Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

Everyone is attacking Dave for cutting benefits for those on £45k plus, but I remember not so long ago a little Gordon Brown messing up his 10p tax scrap and 22-20p tax modification meaning a certain group of people earning under £18k would be worse off. Although i guess, in typical Gordon foot in mouth fashion that was different as you had to be earning UNDER a certain amount to suffer :lol:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/tax/income/article.html?in_article_id=440554&in_page_id=77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is attacking Dave for cutting benefits for those on £45k plus, but I remember not so long ago a little Gordon Brown messing up his 10p tax scrap and 22-20p tax modification meaning a certain group of people earning under £18k would be worse off. Although i guess, in typical Gordon foot in mouth fashion that was different as you had to be earning UNDER a certain amount to suffer :lol:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/tax/income/article.html?in_article_id=440554&in_page_id=77

Having been up and down that scale I'd say that wealth is the basics of a place to live with no serious flaws (rented or bought who cares), a partner you are seriously attracted to and enough spare time to pursue some independent interests. Of course money can buy those things, but it won't give them to you without any effort, and it certainly won't guarantee them for life.

Go figure....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The interesting fallacy that wealth is related to income rather than capital!

I guess most wealth delivers some sort of yield. Not much use, like you say, if more than that yield goes on servicing debt even if there is supposed equity there.

Frankly, our approach to GDP and wealth scares me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My definition of rich is having assets that give income that exceeds your outgoings by a healthy margin so that you do not need to work. Looking at income alone is pointless as someone might be financially independant on just 100k pa but someone with big outgoings could be very dependant on their job despite earning more than this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enough to live the lifestyle you want without working all hours.

What that is varies so massively that it's hard to put a number on it.

Some are happy to be "comfortable" - to have enough not to worry, to have the things they need, inc. house, car, etc.

Others define themselves much more by luxury possessions, or the ability to afford "money" things in terms of flash travel, going out to the haunts of the rich and famous, etc.

Money does not buy happiness, but that said,most people would rather be unhappy and rich than unhappy and poor, because money buys you the freedom to change your life if you want.

The rich tycoon who has had enough, can give most of it up and buy a little farm, live a simpler life if he wants, backed by his last bonus. The poor old peasant can't give up shovelling sh1t at the local farm to become a city boy, or anything else.

My 2c worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are rich, if it is the case that if you decided to stop all activity, the amount in your bank account would still go up; even though you are not producing. You are poor if it is the case that if you decided to stop all activity, the amount in your bank account would go down even though you are not consuming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is attacking Dave for cutting benefits for those on £45k plus

After tax and expenses (the degree etc) the £45k+ actually isn't *that* much more than £24k which as it stands is quite a hand-to-mouth existence. most parents on that income actually need benefits to keep them afloat.

Say you keep 32k after the HMRC mugging, and you have 10k more a year than the 24k guy (after you factored in your higher costs). If you're single and can put the 10k aside, after 20 years you just about have 200k, which doesn't buy all that much. 100 years to become a millionaire for you, you're certainly not rich.

100k would be sort of getting there but HMRC again ensures that you don't actually get too rich. If you take home 50k of that and save 28k, you'll be a millionaire in 35 years.

So I voted 250k, because that gets you to take home 125k(say) and so, in 10 years time, you'll be a millionaire if you save 100k of that a year.

Alternatively, here is a more classic take:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do honestly think 45k is alot, I earn about that and I couldn't ever imagen ever spending that much in a month!

That said I'm still with the olds, but I think if house prices were a reasonable level I think 45k would be more than enough, the only thing that makes it seem like 'peanuts' to some people are sky high mortgages/rents, without them you'd have a fantastic disposable income, trying to spend over £100 a day would be quite challanging unless your a materialistic bellend!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I earn a six figure sum and I save the vast majority of it. I am 42 and pretty much resigned to my pension rights, state or private being nil and at some point I want to be able to not work at home or in the office every single day. I started with nil and never claimed any state benefit in my life. I aim to have enough that if a future socialist goverment trys to redistribute my savings to those who have not tried to earn and save I can go live abroad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think age/housing situation is a factor here. If you're in your 20's, don't have the Bank of Mum and Dad free money option, then 45K is not rich. If you've been given a huge wad of money from the Bank of Mum and Dad, or got on the housing market in more reasonable times (lets say you're 40+ to make it really clear) then 45K probably feels fairly rich. (obviously if a 40+ has MEWed to high heaven and now has a huge mortageg despite being given a golden once in a lifetime chance then they probably don't feel rich, but then that's their choice to take on unnecessary debt).

Not surprising its a persons biggest expense that has the biggest effect on disposable income, and for most that will be the rent/mortgage. The inflated costs in this area for todays young adults is a real killer.

Call me Dave's new benefits cap says it all as this equates to something like £34000 gross and this is under the new "harsh" system (and doesn't include disability benefits which some people claim dubiously).

Edited by Save me from the madness!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of people have flagged the obvious but it hasn't turned the discussion.

Rich is not income. Just as rich is not expenditure. "Rich" can only ever be capital. You can then have an interesting debate about how much yield and capital you personally define as "rich".

But if your unearned income is less than your expenditure then you are one thing, regardless of the sums involved: poor.

Sufficient capital to own or rent a simple house and put £5k per annum in your pocket is, to me, the point at which you cease to be poor. Sure, you won't be able to buy consumer tat but, that's hardly been a marker of "rich" in my book. As these sums are save-able by the majority of people in the UK, I see the interesting divide not as rich:poor but as sane:idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read the Credit Sussie world wealth report 2010 and to be richer than 50% of the world population, you only need to have a wealth of.... £4000.

And 23.594 million (so that is 1 in 2) of UK adults are within top 10% of the richest in the world. So this is probably close to the mean wealth of $229940 (or about

£150k - think housing asset has a major contribution to this )

So, I say if you have a terrace and have paid off the mortgage - then you are rich.

And 3.355 million (or about 7% / 1 in 12 of UK adults are among the top 1% richest in the world)

These are the stats for UK:

Population 62 million

Adult population 47 million

GDP 46,857 USD per adult

Mean wealth 229,940 USD per adult

Median wealth 78,765 USD per adult

Total wealth 10.9 trillion USD

Dollar millionaires 1,230 thousand

Top 10% of global wealth holders 23,594 thousand

Top 1% of global wealth holders 3,355 thousand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of people have flagged the obvious but it hasn't turned the discussion.

Rich is not income. Just as rich is not expenditure. "Rich" can only ever be capital. You can then have an interesting debate about how much yield and capital you personally define as "rich".

But if your unearned income is less than your expenditure then you are one thing, regardless of the sums involved: poor.

Sufficient capital to own or rent a simple house and put £5k per annum in your pocket is, to me, the point at which you cease to be poor. Sure, you won't be able to buy consumer tat but, that's hardly been a marker of "rich" in my book. As these sums are save-able by the majority of people in the UK, I see the interesting divide not as rich:poor but as sane:idiot.

I agreed with this 100%.  You need enough not to work if you so chose and be able to risks such as investing in a business. The biggest barrier to entrepreneurialism is access to capital - its been proven by various studies that most so called self made businessmen/women actually got a massive helping start either with parents capital, a house given to them etc.

Its harder to borrow £500k to start a firm if you have a huge mortgage.

The myth is that it is down to talent, but actually most business leaders are actually very mediocre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with some of the posters above

If someone offered me - 2 bed terrace house + £25k per year unearnt income risk free for life.

Or a salary of £100,000.

I would take the former rather than the latter any day of the week. He's much richer - he has his time, no commitments, ability to buy whatever he wants within reason.

I'd love to get to the point of the first guy, but not sure how best to do it. Earning 5% on the savings in the bank isn't going to cut it, so need to think creatively how to get into that situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich is not income. Just as rich is not expenditure. "Rich" can only ever be capital. You can then have an interesting debate about how much yield and capital you personally define as "rich".

It begs the question what is capital?

Is it simply income producing assets, or can it be widened, as I think it should, to include your own skills and abilities?

When you think about it most peoples capital is their ability to use their skills, education and training, to generate an income to meet their needs.

And despite our grumbles as a previous poster says the population of the UK is one of the richest in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My definition of rich is having assets that give income that exceeds your outgoings by a healthy margin so that you do not need to work.

