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.
Who said anything about being permanently rich? I think the desire to construct a narrative speaks volumes.

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.
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.

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’.

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

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 **** 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.

**** 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 :

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.