Rich and Poor

Oct 31, 2013 16:07

Leave a comment

ext_2248536 November 2 2013, 10:03:26 UTC
While I think the creation of more categories than simply rich or poor (with rich being people who earn more than me) is helpful, discussions of wealth really need to take into account both assets and income. £60k income if you have huge debts, no savings etc will probably be rather poorer than a person on £30k who owns their house outright, has invested money into renewable energy stuff (so pays no energy bills), owns a holiday timeshare (so doesn't pay for holidays), has a large pension pot etc. Assets do not simply give income (savings in the bank) but also the option to spend more than your income. There is also the tricky to quantify effect of family background. Someone on my salary with no family wealth at all would probably not be able to own their own house (we needed a small inheritance to pay a deposit), and would therefore be paying vastly more rent than we pay on our mortgage. The flip side is, if you come a from a family that has set up educational trusts etc, you may be thinking of sending your kids to private schools, ( ... )

Reply

passage November 2 2013, 12:20:45 UTC
Good point. The BBC came up with 7 new classes in which they observed that traditional working class had low income but high assets, and were therefore substantially better off than "Emergent service workers" who were on the same money, but had come to the party after house prices had sky-rocketed and pensions had plunged.

Reply

ext_2248536 November 2 2013, 16:11:18 UTC
To add another factor (if you were trying to come up with an equation for defining the borders of your groups), age makes a big difference. People get wealthier as they get older, and they need to to pay for when they stop working. So a £15K job and no assets at 21 is not great but not necessarily poor. A £15K job and no assets (including no pension pot) at 64 and you are poor. And if you have significant assets at the start of life, you have the options of investing to become really wealthy. £200k of assets at 65 isn't much, if we assume you want to own a property and get some income to supplement you state pension. But £200K at 21 is hugely wealthy- and if it is invested in buy to let properties for example could lead to the ability to retire before they are 50.

Reply

ext_2248536 November 3 2013, 23:24:24 UTC
It's true, wealth makes such a difference alongside income.

One other point about 'richness' that I don't think anyone's discussed yet is that there's a certain point on the scale where wealth reaches a point where the income on your wealth exceeds your ability to spend it. I'm not sure where that point is, but one could probably reasonably put it at earning assets (i.e. not just a single really big house) of £10m (on which you could get an income of £500k-ish) - or at least that order of magnitude.

This represents a discontinuity for several reasons: you no longer have to work, neither do any of your descendants and, in the absence of other factors, you will just continue to get richer and richer. As well as the impact on individual lifestyles, the taxation arguments shift from the whole 'encouraging hard work vs everyone should pay their fair share discussion' to the impact on society, as this is when you start getting an elite non-working class. In the past, inheritance tax was brought in to target this phenomenon,

Reply

ext_1497474 November 3 2013, 23:27:20 UTC
Sorry, that was me.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up