The Student Room Group

How much must you earn to be considered as "rich"?

My dad was earning almost 200k, however I have never thought of us to be anywhere near "rich" considering after tax I'm guessing it's around 110k, with further deductions (family of 4, mortgage, electric/gas costs, clothes, cars(initial cost+petrol), food and drink, going out and all other day to day expenses) you really aren't left with anything close enough to be considered as "rich"?

I would consider it to be middle class if anything?

1) So how much would you need to earn to be considered rich?
2) How much would you need to earn to be rich enough to have say a £5m mansion
(edited 9 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

I would consider someone rich if their annual salary was £150k +
Lol at 'not been left with anything' on 120k after tax.

OP there's people that raise families of 4 on 30k before tax.
Reply 3
I was about to answer "30k a year" but then I read your lot's estimates and realized you meant "upperclass" and rich. Personally, after having lived in a country where families of five are living off ≈3.6k per year, I would consider a lot of UK middle-class people to be rich.
If you aren't left with anything while earning 200k a year you should probably stop eating caviar...

I would have thought if you were earning 50k you would be pretty well off!
Original post by harry218
My dad was earning almost 200k, however I have never thought of us to be anywhere near "rich" considering after tax I'm guessing it's around 100-120k? With further deductions (family of 4, mortgage, electric/gas costs, clothes, cars(initial cost+petrol), food and drink, going out and all other day to day expenses) you really aren't left with anything?

I would consider it to be middle class if anything?

1) So how much would you need to earn to be considered rich?
2) How much would you need to earn to be rich enough to have say a £5m mansion


I hope your Dad's job does not involve finance or with the management of a business, because that sounds like shocking financial mismanagement.
Reply 6
Being rich doesnt have much to do with income, its about wealth. In the modern UK there isnt much connection between income and wealth - the extreme rises in house prices since 1990 mean that people from the older generation (who are 40+) are typically sitting on very large amounts of net worth even if they had fairly modest jobs and salaries - its not uncommon to find people who worked as nurses/teachers/etc their whole lives and now own £1m+ of housing. In contrast, a young person today will struggle to accumulate net worth (and housing) even if they have a high salary, because the goal posts have moved.

Realistically, someone earning £60k/year today will probably never be rich (and wont even be able to afford a house in London), while someone 20 years older who earned £30k all their life (adjusting for inflation) will have lived quite comfortably due to how much cheaper everything was. When your parents were young, it was very common for a family to have a single working father earning a modest salary and a stay-at-home mother, and be very comfortable. That is absolutely not the case today (at least without government benefits, which are substantial)

Comparing yourself to your parents doesnt make much sense because you are going to be a lot poorer than them even if you have the same job and salary - housing costs are several orders of magnitude higher than they were for previous generations, while most adult living costs (rent, childcare, schooling, etc) are much more expensive.

These days, if you have a family and want to have a vaguely middle class life in London (2 kids, a part-time or stay-at-home mother, and a reasonable school for your children) then I would say the absolute minimum you would need to earn is £100k.and even that would be a struggle - you wont be in poverty but there will be very few luxuries. In contrast, someone from your parents generation would probably have got by on £40k or so since the housing costs were so much lower.

After you go north of Cambridge things get better, and you can probably live a middle class life on £40-50k or so.

Those salary numbers are just to have a traditional middle class life. To be wealthy youre looking at £300k+ (London) or maybe £100k+ (non-London)
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 7
Original post by CheetahCurtis

I would have thought if you were earning 50k you would be pretty well off!

A 2 child family in London with a stay-at-home mother and a father who works a minimum wage job has the equivalent of a £40k gross salary after government benefits. So £50k for a family is barely more than minimum wage

You certainly cant raise a family in London on £50k (I know people are going to say "but my parents earned less than that and we were fine" - see the above post).
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by poohat
A 2 child family in London with a stay-at-home mother and a father who works a minimum wage job has the equivalent of a £40k gross salary after government benefits. So £50k for a family is barely more than minimum wage

You certainly cant raise a family in London on £50k.


Well I don't know about in London but I know families with 3, 4, 5 and 6 children who can live off less than 50k a year.
Reply 9
You could earn a million a month, if you be prat and waste it all you're not rich. Being rich is about the size of that "little bit" you tuck away for a rainy day. I consider someone to be rich if they can go out on a whim and just buy a high end car, like a Mercedes, on a whim without it making a significant financial impact.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 10
Original post by poohat
A 2 child family in London with a stay-at-home mother and a father who works a minimum wage job has the equivalent of a £40k gross salary after government benefits. So £50k for a family is barely more than minimum wage

You certainly cant raise a family in London on £50k (I know people are going to say "but my parents earned less than that and we were fine" - see the above post).


Like you say south of Cambridge things are a bit worse, although I think (in Grimsby at least) you can still get by on £30k. Partially because up in Grimsby there aren't too many people who even get that without benefits. I mean I'm part of a family of 4 and between us we are somewhere in the range of 30-40k, yet we seem comparatively well off - and we're broke so I can't imagine how everyone else up here feels.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by harry218
My dad was earning almost 200k, however I have never thought of us to be anywhere near "rich" considering after tax I'm guessing it's around 100-120k? With further deductions (family of 4, mortgage, electric/gas costs, clothes, cars(initial cost+petrol), food and drink, going out and all other day to day expenses) you really aren't left with anything?

I would consider it to be middle class if anything?

1) So how much would you need to earn to be considered rich?
2) How much would you need to earn to be rich enough to have say a £5m mansion


I consider being in the top 5% of all human beings in the world as being rich, and thus you are rich if you earn more than 20k per year. If you earn 200k, you are in the top 0.1% in the world by income.
Original post by poohat
Being rich doesnt have much to do with income, its about wealth. In the modern UK there isnt much connection between income and wealth - the extreme rises in house prices since 1990 mean that people from the older generation (who are 40+) are typically sitting on very large amounts of net worth even if they had fairly modest jobs and salaries - its not uncommon to find people who worked as nurses/teachers/etc their whole lives and now own £1m+ of housing. In contrast, a young person today will struggle to accumulate net worth (and housing) even if they have a high salary, because the goal posts have moved.

Realistically, someone earning £60k/year today will probably never be rich (and wont even be able to afford a house in London), while someone 20 years older who earned £30k all their life (adjusting for inflation) will have lived quite comfortably due to how much cheaper everything was. When your parents were young, it was very common for a family to have a single working father earning a modest salary and a stay-at-home mother, and be very comfortable. That is absolutely not the case today (at least without government benefits, which are substantial)

Comparing yourself to your parents doesnt make much sense because you are going to be a lot poorer than them even if you have the same job and salary - housing costs are several orders of magnitude higher than they were for previous generations, while most adult living costs (rent, childcare, schooling, etc) are much more expensive.

These days, if you have a family and want to have a vaguely middle class life in London (2 kids, a part-time or stay-at-home mother, and a reasonable school for your children) then I would say the absolute minimum you would need to earn is £100k.and even that would be a struggle - you wont be in poverty but there will be very few luxuries. In contrast, someone from your parents generation would probably have got by on £40k or so since the housing costs were so much lower.

After you go north of Cambridge things get better, and you can probably live a middle class life on £40-50k or so.

Those salary numbers are just to have a traditional middle class life. To be wealthy youre looking at £300k+ (London) or maybe £100k+ (non-London)


What are the different types of jobs can I get that will pay me £300k?
Reply 13
Original post by Doctor_Einstein
I consider being in the top 5% of all human beings in the world as being rich, and thus you are rich if you earn more than 20k per year. If you earn 200k, you are in the top 0.1% in the world by income.
Thats an extremely flawed and misleading way to look at things, because it doesnt take living costs into account. People in developed countries earn more, but they also have to pay far higher costs for the necessities of life (housing, food, etc).

If you look at somewhere like India, yeah the average annual salary is only £3000 or so, but renting a very nice house will only cost you around £1000/year. So you cant just say "someone in the UK making £30k is 10x richer" when that person is paying £15,000/year for the same house.

Also you need to take taxes into account; someone who makes £40k a year in the UK will be paying around 60% tax on it (20% income tax, 14% national insurance, 20% VAT, 10% other things) while the tax rate in most non-developed countries is very low.

Also in the West things like child-care eat up the bulk of most adult incomes, while in 'poorer' countries middle class people can typically afford a variety of live in servants. If you look at a typical middle class family in India, China, Sinagpore, etc they will typically have a personal maid/nanny/cook/etc, while in the UK you would have to be extremely wealthy to afford that.

If you made £20k/year in India then you would live like a king, with an absolutely amazing quality of life. That isnt the case in the UK, so saying that "people in England earning £20k should feel rich" is just stupid feel-good nonsense.
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 14
Original post by Doctor_Einstein
What are the different types of jobs can I get that will pay me £300k?
In mid-career (aged 40+) the obvious ones - banking, biglaw, medicine (consultant level outside the NHS), partner/managerial positions in major firms (eg big4 accounting), senior engineering work in the oil industry, management consultancy, etc.

Not everyone in those industries will get that salary of course (not everyone can be wealthy). Getting £100k outside London is probably easier than getting £300k in London.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by poohat
Thats an extremely flawed and misleading way to look at things, because it doesnt take living costs into account. People in developed countries earn more, but they also have to pay far higher costs for the necessities of life (housing, food, etc).

If you like at somewhere like India, yeah the average annual salary is only £3000 or so, but renting a nice house only costs around £1000/year. So you cant just say "someone in the UK making £30k is 10x richer" when that person is paying £10,000/year for the same house.

Also you need to take taxes into account; someone who makes £40k a year in the UK will be paying around 60% tax on it (20% income, 14% national insurance, 20% VAT, 10% other things) while the tax rate in most non-developed countries is very low.

Also in the West things like child-care eat up the bulk of most adult incomes, while in 'poorer' countries middle class people can typically afford a variet of live in servants. If you look at a typical middle class family in India, China, Sinagpore, etc they will typically have a personal maid/nanny/cook/etc, while in the UK you would have to be extremely wealthy to afford that.

If you made £20k/year in India then you would live like a king, with an absolutely amazing quality of life. That isnt the case in the UK, so saying that "people in England earning £20k should feel rich" is just stupid feel-good nonsense.


Taxes are higher, but you get what you pay for - good quality healthcare, emergency services, honest and trustworthy police, reliable and safe roads, good education, effective legal system and government safety nets for the ill and poor.

All these things contribute to being rich in the UK, and thus your taxes are not being wasted.
Reply 16
Original post by Doctor_Einstein
Taxes are higher, but you get what you pay for - good quality healthcare, emergency services, honest and trustworthy police, reliable and safe roads, good education, effective legal system and government safety nets for the ill and poor.
.


Someone earning £20k in a country like India would have better versions of all these things than someone earning £40k in the UK - private healthcare, private security in their building, private international schools for their children, etc. You arent comparing like-with-like
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by poohat
Someone earning £20k in a country like India/China would have better versions of all these things than someone earning £40k in the UK - private healthcare, private security in their building, private international schools for their children, etc. You arent comparing like-with-like


I disagree - Road wise, can they afford to pay for safe roads to be built? Can they afford to pay for more police to enforce safe driving on the roads? No. The list goes on and on.
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 18
Original post by Doctor_Einstein
I disagree - health wise, do you think someone earning 20k can afford an MRI scan for their ill children in India? Of course not, the technology isn't widely available there and costly. Road wise, can they afford to pay for safe roads to be built? Can they afford to pay for more police to enforce safe driving on the roads? No. The list goes on and on.

I dont want to focus on individual things because my point is just that earning £x in India/Africa is much, much better than earning £x in the UK (in the same sense that earning £40k would make you middle class in Manchester, but poor in London). I think this is obvious.

But while I dont want to focus on individual things, you are completely wrong about the MRI scan (and health care costs in general) and this shows just how much your thinking is distorted by viewing things in terms of UK prices. An MRI scan in India costs around £50. The same scan in the UK would be about £300.

http://www.aiims.edu/aiims/hosp-serv/revised-rate-list.htm
https://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061129070355AASm9M3

Are you aware that it is increasingly common for people in Europe/America to fly to places like India to have medical procedures done, due to it being so much cheaper there than in the West?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism_in_India
(edited 9 years ago)
On a global perspective, anyone earning over 30k a year is in the top 1%.



On a societal perspective, anyone earning over 60k a year is in the top 10%. Therefore anyone earning over 60k a year is rich.



:h:



I find it strange that people are often so keen to disassociate themselves from being in the top earning power. There was a thread recently called 'The top 1% of the worlds wealth' which was slagging those evil '1%ers' right up until someone pointed out that includes many of the people doing the slagging. Instantly there was a new top percentile, the UK earners! Rather than seeing it as a global thing. And I'm sure people like the OP will find new targets to make sure they're not responsible in any way for the rather unfortunate distribution of wealth in society.
(edited 9 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending