UKC

Probably a troll but amusing nonetheless.

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1653159-To-not-feel-ric...


"Am I being unreasonable to not feel rich even though husband earns £250k a year

whoovian Mon 07-Jan-13 09:34:03

I don't feel rich - I scarcely feel comfortable on this level of income.

Why is that - I grew up in a very poor family (not enough food at times type of poor) so I know what poverty feels like.

We are not extravagent spenders - we have one 1 week european holiday a year, no savings however we do have 4 children in private school(!) and live in London.

I feel unreasonable when I consider how little income others survive on but what do you think?"

In reply to Cú Chullain: Busy day at work then...?

In reply to Cú Chullain:

From MumsNet - it's probably not a troll...I'd imagine the kind of rat that posts on there could easily feel poor on someone else's salary of £250k (actually, lets call it just £120k after paying 4 lots of fees. Poor lamb!)

In reply to Cú Chullain:

What is this mumsnet of which you speak.

In reply to Steve John B:

Started a new job this week but the start date of the project that I have specifically been earmarked for has been put back by a few weeks so I have very little to do.

In reply to Cú Chullain: I suppose it makes sense. We spend most of my wife's salary on childcare. We don't have much spare for fancy cars and holidays as we would do if we didn't have a child in childcare.

If you spend your income on private schooling, I guess the bottom line is that you don't have much to show for your money.

In reply to EeeByGum:

Kind of fair enough, but a) feeling poor on £250k!! and b) childcare for toddlers is a bit different to *choosing* to send four kids to private school.

In reply to EeeByGum:

I feel your pain.

I have had at least one child in childcare for over ten years now but in September, we will be childcare free forever. £500 per month better off after tax. One doesnt want to wish one's life away but my goodness, Autumn this year cant come quick enough.

In reply to Cú Chullain:

They have no savings, so if hubby loses his job, the kids come out of school and they're looking for a smaller house. So I guess its quite easy to feel uneasy about the situation. I've managed to accrue a nice amount of savings and skip around with hardly a care in the world.

In reply to richyfenn:

It ws their choice to have 4 kids and send them to private school rather than save money. Any unease about the situation is of their own making.

In reply to Horse:


And isn't the world such a nicer place when everyone has a "fcuk you" attitude?

In reply to Horse:

But they are not "rich". They have a very good income (and school fees and a mortgage to match). If the earner in the family is laid off their lifestyle will change massively and they may even be bankrupt.
"Rich" is about assets and income not just the latter.

I'm not suggesting they deserve sympathy just that they are not necessarily "rich"

In reply to Postmanpat:

As Horse says, they make a choice about how they spend their money. They could a) have had fewer kids, if they couldn't afford the lifestyle they wanted to provide (just as everyone says about 'benefits scum'), or b) chosen to invest in assets rather than their children's education.

In reply to Horse:

Oh absolutely. If it was me, the kids would go to a free school and save some cash. Maybe I'd pay for a bit of extra tutoring for the kids, if they've been good, or bad.

In reply to Tall Clare:

Or they could send their kids to a prep school to get a good education and then to the worst state school you can find to terrify them into getting good grades and a decent job.

In reply to Postmanpat: And if someone with loads of assets gambles them away they are no longer rich. By any sensible definition they are rich - if they act foolishly or are unlucky they may end up poor, like anyone else.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Given that there is no definition of "rich", I'm not sure what your point is.

Horse has it spot on. "I don't like how I've spent my not inconsiderable income". Well spend it differently then, you pointless, whining cow.

Of course they are rich. Their lives are benefited by having 4 children at private school. That is defined as a luxury not a necessity regardless of how you want to spin it. It is no different from spending money on any other lifestyle luxury. Rich isnt about savings. It is about buying and spending. If someone can earn and spend nearly ten times the amount of money I have then they are rich. If someone earns a million a year but hypothetically spends £900,000 a year to maintain living in a 25 bedroom mansion then it matters not that they are eating baked beans every day. They are still rich. They just decided to spend their money on something different.

In reply to MG:

Check the definitions of "rich" they nearly all relate to ownership or assets.

I agree that even in asset terms it is hard to define but I think "rich" implies a) financially secure and b) in the minds of Jo public: luxuries like first class travel, flash holidays, yachts in the Bahamas etc.
Sadly 250k guarantees none of those.

But your concept of rich may be different.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think to a lot of people in the UK, £250k *is* rich.

In reply to Milesy:

Have you taken tax considerations into account there?

In reply to Postmanpat:

To enter the pointless debate on 'how rich is rich' I would say that yachts in the Bahamas qualifies you as not rich, but super-rich. Not very constructive this, is it?

In reply to Cú Chullain:

I think she should think herself lucky that she is not married to me!

In reply to Jon Stewart:

No, but by main point is about assets as opposed to income. If a pop star makes 10 million in a year and blows it on fast cars, fast women, booze and drugs as he goes along then he's never rich.
But I agree this is going nowhere.....

In reply to Cú Chullain: "Rich" is someone with 20% more income than me.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Money = liquid asset

In reply to Submit to Gravity: Not sure whether or not she is rich, but she is certainely ungrateful!!!

In reply to butteredfrog:

She has 4 kids - might want to look out for a Stewie reference on that one!

In reply to SAF:

Seeing all her replies - I'd say her controlling husband forcing the kids to go to private school and trying to keep up with his richer pals is ungrateful. She is insecure imho.

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

She doesn't have much of that either if it is being spent.

In reply to Cú Chullain: Being rich and feeling rich are two different things.

She obviously doesn't appreciate that (I assume) a large amount of their assets are tied up in their property.

What makes you feel rich? A large house, a foreign holiday once a year and no spare cash. A small house with small mortgage, aweekend away in the hills every weekend and loads of cash? Living on the dole with tons of spare time to do whatever you want, but no money to do it?

In reply to Postmanpat: she agrees

In reply to Cú Chullain: I just want to slap that woman for the sheer ineloquence of that post; she's indisputably rich, just feels uncomfortable that her financial position is not stable... The way she's written it (and giving a figure, which is crass) is a red rag to a bull to the vast majority of people who can scarcely dream of 6-figure salaries.

As a wide generalisation, mumsnet in general irks me... Though my only contact with it has been as the new voice of 'won't somebody think of the children' type overzealous activism; I also don't get people who focus time and money to engineer their children growing up in a certain way; they'll be what they'll be; failure to accept that will have them grinning in agreement with Larkin's - 'This be the verse' when they grow up... Play with them, encourage them, discipline them, discourage them, bail them out; just don't try to fit them into a specific mould.

In reply to KellyKettle:

Cant say I have huge experience of the place either but a few of my mates have tried it out and found it less a helpful forum for would be and new parents to seek friendly advice but more of a platform where a few established desperately middle class 'queen bee' posters and their synchophatic followers judge, bully and criticise you for being a crap parent.

In reply to Tall Clare:

+1

In reply to Cú Chullain:

Substitute 'parent' for 'climber' or 'biker' or whatever and that's a pretty good description of most forums mind you!

In reply to Timmd:

+2. So what?

In reply to KellyKettle:


What exactly does that mean? No matter what you do, your children will fit into the mould that describes you. They eat the same sort of foods as you, have the same values as you, participate in the same sort of activities and socialise with the children of your friends, who will be like you.

The idea that you can allow children to be free spirits is simply farcical and would only result in the total destruction of your home.

In reply to Cú Chullain:

fees at a good London private secondary school = £5000/term+(++)
4 kids = £60k plus all the extra bits (uniform, trips, books, pianoforte lessons) = say, £75k

That is of post tax income; he is in the 50% bracket, so = £150k of pre-tax income.

Still leaves £100k for the other stuff.

Suspect the comparison is being made with the "pre-kids" lifestyle.

Well, it's a choice innit.

In reply to Postmanpat:


and outgoings too....

If you earn more than you spend, you feel rich.

In reply to Cú Chullain:

It is some what of a cliche but wealth / income is no indication of how comfortable with people are in their own skin. There are plenty of immensely wealthy people who are rather unhappy and their enormous wad amounts to the size of their neurosis.

D

In reply to JJL:
150-75=75 shirley? - mortgage on suburban house 35?

=40?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'd taken £250 gross;
Top slice fees, (grossed up for tax = £150k), leaves £100k

Then take take through the lower bands and then take mortgage and bills

In reply to JJL:

No idea what "top slice fees" means

I just estimated net income at £150k and subtracted from there.

In reply to JJL:

How many people on £250,000 in London are paying PAYE?

Don't feel too sorry for the little lambs being shafted by the tax man. The thing with London is there is so much wealth there totally out of proportion with anything else in world their you can be a millionaire and not think you are rich.

D

In reply to Dauphin:
90%??

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'd have thought someone on that sort of salary would have taken steps to minimise their tax liability.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Get real fella. Or maybe I just inhabit the 10% world which you speak of where everyone is self employed or a consultant.

D

In reply to EeeByGum:

Absolutely not true. I've ended up like my parents, but my Dad ended up nothing like his (they were strict Jews, businessy, right-wing, stinking rich; he's aetheist, public sector, modest income, lefty activist). One of my best mates is a total hippy, Steiner teacher/single mum on benefits but her parents are uber-conservative upper middle class from Surrey, retired in France after her Dad's career as a Tesco bigwig.

It can go either way and it's unpredictable.

In reply to EeeByGum:

I think there's a slightly Mumsnetesque child-rearing method that gets quite 'can't suppress them, have to let them express themselves, little darling is marvellous, if they've smeared poo in your house then it's your fault not theirs, etc'

In reply to Dauphin:

I assume most of them are city types who are basically just employees but you msy be right

In reply to Cú Chullain:

Anyway most women on mumnet are guardianista luvvies arent they? Maybe dauphin is right snd hubbie is a BBC "consultant" for tax purposes

In reply to EeeByGum:

It's about the spirit you try to approach being a parent in, rather than being totally literal about it.

Neither of my parents are particularly musical but they've supported my brother in it so he can end up being a music teacher and make a living as a musician, other parents might have tried to steer him towards 'a proper job'.

What you say is true about always having an influence on how children turn out, but there are degrees.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Almost everyone seems to be at it. Tax is for the little people.

D

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Nail firmly hit on head there!

In reply to EeeByGum:

There's a body of evidence that it is actually the independant friendships children develop in adolescance and shortly therafter that influence their thinking, values and motivations most; not parenting.


What I was actually railing against were parents who decide what their child should want for themselves as an adult and push them towards it, at the expense of their child's development or happiness. I understand that you can't just let children do what they want, but you need to understand the difference between preventing injury or property damage at the hands of a 4 year old and making a 14 year old pick GCSE's that fit with your desire for them to do 'well' or choose a certain career.

I grew up in a household where I was not just allowed, but normal to argue with my parents; my opinion was considered to be valuble and if i could support it, then it would be taken into consideration when making decisions... They still had the final say, but I respected it that much more for being involved... As I got older and situations arose in which I would be the primary person affected, I made it clear that they would be my decisions to make, but that i'd welcome their opinions and guidence, so long as they didn't expect me to follow it by default, rarely was it that they didn't help me make a better decision than I would have alone, even rarer when we would agree.

Result: I studied what I wanted to study, worked full time in holidays but never during term time, took part in the hobbies i wanted to, traveled round west africa on a shoestring budget, blew my savings on a car, chose to live alone as soon as it was practical and figured out what the hell I want to do with my life... I dont want the same things out of life my parents wanted for me, but the two are not so awfully far apart and when asked, it means more to them that I'm a happy, well adjusted person.

In reply to Cú Chullain: maybe she doesn't see the money as he's squirrelling it into his escape fund...

If she doesn't work, and he does the finances why would she feel well off.

Maybe she isn't very bright (fits the mumsnet stereotype) and he just gives her a few hundred a month to live on.

250k salary means nothing unless you know the outgoings. If that's being swallowed up in school fees, boys toys and mortgage they won't have much to play with.

However, bragging online and not knowing how to enjoy that kind of salary is f'king stupid.

My money is on him having a bit on the side.

In reply to Philip:

Good point. Or he's lying - does she provide photo's (of her younger days)?

In reply to JJL:

Why would that £100k remainder go through lower tax bands? It is still part of the £250k gross isn't it? So let's take 50% and assume the wife is not working. They have £50k take-home to service all living costs, any outstanding mortgage, and leisure/recreation.

Should still be comfortable but as someone else said, they will be comparing their disposable income now to what it was before they had four kids at an expensive school. Plus comparing themselves to peers, as everyone does at every income level.

Tom Wolfe's "The Bonfire of the Vanities" (1987) outlines where a $1 million salary can disappear to so easily, for a man expected to lead the lifestyle of a man with a $1 million salary. It is a great couple of pages, in a great novel.

There are people getting by on £6k per year who will wonder why anyone on £25k has anything to moan about. There's always a smaller fish.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Because you're taxed proportionally - if you earn £250k you're not taxed at 50% on all of it.

In reply to Tall Clare:

No, you'll pay 40% on much of it. Whichever way you come at it leaves, post school and mortgage costs, about £40k net to live on.

In reply to Postmanpat:

In which case it looks like they've overstretched themselves.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Agreed about the 40%, by the way - and there'll be a little bit (relatively speaking) at 22% or whatever the lower rate is now.

In reply to Postmanpat: Which is still a lot, I would say.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Hardly on the breadline and she earns £40k on top.

In reply to MG:

For normal people, yes. If they're living a lifestyle of banking/private school/etc, it'll soon disappear.

In reply to MG:

Grossed up to £60k it's a bit over twice over the national average. It's very nice but with 4 kids to pay for there would be much room for extravagance. I guess many people would consider private schooling an extravagance.

In reply to Postmanpat:Going off on a tangent, when I went to Spanish classes my teacher there was of the opinion that state schools are kind of private in the sense that the houses in the catchment areas for the better ones are always more expensive, which means parents end up paying anyway.

In reply to Timmd:

The teacher was right

In reply to Cú Chullain:

Maybe she's got a crack habit that's she's not admitting to?

I don't know about dictionary definitions of rich but I see a family with an income of 11 times the national average salary as being rich.

I see a family that can afford to send 4 children to private school as being rich.

If you don't have any assets after earning that amount of dosh for a few years then you're an idiot.

I don't imagine they're living in a two bedroom flat in a sink estate either.

In reply to Cú Chullain:

4 children in private school and feeling poor on 250k is a form of back handed bragging. 4 kids in private school is a status symbol.

'Ooooo! poor me,hubby earns enough for us to fork out 60-80k pa after tax on school fees and we can only go to France once a year' Does she mention the nanny, cleaner and the range rover for the school run.

In reply to Tiggs:

She doesn't have a nanny or cleaner. She works during school time. She isn't bothered about her kids going to private schools, but her husband went to a private school and he feels as though he would be letting his family down if he didn't pay for his kids to go to a private school. Her children are happy and settled in their school and they can afford for them to go there, but it does then mean that they aren't rolling in it and that they do have to budget (but they don't have to go without). She grew up with very little money and is pondering the fact that she feels so insecure about money that she is worrying about it, even though they do have such a good income. She actually sounds pretty articulate, calm and thoughtful and intelligent. She doesn't feel sorry for herself - she is more wondering why she isn't more satisfied and wondering what it says about her. She can't talk to family or friends about those insecurities, so shared them with an anonymous internet forum (and us too!)

In reply to Tiggs:
You may have noticed that the many of the best paid and most interesting jobs in this country are disproportionately dominated by independently educated people. Might I suggest that spending money on children's education is therefore a sensible investment in their future rather a status symbol?

In reply to Postmanpat:

It could easily be both?

In reply to Blue Straggler:
Good post and I agree with your points.

In reply to Postmanpat: You can suggest it but do you have evidence to show that it is the schools rather than parents' ethos or inate ability that provides the advantage in most cases?

In reply to MG:

In the context of the motivations of parents it doesn't matter. If they believe it does then it as investment rather than a status symbol, albeit possibly a poor one rather than a sensible one.

I believe the evidence suggests that the most important predictor of outcomes is home background but not exclusively so.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I think you are right. For some reason "International Schools" seem to produce the most capable, balanced pupils in my experience.

In reply to MG:

Seem to produce a lot of americanised druggies in mine

In reply to MG & Postmanpat:

Included in the 'home background' definitions I've seen are the child's peer group. This is of course highly likely to be influenced by the school that the child goes to.

In reply to Cú Chullain:

Lots of interesting knee jerk responses on this thread.

If you earn 250k and you are sending 4 kids to private school in London and have a reasonable house for your family (4/5bedrooms) in a reasonable area (note I said reasonable, not high end) then that 250k will vanish very quickly and you won't have much disposable income.

If you have no assets your financial position will also be insecure.

So it's quite easy not to feel rich on 250k.

In reply to Tall Clare:

D'oh! Thanks (and thanks Postmanpat). I was being a dope.

I think a lot of people here - myself included - have not read the mumsnet thread in question and are replying only to the "headline" presented in the OP.

Wealth buys choice.

She is able to make the choice to have:
a) 4 children
b) have them all privately educated.

She is thus "rich"

The rest is all fluff.

In reply to Cú Chullain:

Interesting how many responses on mumsnet are 'take your kids out of private school'.

I would have thought that children's education is the singularly most important thing in life if you have a family (obviously assuming you have a roof over your head and food on the table before the pedants start....)

In reply to ClimberEd:

Fair enough... but if people feel they can't afford it, then they have to make the choice. There's always free state schooling as an option - and yes, I know it might not always be as good (but in some cases it can be better!)

In reply to ClimberEd:


As above, they don't have to while still having plenty of cash. Probably the lesson is money can't (or doesn't necessarily) buy happiness.

In reply to Cú Chullain:
If you are unhappy then you are not rich.
But your 250k may protect you from ever having to
live like the very poor.

In reply to Cú Chullain:

She didn't say that she felt poor or that she couldn't afford her lifestyle, including the private schools.

She was just amazed that having such a high income hadn't stopped her from having to budget or worry about money. I think she was questioning her own attitude, rather than asking for budgeting advice. I think she thought that if you come from a poor background, then you will never have enough money to feel 'safe'.

In reply to BolderLicious:


Life is like a jobby sandwich.

The more bread you have the less shit you have to eat.

In reply to ClimberEd:

I was starting to wonder if that migght be true.

She's rich, just not as rich as she would like to be

In reply to Postmanpat:

"Might I suggest that spending money on children's education is therefore a sensible investment in their future rather a status symbol?" The Freakanomics folks suggested that that is likely at least part a misunderstanding about causaility. From their research school performance is more about the quality of the parent than the school. In which case the good local comp/academy is probably a more sensible choice (most people who can afford fees live in areas with a good comprehensive/academy school anyhow although there are exceptions).

In reply to Cú Chullain: The more you have, the more you want and the less proportionately you are likely to give away. I don't think this is an urban myth...I think it's a well founded 'statistic', often quoted.

I feel sorry for rich people - they have to spend so much time protecting what they have and worrying about it.

Having enough and being happy with that - much better. Don't always practice what I preach tho'

In reply to Cú Chullain: I think us UKCers are soiled with the UKC forum. It's very easy to navigate and view threads. I've just tried looking at two threads on mums net and the way it is set out seems to be confusing and not logical. Also why do most of the topics start we "to"?

In reply to Cú Chullain: some serious trolling potential on that site.

In reply to myth:

No need to troll, from having had a look around some of my honest to god opinions and experiences would have them pretty riled... I suspect the same is true for many of us who are 'the outdoor type'

In reply to Cú Chullain:

Why are you on Mumsnet?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I heard a radio 4 programme that quoted a study that said schooling accounted for a 10% influence on a child's outcome. The other 90% was social class, parents influence - everything else really.