We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
We're aware that dates on the Forum are not currently showing correctly. Please bear with us while we get this fixed, and see Site feedback for updates.

Am I trapped by my mortgage?

12467

Comments

  • InMyDreams
    InMyDreams Posts: 902 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Name Dropper
    I'd hardly class someone who is on 70 - 100k rich. Not when Sven was earning 6k per day after he was sacked from the England Manager's job. Then there are the players themselves who are on 30 - 40k a week?

    Company chairmen who screw up a company and then get a £1M payoff?

    Stockbrokers getting millions in bonuses?

    They're the rich ones.

    The people I know (including myself) who are on 70k plus have to work damned hard for their money and it involves a lot of personal sacrifice such as working long hours and being away from home during the week and weekends...

    Ouch! I agree whole-heartedly with Bargain Rzl, but this is taking things a bit far, I think. Those you mention are indeed rich, but it doesn't mean that someone earning £70k isn't. That's like saying a grand or two win on the lottery isn't huge or lucky because some people win a million. I think what you are getting at (and I agree) is that it's all relative, but there are people on far less than £70k who also work damned hard (and have done all their lives to get to the respectable places that they are) and also endure personal sacrifice and long hours amongst other things. And they consider themselves well off.

    I think sometimes it can be easy for those of us who have good incomes (and I include our family in that although my husband earns half what you do and I work for myself only very part time, albeit well paid when I do) to play the 'it's all relative' card. Yes, bigger houses demand higher expenses, but ultimately I do think priorities are different. What people consider to be 'necessary' expenses does vary depending on how much income you have (I'm thinking of everything; cars, holidays, education, clothing, size of house...) These are all necessary to some degree, but how much it is 'necessary' to spend on each one will vary with the lifestyle to which you are accustomed. The tendency in this country is to accustom one's self to a higher level than one really should which will have the inevitable effect of making you feel short for cash whatever your income.

    So I'm sorry, but at 70k I do consider you to be very well off because you have an awful lot more choice than most on where you put yourself on that spectrum. To say that it doesn't count because you have to work so hard for it is a bit of a cheek, to be honest and could imply that those who don't earn so much don't work so hard. And actually, no-one is forcing you (except yourself) to work so hard if your earning potential is so high. The majority of the country live on far less and have no choice about that.

    I had to laugh when friends of ours commented that I was so 'lucky' that I had a husband who could 'support' me when we made the decision to live of one income so that the children could have a parent at home full time. It wasn't 'luck'. We decided that as a family it was a priority and worth adjusting our place on that spectrum. And as for me being the lucky one, whilst I wouldn't change anything for the world, unlike those friends, I have also sacrificed my own career and therefore independence and some would say identity to do it. (I would call it a change of identity rather than a sacrifice, which I believe happened when I said 'I do' but that's a different debate.) Actually I do believe we are fortunate, but no less so than those other families. We were all fortunate to have had the choice even though they didn't believe they did. Although why they thought I did and they didn't is not clear to me. Maybe because they couldn't bring themselves to lower their place on that 'spectrum'. Their choice of house, holidays, schools etc wouldn't let them. It wasn't good enough for them, but fine for me. Hmmm.

    As for whether you are rich or not, yes it is relative. Of course it is. But to suggest that on an income of £70k you are struggling is more testament to your own ideas of where you lie (or deserve to lie) on that spectrum compared to where you actually should or do lie.

    Sorry to go off on one... I respect most of what you say, DD, but to imply that on £70k you are not 'rich' does beggar the question 'why on earth not?' I would be!
  • jamesd
    jamesd Posts: 26,103 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    At least half a million a year seems like a reasonably well accepted definition of rich, getting the support of 83% of MSE poll takers.

    You're in a minority here if you think it takes less than 100,000. Even at a million a year one poll taker in twenty doesn't think you're rich if you're single with no children:
    • A. £20,000/year 1% - (70 Votes) cumulative 1%
    • B. £40,000/year 4.5% - (307 Votes) cumulative 5.5%
    • C. £60,000/year 10% - (668 Votes) cumulative 15.5%
    • D. £100,000/year 27.5% - (1842 Votes) cumulative 43%
    • E. £200,000/year 18.9% - (1263 Votes) cumulative 62.9%
    • F. £500,000/year 21.4% - (1431 Votes) cumulative 83.3%
    • G. £1,000,000/year 11.1% - (743 Votes) cumulative 94.4%
    • H. £5,000,000/year 5.2% - (353 Votes)
  • Dithering_Dad
    Dithering_Dad Posts: 4,554 Forumite
    Mortgage-free Glee!
    InMyDreams wrote: »
    Those you mention are indeed rich, but it doesn't mean that someone earning £70k isn't. I think what you are getting at (and I agree) is that it's all relative, but there are people on far less than £70k who also work damned hard (and have done all their lives to get to the respectable places that they are) and also endure personal sacrifice and long hours amongst other things. And they consider themselves well off.

