I think most people would see that as ultra rich or super rich. To most people “rich” means having significantly more money than them. So given that the median salary in the UK is £37k, most people would probably say someone on £80k is rich, even though its pretty easy to earn that much and still want for more.
Comment on The Telegraph has deleted this sob story
MrPoletki@feddit.uk 6 days agoI’m not sure there is actually a proper definition of ‘rich’ that would allow you to accurately classify a group of incomes into rich and not rich.
But if you were to think of it in terms of the ‘feeling’ I’d say I’d feel rich if I never had to choose a cheaper option for anything at all, ever, could eat out and check into a hotel for the night any time I liked, all whilst currently putting away a handsome investment of some kind - but still have more disposable income than I could possible waste between income periods with nothing but my own debauchery (barring expensive drug habits).
That’s what I call rich, thing is, some people can achieve this on much less than others due to their tastes and circumstances. I’d feel rich if I worked 9-5 and took home upwards of £300k for sure. Others might not though.
bollybing@lemmynsfw.com 6 days ago
WR5@lemmy.world 6 days ago
That’s all well and makes sense to me, but the person I was questioning stated that $350k+/year is not rich. All of those boxes you mentioned could be ticked way lower than that, and this is nearly 10x the median salary of the UK. That roughly means this family has the ability to spend 8x the median individual and still save/invest 2x their salary per year.
MrPoletki@feddit.uk 4 days ago
actually, while it doesn’t change the conclusion hardly, we have all forgotten that 395k wage is a combined income.
I mean these are still silly high wages… Having said that though, both the combined income, and that it’s very conceivable a good portion of that income is from capital gains, not work… they probably get more take home out of that 395k income than we’d expect too…
WR5@lemmy.world 4 days ago
I have not forgotten. I mentioned it was the family’s ability to use that money, not the individual! You are right that it doesn’t change the conclusion though.