Jeremy Corbyn

Thank God for that.

although I am serious at being exasperated as TJs mathmatical ability...

Ok so the maths was shite. the point still remains the same. Earning 100 000 pa makes you one of the richest in the UK

100k in London could be in exactly the same position in terms of wealth as someone on 60k in Bristol, or 40k in Liverpool.

Thisd is the crux of the nonsense. The person in Londo9n remains richer and the idea that it would cost you 40 000 a year extra to live in london is simply ridiculous

Earning 100 000 pa makes you one of the richest in the UK

You'll need to invent a new term for people who are actually rich.

TurnerGuy - Member
How much tax does one have to pay to have an opinion?
At least be subject to the 45% band...

haha 😆 classic.

5th - when you are richer than 95% of your compatriots then you are one of the richest

5thElefant - Member
Earning 100 000 pa makes you one of the richest in the UK

Odd use of 'richest'. You don't arrive at your country retreat in your helicopter to be welcomed by your faithful retainer when you earn 100k.
You'll need to invent a new term for people who are actually rich.

Or people just need to have an awareness of how rich they are. Just because someone decided they now want a bigger house, bigger car etc, doesn't put them back on the breadline, just means they are trying to live a life outwith their means.

I struggle to feel anything but contempt for people like that.

Or people just need to have an awareness of how rich they are. Just because someone decided they now want a bigger house, bigger car etc, doesn't put them back on the breadline, just means they are trying to live a life outwith their means.

Nothing alters the fact that on £100 000 pa you are in the richest few % of the UK

5th. Of course it does. The amount of money yo have is how rich you are. someone earning 100 000 is richer than someone earning 20 000 no matter what they spend it on.

5th. Of course it does. The amount of money yo have is how rich you are. someone earning 100 000 is richer than someone earning 20 000 no matter what they spend it on.

You can certainly become rich by earning 100k. You won't be giving up work any time soon though.

The OED definition of rich is as follows:

[i]Having a great deal of money or assets; wealthy.[/i]

Hence, I'd argue that earning £100k for 1 year doesn't necessarily make you rich (or poor). However, earn £100k for 10 years and do something sensible with the money then you should be pretty rich.

Alternatively you could earn a lot less then than £100k per annum, but own expensive assets and be very rich.

Darn it, beaten to it.

You can argue that but you would be wrong. Earning more than 95+% of the country makes you one of the richest in the country.

Of course you can be rich earning much less if you have huge amounts of assets.

The lack of understanding of what life is like for the majority of the population shown by the rightwingers on here is disturbing and reprehensible

The lack of understanding of what life is like for the majority of the population shown by the rightwingers on here is disturbing and reprehensible

Depends how you define 'one of the richest' doesn't it?

£100k makes you pretty well off, but there are still 3m people as rich or richer than you, which is quite a lot. 'One of the richest' to me implies a few hundred at most, maybe even a few tens.

This may be where this nit-picking argument is coming from. Feeling 'rich' is relative, as we all know, it's a complex thing to define. That's why we have statistics.

What was the point again?

Jeremy Corbyn I think. Could be wrong

One of the richest couple of % of the population was what I said. Clearly relative to the entire population. If you are in the top 1 or 2 % of the poulation in terms of earnings you are one of the richest in our country.

I can testify that earning that kind of dosh for a couple of years doesn't make you rich.

It does put you in the top couple of percent for [i]wages[/i] in those years, and can lower your outgoings in subsequent years if you're sensible and pay your mortgage down.

Back on topic - JC is on about £115k I believe, bet he doesn't consider himself to be struggling financially, despite living in Islington.

Back on topic - JC is on about £115k I believe, bet he doesn't consider himself to be struggling financially, despite living in Islington.

the idea that it would cost you 40 000 a year extra to live in london is simply ridiculous

except that you don't get all the 40k, do you ?

A higher percentage of your salary is subject to tax, then add on commuting costs and the higher rent or mortgage than you would be paying in Liverpool, for example.

Higher childcare costs, probably higher costs for food and drink if you go out, etc.

molgrips - Member

Depends how you define 'one of the richest' doesn't it?

£100k makes you pretty well off,

aren't you an IT consultant, so probably in or over that income level.

And possibly contracting, so probably avoiding as much tax as you can ?

TurnerGuy - Member

the idea that it would cost you 40 000 a year extra to live in london is simply ridiculous

except that you don't get all the 40k, do you ?

A higher percentage of your salary is subject to tax, then add on commuting costs and the higher rent or mortgage than you would be paying in Liverpool, for example.

Higher childcare costs, probably higher costs for food and drink if you go out, etc.

100k in London could be in exactly the same position in terms of wealth as someone on 60k in Bristol, or 40k in Liverpool.

So the person in liverpool woulod take home around 40 000 pa less. TAKE HOME roughly

So you are actually claiming that its costs 40 000 pa extra to live in londoin - and all those things you quote? Higher costs for food and drink if you go out? thats part of your basic living costs? Childcare - its only a choice if you are rich. Normal people don't have nannies and full time childcare - because you cannot afford it on normal saleries. YOu think eating out and full time childcare are parts of yor basic living cost?

You really are ridiculous. Your idea of what wealth is is so distorted. Let them eat cake indeed.

You really are ridiculous. Your idea of what wealth is is so distorted. Let them eat cake indeed.

I understand the difference, they are not interchangeable and are irrelevant to the point I was making.

Which is simply this. Jamba claimed you could be on 100 000 a year and be poor. Several others have tried to agree with him. As anyone who understands what is actually happening this is utter nonsense. £100 000 pa puts you firmly in the riches few % of the nation.

The lack of understanding of what life is like for the majority of the population shown by the rightwingers on here is disturbing and reprehensible

Not completely their fault, a lack of empathy is partly genetic. I suppose it is the lack of effort put into trying to counter it that is disappointing. You would need to be in their heads to even try to understand why they are so selfish, greedy and generally against equality.

Not really sure what happens that causes someone earning over £100K per year to whine about cost of living in a place they choose to live and work in.

I understand the difference, they are not interchangeable and are irrelevant to the point I was making.

Which is simply this. Jamba claimed you could be on 100 000 a year and be poor.

Poor would be the wrong term too.

yes you can have a low net income and still be one of the richest but you cannot have a high net income and not be one of the richest few %

Note I made the point numerous times that its " the richest couple of % of the population" simply to avoid the ward of words over what is rich. It is without doubt true that earning 100 000 a year puts you firmly in the richest couple of % of the population

Well yes, I assume that's what everyone has been getting at. Net income.

100k may not leave you with enough income to become rich in London. I bet you'd be better off on a third of that in rural Wales. Maybe 30-odd K is rich too using your cut off point.

100k may not leave you with enough income to become rich in London

its 100k income which makes that person one of the richest couple of % of people in the country.

Its 4x the average wage. its what - 8 times the national minimum wage? Its riches beyond anything the vast majority of the population will ever earn.

I can testify that earning that kind of dosh for a couple of years doesn't make you rich.

This pointless arguement again,

How would you define someone with no income because they inherited millions of pounds and don't work because they don't need to? I'd say they were rich and they have no income at all. Being rich is not simple how much money you earn per year

5thElefant - Member
Or people just need to have an awareness of how rich they are. Just because someone decided they now want a bigger house, bigger car etc, doesn't put them back on the breadline, just means they are trying to live a life outwith their means.

Nope. It's not binary. You're not rich or poor. There is stuff in between.

You can basically live on any amount above a certain level, and circumstance dependent.

My criticism isn't just aimed at high earners, it's aimed at anyone overly involved in the must have to give my life relevance culture.

poverty isn't just financialm there's a large psychological element to it. (I'm not belittling actual poverty there btw, just making the poverty that there are different levels of poverty.)

