopped ‘any’ right to buys then in vast amounts of the country the amount needed to subsidise rental housing would drop hugely - maybe not in cheap areas up north and midlands but everywhere else it would. Start offering vast tax incentives to insurance and pension companies to build such - and fix the rents. As I said on my previous post I worked out on entitled to that if I was on my own and did jack shit ( I’m 63) and rented, if I did 12 hours work a week at £14 an hour I would literally be £221 a month better off - it’s not exactly incentivising - at the lower end of pay scales and especially on your own or if you have kids and rent whilst I don’t agree with people doing as little as they can, I can see being very hard headed why people do it, especially if they have maintenance on top ( that doesn’t count for any reduction) - maybe those talking giving everyone a basic £200 week payment until pension kicks in and then what you earn on top after tax is yours might incentivise ? Just a thought - and yes I think it has to be across the board so as not to disincentivise those in the middle

The pension providers are already doing that black rock and Lloyd’s own an unhealthy share of the private rental market that is feeding into your pensions. Rather than the state pensions
None of this is coincidental or accidental

madgreenlemons · 26/10/2025 10:48

I remember saying to a good friend of mine, in my early 30s when I’d managed to scrimp and save to get a deposit and a mortgage that I was worried about not having any savings given high mortgage, childcare etc. and by no savings I mean no savings. And she was like ‘yes me too! I don’t have savings. I mean I have my inheritance, but of course I would never touch that!’ As soon as you realise that these people live in different worlds and you just have to make more sacrifices, work harder etc, wise up yourself about compound interest, stocks etc the better. Of course, it’s still fine to make deliberate decisions to have occasional nice things and enjoy your life to the detriment of these things but then you have to accept that you will just be taking risk about your long term comfort. All about trade offs!

Crikeyalmighty · 26/10/2025 10:51

@HRchatter yes I realise that but I think it has to be state controlled to some extent - so they get significant benefits but the pricing and controls are not privately managed - we’ve got a very nice block here owned by legal and general, but most certainly not at social housing level rents