I would define 'rich' as someone has the ability to consume what they want without having to work..
The trouble is most of the wealthy still work to get to that position - only 1 in 10 ultra-wealthy people inherited it all - the rest worked for all or part of it
The idea that most of the rich got there by waiting for Mummy and Daddy to pop their clogs and hoover up the riches is something that is in the past. Most of the rich in this country are entrepreneurs - they built companies, and employ people.
Even when you are rich - to keep what you have it is unlikely you will stop working just to stay where you are. Branson has stopped and retired but I'm hard pressed to think of any other 'rich' people who live a life of leisure and do not spend any time working - even if that is non-physical in nature (say deciding what the next company to invest in, or advising those who one has invested). Indeed that leads to another part of the question - are we talking about those who are asset rich (there wealth is in various non-liquid assets) or are income rich.
I would say keep the 40% tax at the same level or slightly higher. 45% at £100k, 50% at £150k, 55% at £250k and 60% at £500k. Remember that the basic rate at one time was 50% (10/- in the pound). Rich is impossible to define as there are more factors than income, but I don't think anyone earning over £100k could be described as poor.
Thanks for taking a stab at it. How much do you think these new tax rates would raise for the Government?
I know, but it's very important and one of the ways the government and media use to distort facts and confuse people. The mode is the most common value, the median the middle value (and used most often in wages) and the mean is if all salaries were distributed evenly.
Think of a company with 9 people in it, 4 on £10k, 2 on £15k, one on £20k, one on £25k and the boss on £110k. The mode is £10k, the median is £15k and the mean is £25k. The boss might say that the average wage is £25k showing how wonderful the company is, but the reality is very different.
Hey thanks for that Mr Smudges You should consider a career in teaching once the oil runs out (which could be next week according to some on here):D
Many, many posters on here, who have jobs, cannot afford these sort of things.
Therefore, they must be the preserve of the rich.
According to the right wing posters on here, those are mandatory if you're on benefits, especially if you've got 15 kids by different fathers and live in a mansion.
Many, many posters on here, who have jobs, cannot afford these sort of things.
Therefore, they must be the preserve of the rich.
So if you're not poor - You're rich.
If you own a phone on a contract. You're rich.
If you bought a tablet on a credit card - you're rich.
If you own a 20 year old Range Rover - you're rich?
If you have Sky TV at £20 a month - you're rich?
If you have fibre at another £20 - you're rich?
If you can have a sunday roast, I take it you're rich?
I'm still thinking there is an underlying point which I'm too new to realise.
According to the right wing posters on here, those are mandatory if you're on benefits, especially if you've got 15 kids by different fathers and live in a mansion.
I personally would consider a rich person to be someone who can fund their lifestyles from their assets without those assets diminishing.
And as said previously in several threads, until tax laws, and specifically the tax accountancy industry, is addressed, nothing meaningful can come from adjusting tax rates.
Many, many posters on here, who have jobs, cannot afford these sort of things.
Therefore, they must be the preserve of the rich.
Yet look in any council estate and you would seem forests of Satellite Dishes. Their kids are walking around in trainers, gazing at their iPhones and totally missing the lamp post they just walked into.
Yet look in any council estate and you would seem forests of Satellite Dishes. Their kids are walking around in trainers, gazing at their iPhones and totally missing the lamp post they just walked into.
Well that is a career and a half, no qualification, no reason to work because the money is put into your account on time without any prompting. That is rich:o:D:D
'The rich' is such a broad term that it is difficult to draw a line in the sand and say 'this side is rich, this side isn't rich'. What is rich in Fife is not necessarily rich in Surrey.
Of course, if you have a high net worth along with investments that are paying out enough for you to live a very nice lifestyle then you are undoubtedly rich. On the other hand, you could have a house that was maybe not worth that much a few decades ago but it is now worth £2 million, but you don't have much more than a state pension, a small amount of savings and perhaps a reasonable final salary pension. You are reasonably rich because you are worth over £2 million on paper, but then again, you aren't because your pensions and savings aren't going to see you living it up for the rest of your life.
Also, a lot of people define the rich relative to their own position. Someone who is struggling by on a zero hours contract might consider someone earning £100k p.a. 'rich', whereas someone else on £50k p.a. might see that person as merely being a high earner, but not really rich.
I personally don't think there is a definite point for being considered rich, as it really does depend on your personal circumstances and where you live.
You are rich if you own any or all of
4x4 vehicle
Sky TV package
Fibre Broadband
Trainers, sorry, TRAINERS
iPhone
iPad
and if you holiday more than twice a year to foreign parts.
My 4x4 is a Skoda, and trainers are for plebs..
Richness is relative and should be based on disposable income.
Someone could be living in a multi-million pound mansion but on a low paid job or a pension. They're asset rich but cash poor, and Labour/Lib Dems seem to want to make them relocate.
Someone could have millions in shares in their company, which could be made worthless if legislation wipes out that business. Or they could be paper millionaires thanks to stock options, which can then be used to wallpaper the toilet when the company goes bankrupt prior to vesting.
But having been both 'rich' and poor, I think the simplest definition is not having to think 'should I buy this?' and just doing it rather than worrying or having to save for it. Think about tomorrow's Euromillions. Lots of money to be won which would make you 'rich' by most definitions, but there'd still be plenty of things you couldn't afford. And a lot of the best things in life are worthless anyway
Richness is relative and should be based on disposable income.
Someone could be living in a multi-million pound mansion but on a low paid job or a pension. They're asset rich but cash poor, and Labour/Lib Dems seem to want to make them relocate.
Someone could have millions in shares in their company, which could be made worthless if legislation wipes out that business. Or they could be paper millionaires thanks to stock options, which can then be used to wallpaper the toilet when the company goes bankrupt prior to vesting.
But having been both 'rich' and poor, I think the simplest definition is not having to think 'should I buy this?' and just doing it rather than worrying or having to save for it. Think about tomorrow's Euromillions. Lots of money to be won which would make you 'rich' by most definitions, but there'd still be plenty of things you couldn't afford. And a lot of the best things in life are worthless anyway
There's not a lot you couldn't afford with £143 million:)
Essentially though, you are correct. If you don't need to worry about day to day spending and income is greater than outgoings, then essentially you are rich by some definitions. If mummy or granny can buy you a helicopter and a mansion or two, then you are dirty rich, even if you have a pretend job.
There's not a lot you couldn't afford with £143 million:)
Oh there is. I guess a further definition of rich is being stupidly rich, ie rich enough to spend a fortune on objects to demonstrate one or the other to the world. So I mused about buying a 1 cubic metre block of gold to use as a foot stool.. but couldn't afford that. My own personal Astute submarine would not be surfacing amidst the yachts at Monaco any time soon either.
I think if I won it, I'd live somewhere comfortable/practical and do a bit of a Bill Gates with the rest.
Richness is relative and should be based on disposable income.
Someone could be living in a multi-million pound mansion but on a low paid job or a pension. They're asset rich but cash poor, and Labour/Lib Dems seem to want to make them relocate.
Someone could have millions in shares in their company, which could be made worthless if legislation wipes out that business. Or they could be paper millionaires thanks to stock options, which can then be used to wallpaper the toilet when the company goes bankrupt prior to vesting.
But having been both 'rich' and poor, I think the simplest definition is not having to think 'should I buy this?' and just doing it rather than worrying or having to save for it. Think about tomorrow's Euromillions. Lots of money to be won which would make you 'rich' by most definitions, but there'd still be plenty of things you couldn't afford. And a lot of the best things in life are worthless anyway
Comments
The trouble is most of the wealthy still work to get to that position - only 1 in 10 ultra-wealthy people inherited it all - the rest worked for all or part of it
The idea that most of the rich got there by waiting for Mummy and Daddy to pop their clogs and hoover up the riches is something that is in the past. Most of the rich in this country are entrepreneurs - they built companies, and employ people.
Even when you are rich - to keep what you have it is unlikely you will stop working just to stay where you are. Branson has stopped and retired but I'm hard pressed to think of any other 'rich' people who live a life of leisure and do not spend any time working - even if that is non-physical in nature (say deciding what the next company to invest in, or advising those who one has invested). Indeed that leads to another part of the question - are we talking about those who are asset rich (there wealth is in various non-liquid assets) or are income rich.
Probably the most honest answer yet.
Probably the most honest answer!
Is that Median or Modal?
Thanks for taking a stab at it. How much do you think these new tax rates would raise for the Government?