Interestingly by this definition, is the Queen rich? She's still working in her 80s and would have to move out of Buckingham Palace if she tried to retire!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich is when you stop worrying about money, you can take pleasure in exploring the world physically and intellectually with your family teaching them as much as you can and have time and emotional energy to see what you can contribute.

Dave would be pleased to hear that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to get to the point of the first guy, but not sure how best to do it. Earning 5% on the savings in the bank isn't going to cut it, so need to think creatively how to get into that situation.

In the depths of my memory, I knew I'd seen a relevant website. And a bit of searching has pulled out http://earlyretirementextreme.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I earn a six figure sum and I save the vast majority of it.  I am 42 and pretty much resigned to my pension rights, state or private being nil and at some point I want to be able to not work at home or in the office every single day.  I started with nil and never claimed any state benefit in my life. I aim to have enough that if a future socialist goverment trys to redistribute my savings to those who have not tried  to earn and save I can go live abroad.

Same sort of salary, but still forking out £2500 per month on a mortgage, though I do have quite a lot of savings as well.  Fortunately my wife's salary is close to my basic as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of people have flagged the obvious but it hasn't turned the discussion.

Rich is not income. Just as rich is not expenditure. "Rich" can only ever be capital. You can then have an interesting debate about how much yield and capital you personally define as "rich".

But if your unearned income is less than your expenditure then you are one thing, regardless of the sums involved: poor.

Sufficient capital to own or rent a simple house and put £5k per annum in your pocket is, to me, the point at which you cease to be poor. Sure, you won't be able to buy consumer tat but, that's hardly been a marker of "rich" in my book. As these sums are save-able by the majority of people in the UK, I see the interesting divide not as rich:poor but as sane:idiot.

Bang on. The wealthiest people I know (in financial terms) earn very little, but they have capital and low outgoings and could buy cash pretty much anything they wanted. The poorest people I know, bar none. all earn £60k+ (or £100k in a joint household) and spend £100pcm more than they earn.

I'm probably a slight anomaly since my wife and I work at well paid jobs, but we rent and save, driver old cars and enjoy being able to buy little luxuries with cash.. I still get calls from 'wealthy' family and friends who are literally one paycheck away from losing everything.

Still, in the SE if you earn over £60k you can have a decent middle class lifestyle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich is when you stop worrying about money, you can take pleasure in exploring the world physically and intellectually with your family teaching them as much as you can and have time and emotional energy to see what you can contribute.

Dave would be pleased to hear that.

The sad fact is that the lust for consumerism means that most people only reach this financial state when they are old and their children are long grown and, probably, gone.

My wife and I are in the process of knocking our earned incomes and our expenditure down to absolute minimal levels so that we can do the family thing before it's too late. It's a bit of a gamble because there's not much slack in our investment income and bad events over the next 40 years would force us, in our twilight years, to either sell the house or get jobs.

Still, even if it goes wrong, 10 years off from 40 to 50 spent with my wife and children seems a better prospect than sitting alone in a big house on a pile of loot aged 70.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same sort of salary, but still forking out £2500 per month on a mortgage, though I do have quite a lot of savings as well.  Fortunately my wife's salary is close to my basic as well.

Really, thats terrible. I rent a five bedroom stone house in a pretty village for £900 pm. I sold my place in 2007 and I was gazumpted on the one i was buying in June of that year. Then that fell through in August 07 and the agent came back and eventually tried to sell it to me 15% less than I'd offered. It was at that point I decided renting for a bit was a smart move. Its nothing to do with this thread but its my favourate personal anecdote. I too have a lot of savings. The interest is dreadful though.

Edited by AndyAndy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with some of the posters above

If someone offered me - 2 bed terrace house + £25k per year unearnt income risk free for life.

Or a salary of £100,000.

I would take the former rather than the latter any day of the week. He's much richer - he has his time, no commitments, ability to buy whatever he wants within reason.

I'd love to get to the point of the first guy, but not sure how best to do it. Earning 5% on the savings in the bank isn't going to cut it, so need to think creatively how to get into that situation.

Earning 5% on your savings you lucky lucky Ba@tard!

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.

  • 239 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.