UKC

I am rich in friends and I am rich in experiences, or so I think!
I actually think that I lead a comfortable life. The bank owns the lovely house I live in and I may manage to take it from their grappling hands by the time I retire.

I live in the Inverness area. As a teacher I earn £34,000 a year (give or take a few hundreds), not many quibbles with my pay considering I have lots of holidays and probably one of the best pension schemes remaining (to which I pay 14% of my earnings). My wife brings probably around £20,000 max as a self-employed consultant.
So before tax we're just over £50Kish. I have 1 mortgage, 1 car (luckily I can commute on bike/running), 2 young kids so childcare costs are not insignificant but not extortionate.
Even with all that, I live a decent life in which I can play, and visit my homeland and family once a year. At the end of the month I have nothing much left but that's ok.

I still wouldn't mind paying more taxes, so long as it doesn't go in the pockets of the undeserving politickers/crooks. I like the idea of a society that doesn't let its neglected/ poorest/ most vulnerable people in the ditch!

I'd even be ready to be payed less if we flattened the whole salary base. In my view, NO-ONE deserves to be paid more than £100K and at the top of my list would be the likes of brain-surgeons and most medical staff including nurses. Less high earners would mean cheaper accommodation and the whole thing-society-me would be more sustainable. But that complete utopy on my part.

Still I think I am rather rich and probably richer than the VAST MAJORITY of people on the planet!

BTW, before someone shoots my spelling, punctuation in flames...I am not a native speaker as my UKC name seems to suggest

In reply to French Erick:

Would agree, most of us probably have more monetary value in sports goods than a fair proportion of the planet's population have in total worth.

In reply to French Erick:

I think the general view is that anyone earning £5-10k+ more than you, whatever one earns, is horribly rich and should be taxed accordingly.

In reply to summo:

so true! I'd dread to make the count...it'd probably shamed me and scare me all at once!

In reply to Edradour:

I see...maybe I did not get the cultural nuances there, or probably just did not read the memo
Should I just cast the first stone onto those who earn single handedly £40K+ or is it the case of the household earning?
BTW if you earn around £20K on your own or £40K as a couple...I like my stones to be soft and polished (I am assuming that it would hurt less and I hate hurting!).

In reply to French Erick:

My household income is 60k+ (mostly me) so on the face of it we're rich, easily above the 30k average earnings for here. However, our Victorian 3 bed do-er upper cost us 325k to buy and another 75k so far in doing up, so the £1700-odd a month mortgage and high cost of living (£1.75 for a loaf of bread) eats all our money. We could do with a 'new' car but cannot afford to buy one that's any better than the kangoo we bought for £1.2k four years ago. Am I rich? Well, I 'own' my own property which I guess rules me out of being poor, but I'm certainly not rich. Rich would involve a new top-end german car/ yacht / swimming pool / holiday home / 2 proper foreign holidays a year / employing a gardener in my eyes. Someone on my wages who bought their house in the early 90s or before is definitely rich, but anyone who stepped onto the housing ladder in the 2000s or later is not rich.

In reply to French Erick:

Surely rich, in financial terms, means never having to think about the price of anything, nor worry that necessities (or frivolities for that matter) are out of reach.

In the same way, those that are rich in friends or experiences never worry that they are lacking something either.

In reply to French Erick:

You're rich when you draw £50 notes out of the bank and don't think twice about it. I'm in a comfortable place but have friends in the 0.1% in London and that makes me feel like a pauper when I look at their lifestyles.

It's not about salary it's disposable income...

In reply to French Erick:

Rich is all relative and in the mind.

I once thought I'd need lots of money and income. I don't.

In reply to French Erick:

Possibly when you have a few thousand spare each year after you've budgeted for bills and food and clothing, socialising to stop feeling like a hermit and a couple of holidays?

In reply to Edradour:
What do you mean by earning?

What happens if people have staked their houses on investing in ideas they believe in and built up a company which employs people etc.

Are they allowed to take dividends out of the company.?are the dysons of this world allowed to develop.

Where do you draw the line ?

In reply to The Marmot:

You'd be very rich (and I would too) compared to many people in Africa and Asia, though. It's possibly about perspective?

In reply to French Erick:

Let me say you speak very good English, and it's a bit sad to see someone 'disliking' you for such an uncontentious and reasonable post.

In reply to French Erick:

When are you rich?

When you feel the need to brag about it?

In reply to neilh:

Cool your jets mate, my comment was firmly tongue in cheek.

In reply to French Erick:

As 'a native' It can seem to be that there's cultural nuances of not talking openly about money earned and of being vaguely envious of people notably richer?

In reply to French Erick:

You're well off when you no longer have to worry about bills , but you're only rich when you're no longer obliged to take crap off anybody.

In reply to French Erick:

In general I agree with much of what you say. As someone who gave up teaching and earns quite a lot less out of choice because now I have almost zero stress I know I can live a very rich life in every sense except financial.

However, I'm also aware that I can only do what I do because I live in a rich country and if :-
was the case we'd all be a lot poorer because that approach stifles the creativity, ambition and wealth creation which makes our society rich.
So in summary, whilst I'm not motivated particularly by money, I'm glad some other people are.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


You're new here .....

In reply to French Erick:
When are you rich...I don't know, I'm certainly well-off but would worry for the long term if I lost my job, which isn't beyond the realms of possibility, however it wouldn't change my immediate quality of life. I could still go walking, climbing & paddling etc.

In years gone by I would have been first to man the barricades at the injustices of wealth. I do know/ have known people whom are very rich (by any ones yardstick). The ones I have met have been ordinary people (yes there are probably some right nasty ones as well that I haven't met), so I have mellowed. A them-and-us attitude just divides society as much as the wealth itself.


However it doesn't matter what you have when 'death' is very civilized pops his advanced calling card through the door, or more brutally turns up unannounced having done a days work. The only difference I've observed is that the very wealthy haven't got to manage grief and financial worry simultaneously, as many others/most do. So that could be one definition, but one of cold-comfort.................

Like you I'd prefer a society that doesn't allow misfortune to place people in the ditch.......but am struggling as hell at the moment to try and work out who I could vote for to that end.....

In reply to French Erick:

One of my skiing chums is definitely rich. He owns two Ferraris, one of which he keeps in his garage at Poole (which is a replica of the Ferrari F1 garage in the pit lane at Monza), the other he keeps in a garage at the Monza circuit itself so that he can drive it round the circuit when he feels the need. He's actually a very nice and humble bloke (not that I've ever been on the opposite side from him in a business deal).

In reply to neilh:


Well for a start such people are lucky enough to have grown up in a sophisticated and stable country where we have security and stability allowing us to stratify in to differing careers like law or engineering (rather than subsistence agriculture or itinerant hawker).

They're also lucky that the country has a reasonably robust economy which sustains a market such that the inhabitants are rich enough to purchase things like Dyson vacuum cleaners.

Innovations like Dyson cleaners are few and far apart in Afghanistan. I'd imagine sales of things like Dyson cleaners are very low in Mogadishu.

It all comes at a price.

In reply to Shani:
So do you punish them for being rich and successful, thereby discouraging others to do the same. Or do you allow them to enjoy and spend their rewards, knowing they keep many hundreds more tax paying people in stable employment?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


But surely that's half the fun of posting on here. People have a right to dislike what I say, I'll just dislike them in return For contentious posts all I need is post something about conditions on the winter forum...there's enough venom there to instantly kill a blue whale!

My English's no too bad...but all the worse for speaking to Brits all the time. My grammar was significantly better just out of Uni. Those Scottish friends of mine have a lot to answer for!

In reply to Padraig:


Funny how you can be interpreted. Rereading my initial post I can see where you come from.
Anyways mine is bigger than yours!!!!

In reply to summo:

Of course not. Who has said anything about 'punishing'? What a ridiculously polar position for you to take.

In reply to Shani:


Your Dyson stance came across that way, sorry.

In general how do you encourage innovation, risk takers etc.. without killing their motivation tax wise if they successful though, it's a fine line.

In reply to French Erick:

So consensus seems to be that you are truly rich when:
You do not need to worry about any expense (be it £50 or a new car)
You are in effect mortgage free
You would not suffer immediate issues were you being made redundant
You can afford what first appears as being frivolities (luxury car)

Truly this is NOT possible for the average £70k earner (unless he lives in Dalry or some such cheap place). May be it would be more constructive to be wondering the question in reverse: When are you most definitely poor?
I am far from poor, bragging aside (see OP)

In reply to Shani:


No-one has. Why accuse summo of it?

In reply to French Erick:

Anyways mine is bigger than yours!!!!

Would that be..ego, salary.. or troll ability?

In reply to French Erick:

unless he lives in Dalry

OMG, does anyone live there?

In reply to summo:

Stepped/graduated tax would seem to strike the right balance.

Another thing that helps uncover innovation is robust education of potential entrepreneurs. So educating our population would be high up the list. An educated work force would also help.

Depending on the business you were trying to start, I'd imagine robust infrastructure, for supplies and travel, and robust services (broadband, water, energy) would also rank highly.

Security and law enforcement - including a legal system, would also be essential.

But its too easy to focus on the success stories. What about the other side of the coin? If things failed for our entrepreneurs before they made their fortune, what system would be there to care for them if they were struck by musfortune - perhaps a car crash, house fire or disease. Who'd pick up the pieces? Who'd rescue them and fix them up? Who'd educate their kids?

In reply to aln:


Summo 2116hrs: "So do you punish them for being rich and successful,.."

In reply to Shani:

Asked a question

In reply to Padraig:

Camalot rack...you silly. Although the lady of the night I met last night, since I am rich enough to afford such services, seemed to think I was rather well endowed...come to think of it may be she was not looking at my rack (not the cams!...you silly) but my wallet.

My ego is resonable...for a climber (aspirations far above my ability), my salary is probably as good as it gets in views of my qualifications and lack of professional ambitions. As for troll ability...usually all my posts are dead ducks! I'd be actually pleased if for once someone thought I was one.

But more seriously: Was is being rich? Is it bad being rich? Can you truly be rich based on merit only? Do all current rich people deserve being rich? Should you be ashamed of being rich? Is it a case that only poor people think rich people are bad? Is it truly the case that anyone earning £5K-10K more than you obviously sold their soul to the devil? Should rich people spread their fortune more widely? All questions I am seriously pondering on (or is it about...god I hate those English prepositions!) just now. I mean right now, not all the time. The rest of the time is 10% work, 20% Family, 30% rockclimbing, 28% sex and some percentage points on food.

In reply to aln:


FTFY

In reply to Shani:


What does this actually mean? I've always wondered?

In reply to aln:

But the clear subtext to that question is the accusation that someone has suggested punishment.

In reply to Gone for good:

Fixed That For You

In reply to pec:

You might not be right on who gets motivated by money. Apparently, when when it comes to work involving creativity and intelligence, it works counter productive to increase salaries. Once you don't have to think about bills, the main motivating factors are autonomy, mastery and purpose. Well, that's according to Dan Pink:
youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc&

In reply to Shani:

Don't fix it for me, don't put words in my mouth, I actually strongly object to that.

In reply to French Erick:


Income vs wealth.
Totally different things (although one can sometimes lead to the other.)

Most of your list require wealth, rather than just income.
If you have a large mortgage and two kids at boarding school (I understand both those are choices) then £150k/year can leave you feeling poor because there will be little left over for additional luxuries. You would also be screwed if you lost your job.
If you have a large amount of wealth (well, assets really) these things are less of a problem.

However, if you think taxing income is controversial, trying proposing an undisguised asset tax! (plenty of disguised asset taxes through council tax banding, share stamp duty etc.)

In reply to French Erick:

In the end it's all borrowed anyway.

In reply to pec:

So in summary, whilst I'm not motivated particularly by money, I'm glad some other people are.

I don't think the ability to make mountains of dosh is what motivates most creative people. From almost all of them in my experience, the desire is some combination of curiosity, wanting to make a positive difference and just being enthralled every time they are creative. It's entirely possible with a more egalitarian society that we would see more creativity.
As far as I'm concerned, wealth creation is meaningless unless it's distributed in some fair way for some definition of fair. As it turns out - it's not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#Criticisms

Or an old article showing at least in Sweden - performance was not correlated with CEO pay: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sweden-executives-salaries-idUSBRE85D0R92...

In reply to French Erick:

You're rich when you have more spending power than most of those around you, and that includes people you don't socialise with. So top 10% I'd say, bottom 10% poor (iirc so called relative poverty). Not in favour of earnings caps though, just perspective and taxation.

Toerag - my sister & bf are skint at the moment, they just bought (their first) £2m house that's a doer upper, and are getting it fully refitted (with basement). I'd say they're still rich regardless, if a little cash poor at the moment, wouldn't you?

In reply to French Erick:

If you try and define rich in terms of pay or income or earnings then you aren't rich.

If you were rich you'd be defining it in terms of the value of assets - property, land, shares.

In reply to French Erick:

I will consider myself "rich" after Jan 15 th 2018, even though I will take a serious financial blow at that point.

By sacrificing my respectable income, and returning to Blighty while taking a bit of financial risk I will become time rich, as I will not be working.

I will become people rich, as I will have all day every day, (should we choose,) with my wife, and also access to my long standing friends, and my family.

I will become culturally enriched, as I will have access to my home country culture.

I will become creatively rich, as I will be able to indulge my many creative outlets, (photography, music making, paragliding, cooking, climbing, home-brewing, travelling, and many others.)

I'm looking forward to being rich. Lots.

In reply to French Erick:

Wealth not income (as others have said).

I feel rich as I value my assets in AU$ rather than £, the numbers look bigger
Cheers
LD

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Insightful response.

In reply to aln:

When Mrs Merton asked Debbie McGee what first attracted her to the millionaire Paul Daniels, i suspect you were left wondering why people were laughing.

In reply to Lurking Dave:


Ditto!

In reply to French Erick:

It's an interesting question and clearly needs to contain more than a purely financial dimension.

Living in a capitalist society we are culturally driven to thrive on competition and anxiety. I want the latest gadget, car, holiday destination. Marketeers ensure we feel anxious that we might be somehow missing out if we do not have these items or brands in our lives.
Money for me provides security and options. The security is physical, it provide a home and sustenance but also mental, it means that if I find work too stressful I can afford to walk away. That is a very valuable release valve, knowing it is there means you are less likely to need it.
I realised 15 years ago that making money through a PAYE salary was going to be challenging unless I was prepared to sell my soul. I focused on making money from property before having children. I spent lots of time researching the market, understanding the financial products available and building relationships with local estate agents. Fixing up your own house for sale is one of the very few transactions one can make without attracting CGT. Having done that a few times I was able to use my mortgage as working capital to pay for the renovation costs and had created a decent nest egg.
I also looked at my life like a business. Costs like food, energy etc could be seen as OPEX whereas I took different view to capital expenditure on items like house and cars. I only borrow on what I speculate to be appreciating assets.
My career has accidentally become more successful than I had planned I now find it hard to walk away from a large monthly sum. The problem with wages is that if they are there they get spent. I don't think my quality of life felt any different when I was asset rich and cash poor. The difference now is that with small children I want to be able to focus on them more and relax the purse strings. Which comes back to my first point that money buy me options. I can choose to life my life in many ways.
Someone else mentioned it earlier but as a culture we do not like to talk about money much, it can be perceived as being rather vulgar. I feel very lucky that many of my friends take a different and very direct view. This has allowed us to learn a lot from each others experiences.

In reply to French Erick:

Comparing oneself to the global population you are probably 'rich' if you are able to safely and securely contribute to this thread knowing where your next meal is going to come from and that you have a roof over your head.
All very pious and not very helpful as 'rich' is a relative term. Depends on the company you keep and the aspirations you set yourself.

In reply to French Erick:

In some ways 'rich' is absolute given the number of people in the world without access to essentials like food, safe water, shelter and warmth.

In others it's relative, we live in insular groups and we compare ourselves first and foremost to our peers. In Britain most (though disgracefully not all) do have those essentials so we measure wealth in money and non-essential spending. I'd say rich is when you can spend freely without concern for the value or cost of what you're buying and without a deleterious effect on your future. Whatever definition you pick there are holes to be picked.
jk

In reply to French Erick:

Que pensez-vous de la situation politique en France? Y aura-t-il un Frexit? Le Pen est vraiment populaire?

In reply to Shani:
Well I have been in a group of entrepreneurs targetted by Goldman Sachs.Out of 25 of us in a group, only 1 person had a Phd.1 person had a physics degree. 1 person had marketing degree.That was it.

Nobody else had a degree.I have not.

Robust education of entrepreneurs is a fallacy created by those with ...degrees.

Of course said tongue in cheek...but you get my point.

In reply to neilh:

I wasn't making the case for degree level education.

When I talk of 'robust education of entrepreneurs' I meant 'educate everyone in the country' and some will become entrepreneurs. (Of those entrepreneurs, some will become successful, some not).

Your point is anecdotal - but does contain some truth. I think Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell and Larry Ellison all dropped out of college. However, they all have clearly had a robust education. I guess like 'rich', 'educated' is a relative term.

In reply to Shani:

Focusing on the likes of the high tech end ( white male drop outs from 2 or 3 universities in the USA) does no justice to what is a huge group of people from different backgrounds in different markets.

Robust - is a loose definition to 16 year olds who leave school with zero education- and then are really apt in business.

its a big subject.

In reply to neilh:


Those examples were used because they are so high profile and well know. I had no intention of them being representative of all entrepreneurs. I chose them as 'drop outs' from tertiary education after you brought up the subject of degrees at 09:41. You seemed to be interpolating 'robust education' as meaning 'degree'. 'Robust education' is much broader than that.


I don't follow this. Can you give a few examples of "16 year olds who leave school with zero education- and then are really apt in business"?

In reply to thomasadixon:

You've not grasped my situation - where I live has astronomical house prices and the craziest houseprice:earnings ratio in the UK (14:1). I can't just move an hour's commute away to somewhere with cheaper houses like someone in London or Surrey can. So, for where I live I am not rich. If I were to sell up and move to Merthyr Tydfil and buy the equivalent house there I would be. If I were to sell up and move to Kensington I would be poor.

In reply to French Erick:

Some great answers I need to take time to read through! Tonight.
Shani: Ces questions méritent toutes un lien à elles seules! J'ai peur, elle est très astucieuse!

In reply to Shani:

Well personally I know such a person who left school at 14, son of a miner, first job cinema usher- now sits on boards as non -exec of various plcs having made his millions in his own business.

teh guy who owns that plumbing business in London - plimco is another. Mike Ashley- classic case- read his history.

But and this is a common confusion, entreperenuers inlcudes all sort who would not even be on your radar. Entrepreneurship is a huge area. So naming them is pretty pointless, you would not know them from adam.

In reply to neilh:


I am guessing these guys can all read and write, and will have basic maths - that to me is a robust education (not a complete defintion, but covers the fundamentals).

(I am enjoying the fact of you taking issue with "white male drop outs from 2 or 3 universities in the USA" to go on and name "white male drop outs from the UK").

In reply to Toerag:

I don't know your situation, which is why I gave another example. If I buy a shoebox in Clifton, instead of my house in a cheaper area, I'm not suddenly poorer, I'm just choosing to do different stuff with my money. Choosing to have an expensive lifestyle doesn't make you poor, only those who are rich enough have that option available to them, the vast majority do not - which is why I say people should get some perspective. If the vast majority can't afford any kind of house, and you can, then you're rich even if you're buying a shoebox. Those who can afford to splash out on yachts are extremely rich, not just rich.

Happy to accept that in your area you might not be rich, like I said I don't know your situation - amongst millionaires my sister's not rich either. She is rich in UK terms though (not that there's anything wrong with that, we're all quite proud/impressed with how she's done).

In reply to Toerag:

There are plenty of people who post on here that claim all farmers to be rich because of the land they own.
The fact that farmers cannot just sell their land on a whim and fly away to the Bahamas to live the life of Reilly on the proceeds has rarely (if ever) been accepted by these people, and rarely does anyone agree that said farmers are not rolling in it.
Now it is far easier to sell houses than farms.
I therefore suggest that anyone who does have a stack of money invested in bricks and mortar is indeed somewhere on the well off ~ very well off ~ rich continuum.

Obviously everyone has to live somewhere - but people do not NEED a 5-bedroom mansion for a couple.
I contend that anything above a 1 or 2 bedroomed terraced house, cottage or flat is actually a bonus, as people can always downsize to such when children leave or retirement beckons. At this point such people are quids in.

(I may be biased - single and live in a 2-bedroomed terraced house - but I contend that there has never been a need for me to obtain a house that I would rattle about in.)

In reply to Shani:
There is a big difference between the 2 though- I doubt my 3 had even heard of Stanford etc - and would almost for certainly have not got in.

I have not checked for their dyslexia- I had been told that this was a common feature - as a I am sure you are aware....also a religious belief is another common trait.

Oh and that group I mentioned- half were women- only 1 of whom had a degree

In reply to neilh:


Brilliant - although again, it is you who is introducing 'degrees' - i am not pushing a threshold of degree education as 'robust education'. I know a few millionaires with only a secondary education.

In the gig economy, I wonder if 'owner-drivers' of white vans and dog-walkers etc... are considered entrepreneurs?

In reply to French Erick: You are rich when you are happy with your lot and no longer envious of those who have more.

In reply to pec:

"As someone who gave up teaching and earns quite a lot less out of choice because now I have almost zero stress I know I can live a very rich life in every sense except financial."

This is an interesting position to be in. It seems a bit alien to me, as I would find it hard to live a stress free and very "life" rich existence with very low income (unless you have already built a cushion of assets to fall back on). I managed it fine in my youth, but it wouldn't work now. I guess it comes down to life choices we make along the way.

In reply to French Erick:

What kind of context are we supposed to take this in? In reference to class, politics, your social commensurate net worth statement, the upcoming election?

The rich are exceedingly good at hiding their means and also their goals and motivations.

D

In reply to Ridge:

Oh. A bit disappointed. I though it was maybe something ending with f*ck you!!!

In reply to Dauphin:

the context was taken from other posts discussing what was being rich. I believe it was to do with some statements made last week re taxation by politicians in this country and the upcoming election. Being busy looking into my homeland election (not living there anymore makes it difficult to keep abreast with changes... and I have to dedicate a lot of time to doing my homework) I haven't really checked the starting point. But I find it nearly irrelevant to my question. You may of course disagree from that premise.

What interested me was indeed without context, what people think on UKC on when you are considered/ consider yourself rich. I was taken aback, but not vexed, by what seemed to me mega figures: £70K seems too huge to me to say that this isn't rich. In my initial post I stated that with £54K ish, I considered myself fairly rich compared to the rest of the world. I am not wealthy and haven't got a lot of spare cash but all my basic needs are covered, and a few of my superfluous wants are also covered. I could easily spend more cash if I had it. I am no saint like figure and I love owning things.

I know that culturally people in the UK hate talking numbers. I am French, naive and ignorant and don't give a toss about this social taboo. This is why I started talking about my means, the only ones I know fairly well. All answers have brought me food for thoughts.

This is no attack. I genuinely don't understand the following:" your social commensurate net worth statement" (I have googled commensurate to check I knew what it was).

To all: so it is helpful to dissociate income from wealth. Earning and assets are also to be taken into consideration. The region you live in has an impact on your spending power in relation to your income. Anymore factors to add? Any thoughts about the following: what is indecently low pay? Is minimum wage enough to live (survive, live and thrive being different) on in 2017? Do you object to how much you are taxed?

In reply to TMM:


That I am still digesting. Not quite sure what to make of it yet.
To all: Keep that sort of stuff coming guys!

In reply to French Erick:

I work in Monaco.

Everything you think you know about money is mostly children's stories.

I recommend

Debt: The first 5000 years.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years

D

P.S. I pay tax in the U.K. - Sure, it's far too high. But it's easier to steal it from me than from Starbucks or Google.

In reply to Dauphin:


How depressing. Do you really consider the tax you pay to be stolen from you? Do you consider yourself above contributing financially towards the state and society.
I detest the mega organisations that don't pay fair taxes. It is effectively stealing from society and I have never been in Starbucks and bought anything from Amazon for that reason and hopefully never will.

In reply to Gone for good:

How depressing.

>I think whats depressing is total acquiescence to the state. They have the moral right to take an arbitrary sum from your pocket every month or week, whether you individually use the 'services' they provide or not. Dont pay and you go to prison. Seems fair.

Do you really consider the tax you pay to be stolen from you? Do you consider yourself above contributing financially towards the state and society.

>>>>>Clearly not. I work in a tax free country, I pay full PAYE in the U.K., on the other hand I don't acquiesce to have my wallet permanently farmed by the government either.

I detest the mega organisations that don't pay fair taxes. It is effectively stealing from society and I have never been in Starbucks and bought anything from Amazon for that reason and hopefully never will.


>>>>>Its a mixed bag.


D

In reply to Dauphin:

I don't see how paying taxes is equal to acquiescence to the state. I'm sure many tax payers are anything but acquiesent.
They certainly have the legal right if not the moral right to take a pre determined sum from your wages. How else do you expect the state to function?
I do think it's fair that tax evaders are pursued and brought to justice. It's just a pity the tax laws are that lax that many are able to get away with it.

In reply to Gone for good:







ONE PARTY TAKES MORE, SAYS IT TAKES LESS, TELLS US LIFE WILL BE BETTER WITH LESS TAX.

ANOTHER PARTY TAKES MORE, SAYS MORE, AND TELLS US ALL THAT OUR LIVES WILL BE BETTER IF I PAY MORE TAX.

TAXES BEING GARNISHED FOR NOTHING IN RETURN, CERTAINLY NOT REPRESENTATION.

You dont pay much tax, do you? Even you dont pay much income tax, add it to all the indirect taxation and its a small fortune every year. For what? More Donkeys like TM AND JC?



D

In reply to Dauphin:

What I pay in tax is irrelevant although suffice to say I pay my fair share which is more than the average taxpayer. Whilst I don't agree with everything that taxes get spent on I think on the whole it is directed to the proper areas, ie health, education, defence, overseas aid etc etc.

In reply to French Erick:

I can't comment on when one becomes 'rich' I suppose its a very subjective. I however feel reasonably well of, I have the opportunity to work regular overtime and I have an affordable mortgage. In my Limited experience (only 27) I've found the key is living within your means. I could have gone for a bigger house, however I reasoned that I didn't really need one, my phone could be a three or four of years newer but it seems to call, text take pictures and browse facebook just fine. My car (van) could be a newer model or have a few more extras however it's low miles for the age and will hopefully run for another 100k+.
I've shaved off the amount of overtime I was working recently (more climbing) buy making small changes to my lifestyle such as eating less meat, cycling or walking to work and not chasing the latest clothing fashions (not that i ever did but I now keep a very simple wardrobe).
I feel quite fortunate in that I had the opportunity to put a deposit on a house at the age of 24 and know that if the S*!t hit the fan I could sell up and invest in some where a little smaller, I don't feel stressed about anything and I don't generally worry about unexpected bills as a keep a close eye on my savings. I realize that this could all change should I have children, however due to a genetic disease I carry I've had to accept that they aren't on the cards unless I adopt.

