Are you rich?

[okgo]

JagLover said:

To have any meaning the asset level to be "rich" needs to be adjusted for age.

I would be surprised if there are all that many (as a percentage) of those in their fifties and sixties, who have spent their adult lives in full time employment, or married to someone who has, who have assets less than the magic £120K threshold that makes you "rich".

Of course not.

You’d be up sheet creek if you hadn’t managed it by 35 to be honest.

[LeighW]

okgo said:

Poorer people’s ideas of what rich is probably very different to what richer people’s idea of what rich is. It’s that simple. You see it all the time on those holiday/life swap type programs.

By any definition, having a total of £120k to your name in the UK if you include all your assets is not even remotely rich. At all!

[Zolvaro]

LeighW said:

okgo said:

Poorer people’s ideas of what rich is probably very different to what richer people’s idea of what rich is. It’s that simple. You see it all the time on those holiday/life swap type programs.

By any definition, having a total of £120k to your name in the UK if you include all your assets is not even remotely rich. At all!

It just puts you over the median, that is not the definition of rich, the OP asked the wrong question.

[Ken_Code]

Zolvaro said:

The holiday one I agree, but there are humble brags all over this thread, in fact all over this site. If people want to brag about how well they've done, go for it own it, well bloody done!! Instead we get the I've got X million but I don't feel rich BullS**t.

If you accumulate your money over decades then there may never be a point when you feel rich.

I only really felt it when I started my first job in a bank. Going from £6,000 per year to £40,000 in the ‘90s when I had no dependence or responsibilities really made me feel rich.

[Countdown]

okgo said:

And yet when you see garden and house threads most of the places are very very modest.

Suspect most people on here prioritise spending money on cars, so that skews things. Either way, it’s quite clear that by any definition, £120k assets is not it.

As someone else said, most banks won’t bother speaking to you as HNW until you’re worth a few million quid. I’d say personally if to be top 1% of wealth requires £3.6m as it apparently does here, that’s a fairly good starting point for ‘rich’.

I think you would get some people with £3.6m in net assets who wouldn't consider "themselves" rich because they can barely afford to send all 3 kids to private school, a 4 bed house in Zone 1, or lease payments on two Range Rovers.

As has been said before it's ALL relative. In absolute terms somebody on minimum wage in Cumbria is probably "rich" compared to 95% of the world's population but, relative to most people in the UK, they're probably struggling. Somebody on £100k in the UK is probably "rich" compared to 90% of the UK population but, compared to other Londoners they probably feel "poor".

Back in the early 90's I remember the FD where I used to work had a £300k house and a company Jag. i thought he was loaded but looking back he probably felt he was "average" because of the circles he moved in.

[Zolvaro]

Countdown said:

okgo said:

And yet when you see garden and house threads most of the places are very very modest.

Suspect most people on here prioritise spending money on cars, so that skews things. Either way, it’s quite clear that by any definition, £120k assets is not it.

As someone else said, most banks won’t bother speaking to you as HNW until you’re worth a few million quid. I’d say personally if to be top 1% of wealth requires £3.6m as it apparently does here, that’s a fairly good starting point for ‘rich’.

I think you would get some people with £3.6m in net assets who wouldn't consider "themselves" rich because they can barely afford to send all 3 kids to private school, a 4 bed house in Zone 1, or lease payments on two Range Rovers.

As has been said before it's ALL relative. In absolute terms somebody on minimum wage in Cumbria is probably "rich" compared to 95% of the world's population but, relative to most people in the UK, they're probably struggling. Somebody on £100k in the UK is probably "rich" compared to 90% of the UK population but, compared to other Londoners they probably feel "poor".

Back in the early 90's I remember the FD where I used to work had a £300k house and a company Jag. i thought he was loaded but looking back he probably felt he was "average" because of the circles he moved in.

They must know that objectively they are rich though, how you feel doesn't change the underlying mechanics of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zopCDSK69gs

[RizzoTheRat]

okgo said:

JagLover said:

To have any meaning the asset level to be "rich" needs to be adjusted for age.

I would be surprised if there are all that many (as a percentage) of those in their fifties and sixties, who have spent their adult lives in full time employment, or married to someone who has, who have assets less than the magic £120K threshold that makes you "rich".

Of course not.

You’d be up sheet creek if you hadn’t managed it by 35 to be honest.

I think you're falling for the PH demographic thing again. Apparently about 1 in 6 adults have no saving's and a similar number of over 55's don't even have a pension. The average over 55 year old has about 35k in savings, so I'd expect the ones that don't own a house (50% of adults, but presumably less than that in the over 55's) are pretty unlikely to have £120k of assets.

I'm not going deny that they're up st creek though.

Edited by RizzoTheRat on Monday 10th June 12:32

[okgo]

Zolvaro said:

They must know that objectively they are rich though, how you feel doesn't change the underlying mechanics of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zopCDSK69gs

No.

Because as I said, their version of Rich is different.

As is most of the worlds, rich people have been portrayed in cartoons, films and god knows what for decades, that must mean the common idea of most people is similar. Because they all appear similar on screen don’t they.

[Zolvaro]

okgo said:

Zolvaro said:

They must know that objectively they are rich though, how you feel doesn't change the underlying mechanics of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zopCDSK69gs

No.

Because as I said, their version of Rich is different.

As is most of the worlds, rich people have been portrayed in cartoons, films and god knows what for decades, that must mean the common idea of most people is similar. Because they all appear similar on screen don’t they.

So on that basis can Elon Musk claim he isn't rich because he doesn't "feel" rich? What's the cutoff?

[okgo]

It’s a lifestyle, not a number in a primary sense.

And obviously that lifestyle requires a number of sorts. As countdown has said, to live a rich man’s lifestyle in London clearly requires more than whatever fictitious number that is.

Elon and people of that ilk can do whatever they want whenever they want. That’s rich in most peoples heads I’d argue (again, popular culture reflects that)

Obviously if you just put a number to it then it should be something only a fraction of a percent of people are. And even then, at the lower level someone can probably easily expand their life into the number with every day things like schooling and mundane cars etc.

[Countdown]

okgo said:

It’s a lifestyle, not a number in a primary sense.

And obviously that lifestyle requires a number of sorts. As countdown has said, to live a rich man’s lifestyle in London clearly requires more than whatever fictitious number that is.

Elon and people of that ilk can do whatever they want whenever they want. That’s rich in most peoples heads I’d argue (again, popular culture reflects that)

Obviously if you just put a number to it then it should be something only a fraction of a percent of people are. And even then, at the lower level someone can probably easily expand their life into the number with every day things like schooling and mundane cars etc.

Just to caveat that, some people are living a rich man's life in London but feel that they're "not rich" not recognising that it's because they are spending money on stuff that the average person would never be able to afford.

To put it another way if I spend money on leasing a 488 and then say "I'm not rich because I can barely afford to run one car" it's a serious lack of self awareness.

[okgo]

Countdown said:

Just to caveat that, some people are living a rich man's life in London but feel that they're "not rich" not recognising that it's because they are spending money on stuff that the average person would never be able to afford.

To put it another way if I spend money on leasing a 488 and then say "I'm not rich because I can barely afford to run one car" it's a serious lack of self awareness.

Anyone moaning about the cost of something as run of the mill as a car or kids schooling most definitely isn’t ’rich’ - was my point.

[Zolvaro]

okgo said:

Countdown said:

Just to caveat that, some people are living a rich man's life in London but feel that they're "not rich" not recognising that it's because they are spending money on stuff that the average person would never be able to afford.

To put it another way if I spend money on leasing a 488 and then say "I'm not rich because I can barely afford to run one car" it's a serious lack of self awareness.

Anyone moaning about the cost of something as run of the mill as a car or kids schooling most definitely isn’t ’rich’ - was my point.

Welcome to Pistonheads bubble where you can be worth 5 or 10 million and apparently not be rich!!

[Countdown]

okgo said:

Countdown said:

Just to caveat that, some people are living a rich man's life in London but feel that they're "not rich" not recognising that it's because they are spending money on stuff that the average person would never be able to afford.

To put it another way if I spend money on leasing a 488 and then say "I'm not rich because I can barely afford to run one car" it's a serious lack of self awareness.

Anyone moaning about the cost of something as run of the mill as a car or kids schooling most definitely isn’t ’rich’ - was my point.

And that was my point about the lack of self awareness - if somebody who is in the top 5%/1% of income bands spends ALL their money on maintaining a certain lifestyle and then moans that "they're not rich" then IMHO there's something lacking in their critical thinking skills.

Brand new FFRRs are not "run of the mill" cars, sending your kids to private school means incurring a significant cost and one that people only do if they earn significantly above the UK median average. "Poor" people do not send their kids to private school.

[okgo]

Zolvaro said:

Welcome to Pistonheads bubble where you can be worth 5 or 10 million and apparently not be rich!!

People worth £5-10million quid wouldn’t be moaning about the running costs of a bloody car. Or the cost of children’s schools.


As I said, it’s a definition thing - but most people would not class some bloke with a Range Rover and 2 kids in a private school as rich without some other fairly large and obvious signs.


Also, plenty of people send their kids to paid for nursery and make it work. Many live in flats at ours. They’re rich are they? Don’t be silly.

Edited by okgo on Monday 10th June 13:32

[Zolvaro]

okgo said:

Zolvaro said:

Welcome to Pistonheads bubble where you can be worth 5 or 10 million and apparently not be rich!!

People worth £5-10million quid wouldn’t be moaning about the running costs of a bloody car. Or the cost of children’s schools.


As I said, it’s a definition thing - but most people would not class some bloke with a Range Rover and 2 kids in a private school as rich without some other fairly large and obvious signs.

So people worth 5 million and up are rich then? even if the don't "feel" it

[okgo]

Zolvaro said:

okgo said:

Zolvaro said:

Welcome to Pistonheads bubble where you can be worth 5 or 10 million and apparently not be rich!!

People worth £5-10million quid wouldn’t be moaning about the running costs of a bloody car. Or the cost of children’s schools.


As I said, it’s a definition thing - but most people would not class some bloke with a Range Rover and 2 kids in a private school as rich without some other fairly large and obvious signs.

So people worth 5 million and up are rich then? even if the don't "feel" it

They’re a lot closer than someone with £120k

[Zolvaro]

okgo said:

Zolvaro said:

okgo said:

Zolvaro said:

Welcome to Pistonheads bubble where you can be worth 5 or 10 million and apparently not be rich!!

People worth £5-10million quid wouldn’t be moaning about the running costs of a bloody car. Or the cost of children’s schools.


As I said, it’s a definition thing - but most people would not class some bloke with a Range Rover and 2 kids in a private school as rich without some other fairly large and obvious signs.

So people worth 5 million and up are rich then? even if the don't "feel" it

They’re a lot closer than someone with £120k

Nobody is arguing that people worth 120K are rich. They are funnily enough bang on average.

[okgo]

Zolvaro said:

So people worth 5 million and up are rich then? even if the don't "feel" it

To be more serious, I’d imagine most people worth upwards of those numbers have a very good idea they’re living beyond the realms of almost everyone.

A Range Rover and kids in private school is table stakes stuff for vast areas of the U.K., rarified behaviour it isn’t.

[Zolvaro]

okgo said:

Zolvaro said:

So people worth 5 million and up are rich then? even if the don't "feel" it

To be more serious, I’d imagine most people worth upwards of those numbers have a very good idea they’re living beyond the realms of almost everyone.

A Range Rover and kids in private school is table stakes stuff for vast areas of the U.K., rarified behaviour it isn’t.

I would hope they have, I'm not sure where you have got this range rover, private school idea from though, my point all along has been about people with several million.