Not much as those at the top end would avoid the tax even more aggressively
Hey thanks for that Mr Smudges You should consider a career in teaching once the oil runs out (which could be next week according to some on here):D
Try this as another example http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-29618190
4x4 vehicle
Sky TV package
Fibre Broadband
Trainers, sorry, TRAINERS
iPhone
iPad
and if you holiday more than twice a year to foreign parts.
Shurely you can't be sherious.
Totally serious.
Many, many posters on here, who have jobs, cannot afford these sort of things.
Therefore, they must be the preserve of the rich.
According to the right wing posters on here, those are mandatory if you're on benefits, especially if you've got 15 kids by different fathers and live in a mansion.
So if you're not poor - You're rich.
If you own a phone on a contract. You're rich.
If you bought a tablet on a credit card - you're rich.
If you own a 20 year old Range Rover - you're rich?
If you have Sky TV at £20 a month - you're rich?
If you have fibre at another £20 - you're rich?
If you can have a sunday roast, I take it you're rich?
I'm still thinking there is an underlying point which I'm too new to realise.
Spot on, I am so pleased you sorted it all out.
And as said previously in several threads, until tax laws, and specifically the tax accountancy industry, is addressed, nothing meaningful can come from adjusting tax rates.
Yet look in any council estate and you would seem forests of Satellite Dishes. Their kids are walking around in trainers, gazing at their iPhones and totally missing the lamp post they just walked into.
Well that is a career and a half, no qualification, no reason to work because the money is put into your account on time without any prompting. That is rich:o:D:D
aaaaaand here we go
Of course, if you have a high net worth along with investments that are paying out enough for you to live a very nice lifestyle then you are undoubtedly rich. On the other hand, you could have a house that was maybe not worth that much a few decades ago but it is now worth £2 million, but you don't have much more than a state pension, a small amount of savings and perhaps a reasonable final salary pension. You are reasonably rich because you are worth over £2 million on paper, but then again, you aren't because your pensions and savings aren't going to see you living it up for the rest of your life.
Also, a lot of people define the rich relative to their own position. Someone who is struggling by on a zero hours contract might consider someone earning £100k p.a. 'rich', whereas someone else on £50k p.a. might see that person as merely being a high earner, but not really rich.
I personally don't think there is a definite point for being considered rich, as it really does depend on your personal circumstances and where you live.
My 4x4 is a Skoda, and trainers are for plebs..
Richness is relative and should be based on disposable income.
Someone could be living in a multi-million pound mansion but on a low paid job or a pension. They're asset rich but cash poor, and Labour/Lib Dems seem to want to make them relocate.
Someone could have millions in shares in their company, which could be made worthless if legislation wipes out that business. Or they could be paper millionaires thanks to stock options, which can then be used to wallpaper the toilet when the company goes bankrupt prior to vesting.
But having been both 'rich' and poor, I think the simplest definition is not having to think 'should I buy this?' and just doing it rather than worrying or having to save for it. Think about tomorrow's Euromillions. Lots of money to be won which would make you 'rich' by most definitions, but there'd still be plenty of things you couldn't afford. And a lot of the best things in life are worthless anyway
There's not a lot you couldn't afford with £143 million:)
Essentially though, you are correct. If you don't need to worry about day to day spending and income is greater than outgoings, then essentially you are rich by some definitions. If mummy or granny can buy you a helicopter and a mansion or two, then you are dirty rich, even if you have a pretend job.
Oh there is. I guess a further definition of rich is being stupidly rich, ie rich enough to spend a fortune on objects to demonstrate one or the other to the world. So I mused about buying a 1 cubic metre block of gold to use as a foot stool.. but couldn't afford that. My own personal Astute submarine would not be surfacing amidst the yachts at Monaco any time soon either.
I think if I won it, I'd live somewhere comfortable/practical and do a bit of a Bill Gates with the rest.
For example our leader of the opposition is "relatively comfortably off" because his family earn around £350,000 p.a. and live in a £2m house.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2633679/Miliband-accused-touch-reality-saying-spends-just-80-weekly-shop-average-100.html
Forget who it is but its easy to live in a £million+ house
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2214411/Move-MP-says-Abu-Hamzas-wife-evicted-1m-council-house-hate-preacher-husband-extradited-U-S.html
Please add a flat screen TV to the list.