You are well within the top 20% of earners if you have £70K a year. It is however important to distinguish between income (a flow concept in that it is measured per time period) and wealth which is a stock (measured at a point in time). Two families with identical incomes can have vastly different standards of living depending on their wealth. For most individuals wealth is the stock of retained unspent income (absent of inheritances).
Income is easier to measure and so is taxed while wealth is very hard to measure (or easy to hide) and is only typically taxed a fixed milestones (e.g. inheritance tax on a deceased estate).
I would say that the ‘rich’ are those that have income and assets, that put them in the top 5% of the country…
Unfortunately that would include a lot of home owners in the London area, who perhaps don’t have big incomes… But then the current tax system seems to take that into account somewhat.
I imagine a truly satisfactory definition of ‘Rich’ would be rather too unwieldy to use as part of any policy statement. For the majority of households across the UK who rely on an income rather than assets then £70K seems a reasonable figure.
See my previous post. Wealth and income are different but related concepts. We don’t find it easy to measure wealth and therefore don’t tax it usually.
Richmond lost it’s best MP a few months ago to be replaced by some grinning idiot from Kingston. We never ever see her and hopefully she will get the boot come June. I don’t know who the Tories will put up against her but the LibDems being remainers I can definitely see them winning again. If Zac Goldsmith does run it will have to be as an Independent. Shame.
Myself included- however, if my wife or I individually earned the amount we currently earn combined we would, for example have the luxury of choosing how much if at all the other one worked. So, although we are far from living extravagant lifestyles and have to consider how and what we spend, I would consider our situation very different if one of us earned the same amount as our combined income (even taking tax into account etc…). Also, I’m self-aware enough to know that even though we don’t live a “rich” lifestyle we can afford many luxuries that we don’t need.
It appears that Leadsom increased her majority to around 26,000 at the last election. Distant second was Labour, followed by ukip and then the LibDems.
Any road up, all a moot point as Corbyn has gone full platypus, it’s all an establishment conspiracy led by a couple of half rate millionaires. Fuck me ,proper tin foil hat material that can only speak to his core fan boys.
I reckon that £70k is a sensible figure - not because that is rich, but because you need enough people to fall into the bracket.
But the Labour spin is terrible! They should be saying that there are people who can afford some luxuries, and people who struggle to eat; the former must pay a little more to help the latter. The tax rise is then configured to incentivise waste reduction, not to take away the family holiday.
There is that, but going for the stupid vote only seems to work for the Right. He is portraying himself honestly, granted, but he has an uphill struggle attracting people in England to the left. The Labour leadership election rules will ensure labour remains on the left, I’m convinced they will wither if that comes to pass.
We are a ‘normal family’ (whatever that is) living in the East Midlands, our total household income is no where near 70000k a year (maybe half that ish), we live in a nice ish area in a small 3 bed semi detached house which we have a mortgage on, we have two children (7 and 10) a dog and two cats and two guinea pigs, oh and we are married.
Who should we vote for?
I imagine this is a question a lot of people are asking themselves.