    So I'm sorry, but at 70k I do consider you to be very well off because you have an awful lot more choice than most on where you put yourself on that spectrum. To say that it doesn't count because you have to work so hard for it is a bit of a cheek, to be honest and could imply that those who don't earn so much don't work so hard. And actually, no-one is forcing you (except yourself) to work so hard if your earning potential is so high. The majority of the country live on far less and have no choice about that.

    Sorry to go off on one... I respect most of what you say, DD, but to imply that on £70k you are not 'rich' does beggar the question 'why on earth not?' I would be!

    I wasn't saying that people who earn less than 70k didn't work hard. In fact I dare you, no double dare you to produce any evidence of this based on my rant about Sven the ex-England Manager, various premiership footballers, CEOs and stockbrokers earning millions, for seemingly not much effort. How that statement could be perverted into "poor people are lazy" I'll never know :rolleyes:. Then again, no doubt a Premiership footballer will on to tell me how hard it is to perform on live TV every week in from of huge crowds and how they have a short career and how they're not rich and that the Billionaire club owners are the rich ones :rotfl:

    I was pointing out that people who earn 12k can work like hell for the money, but so do people who earn 70k, which seemed to be implied by our socialist worker pal that it wasn't the case.

    I also take exception in your statement "The majority of the country live on far less and have no choice about that". While the first bit about the majority living on less is true (and I was one of them until I started my company) the second bit is false because people do have choices. They can change their work prospects via education, training or by starting their own businesses. I didn't earn much in my government job, but then I started my own company and will bring in about £120k this year. Christ, if I can do it, anyone can!! :eek:

    And finally I'm not rich because I've not been earning this for long, so I'm more comfortable than before I started my company but a long way from being able to jack it in and retire! :)

    p.s. I do so love all the argie bargie that's returned to the usually sedate MFW board! It almost makes me wish Sloppy was back... almost. :rotfl:
    Mortgage Free in 3 Years (Apr 2007 / Currently / Δ Difference)
    [strike]● Interest Only Pt: £36,924.12 / £ - - - - 1.00 / Δ £36,923.12[/strike] - Paid off! Yay!! :)
    ● Home Extension: £48,468.07 / £44,435.42 / Δ £4032.65
    ● Repayment Part: £64,331.11 / £59,877.15 / Δ £4453.96
    Total Mortgage Debt: £149,723.30 / £104,313.57 / Δ £45,409.73
  • InMyDreams
    InMyDreams Posts: 902 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Name Dropper
    jamesd wrote: »
    You're in a minority here if you think it takes less than 100,000.

    Wow! I stand corrected then. That amazes me, but can't argue with an MSE poll.

    Well, all right, I can try...

    To be fair, votes were asked for based on "Not 'well-off' or 'comfortable' but rich!" (With exclamation mark included.) To me, 'well-off' is synonymous to 'rich' (and wikipedia agrees) and that is what I was taking about in this thread. The poll you refer to does seem to refer to something more than that.
  • InMyDreams
    InMyDreams Posts: 902 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Name Dropper
    Hello DD :)
    Will respond later... little dreamers won't go to bed :rolleyes:
  • Dithering_Dad
    Dithering_Dad Posts: 4,554 Forumite
    Mortgage-free Glee!
    Surely "well off", means comfortable, but rich means not really knowing what to spend you money on next, because you've got everything!!
    Mortgage Free in 3 Years (Apr 2007 / Currently / Δ Difference)
    [strike]● Interest Only Pt: £36,924.12 / £ - - - - 1.00 / Δ £36,923.12[/strike] - Paid off! Yay!! :)
    ● Home Extension: £48,468.07 / £44,435.42 / Δ £4032.65
    ● Repayment Part: £64,331.11 / £59,877.15 / Δ £4453.96
    Total Mortgage Debt: £149,723.30 / £104,313.57 / Δ £45,409.73
  • InMyDreams wrote: »
    Sorry to go off on one... I respect most of what you say, DD, but to imply that on £70k you are not 'rich' does beggar the question 'why on earth not?' I would be!

    Not with those whopping mortgages, I doubt :-)
    :T:j :TMFiT-T2 No.120|Challenge started 12.12.09|MFD 12.12.12 :j:T:j
  • InMyDreams
    InMyDreams Posts: 902 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Name Dropper
    Surely "well off", means comfortable, but rich means not really knowing what to spend you money on next, because you've got everything!!

    Hmmm, well I guess we're just getting down to semantics now. At least we know what each other means now ;)
    I wasn't saying that people who earn less than 70k didn't work hard. In fact I dare you, no double dare you to produce any evidence of this based on my rant about Sven the ex-England Manager, various premiership footballers, CEOs and stockbrokers earning millions, for seemingly not much effort. How that statement could be perverted into "poor people are lazy" I'll never know :rolleyes:.

