Bit late to this but is the article a Jambanomics allegory for the country’s economics?

Bit late to this but is the article a Jambanomics allegory for the country’s economics?

I did think the bloke in the article must be an STWer…..

I did think the bloke in the article must be an STWer…..

I seriously just don’t know where the money goes. its as if it just evaporates.

*unloads XTR kitted carbon Santa Cruz out the back of the pimped out T5*

when trying to imagine what our 2 wealthy subjects are spending all their money on,

They aren’t really wealthy though, they don’t have that much in the way of real hard cash or assets. Assuming they actually got the asking price on their flat then they’d have £137k in cash and another £215k tied up in their house.

Still with their wages and a bit of being sensible they could sort the problem quickly, which is a luxury most don’t have.

They aren’t really wealthy though

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.

Please donate now to ‘I haven’t got a clue how the other half live, but need more cash now’ PO Box …..

I think I saw that very ad in Private Eye.

Dickyboy – Member

the sooner we tax buy to let out of existence the better, would we allow any other necessity of life to be speculated upon by “investors”

Err, yes. Just about any commodity you can think of.

They aren’t really wealthy though

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Kum8OUTuk[/video]

I think I saw that very ad in Private Eye.

I always wonder if people donate to them….

I don’t think they’re wealthy – potentially wealthy of course if they don’t mess things up.

I don’t think they’re wealthy

Assuming they actually got the asking price on their flat then they’d have £137k

Or as someone working full time, on minimum wage would refer to that figure…. 12 years wages

They could move to a large 3 bed house in Wythenshawe and live mortgage free 😀

Just because a minimum wage person is poor doesn’t make these people wealthy – but we all have our own definitions. Wealthy for me is not having to work whilst living in a nice house/area.

Fair play. Being in the top 1% of earners in the UK, with a household income of 200k a year, doesn’t make you wealthy at all.

My apologies

Meanwhile…. back on planet earth……

Not quite top 1%, but very hard to argue they’re not wealthy:

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/may/21/british-household-1m-assets

That’s correct binners. Wealthy people don’t have to do anything as sordid as rely on earned income.

That’s correct binners. Wealthy people don’t have to do anything as sordid as rely on earned income.

True of only a tiny fraction of the wealthy.

Fair play. Being in the top 1% of earners in the UK doesn’t make you wealthy at all.

That’s right it doesn’t, or at least isn’t not a simple as that. It has been said many, many times having a high salary does not necessarily make you wealthy and having a low salary does not necessarily make you poor. There is more to wealth than salary and for anyone not hard of thinking this isn’t a difficult concept to grasp.

My own salary is pretty high and I’m not is an poor a shape financially as these people, but were I to lose my job I’d likely loose my house and begin to struggle relatively quickly. It might be a few months rather than days but the point stands that I, like these people, still need to work in order to live.

Not quite top 1%, but very hard to argue they’re not wealthy:

According to that first graph they are nowhere near 1%. Given the net worth of their two properties is around 360k and assuming no other assets that would put them about 60%

Fair play. Being in the top 1% of earners in the UK doesn’t make you wealthy at all.

Wealth <> income. They could actually be splashing it all on coke and hookers.

Interestingly, people on the average wage (c£25k) earn more than 60% of the population.

There is more to wealth than salary

Other platitudes include “money can’t buy you happiness” and are invariably trotted out by people who have money.

Other platitudes include “money can’t buy you happiness” and are invariably trotted out by people who have money.

You’ve missed my point as I was referring to assets such as property, shares, artwork etc not anything like “family” or “happiness”. My usual retort to the statement “money can’t buy you happiness” is “yeah, but it makes the misery a whole lot easier to live with.”

Not read the article but 190k soon goes.

190k gross
-95k (50% for tax and NI)
-30k (2 x school fees)
-30k (2.5k mortgage x 12)
= 35k net

That leaves just 35k to buy the other things that sort of money is usually spent on such as:

– swanky car
– pension contributions
– investments (ISAs, other property etc)
– new shoes for tarquin and fifi
– hummus

Not sure what my point is – maybe just that it’s easy for that kind of money top be spent without being too* frivolous.

*ok, a big London house, private school and nice car could be seen as frivalous
–

According to that first graph they are nowhere near 1%.

1% of EARNERS? Not wealth.

I’d hazard a guess that a lot of the 1% net worth individuals have never had to do anything as unsavoury as actually earn any of their money

Its hard to work out from that graph but at a guess they’d be somewhere between 55-60% on that graph and that is tied up in 2 illiquid assets. So definitely not poor but not troubling the wealthy either.

with a household income of 200k a year, doesn’t make you wealthy at all.

You can’t tell how long the household has been taking in £190k, oppositely there are some pensioners working for low annual wages but with a lot of wealth in assets. Annual salary is a poor indicator of total wealth IMO.

I’d hazard a guess that a lot of the 1% net worth individuals have never had to do anything as unsavoury as actually earn any of their money

Probably and hence would be by definition the Upper Class, this lot however, clearly do need to work and are Middle Middle Class aspiring to be Upper Middle.

What salary do you need to be upper middle then? Is it much more than the pittance they’re scraping by on?

Is this upper middle or upper?

a big London house

They have a £750,000 house in South West London, that is unlikely to be a big house. In the better areas you would be looking at a flat for that amount.

Being in the top fraction in one of the richest countries in the world isn’t wealthy.

Apparently.

190k gross
-95k (50% for tax and NI)
-30k (2 x school fees)
-30k (2.5k mortgage x 12)
= 35k net

You’re about 20k out on the tax and NI

So £55k in readies for hummus and pastel polo shirts.

You’re about 20k out on the tax and NI

Plus rental income. Let’s call it £65k.

The privations they must endure…

Plus rental income. Let’s call it £65k.

The rental income covers the BTL interest and that’s it but as has been said many times already they are not saying they aren’t well off, they are asking for advice on how to afford school fees.

£750k is barely enough for a pokey 3-bed terrace in the nicer (and even less nice) bits of SW London. You can spend considerably more on something too small for a family.

I still don’t understand why people have such an issue with a couple earning good money. They are not scroungers, they did not inherit it, they work and earn. It is like they are committing a crime.

Assuming no pension relief, if they each earned £95k they’d take home £10,400 between them each month…

Year Month Week
Gross Wage £95,000 £7,917 £1,827
Taxable Wage £84,400 £7,033 £1,623
Tax Paid £27,403 £2,284 £527
Tax Free Allowance £10,600 £883 £204
National Insurance £5,171 £431 £99
Take-home pay £62,426 £5,202 £1,200

Being in the top fraction in one of the richest countries in the world isn’t wealthy.

Apparently.

Well if you’re going to use a global perspective there are very few people in the UK who aren’t wealthy!

hey are asking for advice on how to afford school fees.

Don’t spaff more than 55k a year would appear to be the answer.

The rental income covers the BTL interest and that’s it but as has been said many times already they are not saying they aren’t well off, they are asking for advice on how to afford school fees.

Advice as follows:
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery.

Next!

edit, way too slow ➡

I still don’t understand why people have such an issue with a couple earning good money.

People have an issue with them earning good an exceptionally large amount of money, then complaining that they don’t have enough of it.

Ay, ya gotta think of the children in all of this.. Must be embarrassed having Mater n Pater splashed all over t’interwebz proclaiming “fiffi and foofo can’t go to blah di blah school”

Honestly.

You’d think if they needed advice on money worries they’d chuck £400 at an Independant Financial adviser or Accountant to help sort them out…

Tim nice but dim springs to mind.