In reply to Tigger: Yes, although I like having my kids, they are very expensive, with direct and indirect costs. You would be a rich man indeed if you had a couple of kids, but never had the need to worry about money, and could buy anything you wanted at anytime.

To Wanderer100: - it is easier to pay a lot of tax if you think it is being spent well - no man is an island (unless they are very unlucky). I pay 48& on a part of my income, but overall I am satisfied with where it goes.

'Everything you think you know about money is mostly children's stories.' Oh the irony!!

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Well before I left teaching I was already well established on the housing ladder so I do own a decent house with a very small mortgage (helped enormously by very low interest rates) so my housing costs are small. I've also got no kids which helps enormously.
On the other hand, we live very frugally, waste nothing, run cheap old cars and service and repair them myself etc etc.
I wouldn't say I'm on a very low income but often earn less than £20K per year, partly because I'm self employed but still take teaching holidays which is great except I don't get holiday pay!
I know it wouldn't suit everyone, but I really enjoy making and mending things so doing everything myself instead of paying people is actually enjoyable as well as saving money and you can buy the "stuff" you actually need so cheaply these days if you're not bothered about fancy high spec or poncy labels but mostly I just don't buy anything because mostly its just consumer crap you don't need.

In reply to Big Ger:

By sacrificing my respectable income, and returning to Blighty while taking a bit of financial risk I will become time rich, as I will not be working.

Bloody hell, does that mean that you'll even more time to post stuff on UKC?
Heaven help us...

In reply to pec:
I'd say you've got your shit together better than most (myself included). Very hard to do surrounded as we are, by a world of consumeristic bollocks. Hats off to you.

....and in the spirit of the thread, I'd say you're richer than someone on 100k or whatever, who's living beyond their means.

In reply to FactorXXX:


Oh much more time definitely!!!

On the other hand, I will no longer be so in need of communicating with people in the UK, so maybe I wont need to post...

On the subject of becoming rich, I'm desperate and pleading with everyone here to VOTE CORBYN!!

In reply to Big Ger:


So it's no longer the Labour Party then, but the Corbyn party.
Does this mean that the Unite leadership have full control.

In reply to Toerag:


You could save a fair bit on bread if you didn't buy the fancy stuff...

In reply to French Erick:

To be financially rich, I'd say you need to have enough assets (property, shares, bonds, businesses, patents, copyrights) so that the interest/dividends/royalties cover your costs of living. That way working is optional. It's your choice what you want to do with your time. Go climbing, find the cure for cancer, be a stay-at-home parent, work on your relationships, post on climbing forums - whatever. Of course, if you want a flash lifestyle then you need much more assets than for a simple one.

Of course, money is only part of it. I doubt it's much fun having loads of cash but poor health and no friends/family.

Better get back to work...
Brodes

In reply to summo:


Maybe we could have taxes on earned income at 10% and taxes on unearned income (say from renting a property, or inheritance) at 50%. Those numbers are picked at random, the point being that if you create wealth or add value to the economy you would be taxed at a much lower rate than if you are simply given wealth.

In reply to Andy Hardy:
I get your drift, but to differentiate the two it would be mired in clauses etc.. all potential dodges. As an example, I have forest I plant a tree, it's a long term commercial investment. But the person who fells that tree and releases the profit will be two generations down the line. Earned or inherited wealth?

I think if you want the wealthy to pay much more, 50 or 60%+ then an example needs to be set where even the lowest paid contribute a little, no matter how small. An ever increasing tax threshold just pushes the burden up the chain to fewer and fewer people.

In reply to jrck2:


Cheap stuff is £1.50! All sliced bread is imported since the only local bakery making it closed down a couple of years ago. Milk - £1`.26 a litre. The joys of living on a 'tax haven' island

In reply to French Erick:

From my point of view the Mastercard advertisement "...there are things you cant buy" is genius.

In reply to French Erick:

BTW: Complaining about tax and price, while somwhere people bite the dust on the street, that might be poverty.

In reply to Andy Hardy:


An interesting idea. Probably unworkable in practice. I don't really know what my tax bracket is. I have never calculated what % of my pay it represents on the basis that I do not grudge taxes: I like our Europeans systems of healthcare, I like libraries, I like the fact you can enroll kids to local schools at no upfront costs (and I appreciate this is not "free education").

I am not saying it is all perfect and I agree there should be scrutiny on how it is spent and accountability on the part of the "spender". Cutting tax is not a priority of mine, never has been and probably never will be.

I always consider the weird figure of salary per annum as being a red herring and only think about the money that gets into my account after all else is paid. I am happy to contribute to my health/retirement scheme (although I have doubts about what retirement will look like in 30 years).

As for assets, can things that you don't outright own (mortgage free) be counted as assets? Surely if it's not entirely yours, then it should not count as yours? May be I consider money in a very childish manner.

Dauphin suggested a book which I will purchased today (payday!), I have a suspicion it will depress me.

In reply to French Erick:


Well, yes. But most other people have a clue how much tax they will pay, how much NI they will pay, and how much pension contribution they will pay. You don't seem to want to bother with that. I want to know so I can check my payslip, so I know I'm not being fiddled by some financial system.

In reply to French Erick:

A day in work, a nice evening hill walk, followed by a pint and packet of cheese and onion in a quiet local country beer garden with your kid and collie.

In reply to French Erick:

Are you content? If not then no.

In reply to French Erick:

Actually this was discussed by one of the Saturday FT's columnists - who objected to being called 'rich' and thought it was better to say that he had a 'high standard of living'.

Anyway, he summed it up neatly, you are rich when you are insulated from changes in your position.

(essentially you have wealth rather than income.)

In reply to Andy Hardy:

I rent a property and I am not given that wealth. I pay a mortgage on that property with money I earn.

In reply to captain paranoia:


I did not say I did not know how much I payed, it is on the payslip and I know the figure. What I stated was that I never calculated what % of my salary it exactly represented, I know exactly that % for my pension in contrast. I am ok with paying taxes because I think it goes (mostly) to the right places.

I agree with you that payslip should be checked. To what degree of scrutiny should I take the taxes, I am not sure. There might be fiddling in there. Often people check that in order to pay less (and I am not accusing you of tax evasion!).

In reply to French Erick:

Ifs its financial then I guess owning a home, a pension, two cars and a foreign holiday might define well off. Being comfortably well off would be having the above without debt.

In reply to summo:


I can see where Shani is coming from and also you. There should a clear distinction here about how the wealth is gained and how its distributed. Being a rich banker for crippling the economy due to dodgy betting is bad. Being rich due to hiding your and other's wealth to reduce tax is bad. Being a rich aristocratic landowner who manipulates property prices is bad. Being rich through inheritance and not further contribiting is bad. Being rich due to damaging a company or being paid vast sums yet creating no wealth, employment or dividend is bad. All my opinion of course.

Being rich through entrepreneurial risk taking which creates economic and social value is good. Being rich through being a rich benefactor/aristocrat and then adding considerably to society is good. In these areas Dyson, Gates, Branson etc are good.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Which is worse though, a few ultra rich escaping paying the full amount of tax, or having a tax regime so tight it discourages entrepreneurs? I'd rather all the rich paid tax, but I would not want to push the Dysons, bransons etc of this world to USA etc..

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:



It takes a society , not an individual , to create the products and subsequent wealth associated with the worlds "wealth creators". This is the basis for the high taxation of the wealthiest being morally just.

If you took Dyson, Gates and Branson, dumped them in a house on an isolated island with a comprehensive workshop, food , power etc. And gave them 6 months to produce a functional replica of a bic biro you'd be more likely to end up with a crime scene than what you'd asked for.

In reply to Stichtplate:

Or a computer control vacuum cleaner that they could fly?

In reply to French Erick:

The guys I'm working with in Juba are off $3.75 a month, when they get paid, and there is about 375% inflation. I am mega rich. Even the national staff that work for the NGO spend their holidays in the countries their families are refugees in, working their plot of land.

I suppose everything is relative, you are better off than some and worse off than others, when you want to draw the line for striving for more is up to you.

In reply to Stichtplate:


That, sir, is bollocks.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:


Ok , go out and see what you can manufacture on your own without the massive support network society provides us all with . Personally I could manage a tent peg. How about you?

In reply to Stichtplate:


I think an island with gates, Dyson and branson would fair better than one with Corbyn, abbot and McDonald.

Yes any society needs health, education etc.. but it also needs people who are prepared to get off their a $$, graft and sacrifice with a view to the future.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

What he says is very true, it isn't bollocks at all. I know of somebody who made a few million by selling their company, but the company started with their education as a child, and then grammar school (being the 50's) and then the grant they got for university (paid for by society), and later on the business grants he got to help develop his company with, because without investment the company couldn't have grown.

When he sold it, he was employing 15 people in the UK (enabling them to pay mortgages and to afford to have children), and bringing revenue into the country through the products they sold.

None of the money he made for the country (and still makes with the company as his legacy), or the taxes generated through the wages of his employees, could have happened if society hadn't paid for his education at school and university, and then helped his business to grow.

He was always happy to pay half and just over half at times of the wage he drew from the company back in taxes, because he recognised how he'd been enabled along the way, seeing his taxes as contributing to society and giving something back.

In reply to Timmd:

I don't think any is disputing that the successful shouldn't be taxed. But there is a lot of politics of envy at the moment and crazy tax will demotivate, if it gets too extreme.

In reply to summo:


No argument there. My point is that there is an increasing tendency among the libertarian right and Silicon Valley tech companies to view any taxation as an imposition on their freedom, and a reluctance to recognise the huge role society plays in any individuals prosperity.

As examples look at the increasing prevalence of corporate tax avoidance and the increasing gap between the rich and the poor since the financial crisis.

In reply to summo:
He seemed happy enough paying half (or a little bit more) back in tax.

If you work hard enough you can get to a place where it doesn't matter, it's not envy politics, it's a spur to encourage people to work harder.

Joking aside, what I was arguing is that it isn't bollocks that people generally can't create wealth without the help of wider society.

In reply to Stichtplate:


If it bothered average Joe that much Facebook, Google, Amazon, Starbucks, sports direct etc would be out of business.

In reply to Timmd:


Would agree.

UK problem is tax at all levels is now too low to fund society properly. Only no one is prepared to pay more to improve it either.

In reply to summo:

So massive tax avoidance and increasing financial inequality is nothing to be concerned with?

In reply to summo:


A very lazy analysis. For decades the wealthy have decreed progressive taxation as the politics of envy.

To say "crazy tax will demotivate, if it gets too extreme" is ridiculously tautological. Of COURSE "crazy tax will demotivate, if it gets too extreme" which is why nobody on this thread ever has suggested "crazy tax" that is "extreme".

In reply to Timmd:

To avoid survivorship bias it's also worth looking at those entrepreneurs who took big risks and tried to innovate but through bad luck, illness or some other misfortune - or perhaps through criminal means (i note some banks are under investigation for forcibly pushing businesses in to liquidation and ruin - http://ind.pn/2ej5rtp), were rescued from destitution by our welfare state.

Our welfare state is a safety net for everyone. Entrepreneurs like JK Rowling attest to its value.

In reply to summo:

Oh God, do you actually read the posts on this topic OR consider your own responses?

Several of us have said we are proud of our welfare state, NHS, education system, Olympic/sporting infrastructure, and the BBC (a source of global soft power), and are prepared to pay tax for these. These institutions make Britain great. They embody British values. I am happy to pay tax for them.

I am not happy for people or business to freeload on the back of this fertile economic environment. That fertility depends in part on those people paying a fair share of tax.

Every time we suggest progressive taxation and a clamp down on tax avoidance YOU leap to the defence of tax dodgers like Branson and play the envy card.

In reply to Stichtplate:


Never said that. But clearly most people don't care enough to change their own spending habits.

In reply to Shani:

Given the fact that i live and pay tax in Sweden, please spare me the rant about how you are so desperate to pay more tax in the UK. I fully understand the connection between tax and services, I did my Swedish tax return yesterday (2 and 12th may deadlines) and see where the money goes nearly daily. For the past 30 years no UK politician has ever pledged to increase tax and been voted in. The UK continually promises to lower tax, increase thresholds etc and improve everything, then folk look for things to blame when schools or hospitals lack funding. It would be comical if it wasn't so bad.

In reply to summo:


A lot of people smoke, binge drink and eat crap too.
Just because people act against their own interests doesn't change the fact that it IS against their own interests.

In reply to Stichtplate:

But that's because people are a hypocritical bunch who want their cake and eat it?

In reply to Shani:

Funny thing this idea of tax. You succeed today, you pay today. Some want you to pay more, some less. I am not clever enough to know if this "pay today"tax is enough to stop people trying to earn more today.

Despite inheritance tax what sits way above all that "pay today" tax is the wealth that just trickles down through families, generation after generation. Wealth is indeed power.

In reply to Shani:

I was arguing that he couldn't have done it without the help of society.

In reply to Timmd:


Yeah i know and I'm agreeing with you!

You made the point that successful entrepreneurs need society and I was adding that unsuccessful entrepreneurs also need society.

In reply to Stichtplate:


Wrong!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38570809

Not saying inequality is desirable or at an acceptable level. But don't believe everything you hear just because it feeds your perspective.

In reply to Shani:


Tosh.

Try working in an industry with really good and really bad times and answer that again. In good times my self employed builder dad earned good money, built houses and paid stacks of tax. Building goes down the toilet, as it does about every 5 years, and society is nowhere to be seen. Own little, earn little and society might come to the rescue. Otherwise look out.

In reply to BnB:

>But don't believe everything you hear just because it feeds your perspective.

You're right , going off official figures things look fine , but declared income and assets can't take into account all that undeclared cash swimming around the system. An estimated 21 trillion dollars held in offshore accounts. Your average family doesn't have an offshore account and can't afford the kind of accountancy firm that can disguise your true earnings.
For more concrete figures consider that in the early 80s the average ftse 100 boss earned 60 times the median wage and now earns nearly 400 times that.

In reply to Timmd:


Not true for Branson or Gates. Both left full time education early because they were in a hurry to pursue their entrepreneurial dreams. These fellows have vision and energy that goes well beyond the norm and I would argue that the only thing they need from society is a ready supply of customers in a functioning economy.

In reply to BnB:

You're taking an incredibly narrow view of this. Consider Branson's first company. What about the recording artists, record printers, hi fi manufacturerers, electricity generators and the ten thousand plus other factors, all essential to him getting a record company off the ground? Nobody can get rich on their own.

In reply to BnB:


Branson came from a well off family.

More to the point, he got very lucky in signing Mike Oldfield and Tubular Bells. Nobody could have predicted that kind of success. Luck played a huge part.

In reply to BnB:

Those two people prove that education isn't needed . Close the schools, sack the teachers, reshape society in favour of the business people........but what about maths?

I'd argue that Bill Gates got a pretty decent education even if he did leave early, and they're beyond the norm as you say. Through being exceptional, by definition they aren't examples of what commonly happens.

In reply to Shani:

Oh, the old J K Rowling myths again...."Remember that story about how only five years ago J. K. Rowling was a single mother on the dole, scribbling the first Harry Potter book in an Edinburgh coffee shop with baby Jessica dozing in a pram, because her unheated flat was too cold? It's a good rags-to-riches story, right up there with Stephen King writing Carrie in the laundry room of a rural trailer.

Too good, it turns out. Yes, Rowling was a single mother with a bad marriage behind her, and yes, she was briefly on the dole. But the coffee shop was owned by her brother-in-law and Rowling was never far from her middle-class origins.

Joanne Rowling (she gave herself the "K" as an adult) was born in Gloucestershire, the daughter of a Rolls-Royce engineer and a school laboratory technician. Her mother died in 1990, at the age of 45, after battling multiple sclerosis for a decade.

Devastated, Rowling moved to Portugal to teach English. There, she married a trainee journalist in 1992. The marriage foundered - husband Jorge Arantes said Rowling admitted she didn't love him - and she moved to Edinburgh to be near her newly married, younger sister.

Refusing to reside with her father, who had married his mistress, Rowling lived on welfare benefits while training for a full teaching certificate. Later, she taught French at a British school. She had begun writing about Harry Potter in Portugal and finished in Scotland. The rest is history.

In reply to French Erick:

"I have never calculated what % of my pay it represents on the basis that I do not grudge taxes:"

Likewise.. I dont see why taxing is stealing..

In reply to Shani:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/new-money-fuels-rise-of-wealthiest-...

75% of the top 1000 richest people in the UK have made their money since 2000. Which would appear to fly in the face of many peoples theories that only wealthy stay wealthy etc.. I know you will say that is because they benefited from society etc.. which of course true for every one of us, but it is more likely because instead of blaming things for their woes, they made it happen. You don't meet negative, pessimistic successful people.

In reply to Timmd:


Bill Gates, son of a prominent and wealthy lawyer, left Harvard of all places in the middle of his first degree. That's an incredibly risky definitive step into enterprise for someone already destined for huge professional success. My point was not that degrees aren't important. It's that they aren't important to entrepreneurs.

Of course a stable society provides the infrastructure for talent to thrive and I'm not denying that, only asking that you rethink what entrepreneurship really is. It's about risk, self belief and the ability to bring people along with you. Society can provide building blocks, like education, but it can't manufacture entrepreneurs. That comes from within.

In reply to Stichtplate:

See my reply above. Timmd said: "None of the money he made for the country (and still makes with the company as his legacy), or the taxes generated through the wages of his employees, could have happened if society hadn't paid for his education at school and university" I simply addressed that misapprehension.

You're correct when you say that every enterprise needs a market, i.e. customers, suppliers and employees. And you can add to that tax incentives. But those don't in themselves deliver the qualities that successful entrepreneurs embody.

I've had some moderate successes of my own as an entrepreneur for the last 22 years of a 32 year long career. You can be assured my view is comprehensive and considered, not to mention forged by experience.

In reply to Shani:


So why did Mike Oldfield sign with an unknown label? Could it be that Mr B's persuasive powers are remarkable. Or if Mike O was happy to sign for the first deal on the table, no matter who, how was it that Branson was first to see the potential?

Luck my arse. Opportunities surround us, but entrepreneurs are quicker to see them. Or skilled at improving existing goods (Dyson) or services (Direct Line). More to the point, they act on their instincts, risking career and money. Usually, in the case of a first business, putting their homes on the line, the lucky buggers.

In reply to BnB:

The point that I'm trying (unsuccessfully) to make is that to generate and keep wealth requires a functional society. The West has been so successful in creating wealth because its citizens are ,by and large,law abiding and recognise the value of the social contract.
If everyone who achieved wealth moved to a private island like Branson , or put most of their cash in their wife's name and moved her to Monaco like Philip Green, then this social contract would begin to break down and we'd end up looking more like a third world state.
With the result being much less opportunity for people to become rich in the first place.

In reply to Stichtplate:

Of course. But I don't see why you think I don't get this. Obviously you don't know my situation but I hope you'd be pretty happy with the nature of my "social contract"

In reply to French Erick:

Mange tout .....mange tout. Trigger

In reply to Big Ger:

Thanks for the evidence that JK Rowling relied on the welfare state ('dole').

In reply to BnB:


It was Oldfield who was being turned down by record companies as his album was an instrumental. Branson was actually convinced to sign Oldfield by an engineer. But that success gave him the money to take risks in the future with limited consequence if he failed (the wealthy can afford to fail).

In reply to BnB:


Maybe you do ? I was getting the idea that you mistakenly thought I was arguing that entrepreneurs were dependant on free education and the welfare state.

In reply to Stichtplate:


No. Others were suggesting that, not you.

In reply to Shani:


Whose money did he put at risk? The engineer's or his own?


Or the freedom never to take risks (or work) again, yet look what he's since achieved*. All luck as you say.

*Branson is actually a long term customer of my IT business at both Virgin Money and Virgin Media and he strikes a tough deal.

In reply to BnB:

Nice to find ourselves arguing about nothing again.

In reply to Stichtplate:

Indeed

In reply to BnB:


I think you might be projecting what you think I think onto what I've posted? In pointing out the business person I know of had their early education paid for by society, and their degree, and then benefited from business grants to help their company to grow, I'm not negating their hard work, the risks they took, or anything else involved in starting a company from a spare bedroom and turning it into one which employs 15 people. If somebody's worked 100 hour weeks at times, it's got to come from somewhere deep within.

With you being somebody who has started your own company yourself, I get why you're keen to make sure I know what's involved. I was just pointing out the role wider society has played as well (which he originally pointed out to me).

In reply to BnB:

Come now, you're adopting Summo's polarity approach here. How many times does 'a Mike Oldfield' come knocking with a 'Tubular Bells'?

The music industry is rife with unexpected hits and surprising flops. I don't buy that Branson could have known TB would be so big. He took a risk with the album and it paid off handsomely.

In reply to Shani:


My point in a nutshell.

In reply to BnB:

Then we're in agreement - and not a point anyone on this thread is disagreeing with. If only you could appreciate the luck involved in starting a record business and Tubular Bells is your first release! Plenty of bands have released music that has gone nowhere.

In reply to BnB:

Huh? If they come from a poor background (which has often been the case), entrepreneurs often 'are' dependant on free education.

Listen to this about the traumatic events or experiences of poverty during childhood which can often be the motivation for successful business people. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00nh06m

The successful businessman I know had a childhood where he never went on holiday because his parents couldn't afford it, he and his brother made their family Christmas tree out of what was available, and made the set of tree lights, and both had lots of occasions where they asked for things and were told there wasn't the money for them. He was promised a bike if he passed his 11+, and then told that his parents couldn't afford it once he had done.

Without a free education he'd never have developed a business which still benefits UKplc...

Having noticed the link between poorer childhoods and having more drive among his business friends, the idea that a free education isn't important towards helping make the most of the potential in this country (in helping to equip future business people), seems very strange to me, and somewhat divorced from reality. Like something of an ideological viewpoint.

In reply to French Erick:

If you're posting on here you're rich.

Ofcourse, it's all relative. I'm not rich compared to my yachty friends.

I am rich compared to some of my other friends.

In reply to Timmd:
I think you're exaggerating our differences. I took issue with the suggestion that your friend's degree had made him an entrepreneur, not that it hadn't served him well.

As it happens, true to the examples you linked, I happen to come from no money and endured a traumatic childhood. The state uplifted me educationally to the extent that I ended up studying at Oxford University with the help of an 11+ success for which I'm very grateful.

But as I look back at my career from the far end, I find myself reflecting that my degree did very little for me professionally. In fact I think I would have been a far more successful entrepreneur (or at least much wealthier) if I had been less swayed by the urge to compare myself with the bankers, lawyers and accountants that I went to university with, and had gambled more on my instincts.

Degrees are nice and you could certainly argue that Oxford was a good proving ground, but my entrepreneurial achievements stem from the same qualities that helped me to win a place there and certainly not from the degree I didn't bother to graduate with.

In reply to BnB:

Hmm.

I think my University degree has helped me significantly - the flip side of all the CVs I've rejected when I needed to cull 30 to 3 and all that was left was academic record.

In tems of "rich", I think it's a bit silly to take a global view - we can always find someone worse off (not just financially; several people have told me that cancer is ok because other people get bombed or whatever) but that's not really the point.

I think "rich" isn't an amount but a situation on a sliding scale:
- starving; hand to mouth
- effectively bankrupt
- uses food banks; significant unpaid debts
- regularly pawns things or takes payday loans
- watches weekly income and makes choices accordingly; has unpaid credit card debt
- watches monthly income and makes choices accordingly; has unpaid credit card debt
- clears monthly payments but watches like a hawk to do so
- clears monthly payments and can budget a couple of treats (usually for the kids)
- clears monthly payments and saves
- makes additional pension payments or other savings; takes a foreign package or UK rental holiday
- routinely pays bills; concerned about net assets and making savings "work"
- significant buffer (6 months spend+); takes financial advice to optimise position
- focus on optimisation rather than threats; investment, retirement and IHT planning
- significant external support in managing financial affairs; unlikely to know who supplies their electricity
- all financial affairs managed by support professionals


That's a rough view. You can invent your own scale. The interesting thing is then to assign what proportion of [UK] people are at each level. UK kicks in at bankrupt.

In reply to French Erick:

When you start talking in billions and trillions

In reply to BnB:

You're possibly right that I am. The personal qualities needed to grow a company you mean? That's probably true. Since he became an engineer and built up an engineering company, though, without his degree it would have been impossible for him to have had the life path that he had without a grant for his degree provided for him by the state (with South Korean nuclear power stations using his software, his company reaches quite far from the UK regarding it's market ). Of the baby boomer generation in which there was a lot of social mobility, that's probably true for a lot of people who specialised in something requiring knowledge other than instinctive business acumen, I would suggest.


I'm glad at least something good came from your early experiences. I guess it depends on what kind of business one is talking about and where the expertise needed can be learnt. I was having my engineering example in mind in talking about the importance of free education and free degrees for the poor(est) people who may be talented.

In Sheffield there are parents who'll rent out their own family home which is outside of the catchment areas, and use the money to rent somewhere close enough to a school they want to send their children to.

In reply to BnB:


I've known two (£)millionaires. One we can discount as he won his money on the pools, (remember them?)

The other was my uncle Terry*. Terry started work as a shop floor apprentice with British Leyland in South Wales. When the company was going to the wall in the late 70's and early 80's, he was going to be laid off.

Him and his mate took their redundancies, remortgaged their houses, took out loans, and bought up plant that was being mothballed by the company, and set up their own parts, (mainly radiators,) company.

By shedding the restrictive union practices, investing in development, and working all the hours god sent, they made a massive success of the firm.

They sold the company in the Mid 90's, and retired early..

Funnily enough, in his mid 50's he did his first degree, a OU one in history.


*RIP Terry mate.(He died this January.)

In reply to blackmountainbiker:


More likely you pay mortgage on that property with the rent you collect.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:



Been away for a bit, I'm confused here - are you renting out your own house while you rent one yourself somewhere else? or do you own 2 houses, and rent 1 of them out?

In reply to Timmd:



*Wouldn't have been.

In reply to Timmd:

Argh, would have been, I meant. Damn insomnia.

In reply to BnB:

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S33/87/54K53/

In reply to Shani:

Good joke in the intro. I enjoyed that. But I can't see the relevance to our conversation. He's berating a bunch of Princeton students bound for well paid jobs at Saloman Bros about how lucky they are.

What does that have to do with entrepreneurs, who at the outset of their path into business and before they acquire wealth wilfully pile up risks and obstacles that the "normal" professional wouldn't dream of undergoing? This is what entrepreneurship looks like:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39744294

In reply to French Erick:

When you have a nice amount of monthly income and you can plan your future without always thinking about what will be tomorrow.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

We rent out our house (we own) and rent one to live in as we cannot find a suitable property to buy in our new location.

In reply to fred99:

We rent out a property we own and rent another property to live in. After tax we are not making a profit on the transaction but as we cannot find a suitable house in our new location at the moment we are hanging onto it until we do. Your assumption is sort of correct but you could say we pay our rent with the money we receive, well some of our rent.