TJ's right, though. £100k is a shit load of money. People on that sort of wage don't want to live in place like Grenfell Tower, so they spend more of their money on living somewhere else.

I can testify that earning that kind of dosh for a couple of years doesn't make you rich.

Objectively, you are wrong.

Not sure I agree - if a lottery winner spunks it all on coke and hookers and has nothing left, are they rich anymore? I'd argue not.

Doubtless 100k a year continuously should make you rich, but earning that for a brief period might not make you permanently rich. Just means you were a very high earner for a period of time and you're not anymore.

DT

yes you can have a low net income and still be one of the richest but you cannot have a high net income and not be one of the richest few %

This thread, in summary;

[img] [/img]

Indeed CFH. Its funny watching folk tie themselves in knots tho trying to defend the indefensible 🙂

“Back on topic - JC is on about £115k I believe”

Closer to £138k for parliamentary income.

Plus £10k a year for appearing on completely corrupt state TV thus legitimising states like Iran.

Oh, and there’s the £10-14K of pension income that he gets but “forgot” to declare on his tax return.

And his non contributory parliamentary pension pot estimated to be worth in excess of £2m.

Oh, and the £1m+ house that he has equity in exceeding £850k.

But apparently whilst he doesn’t consider himself rich his swivel eyed Marxist shadow Chancellor considers anyone earning £70K a year or more fair game as “rich”.

just5minutes - Member
“Back on topic - JC is on about £115k I believe”

Closer to £138k for parliamentary income.

Plus £10k a year for appearing on completely corrupt state TV thus legitimising states like Iran.

Oh, and there’s the £10-14K of pension income that he gets but “forgot” to declare on his tax return.

And his non contributory parliamentary pension pot estimated to be worth in excess of £2m.

Oh, and the £1m+ house that he has equity in exceeding £850k.

But apparently whilst he doesn’t consider himself rich his swivel eyed Marxist shadow Chancellor considers anyone earning £70K a year or more fair game as “rich”.

What;s the point if this, I've not heard corbyn bemoaning his circumstances?

What does the fact he has a comfortable life preclude him from an opinion that low earners need help?

Blimey Jezza’s a rich ‘un. Thank goodness for social mobility in the uk. Anyone could be rich and leader of HM Oppo. Who would have thought it? Did he got to Slough Grammar too?

Not sure I agree - if a lottery winner spunks it all on coke and hookers and has nothing left, are they rich anymore? I'd argue not.

Doubtless 100k a year continuously should make you rich, but earning that for a brief period might not make you permanently rich. Just means you were a very high earner for a period of time and you're not anymore.

A reminder of where this all started

jambalaya - Member
@DrJ look at all the rises proposed for just shy of 16,000 owners. Owning a £1m property in Bristol doesn’t make you rich does it ? £500k property not rich, £1m property with £500k mortgage = rich ?

I'm off to give cake to poor people now.

But apparently whilst he doesn’t consider himself rich his swivel eyed Marxist shadow Chancellor considers anyone earning £70K a year or more fair game as “rich”.

yes, massive hypocrisy, but not surprising.

Apparently?

What;s the point if this, I've not heard corbyn bemoaning his circumstances?

because TJ is trying to say that if you are on £100k you are one of the richest in society, but Comrade Corbyn doesn't agree with him and says he is not wealthy on £138k.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/15/jeremy-corbyn-backs-managed-fair-migration-brexit/

Well we could give him the old tory benefit of the doubt extended to the office bishop bashing and general incompetence and say he donates a lot to charity, gives money to the homeless on the streets and more. Maybe he leaves gifts for poor families.

Did he say he was adverse to paying more tax there? But glad to see you agree that earnings like that make you rich and having property like that makes you wealthy. It's taken a while.

So the person in liverpool woulod take home around 40 000 pa less. TAKE HOME roughly

you probably mean £35k less, and also pay around £25k less in tax and NI.

(So it's a good job there are well paid jobs around London, isn't it.)

Average house price in London is something like £670k, but in Liverpool it is more like £160k, and rents are nearly half as much in Liverpool.

So a lot more affordable.

(So it's a good job there are well paid jobs around London, isn't it.)

Average house price in London is something like £670k, but in Liverpool it is more like £160k, and rents are nearly half as much in Liverpool.

But glad to see you agree that earnings like that make you rich and having property like that makes you wealthy. It's taken a while.

£138k plus the pension, don't forget. A lot of people in London on £100k will be in the private sector, so paying for their own pensions or with a negligable and token contribution into a SIPP from their employer, and with a pension pot cap which makes it extremely hard to get near the gold-plated pension that Corbyn will get.

Which would be an interesting point of you didn't also have teachers, nurses, and lots of minimum wage earners also in London. You are choosing a lifestyle that costs more.

you are onto a different argument, the argument here is whether a £100k salary in London makes catagorises you as 'rich'.

What;s the point if this, I've not heard corbyn bemoaning his circumstances?

because TJ is trying to say that if you are on £100k you are one of the richest in society, but Comrade Corbyn doesn't agree with him and says he is not wealthy on £138k.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/15/jeremy-corbyn-backs-managed-fair-migration-brexit/

where's he bemoaning his circumstances there?

because TJ is trying to say that if you are on £100k you are one of the richest in society,

Which is correct. Anything else is whataboutery

you are onto a different argument, the argument here is whether a £100k salary in London makes catagorises you as 'rich'.

It might be to you but that is not what I have said. What I have said is earning 100 000 pa puts you in the richest couple of % of the people of the UK and that is a simple fact.

You may not feel rich but you are one of the richest couple of % in the UK

where's he bemoaning his circumstances there?

no-one said he was - you just made that bit up

you are onto a different argument, the argument here is whether a £100k salary in London makes catagorises you as 'rich'.

Not really sure what happens that causes someone earning over £100K per year to whine about cost of living in a place they choose to live and work in.

Neither am I but it's ****ing pathetic.

Self entitled whining by some of the richest people in the country.

You make me sick.

Neither am I but it's **** pathetic.

whose moaning on here about earning £100k ?

All I said was that earning £100k in Liverpool makes you a damn sight richer than earning that in London as the cost of living (including housing coasts) is a lot more.

TJ fails to see that though as he learnt his maths at the same place as John McDonnell it seems.

So I take it we can agree that JC is, indeed, rich ?

interesting point of you didn't also have teachers, nurses, and lots of minimum wage earners also in London.

****ing hell... bracketted with minimum wage earners now 😥

It might be to you but that is not what I have said. What I have said is earning 100 000 pa puts you in the richest couple of % of the people of the UK and that is a simple fact.

You may not feel rich but you are one of the richest couple of % in the UK

Pretty sure I've heard this from you back when you were still TandemJeremy. It was meaningless then and it's meaningless now - "rich" is a subjective term, it only applies relative to your surroundings and your lifestyle. I remember living in Egypt, earning less than 10k pa, but I was definitely "rich" compared to most of the locals. The correct term you should use is "highest earners".

A better way to look at it is in terms of what kind of jobs would get you that salary - 100k in London is a company director at a medium sized company - a good job, well-off certainly, but not a "rich" person's job. (Assuming someone who's rich actually has anything as low-class as an actual job, of course...)

Try earning 100k and living like you earn 25,the bank account will fill up in no time.

Good luck trying that in London with a family and a mortgage.

Which is precisely why I did not use "rich" but " one of the richest couple of % of our country"

molgrips - Member
Depends how you define 'one of the richest' doesn't it?
£100k makes you pretty well off, but there are still 3m people as rich or richer than you, which is quite a lot. 'One of the richest' to me implies a few hundred at most, maybe even a few tens

Even you?
Wow.
I'm genuinely amazed.

So many people totally disconnected from the reality of other people's lives.

So much greed and self entitlement.

The most eye opening few pages I've read in a while.

I earnt way less than £100k in London, I lived in some rotten places, it was tough going sometimes especially at the end of the month, but I was well aware that I was considerably better off than many many other people in my area, on 100k id have been plenty rich!

turnerguy
All I said was that earning £100k in Liverpool makes you a damn sight richer than earning that in London as the cost of living (including housing coasts) is a lot more.

No thats not what you said

turnerguy accounting for costs someone on 100k in London could be in exactly the same position in terms of wealth as someone on 60k in Bristol, or 40k in Liverpool.

and that second statement is also bollox of the highest order. Living in london does not cost you 30 000+pa more

Its somewhat sad isn't it rusty. Not surprising to me tho as I have come across this attitude often on here

No thats not what you said

turnerguy accounting for costs someone on 100k in London could be in exactly the same position in terms of wealth as someone on 60k in Bristol, or 40k in Liverpool.

wtf!

Same thing, different words.

If you are in the same position in the 3 places on difeerent salaries, then if you were on the same salary in all three places then you would be least well off in London.

Which is precisely why I did not use "rich" but " one of the richest couple of % of our country"

Yeah, but you're still using the word "richest". And that's the problem - you mean "highest-earning", not "richest".

Living in london does not cost you 30 000+pa more

did you look at those house prices I quoted ? Add in travelling costs, etc.

Never in such explicit terms, TJ.

I have read a few of TurnerGuy's previous posts where he's banged on about the rich south east subsidising the rest of the country, but had no idea he actually meant it.

I'm genuinely shocked, tbh.

no more comments from me for a while, I'm off to try on my penguin suit ready for the work xmas party...

I have read a few of TurnerGuy's previous posts where he's banged on about the rich south east subsidising the rest of the country, but had no idea he actually meant it.

I'm genuinely shocked and disappointed.

FFS did you not look at that ONS link I posted ?

And look at the amount of tax and NI figures I posted against the salaries above.

Are all you lefty lot thick as sh1t ?

You really do come across as a rude and unpleasant person.

Enjoy your Christmas do.

I'd ask you to spare a thought for those serving you, but I expect you'd find the very thought amusing.

I'd ask you to spare a thought for those serving you, but I expect you'd find the very thought amusing

Oh, go you!

It's a perfectly valid comment, given the complete lack of empathy and utter selfishness displayed by some on here today.

The fact that you see it as in some way amusing or reprehensible says a lot about you.

The fact that you see it as in some way amusing or reprehensible says a lot about you.

you're so quick to judge based on comments on here - like taking my 45% tax band comment seriously.

Penguin suit seems to fit well :

[img] [/img]

Turnerguy. Housing costs are higher in london that some parts of the country. that does not cost you 30 000+ pa extra especially at the cheapest end of the market ie social rents Nothing else is significantly more expensive

and earning 100 000 in london would leave you a lot better off than earning 40 000 in liverpool. that would be take home of what - around 60 k and 25 k? take off 10 000 pa ( the extra cost of private renting a house in london at the very most) and you London disposable income after tax and housing is still much much more than the person in liverpool

Over 100 000 you r marginal tak rate is lower anyway due to the upper limjit on mnational insurances

Like it Turnerguy 🙂

around 60 k and 25 k?

£66k vs £30.5k, or £56k vs £30.5 with your rental difference.

so a couple of grand a month.

Depends if you are happy to rent for the rest of your life.

If you have aspirations to buy then that difference dissappears pretty quickly.

Clearly you are - do you have a sufficient pension income planned to keep paying that rent ?

So you agree then that 40 000 in liverpool is a couple of grand a month less to spend than 100 000 in London.

So you agree then that 40 000 in liverpool is a couple of grand a month less to spend than 100 000 in London.

yes, but that is quickly eaten up by housing costs, and probably some commuting costs as well.

So, as I said earlier, you should use the level of disposable income as a guide to wealth, not gross salary level.