What do you consider to be 'rich' in terms of income?
Poll: What do you consider to be 'rich' in terms of income?
Total Members Polled: 642
Discussion
I disagree with pretty much everyone on here. I don't think disposable income matters at all.
the more you earn, the more you will spend on a house, car etc. Just because you have spent all your disposable income, does not mean you are not rich.
Rich is a number, and whilst I do think it varies area to area, you can definately put a value on it.
My only arguement with it is you have to do it my household really. I earn lots, my wife very little. ergo on average we are averagely off.
the more you earn, the more you will spend on a house, car etc. Just because you have spent all your disposable income, does not mean you are not rich.
Rich is a number, and whilst I do think it varies area to area, you can definately put a value on it.
My only arguement with it is you have to do it my household really. I earn lots, my wife very little. ergo on average we are averagely off.
Efbe said:
I disagree with pretty much everyone on here. I don't think disposable income matters at all.
the more you earn, the more you will spend on a house, car etc. Just because you have spent all your disposable income, does not mean you are not rich.
Rich is a number, and whilst I do think it varies area to area, you can definately put a value on it.
My only arguement with it is you have to do it my household really. I earn lots, my wife very little. ergo on average we are averagely off.
If disposable doesn't matter than it necessarily doesn't have to be done by household - the number you purport to exist must apply to all.the more you earn, the more you will spend on a house, car etc. Just because you have spent all your disposable income, does not mean you are not rich.
Rich is a number, and whilst I do think it varies area to area, you can definately put a value on it.
My only arguement with it is you have to do it my household really. I earn lots, my wife very little. ergo on average we are averagely off.
I don't agree you, but that's the logic that follows your assertion.
Almost everyone on this thread is talking about affluence not wealth.
An individual earning £250k but with little or no assets is affluent poor
Someone with upwards of £1m in - ideally income generating - net assets and an income to cover living expenses is by at least some measures rich
An individual earning £250k but with little or no assets is affluent poor
Someone with upwards of £1m in - ideally income generating - net assets and an income to cover living expenses is by at least some measures rich
£250k is £9720 after tax and a modest 4% pension.
It is not much.
It is not much more than husband and wife each on £60k.
PAYE employees are not rich.
There are many contractors in oil and gas and IT on £700 per day or £13k ish per month who take home 80-90% of that.
£9720 per month after a mortgage, X5 and Evoque doesn't leave you with much money. You are not driving new ferraris, not paying a great mortgage, no top schools, no 5 big holidays per year first class etc.
Maximise his and hers isas so £2500pm there. Mortgage, cars, bills, schooling, holidays, waitrose, cleaner, gardener, usual average stuff and it's all gone. University fees and so on.
Assets or a business make you rich.
That's why I struggle to see how labour would take more than half your take home pay off you.
£500k is £18k pm after modest pension. Hardly rich. Outside of London very few are on 500k PAYE. But I know quite a few people taking home over £18k PM self employed, limited company etc.
It is not much.
It is not much more than husband and wife each on £60k.
PAYE employees are not rich.
There are many contractors in oil and gas and IT on £700 per day or £13k ish per month who take home 80-90% of that.
£9720 per month after a mortgage, X5 and Evoque doesn't leave you with much money. You are not driving new ferraris, not paying a great mortgage, no top schools, no 5 big holidays per year first class etc.
Maximise his and hers isas so £2500pm there. Mortgage, cars, bills, schooling, holidays, waitrose, cleaner, gardener, usual average stuff and it's all gone. University fees and so on.
Assets or a business make you rich.
That's why I struggle to see how labour would take more than half your take home pay off you.
£500k is £18k pm after modest pension. Hardly rich. Outside of London very few are on 500k PAYE. But I know quite a few people taking home over £18k PM self employed, limited company etc.
turbobloke said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
And increasingly, visa versa. The wealthier you are, the longer you'll live, on average. Life expectancy in Kensington & Chelsea is over 20 yrs more than the poorest areas of the UK, for an adult male.
Correlation isn't causation. Where's the established causality? The most likely basis rests as it often does, with a third variable - bad decision making (vs good decision making). Good decisions will have an impact on both health and wealth. Blaming those who make good decisions for the problems of people who make bad decisions - that would require a left wing politician to get involved.alock said:
jonah35 said:
There are many contractors in oil and gas and IT on £700 per day or £13k ish per month who take home 80-90% of that.
Could you break down some more details of how you could keep over 80% of gross income at this level?How many times does if have to be stated: RICH is not a measure of income.
Of course the answer is subjective, there is no single correct answer and therefore me stating that £25 mil of assets is needed to be considered rich is arguably as equally valid a point as the next person stating that £1mil of assets is sufficient
But rich still equates to assets i.e. wealth, not income. It is possible for someone to state that 'if you earn £x per year you are rich' and that indeed may be their perception, but in that instance, they would be wrong. Not because the figure is wrong, but because they are equating rich with income and therefore, simply don't understand what the word means.
