How Rich Are You?

[robgul]

Interesting that it's based on income alone rather than assets as well...

Yep - makes it pretty pointless - we have some quite big assets ( ) - mortgage free for almost 20 years - but choose to keep regular income in cash terms (pensions and a small pin-money income from my bike-servicing micro-business) relatively low as we don't spend a lot, thus the assets grow in cash amount and property value growth which are not reflected in the "class" calculation.

[rogerzilla]

There's a concept of Material Risk Taker, which essentially means you lose money if you screw up.

[mrcharly-YHT]

That calculator is absurd, because it doesn't take into account the different living costs dependent on locality.

My income would not be 'high' for many areas of London (or, indeed, Cambridge). It is 'very high' for where I live now.

[markcjagar]

£21k is deemed high income for a single-man, lol, that calculator is fucked...

[CommuteTooFar]

I disagree with the cost of local living. That is a free choice when someone choose to live in the Big City.  Companies pay more to  maintain their staff.  The housing costs eventually disappear as the struggling Londoners exchange rent with mortgage with wholly owned home.   These fortunate people get the Big city pay and none of the costs. (I know the less fortunate never escape the rent trap). They have a huge amount of free cash to use as they please. Meanwhile in the low pay areas of the country we struggle to get on mortgage ladder just as the big city folk do, we pay it off with the same difficulty then once we have paid off we are rewarded with lower free cash.  No rich period in this unlike the big city folk. I can see this living in a small city Cardiff and the rest of South Wales.  It does not need to be London.

[Kim]

It's entirely possible to live in a big city without being able to afford to buy a house.  Those costs show no sign of disappearing.

[grams]

I think you're grossly overestimating typical incomes in London. A lucky few earn enough to get on the housing ladder here. Everyone else either rents forever or is forced to move out.

[ian]

People do forget (I think deliberately) that London includes some of the most deprived areas in England, it's not all bankers rolling around in their money piles before going to race their supercars around Mayfair.

The majority of younger people, even in relatively affluent professions, in London will never be a position to buy a house unless there's a transfer of parental wealth involved. If you don't have rich parents, it's game over.

[mrcharly-YHT]

I disagree with the cost of local living. That is a free choice when someone choose to live in the Big City.  Companies pay more to  maintain their staff.  The housing costs eventually disappear as the struggling Londoners exchange rent with mortgage with wholly owned home.   These fortunate people get the Big city pay and none of the costs. (I know the less fortunate never escape the rent trap). They have a huge amount of free cash to use as they please. Meanwhile in the low pay areas of the country we struggle to get on mortgage ladder just as the big city folk do, we pay it off with the same difficulty then once we have paid off we are rewarded with lower free cash.  No rich period in this unlike the big city folk. I can see this living in a small city Cardiff and the rest of South Wales.  It does not need to be London.

Yes, location is something of a free choice. However, the increased wages don't match the costs of housing.

I used to work in Leeds. Decent houses in London are very expensive by comparison (2.5 times the price). Salaries for the same job are not 2.5 times a Leeds salary.  The salary ration is more like 1.5 x Leeds = London.

[Pingu]

Note the use of the word 'global'.

[Asterix, the former Gaul.]

Note the use of the word 'global'.

Crucial you do that. But inequality is growing everywhere.