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

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.

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.

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

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

It’s not as simple as that, income does not equal wealth, just because you earn a lot doesn’t mean you have a lot.

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.

The dictionary definition works for me: “having a great deal of money or assets; wealthy.”

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:

Having a great deal of money or assets; wealthy.

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

😆 you have a wonderfully binary outlook.

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 wages 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.

Rich or not, he’s definitely overpaid. 😈

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. [/quote]

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.

Out of interest… Do you see a difference between debt and deficit? Or are the terms interchangeable?

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.

Well… They mirror the net income vs wealth argument.

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.

Objectively, you are wrong.

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. There is, btw, that frustration isn’t just aimed a people earning lots, it’s aimed at people that earn a modest amount to.

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;

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?