    Um, not sure what the super-rich have to do with people who earn less than 70K or how that might clarify my misunderstanding of what you said about people who earn less than £70k. I also didn't say that you said 'poor people are lazy'. I said that your comments 'could imply' that they don't work as hard as you. That's a far cry from 'lazy' and even then only a possible interpretation. Your further comments
    I started my own company and will bring in about £120k this year. Christ, if I can do it, anyone can!! :eek:
    does seem to imply a feeling of 'why don't they?'. As if experience, skills (proven or otherwise, but most importantly marketable), vision, training, financial backing, opportunity, etc etc have nothing to do with it. You should be very proud of yourself (I'm sure you are) to have achieved this because the number of failing businesses today implies that no, not everyone can. And it's a big risk to take for many people. WELL DONE YOU! (And that's genuine in case it comes across as sarcastic. Sometimes hard to tell.) But to say that anyone can is just not fair.
    I was pointing out that people who earn 12k can work like hell for the money, but so do people who earn 70k, which seemed to be implied by our socialist worker pal that it wasn't the case.

    Thank you for clarifying. I didn't compute this from your earlier post. I never suggested that people who earn 70K don't work hard, least of all you.
    I also take exception in your statement "The majority of the country live on far less and have no choice about that". While the first bit about the majority living on less is true (and I was one of them until I started my company) the second bit is false because people do have choices. They can change their work prospects via education, training or by starting their own businesses.

    Yes, I agree to a certain extent. And given your experiences can understand why you take exception. But I maintain that most people have no way of commanding 70k a year. How many people try and fail? And education and training is much easier for some than for others. There are many other factors to take into account. I'm not saying it's been easy for you, but to make such a sweeping statement is not helpful.
    And finally I'm not rich because I've not been earning this for long

    Yes, I know. So given that it's a recent hike, you ought to *feel* wealthier than someone who's been living a 70K lifestyle for a while ;) Is this going back to semantics again?
    but a long way from being able to jack it in and retire! :)

    Guess it depends what you'd be happy to retire on.
    p.s. I do so love all the argie bargie that's returned to the usually sedate MFW board! It almost makes me wish Sloppy was back... almost. :rotfl:

    Now, now, DD. Anyone would think that you're just stirring. I noticed you resurrect *that* thread, too. Tsk Tsk. :p
  • Curv
    Curv Posts: 2,572 Forumite
    InMyDreams wrote: »
    But I maintain that most people have no way of commanding 70k a year. How many people try and fail?

    I'm guessing not nearly as many as those who say 'I've got no chance of earning 70k a year so what's the point in trying?'

    Most people settle for less because, for whatever reason*, they think that's all they can do. Some people try and do more and a proportion of those people achieve it. I admire all the people with the b0ll0cks to try and I applaud (not envy) those who make it.

    *Maybe it's got something to do with the number of doom-sayers who go around saying how 'fortunate' achievers are and how it's beyond the reach of Joe Public.
    Things I wouldn't say to your face

    Not my real name
  • InMyDreams
    InMyDreams Posts: 902 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Name Dropper
    Curv wrote: »
    Most people settle for less because, for whatever reason*, they think that's all they can do. Some people try and do more and a proportion of those people achieve it. I admire all the people with the b0ll0cks to try and I applaud (not envy) those who make it.

    *Maybe it's got something to do with the number of doom-sayers who go around saying how 'fortunate' achievers are and how it's beyond the reach of Joe Public.

    I still think that *most* people couldn't, with or without b0ll0cks. ;) Of those that could and don't, I'd say that the biggest reason is not apathy or lack of self belief as you suggest, but the risks involved. Even if you believed you had a 90% chance of realising returns twice your current salary, would you be prepared for the consequences of not? How long would you give yourself? Those consequences will be greater for some than for others. And when there's children/family involved so it's not just your life you're risking, what chance do you have to give yourself to make it worth it? There are also consequences of making it too, that have to balance out the extra money. If it is going to mean you spending less time with said family, is the money/stress worth it? If you have to relocate, is that worth it? My husband has a stressful job, but at least we don't have to worry (unduly) about his income being there each month. If that wasn't the case then we'd probably consider higher risks too.

    I don't 'envy' people like DD either, and am also full of admiration. And you'll note that I'm not condescending of the original poster to this whole thread either who was the first to be accused of being 'rich' by IFA. All I'm saying is that both he and DD *are* (imho which as jamesd pointed out seems not to be the opinion of the rest of MSE) advantaged by their current financial situation (well off / comfortable / rich / call it what you will). Hats off to them.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 348.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 452.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 240.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 617.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 175.7K Life & Family
  • 254.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.