Of course the answer is subjective, there is no single correct answer and therefore me stating that £25 mil of assets is needed to be considered rich is arguably as equally valid a point as the next person stating that £1mil of assets is sufficient
But rich still equates to assets i.e. wealth, not income. It is possible for someone to state that 'if you earn £x per year you are rich' and that indeed may be their perception, but in that instance, they would be wrong. Not because the figure is wrong, but because they are equating rich with income and therefore, simply don't understand what the word means.
PH, Kippy Tory types are so funny, the same folk who tell you that income and wealth are relative to where you live and what it affords you are usually the same people who will claim no one in this country has been poor since 1961 and poverty isn't a relative measure and all benefits scroungers who smoke or have a smart phone should be locked in the work house.
People who work for £7 an hour in central London in Mcdonalds and cleaning hotels etc... get by, claiming poverty because you and lady Tarquin "only" have a household income of £135k is flatulent narcissism and I expect better from my 7 year old.
People who work for £7 an hour in central London in Mcdonalds and cleaning hotels etc... get by, claiming poverty because you and lady Tarquin "only" have a household income of £135k is flatulent narcissism and I expect better from my 7 year old.
FredClogs said:
PH, Kippy Tory types are so funny, the same folk who tell you that income and wealth are relative to where you live and what it affords you are usually the same people who will claim no one in this country has been poor since 1961 and poverty isn't a relative measure and all benefits scroungers who smoke or have a smart phone should be locked in the work house.
People who work for £7 an hour in central London in Mcdonalds and cleaning hotels etc... get by, claiming poverty because you and lady Tarquin "only" have a household income of £135k is flatulent narcissism and I expect better from my 7 year old.
I expect better logical reasoning capability from my Labrador than you managed to evidence in the above, to be fair - so you're not alone in your incredulity, Matt.People who work for £7 an hour in central London in Mcdonalds and cleaning hotels etc... get by, claiming poverty because you and lady Tarquin "only" have a household income of £135k is flatulent narcissism and I expect better from my 7 year old.
It's just that, as ever, mine is directed at you. Do you know what a straw man is? If, presuming optimistically that you do, why do you employ so many here?
BoRED S2upid said:
CAFEDEAD said:
£100-139K winning? That isn't f
king rich!
To me rich isn't about income anyway, it's your total financial worth; earn £1m but spend £2m with no assets or money in the bank and you won't be very rich.
If your not rich earning £100k plus your doing something wrong. £100k should see you having more money at the end if the month than you know what to do with, thousands building up in your savings accounts every year etc... king rich!To me rich isn't about income anyway, it's your total financial worth; earn £1m but spend £2m with no assets or money in the bank and you won't be very rich.
The only exception being if you live in Central London where your housing costs are hammering your wealth.
Bradgate said:
otolith said:
Isn't that rather arbitrary? Why 95% rather than 96%, 83%, 53 and a half percent?
The OP's question is "what do you consider to be rich in terms of income". My answer to that question is based on some statistical evidence so it's less arbitrary than some others!if anything, my answer is on the high side.
Just for perspective on 'rich'. Your TOP bracket is 250k A YEAR. I will spend that on diesel next week. Probably the same again a week or so later. We have about 25 crew on our yacht, earning an average of say 5k/month. Our salary costs are 1.6m/year. Just staff salaries. On your boat. Which you use about 30 days a year.
That is what I consider 'rich'.
That is what I consider 'rich'.
LimaDelta said:
Just for perspective on 'rich'. Your TOP bracket is 250k A YEAR. I will spend that on diesel next week. Probably the same again a week or so later. We have about 25 crew on our yacht, earning an average of say 5k/month. Our salary costs are 1.6m/year. Just staff salaries. On your boat. Which you use about 30 days a year.
That is what I consider 'rich'.
YES indeed!That is what I consider 'rich'.
Wish 'I' was the 'you'!
Efbe said:
I disagree with pretty much everyone on here. I don't think disposable income matters at all.
the more you earn, the more you will spend on a house, car etc. Just because you have spent all your disposable income, does not mean you are not rich.
Rich is a number, and whilst I do think it varies area to area, you can definately put a value on it.
My only arguement with it is you have to do it my household really. I earn lots, my wife very little. ergo on average we are averagely off.
I don't really agree with the bit in bold.the more you earn, the more you will spend on a house, car etc. Just because you have spent all your disposable income, does not mean you are not rich.
Rich is a number, and whilst I do think it varies area to area, you can definately put a value on it.
My only arguement with it is you have to do it my household really. I earn lots, my wife very little. ergo on average we are averagely off.
Not everyone does that; I know I certainly don't and I'm sure I'm not alone.
LimaDelta said:
Just for perspective on 'rich'. Your TOP bracket is 250k A YEAR. I will spend that on diesel next week. Probably the same again a week or so later. We have about 25 crew on our yacht, earning an average of say 5k/month. Our salary costs are 1.6m/year. Just staff salaries. On your boat. Which you use about 30 days a year.
That is what I consider 'rich'.
Quite. I've worked for some people who are in this category. It makes one realise that there is more difference in wealth levels in the top 0.5% of the range than there is in the other 99.5%. Banding the "rich" or "well off" (arbitrarily defined, but basically domestic professional in London or small business owner who,has successfully sold up) with the properly super rich (the hundreds of millions and upwards bracket) is nonsense. That is what I consider 'rich'.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff