Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
robbingXpat

Definition Of 'rich'

Recommended Posts

Apologies for me early hour post (well it was when I started this), can't sleep with this on me mind.

So, apparently anyone earning £44K GROSS is rich, according to the new definition, but what is that as a 'NET' figure?

Surely £44K pa is not rich in this climate and probably not 'middle class' either, £100K pa, yep that is rich and 'middle class'.

The career lazy, workshy, unemployable, no hoper welfare chavs (not the genuine job seekers) are to be capped at a figure of £26K 'NET', what would that equate to as a 'GROSS' figure?

Surely there can't be much difference in the resultant figures, after considering the cost of buying and running a car to get to work!

Makes me wonder if this government can actually relate to how a normal working family has to exist, whether they be on the minimum wage or £44K, none of them are rich with the current housing costs.

So anyone working for the minimum wage is £1000's a year worse off that being on welfare, can this be right?

I am currently unable to vote (retired overseas) but I can assure these 'New Tory's' that my vote for them would be withheld until they really did something constructive for genuine hard working families.

What a stupid own goal they have scored with this proposal, and I was so hopeful of the UK's future just 5 months ago.

Fancy kicking your typical Tory voter in the *****, for a short term headline, they should be considering the long term vote!

Boy George has lots of homework to get sorted now if this is not to be a one election government, not forgetting that the opposition is even worse at simple arithmetic.

Oh, I have never earned anywhere near £44K pa in my life, so I have no vested interest of any sort, just my observations. :angry:

Have a good day, think I'm due a lie in now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The will never affect the RICH as all governments are there to protect them. The middle classes are the ones hit by this removal of child benefit while the wealthy's landownings and offshore billions continue to be untaxed.

They are just playing at a bit of divide and conquer with the middle classes, while they remain, and the poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The definition of Rich is to have the things nessisary for survival.

1 food and water. 2 clothing. 3 shelter.

The greatest problem is when you comare your situation to others who have more that you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, apparently anyone earning £44K GROSS is rich, according to the new definition

In the case of families, if either partner earns 44k gross, the family is rich.

A family with two partners both on 40k gross is not.

Edited by White Craw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the case of families, if either partner earns 44k gross, the family is rich.

A family with two partners both on 40k gross is not.

If they can figure out that either partner is high rate tax payer.

Then surely they can figure the total income of both tax payers too??

At the moment my wife is the one who claims CB, HMRC have her NI number for CB purposes.

I dont think they have mine.

So when they get my NI and tax records for CB purposes (as both will be needed to check for high rate status) it becomes trivial to work out total income for us as a couple?

Or am i missing something?

Edited by MonkeyNuts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the case of families, if either partner earns 44k gross, the family is rich.

A family with two partners both on 40k gross is not.

OK, thanks, I think I understand now :unsure:

So how come well educated millionaires can't understand this financial injustice? Bl**** fools.

Well, I am confident that the workers will show there view on this matter in next May's local elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Working people can claim working tax credit on low incomes (which for two people on £10k each runs into about £4k). So no, you're not worse off on a low paid job - unless you're aged 16-24, thanks to the state's consistent ageism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The career lazy, workshy, unemployable, no hoper welfare chavs (not the genuine job seekers) are to be capped at a figure of £26K 'NET', what would that equate to as a 'GROSS' figure?

£35,000 a year or £21.73 an hour.

Minimum wage currently stands at £5.80 an hour, and this government laughingly claim to be getting tough on exorbitant benefit payments!!!

mad.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The definition of Rich is to have the things nessisary for survival.

1 food and water. 2 clothing. 3 shelter.

The greatest problem is when you comare your situation to others who have more that you.

Oh Pleeease, don't start that old student clap trap about how if you earn £3.18 a week in the UK, you are still better off than 98% of the worlds population.

Having a stale loaf, a puddle, second hand donkey jacket, and a bridge to sit under DOES NOT make you rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The definition of Rich is to have the things nessisary for survival.

1 food and water. 2 clothing. 3 shelter.

The greatest problem is when you comare your situation to others who have more that you.

Or when you compare yourself with people who get 20,30 or40 times the average when clearly they do not contribute 20,30 or 40 times the average. Reducing the gao between rich/poor has previously been seen as a wealth reducer (the rich will leave and go abroad/I am relaxed about the gap between rich/poor (Blair)). Maybe someone has realised the positives to reducing the gap , not only in respect of the pay offs in terms of reducing the costs of social breakdown but in the fact that giving the poorest more at the expense of the wealthy actually puts money into the economy in terms of spending on essentials that would not exist if that money stayed in the hands of the wealthy. Of course that doesn't make anyone on 44k wealthy but when it comes to taxation, it makes no sense for a single person on 12k to pay tax that buys a playstation or a holiday for the child of someone earning 4 times as much..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies for me early hour post (well it was when I started this), can't sleep with this on me mind.

So, apparently anyone earning £44K GROSS is rich, according to the new definition, but what is that as a 'NET' figure?

Surely £44K pa is not rich in this climate and probably not 'middle class' either, £100K pa, yep that is rich and 'middle class'.

The career lazy, workshy, unemployable, no hoper welfare chavs (not the genuine job seekers) are to be capped at a figure of £26K 'NET', what would that equate to as a 'GROSS' figure?

Surely there can't be much difference in the resultant figures, after considering the cost of buying and running a car to get to work!

£44k gross is £32,270.40 net or £2,689.20 a month.

£26k or £2,172.85 net is £35k gross.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm paraphrasing, but Thornton Wilder (who said many wise things about money) said, in The Matchmaker, something like "The difference between having enough and being rich can be wide in income but will be small in happiness. The difference between having enough and not having enough can be small in income but will be a wide gulf in all other measures."

I don't know and don't care whether I will ever be rich - I do care whether I will ever be poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies for me early hour post (well it was when I started this), can't sleep with this on me mind.

So, apparently anyone earning £44K GROSS is rich, according to the new definition, but what is that as a 'NET' figure?

Surely £44K  pa is not rich in this climate and probably not 'middle class' either, £100K pa, yep that is rich and 'middle class'.

The career lazy, workshy, unemployable, no hoper welfare chavs (not the genuine job seekers) are to be capped at a figure of £26K 'NET', what would that equate to as a 'GROSS' figure?

Surely there can't be much difference in the resultant figures, after considering the cost of buying and running a car to get to work!

This just sums up everything that is wrong.  My own view is that it is a sort of soft conspiracy by the global elite to maintain there power - keep everyone down to below a few hundred thousand net worth and they won't be able to compete with you by launching rival companies etc.

In essence you are either a multimillionaire/billionaire, or you will have lump along with money measured in the thousands - giving you enough to get by.  Presumably this fits in with the idea of efficiency, ie it is inefficient to pay more as you don't need more to live.

The thing that brings it home to me is that even someone earning £100k is not what I would define as rich. Yes they will have a better house, car etc, but not leagues better, you only get to play with Sunseeker yachts and private jets when you have tens of millions.  The language being deployed by the Conservatives is purely a sop to justify the cuts to Child Benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgetting about health, family relationships, status amongst your peers, etc. I look at the issue of defining state of wealth as a series of steps.

Level 1 (Bottom)

You and your wife both work fulltime, but you are going backwards financially.

Level 2

You and your wife both work fulltime, but you are not accumulating wealth.

Level 3

You and your wife both work fulltime, and you are slowly accumulating wealth to the extent that you will have enough to pay for your your retirement but nothing to pass on to your children.

Level 4

You work, your wife stays home (works parttime when the kids are older). You will have paid off the house by the time you retire.

Level 5

You work, your wife stays home. You will be able to retire at the age of 65 and live modestly in your own home, but will have to sell it to pay for your nursing care when you really get old and doddery.

Level 6

You work, but will be able to retire at 65, live modestly and leave your house to the kids to fight over.

Level 7

You could retire at 50, but want to keep working because you would like to have a little extra.

Level 8

You could retire now and live modestly, etc.

Level 9

You could retire now and have the money you need to do the things that are important to you.

Level 10

You have never had to work a day in your life. Your money has been given to you by someone else. You do as you please, and people in the street know better than to make eye contact with you.

<_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought that being at the bottom end of the top 5% of earners is making you pretty well off.

Rich means you dont have to ask how much you have.

course, if being middle class means you have to have THAT car, THAT ipad, THAT house in THAT location, and yuo have to BORROW to acheive this, then you are going to be pretty hard up all the time.

but thats a lifestyle choice.

And its a reason that house prices are just stoopid.

two things I would do.

Cut all public sector salaries by 50% over 25K, and ban mortgages on residential property.

44k would seem and be a fortune.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, apparently anyone earning £44K GROSS is rich, according to the new definition

No - 44k is just being used as a pragmatic threshold for child benefit payments.

And 26k is the ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM benefit payment, i.e. what you'd get if two disabled parents had six disabled children. No-one is saying every jobless family with 2 kids will get that!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

£35,000 a year or £21.73 an hour.

Minimum wage currently stands at £5.80 an hour, and this government laughingly claim to be getting tough on exorbitant benefit payments!!!

mad.gif

Sorry but how do you calculate £21.73 an hour?

£35,000 / 260 working days / 7.5 hours per day = £17.95 per hour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No - 44k is just being used as a pragmatic threshold for child benefit payments.

And 26k is the ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM benefit payment, i.e. what you'd get if two disabled parents had six disabled children. No-one is saying every jobless family with 2 kids will get that!!

They've said that this will not include the disabled.

To put it into perspective, as a married couple with 3 children living in the midlands the maximum we could claim is about £24k pa, so we wouldn't be affect by this cap if we were claiming currently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No - 44k is just being used as a pragmatic threshold for child benefit payments.

And 26k is the ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM benefit payment, i.e. what you'd get if two disabled parents had six disabled children. No-one is saying every jobless family with 2 kids will get that!!

I thought it was the threshold for high rate tax band and a basic tax allowance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an uneducated observation, I am loosely acquanted with, a single mum, with 3 kids, lives on benefits, who seems to be constantly buying her 3 kids expensive toys, [the latest Asda Buzz lightyear, at £35 every other week for instance]

Probably an unfair post, and not indicative of the stereotype I am presenting, I am sure.

[And we dont have kids, so I probably should not be making sweeping generalisations.]

But as she is the only single mum with 3 kids, [bit chavvy, but very nice] I know, I do question her, as to why she does that.

I dont really get an answer.

[That kind of toy, would have been a birthday, christmas only present for us, when we were kids]

My Dad had always had a good income. Corporate Firm. I asked my own mum the other day about child benefits, and she informed me that, she did get them, but they used to be exactly enough to buy me two pairs of trainers per year. [Non-expensive types]

Edited by Dan1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The will never affect the RICH as all governments are there to protect them. The middle classes are the ones hit by this removal of child benefit while the wealthy's landownings and offshore billions continue to be untaxed.

They are just playing at a bit of divide and conquer with the middle classes, while they remain, and the poor.

In 1984 Orwell describes the partitions. It's exactly where we are heading.

That's why they are deliberately dumbing each generation down making them think they are smater than they really are! They are now in process of pricing Uni education out of reach of the future 'proles'!

The uber rich class

Their overseers who carry out their dirty work (goading, punishing the proles)

The proles are everybody else

The Tories this week said they were sharing the pain of the cuts and targeting the better off.

They lied. Their attacks on child benefit pave the way for a frontal assault on the welfare state—and in the same package they robbed an average of £93 a week from 50,000 unemployed families.

The Tories are the real scroungers. George Osborne, the man leading the assault, is worth £4.3 million and lives off a trust fund generating a fortune every year for doing nothing.

He will inherit a knighthood from his father Sir Peter, the 17th Baronet of Ballentaylor, and is the heir to the Osborne & Little £90-a-roll wallpaper company.

His wife Frances is the daughter of David Howell—the man who coined the word 'privatisation' while in Margaret Thatcher's cabinet.

Edited by erranta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was the threshold for high rate tax band and a basic tax allowance.

Yes it is. The public accepted that this was reasonable income for paying a higher tax band so it follows that is was seen as a higher income. Now some people are saying that its not enough to bring up a child on. I think £44k is good money. How you wish to spend that money is a lifestyle choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but how do you calculate £21.73 an hour?

£35,000 / 260 working days / 7.5 hours per day = £17.95 per hour

I did 230 working days (5 weeks leave and 1 week bank holidays etc) and 7 hour day. Ahh, I see where I went wrong, I removed the 6 weeks from the number of hours worked. My bad.

That said however, nearly £18 an hour is a far way off from £5.80.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 149 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.