Interesting article about the rich

Ewww, I hate polly toynbee <shudder> but I do agree some of the justifications offered were quite tenuous. I also think that her sneering, bitter-infused writing style undermines much of what she writes. ?

I just think she's a left-wing Melanie Phillips. They're both vile.

It was a pretty nasty article really...although working amongst these "rich people" every day I can vouch for some them having their heads in the clouds on certain matters.

<nods> Agreed.

Im not sure I liked the way she wrote it but the figures she cites are quite revealing.

ETA - id never heard of her before so didn't know of her "inclinations" ?

Hmm....

It's not fair, it's not fair. it's not fair!!!!

*stamps foot!*

I couldn't be bothered to read the entire article as I found it's sneering, vitriolic tone too off putting. Some of these views are baffling, it's true but how many 'average' people would guess that to be in the top earning 10%, you would need to earn just under £40k? I agree that some of the high-earners quoted did have some pretty odd ideas about money though.

To put another perspective on things, my husband is an investment banker earning a very good wage although nothing like the £500k-£1million bracket. A lot of his friends are very high earners. Although the 'all-nighters' were sneered at in the article, they aren't a one off. H leaves the house just after 6am and if he's home by 10pm, that's an early night. We've had to cut short/cancel holidays because work have demanded his presence 'immediately'. He has little social life & if he is called into work at the weekend, he can go weeks hardly seeing our son. I'm not being poor me about this, he's chosen this job & this is the lifestyle that goes with it. His pay is partly to compensate for this. The atomsphere he works in is very high pressured, competitive and if he isn't more than up to scratch, he will lose his job. Again, the pay compensates for it. Personally, it would drive me crazy to work in such an environment & I don't think the money is worth the sacrifice.

What I have discoverd is that H is very out of touch with 'real' money. He spends his life making million/billion dollar trades & seeing figures in these huge multiples. The higher up the career ladder he climbs, the less he seems able to retain perspective on smaller figures. A quick poll of other high-earning friends showed they were similarly out of touch with real money.

I didn't read whole article, so may have missed this, but what about footballers/pop stars/models? They earn far more than the £500-£1 million a year & yet are seemingly not singled out for this kind of attack. If it's to do with 'background', many very successful bankers come from 'poor' backgrounds, in H's opinion, because they have the guts & toughness to survive in a high pressure, hostile environment.

I think that the journalist has jumped on a bandwagon without fully researching her facts. The article certainly has valid points but thickly smeared with resentment & stereotyping.

I totally agree with Magnolia. H doesn't work in the City but does work in Finance and his best friend is one of these high flying investment bankers. He does have a gorgeous house, his wife doesn't have to work, they don't think about the cost of things. However, they just had their first baby - and he was only able to have 3 days off work before being expected to fly to Alaska for a week. He had also been travelling to the Middle East and New York on a weekly basis up to the time the baby was born. There was a great possibility that he would not be home when the baby arrived. He had no choice. If he wanted to keep his job then he had to do it.

Whilst we were all on holiday last year Rich had to fly home 2 days early (and come out a day later) than the rest of us due to business deals that were occuring. Now ok, he didn't bat an eyelid and the cost involved, but I would have been gutted if that was my H.

H and I have in the past discussed him moving into a more high paying area of his industry but we aren't prepared to make the compromise on our social life. In the past I used to envy these people with their massive incomes, having seen it close up I no longer envy them.

I too didn't like the writing style but still, the people interviewed sound utterly out of touch with reality and to be honest I'd find it hard not to sneer at some of the more ignorant and crass comments too.

Money might not buy you happiness but it sure does buy you a nice high brick wall to shield you from other people's unhappiness and struggles.

Magnolia - yes rock stars and footballers get over paid too but they live in cloud cuckoo land to a greater or lesser extent, and moreover aren't making financial or legal decisions that affect the whole country directly or indirectly.

I doubt that people who are out of touch with the budgets that the majority of people live within are the best people to play with our finances.

