Bloody awful
Seems I thought I was a lot richer than I really am. 😯
Maybe everyone else on STW is actually an Audi driving IT manager with a new Orange 5 each year....
+ 1 for revolution.
I can't stand that woman...
more mindless TV madeup statistical bullcrap to try and brainwash us all into thinking everything is juuuuust fine, utter dross.
1 hour of my life I won't get back 😐
Well, I nearly spat my caviar out into my glass of Goût de Diamants!
This doesn't take into account lower tax rates abroad and non-domicile tax status on UK rented properties as I never imagined being in the top 10%, out here I'm as poor as a church mouse.
I think most people struggle to differentiate between essential expenditure and stuff you spend money on every month.
It certainly was an interesting experience moving country and stopping all of the normal spending for a bit.
Most people live to their means, nicer bigger house, new kitchen, new phone, new bike, money for this money for that. If you gave a 30-40k salary to somebody currently on 20k people might well see the differences.
But what are you going to do with it? Move out and be homeless? You cant access the money, even if you look at it like an investment it doesn't work as every other house os going up at the same rate and you always need one. Rising prices havent benefited anyone, they just suck money out of the economy, we'd be in a whole lot less trouble if we built some more houses, halved their value and everyone had another £500 free to spend each month.Eh? It is when you've not a mortgage.
crikey, 80% richer than me, no wonder I'm struggling. Applied for a new job today, sick of this.
crikey, 80% richer than me, no wonder I'm struggling.
^this.
However I like to think the quality of life measurement may be tipped the other way. 😉
But what are you going to do with it? Move out and be homeless? You cant access the money, even if you look at it like an investment it doesn't work as every other house os going up at the same rate and you always need one. Rising prices havent benefited anyone, they just suck money out of the economy, we'd be in a whole lot less trouble if we built some more houses, halved their value and everyone had another £500 free to spend each month.
Well you could move somewhere cheaper - people in London often move out to cheaper spots. They could buy a cheaper house and also a BTL and suddenly they have more income so by this measure they are better off. Those that have no mortgage must surely be considered better off than those that do on similar incomes.
If property prices half then lots in negative equity; not good. Perhaps a significant adjustment in hot spots might be useful as hits the better off more than others but hard to see how to engineer that.
I think the underpinning measure ie earnings minus tax is what is used to calculate income inequalities by ONS/Govt.
But it is adjusted for kids, it could easily have been adjusted for a regional essential cost of living adjustment based on postcode or something. It seems odd to ignore cost of housing when regional differences are so large.
I do find that my friends who do earn high enough wages to put themselves in the top 5% generally have no clue how well off they actually are - and always deny being high earners when I try explain how the curve pans out (BTW, when I'm working, between me and Mrs OD, we are towards that end of the curve as well). They often ignore the choice to have a big mortgage, new cars etc using up disposable income - and I live near Leeds where you really do have a choice - and because they (we) live in relatively well off areas we get a skewed view of reality
Is there is a natural tendency to look upwards?
If property prices half then lots in negative equity; not good. Perhaps a significant adjustment in hot spots might be useful as hits the better off more than others but hard to see how to engineer that.
10-15 years of stagnant prices would achieve a similar effect.
I just think that rising house prices should be a measure that someone should be responsible for and controlling. Like the BoE and inflation. There should be some governmental plan that says if prices rise by X% then we encourage (make planning permissiona available, cut tax for builders, whatever) the building of Y houses to prevent that.
If a house gains £100k in value, no one get's paid for that, if you went out and spent that moeny on 10 nissan micra's, 200 PC's, 100 O-O Fatty's, then that's created jobs, added to a multiplier effect, etc. It's not sustainable otherwise we'd all just sit at home and watch house prices increace by about the same as we earn in wages. The only people benifiting from them are are as you say the lucky few who who end up with more than one house.
That was a reasonably interesting and engaging program which got some important stuff across.
Two basic points:
1 - Richard Bacon is no Hans Rosling, sadly.
2 - Paul Mason is very good at explaining things. Making him explain diverging wealth by using an incomprehensible bicycle-powered tea machine was a [i]bizarre [/i]decision.
There should be some governmental plan that says if prices rise by X% then we encourage (make planning permissiona available, cut tax for builders, whatever) the building of Y houses to prevent that.
It seems that one problem is builders are holding onto land that could be developed - are they waiting for the time when developing it will be hit some profitability threshold? Or whilst they have easier/cheaper developments? I don't know but in the SE they want to build on the greenbelt as that's where some high selling prices can be achieved easily. Big debate about whether this will be allowed. Apart from brownfield sites (how much is there?) there isn't anywhere much to build around London that isn't going to reduce the green space that so many value so highly. We do need a lot more housing and it's going to upset a lot of people. Got to push jobs away from London, having a single key city is not great - may countries have Gov't located in a separate city from the financial centre; no idea how that came about though.
What makes you think they don't know where you are?
What if I'm not at home? - which is more than likely. Anyway from simple trial and error, all it does is use the figure you enter for council tax as a simple outgoing. It makes no attempt to reconcile it against your housing status as others have suggested it might. In other words a higher figure actually makes you look poorer in their calculation.
As a measure of disposable income (which is what it effectively is) it would perhaps have been better to include your mortgage payments as an outgoing. But I can sort of see why it didn't though as it would skew the results massively in favour of those choosing to live modestly or older people with a smaller/or no mortgage. If it was seriously attempting to measure your actual wealth, it would need additional information on your investments, savings and loans to make any sense.
So it's really just a current income based calculator, set against basic living costs for number of adults/children and council tax (the latter only really having any significant effect at the lower end of the scale).
I do find that my friends who do earn high enough wages to put themselves in the top 5% generally have no clue how well off they actually are - and always deny being high earners when I try explain how the curve pans out...Is there is a natural tendency to look upwards?
definitely, but also just seeing what's around you. Where i live, i see the queues outside the foodbank, the alkies sitting on the steps of the salvation army and the weirdos loitering outside the crack house pretty much every day.
if you were wealthy and lived in a posh area, it would (by definition) not have crack houses and soup kitchens, and you could easily remain largely unaware of all these people so far below you on the wealth scale. I can see how people might forget that even if they're the poorest person on their street, they're still quite high up the ladder overall.
(reminds me of that famous Engels quote about Manchester: "these plutocrats can travel from their houses to their places of business in the centre of the town by the shortest routes, which run entirely through working-class districts, without even realising how close they are to the misery and filth which lie on both sides of the road." )
just seeing what's around you. Where i live, i see the queues outside the foodbank, the alkies sitting on the steps of the salvation army and the weirdos loitering outside the crack house pretty much every day.
This is definitely true.
I live in [url= http://lis.darlington.gov.uk/profiles/profile?profileId=17&geoTypeId=18&geoIds=E05001561 ]a council ward[/url] which is in the 10% most deprived in the UK, in a region which is one of the most deprived in northern Europe. My wife volunteers at a foodbank and works in a school on the edge of a deprived area. We both went to 'rough' primary schools and a 'bad' secondary school. Living elsewhere, we could have a very different perspective on what life is like for lots of people in the UK.
The link above is to our ward profile, which makes interesting reading; it's worth looking up your own.
Imo by definition we are on a hobby site makes us all quite rich regardless of how much you earn.
using Australia and Brazil as 2 examples, you build new capital cities and move the parliament. Or you move insitutions away, but this is hard to do when the BoE and the parliament are in the same place because all the other insitutions gravitate to there - look at the wailing of the BBC staff who were most upset when the cushy jobs started moving to SalfordWe do need a lot more housing and it's going to upset a lot of people. Got to push jobs away from London, having a single key city is not great - may countries have Gov't located in a separate city from the financial centre; no idea how that came about though.
Nothing happens unless you want it to.
Whilst it is undoubtedly true that you tend to compare yourself with even richer people and convince yourself that you are not so well off, it is quite patronising to believe that most rich people are totally unaware of the poverty below them. I'd say in my experience most wealthy people are well aware of both local and global poverty. Some of them even get involved in trying to reduce it. On a personal level I've seen poverty in the UK and poverty in Brazil and China. I'd say UK poverty is lightweight by comparison. I haven't experienced African poverty first hand, but I can imagine that's another level again.
These calculations that rely on PAYE levels always give a wonky view as most people who earn good money are not paid through PAYE.
These calculations that rely on PAYE levels
But it just asks what your net income is after tax, nothing to do with PAYE or not. I'm not PAYE, but I do know how much money I earn net of tax.
An article looking at net asset value rather than income - £1m for top 10%
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/may/21/british-household-1m-assets
[img] 
[/img]
Is there is a natural tendency to look upwards?
I cycle past a Bentley dealership every day (and overlook it from the office)....
moshimonster - Member
These calculations that rely on PAYE levels
Sorry should not have said PAYE. My point is realy that lot people who earn very good money are employed in some form as consultants e.t.c though companies and can be a lot more tax efficient. Someone who earns £30k after tax from a small business is not the same as £30k salary.
apparently i'm richer tha 95% of people.
Decent job and single, but i doubt this very very much
I was looking at this..
http://www.globalrichlist.com/
I've got a mate from Ghana and helps keep me grounded.
This also interesting..
http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/ten-mistakes-that-permeated-the-channel-4-%E2%80%98how-rich-are-you%E2%80%99-programme-on-inequality-part-1
