An interesting concept will be the imminent transmission of wealth from boomers to the 30 year olds. Likely huge tax take by HMRC and glut of houses which will need to be sold due to 2.4 kids.

Yeah I think the peculiarly Anglo thing of yearning for discreet nuclear familyhood is going to wrap up pretty quickly. Which will suck if your extended clan is full of shitpeople.

Liveinadive wrote:

One of the issues with extended lifespans is that properties are sold to fund nursing home fees which rapidly erode inheritance. So instead of the money going to the taxman or into the hands of first time buyers it goes to companies who profiteer off nursing homes …

Yep. We’ve spent the last few years getting into the business of designing residential care homes and day care centres. Follow the money if you want to stay in profit.

Records and books for burning lads

So John McDonnell says everyone earning over £70k a year is rich.

There has been some back and forth on this elsewhere, but i'm interested in the B&B take tbh. Back in '07/08 earning 70k in London put you in the top ten percentile of earners. Obviously it doesn't take into account inhereited wealth, property or investments, but what do you think, rich or not? As I am a pleb in the dirt, I believe it is rich, and comparing it to the earnings of the mega-wealthy and feeling short is a stupid way to look at it, but over on the social meedjaa there are people saying it's not even enough to live 'comfortably'.

These articles where people go on about how both parents earn over £50k and they still can't get by usually come down to them having a 5 bedroom house and 3 kids in private school.

It is ten times more than I get, but it's well-off, not rich. In terms of taxation taper, I agree that it should be towards the thicker end. But only when that taper reaches all the way to the banks and corps.

Right enough, I've seen a lot of people complaining that it's four grand per month and they spend half of that on a mortgage. Either they're in London, in which case a dispensation should be sorted out, or that's a really nice house and they've made their four-plus beds.

Escape wrote:

It is ten times more than I get, but it's well-off, not rich. In terms of taxation taper, I agree that it should be towards the thicker end. But only when that taper reaches all the way to the banks and corps.

No, it's definitely rich.

This is what I've always warned about Hoodism: millions demand it until its light catches them.

It's a very bold move that's banking on the poor and dispossessed turning out in unexpectedly high numbers.

Diluted Dante wrote:

Escape wrote:

It is ten times more than I get, but it's well-off, not rich. In terms of taxation taper, I agree that it should be towards the thicker end. But only when that taper reaches all the way to the banks and corps.

No, it's definitely rich.

I wouldn't say rich at all. They are well off and comfortable, but not rich.

Where do you draw the rich line then? Top 4%? 3? 2? 1?

I suppose things also depend a bit on personal circumstances too. I wouldn't consider a couple trying to raise a family on 35K each to be rich, but a couple where one person earns 70K while the other stays at home to look after the kids will probably be taking home less.

I consider myself well-off because I pay all my bills and debts and I buy food etc and then I still have a few quid left at the end of the month.

This is in stark contrast to even just a couple of years ago, when the end of each month had me on a knife edge between breaking even or my debts growing.

So I guess I think that disposable income is the metric that matters.

The trouble with the question "Is 70k rich?" is that you are really asking "define rich".

Rich to me is not having to work, super cars and gold chintz everywhere. Probably has at least million in cash.

70k is well off. Upper end of Proffesional, but still having to go to work.

Tempy wrote:

only a 25kp/a pension.

Presumably with a property, though?