And the article points out that the superwealthy in the City and so on are less and less likely to come from a "poor" or Grammar school background now than say 20 years ago. People at the top (and yes Tony Bliar, this included you) are doing a really good job of pulling the ladder up after them...

Bah, I can't quote..anyway, I wanted to highlight Zeb's question about whether City types and lawyers are the best people to play with our finances, because I didn't really understand it (in the article or Zebra's post). I don't see what decisions such people make that affect our finances (on a day to day level) at all. City lawyers make no decisions of any import to anyone but their clients- laws are made by parliament and applied by judges, not corporate lawyers. Bankers, fund managers etc are important in terms of the health of our economy but they don't make decisions at a macro level- having a better understanding of how the average person lives wouldn't help them in their jobs at all. What does it matter if an investment banker has little idea what it's like to live on £20k? It affects nothing.

I found it a very unpleasant aspect of the article- it's one thing to find it laughable or distasteful that someone is out of touch with the average lifestyle but that doesn't mean it's harmful to anyone.

I think the writing style was difficult to read and also perhaps the context of where the research was done maybe make the piece a little unbalanced. Bear in mind that this was all 'bankers' together and the amount of bravado required might have made a difference to the way an individual responded.

We have a few friends who are city types, IB's, SB's and the like and each of them is different. One is just like the individuals as described in the article (he is probably the lowest earner of the group although I am not sure if this is relevant) whereas most others are just average joe whilst one is the most down to earth and aware individual you would ever hope to meet (incidentally, he is by far and away the highest earner to the extent that he probably rises into the top line fooballer territory of wealth).

I guess, in short, that lfe is full of people who have radical or detached opinions, not just those who have wealth.

Cakes are rich. People are wealthy.

I'm sure as the grandaughter of Toynbee - She would be rather foolish to slate the hands that feed the charity linked to her family name - As all E14 companies donate to the charity, it was an agreement by Tower Hamlets & the owners of Canary Wharf.

& if she was educated in history will be aware that 80% of the Traders working in the City/CW descend from E14 & it's surroundings.

Do people think it's the jobs themselves rather than the money that keep these guys so out of touch? I mean, I'm in that 10% (just) but am dealing with a variety of people on a daily basis, so can't fail to keep perspective. If I was only ever dealing with people who were earning similar amounts to me, then it would be quite easy not to realise or acknowledge the wealth that I had.

That makes sense to me - all things are relevant. For example, my Dad has always worked in a factory and my Mum has always had part time clerical work. H's Mum was a single parent with various part time retail jobs. Both families moved in circles in which that was typical. Both sides of the family consequently think that anyone who earns over £16k per year is seriously rich - which causes all sorts of problems for H and I. By contrast to most people on here, I'd say we are average earners but our families think we're almost millionaires ?

I think Rache makes a very valid point. Plus, if you're working 18 hours a day as many of these guys do, you're not going to encounter much 'real' life outwith your day in the office and car/ taxi journey into the office and back.

ETA, I don't mean exclusively 'men' when I say guys, although I guess the majority of the people she's talking about are men.

edited once more to say (because I forgot before) that I agree with knownowt- does it matter whether henry can't fathom how on earth the poor paupers can survive on a measly family income of 80k per annum? Of course not, unless Henry is in some way a driver of policy or legislation.

We're in pretty much the same position as Magnolia and her partner. There are definately benefits to working in the city and the salary it brings but you also do give up a lot.

Although we're not in the 500K + bracket I used to manage the money of quite a few people who did. The thing that always amazed me was even though they may have a really expensive house, kids in private school etc a lot had very very little disposable income. As your earnings go up, your outgoings do as well. It's scary when you see someone who gets about £40K a month coming through there account and still living payday to payday spending bonus' before they get them. I do believe it is because the amount of money that they deal with on a day to day basis is so huge that money stops being a 'real' thing and becomes more of an abstract idea.

The opinions in that article are ones I have definately come across before, to be fair though, I know quite a few people who are earning between 30-50K who wouldn't correctly pick the average earning of people in the UK.

On another note I heard this woman on Radio 4 yesterday and pretty sure she said they their sample was 19 people......

Gah, that article made my blood boil, and this is from me who does earn a fairly crap salary (below national average).

FWIW, OH works in the financial sector on a decent wage (nothing like those figures, but still) and we are having to be very careful about our spending at the moment as we're trying to move house. We have often said that we don't know how people who earn less than us cope - I don't think that's an unfair judgement by any means. It's true! If we struggle to be "comfortable" in our position then I really don't know how other people manage.

We both went to state schools and have working class backgrounds. He has to work ridiculous hours (til 2am Sunday night and 4am Monday night this week alone) and has trained for 9 years (including his degree) to qualify. If that means he doesn't deserve what he earns then I don't know what would.

This bit made me rage too. 'Most were adamant, along with this banker: "We don't think just chucking money at the welfare state is the answer."' Well, quite. I do research on behalf of the Government evaluating welfare policies, and chucking money at "the state" is most definitely not the answer.

I wonder if PT will be redistributing her earnings from the book to "the poor"?

I was a city trader & MrJMP still is. He runs a trading floor with 30+ staff. Monday 5am until the US close on Friday nights he is working, maybe at home, holiday or while your Wife is giving birth - It's his life - Gordan Geko here - The most valuble commodity is information

I don't know one trader who has not gone from being rolling in it too skint & back again - They know the meaning of ££. But then he is old school (LIFFE), not from the new wave of Grads.

They are not out of touch, it's just a minority who are snobbish & they tend to be those who have not come from an 'Eastend' background. They want it on a plate for little reward - which don't work.

But I would say, if you have no need to know or have dealings about benefits etc... Why would you need to be informed about them? Similar to my recent & ongoing legal experience with the NHS - Had no need to know before, but now I'm very informed about it.

I agree with you there. I'm around that bracket, and certainly don't consider myself anywhere near the top 10% of earners. Whilst I'm one of the better paid in my office, compared to friends I went to school/university with I know I'm far below them. I suppose, being my peers, and in roles, which I could have reached if I chose their path, they are who I compare myself to (rather than colleagues) and as such feel like this. I think I would consider myself in the "mid salary" bracket IYSWIM. I think Rache's description is spot on, what is your reference point. If these peoples reference point is their colleagues and ex college friends, then I think that's a natural conclusion to jump to.

It's always baffled me as to why the Labour government is so scared of taxing the wealthy a little bit more when it's abundantly clear that the lower paid pay a higher proportion of their wages in taxation. The article (despite being typically Toynbee - did anyone see her blustering response to Richard Littlejohn on Question Time?) makes the good point that it's not as if the vast majority of these people can simply emigrate and set up elsewhere. Frankly, I'd rather see inflation tackled with an income tax rise than interest rates at the moment.

In my experience, wealthy people are the tightest of the tight!

I mean really wealthy people would offer to pay £5.75 per hour to clean their mansions, where as ordinary people who earned a great salary would be more likely to offer you £10.00 per hour.

I've seen the loneliness that having a high flying career can bring.

I've seen the women try to fill that void by spending money like it was going out of fashion.

I've seen the kids being segregated from their friends as they are packed off to private school/boarding school.

So, IMO, to be that wealthy, brings nothing but sorrow and material things. So there!

I spent eighteen months working as a PA in a City stockbroking firm in the early 2000s, and I can absolutely endorse everything that's being said about people working every hour God sends – which is why many have burned themselves out by their thirties.

One thing that also needs stressing is that City redundancies are absolutely terrifying. I've seen one in action – there was no warning at all, and a third of the department were told to clear their desk and leave by the end of the day (so they wouldn't be able to sabotage anything). I survived, but I heard on the grapevine that there was a similar cull shortly after I left.

And I get the distinct impression that if something like that happened in almost any other sector, Polly Toynbee would be the first to express her outrage.

I can't help but find these observations a bit facile FC.

I've seen some incredible tightness from wealthy people too, but far more often than not, I've seen astounding generosity.

I've also seen (and experienced- both personally and as the wife of another career animal) the loneliness that a high-flying career can bring, but in my experience, the sense of achievement and other benefits have far outweighted the sacrifices. You wouldn't do it otherwise.

I've never encountered anybody (male or female) trying to spend their way out of loneliness and I wouldn't be so bold as to presume that that is what any of my extravagant colleagues or clients were doing with their purchases- that sounded really quite chippy tbh.

Further, I've seen children who were having dreadful times at rough state schools being rescud from their ordeal and sent to schools with amazing opportunities for their development- one child in particular who was sent to Strathallan boarding school is like a new boy now that he gets the attention, resources and bespoke care that he needed and couldn't get at state school.

On the flip side, living in a part of scotland (very near to you evy, and so you'll be no stranger to this) which is infamous for its poverty and deprivation, I've seen some desperately sad situations. Given the choice, my Lord, I'd be hideously wealthy any day over being that poor. <shakes head> I often think it's a no-brainer: take a miniscule amount from the obscenely wealthy and redistribute to the poorest in society. The problem is in the definition of 'obscenely wealthy'. The current higher band of tax catches people who are light years away from that definition IMO.

I second this. I've seen it happen recently too & it really is unpleasant. I've also seen people sacked for the most ridiculous reasons. Yes, there are employment laws but if you want to work in the City again, you don't kick up a fuss. A friend of mine is an experienced employment lawyer, oft quoted int he press & he advises his clients not to sue if they wish to work in that sector again. Not pleasant.

I disagree with you Fairyclown. In my student days, I worked for very rich families as a gardener. I was paid way above average. They had odd views on what they'd splash their cash on but were not what I'd call tighter than tight. Being wealthy does not always equal miserable & materialistic.

Lou - exactly what you said. Especially the tax thing - I'm not far from the top tax bracket and yet I'd hardly call myself in the top 10% of the country.

I'm a PA within the banking industry and have also worked for one of the top 5 magic circle law firms so work with these people all day long.

What Toynbee doesn't comment on is the philanthropic programmes most of these institutions have in place. I am stunned by the amount of money my company raises and donates to charity each year, and also the time given - every department has their own pet project to work for as a volunteer for 1 day on company time.

The sacrifices I've seen my boss in my old job make astound me - but that's what happens for one of these jobs.

And I've also witnessed the redundancies - brutal. I was faced with it myself recently but have managed to secure another role within the company. It's not pleasant to witness your boss being stood over as he clears his desk and then escorted from the building. All within 45 mins of being told he no longer has a job.

Will you hurry the fuck up and get into politics ?

You said that much better than I tried too Lou.

Lou, Mag, what I should have said instead of IMO was in my experience!

Lonely wealthy wives spending serious amounts of money on designer clothes for example. The bags in which they came in would still be lying in a row, with more bags added to the row each week! lol

I'm not saying that these people were unkind, just tight!

Oh sure they'd offer you a cold drink or a cup of tea, ask about your family and life, but it was £5.75 take it or leave it.

I'm talking lawyers, doctors, artists, opera singers, footballers and company directors.

Tight as a badgers arse.

I think this is the problem. At the risk of being flamed (again) its fair to say me and H fall into the higher tax band category. We consider ouselves to be very comfortable but not wealthy. To others, we fully appreciate we may appear wealthy. To friend previously mentioned, we are inches away from the poor house. Its all relative what wealthy means and as such very difficult to draw a line where the higher rate of tax should start. Clearly it should be higher than currently or maybe there should be a 50% + tax band further up the scale.

I also forgot to mention that the ordinary people earning a reasonable slary were actually offering £10.00 as the service was sooooo worth it!

Evy, if your contract with your employers states that you'll be paid £5.75 an hour, why on earth should they pay you more? I wouldn't expect that from my boss.

I think perhaps what you are describing is less wealthy people not being used to having staff and over-compensating owing to guilt and embarrassment, as opposed to generosity.