I don’t think The Telegraph are capable of that
Yeah, this feels like it sbould be on “Not the Onion”, wtf
Well fuck me, it’s real. Eat the rich.
“It seems as though families like us are paying more and more, and being squeezed on everything from our salaries to our outgoings. I know each party has its flaws, but I think the Conservatives are at least a bit more transparent,” he says.
More like the Conservatives didn’t target those with lots of money, those who can make reasonable adjustments, instead focusing on those who already have very little.
It makes me miss old Fark. Does something like that exist on Lemmy? A place where people post articles but make up a new headline for it. I think 2007 was peak Fark.
Yeah, Fark used to be great. That bear headline is a beast.
And then they got rid of the ‘foobies’ (ie. nudity) links off of the main page in order to appeal to advertisers, then they got rid of lots of extra stuff that upset advertisers, then they started shadow-banning paying subscribers if their posts didn’t fit the narrative. And then all the users got fed up of it all and moved ever to Reddit, where the mods were more transparent and there was more of a sense of community. How ironic.
If your core site content is users posting links and commenting on them, then there’s probably a lesson to be learned about how important it is to treat your users well and have a welcoming, inclusive community. Probably a lesson that Lemmy users have already learned, mind.
hey shoutout to fark.com I used to love that place hung out there from about 1999 onwards,
1999 Fark crew represent!
Hear me out on this, I don’t think that’s enough to be hated
There SHOULD be people who make a lot of money. That should be achievable. The problem is the billionaires and multi-millionaires who prevent that
I think this article shows that it’s even starting to affect the almost-mega-rich
I draw the line at 5 holidays a year
Nah everyone should get infinity holidays. That just shouldn’t make you rich.
depends on what you mean by holidays I guess. If a holiday is something like hanging out with some friends/family for a few night of hobbies and food/drink, or a bbq, or like going camping at a campground in your region, then five holidays is perfectly ok to me. If holidays means summering at a chateau in the riviera, then, yeah, that’s a pretty good line.
Its revealing that the ‘middle class’ is a lie, it doesn’t exist. We’re all poor compared to the super wealthy, even at $350k.
Private and public schools should be banned though.
Wait, if you ban private and public schools then what’s left?
In the UK private and public schools are both fee-paying schools, while state funded schools are usually referred to as comprehensives.
Wait what is the difference between public and private one then
Private school to pay for education.
Public school you pay for connections (education good also) see Eton.
I’m far from an expert but I believe private schools can basically teach as they see fit, don’t have to follow the curriculum etc, while public schools follow the state guidelines still while being fee-paying.
Ah thanks! I wasn’t actually aware of that distinction.
State schools.
State schools.
Every kids should go to a school that can focus on kids learning.
Agree.
But why should some kids go to elite schools just based on who their parents are?
That’s so sad… I almost feel sorry for them. Almost.
Wish they had to live with 10% of that money each year.
“Almost overnight, the school fees went up from £55,000 per year to £70,000. The increase was shocking, but not entirely unexpected,” Moy says. “Ultimately, I believe, the education provided and the sacrifices we will have to make are worth it.”
So they readily admit it’s a fair price, but still felt the need to complain to the media?
Probably for the experiences. The sort of things kids do in these schools seem more lavish, I mean, as much as I enjoyed my school trip to a farm I’m not sure if that’s the sort of thing they’d consider.
Although David Cameron did shag a pig, so not sure if that’s true for all of those schools.It’s quite possible, and quite common, to get into the best universities in the UK from state school. More than 67% of undergraduates at Oxford University come from state schools.
Only if your kids have excellent grades or are star athletes or otherwise exceptional. Most of this ends up as networking, where the rich parents meet other rich parents and eventually someone with connections is involved when it’s time for the kids to go to university, and because rich people like it when other rich people succeed, because they want “the right kind of people” at the universities they send their kids to, (sometimes) they’ll help grease the right palms.
Honestly, this is why I’m always peeved when I hear parents telling their kids that school isn’t a social club. I followed that advice, only to find out that the real world cares more about networking than test scores. Whoops.
In a non-STEM field, sure.
Even in STEM. Who gets the Blue Origin job, the person with a 4.0 and zero references, or the person with a 3.5 that partied with Bezos in college?
You would be shocked by the homogeneousness of even employers who are hiring STEM. Tribalism is real. They just chalk up the je ne sais qois to “fit”… But you take a step back and suddenly…
You make it sound like it’s rare to get into good universities in the UK from state schools. But most of the students at the UK’s top universities come from state schools.
You’re right about networking though. Even if you go to Oxford, for example, you can find that there are exclusive cliques and clubs there that are only open to the “right kind” of people. These will be wealthy kids who went to a few expensive public (that is, private) schools. The networking begins long before they even get to university.
That’s true, I didn’t mean getting in a prestigious university was rare from a state school, but rather those are certainly the “exceptional students” considering the stringent acceptance requirements. I only explained why rich parents would spend the money on private schools to give their child an edge. There are certainly cases where admissions are allowed because of family lineage or sizeable donations.
As far as I know you can only apply to Oxford or Cambridge, and furthermore you can’t apply to more than five universities in the UK except for rare occasions.
It is very possible, however housing near the better state schools is typically very expensive, so for many families it is considerably cheaper to shell out for private school instead.
Additionally, the high achieving state schools have selective entry, so even if you buy the expensive house within the catchment area, your child isn’t necessarily getting in even if they’re bright and studious.
Not sure about the UK, but the prep school circuit in the US gives a bump for getting into elite universities, and the connections made there can be just as lucrative as the ones in colleges.
Getting to a good university is only part of the battle and the real prize is the job afterwards. Having a big network is what helps with the latter.
Take law, even at Oxbridge only about 10% of students on that course at either university get into a training contract to become a solicitor. Its closer to 1% at normal universities.
Getting onto that training contract is knowing how to present yourself to the right contacts and go to the right events.
Many subjects are like this, especially for the top jobs.
If you are smart and hard working enough you can get into the top units that not a problem.
But it’s pretty much taken as a fact that people that go to private schools will do better than if they went to a state school.
So if you get 3xA* in state school, private school isn’t much benefit.
But if you going to come out with anything less or generally a troublemaker private schools might be better for you.
“The gardener used to come twice a month, but then he increased his costs from £230 a year to £245 a year. We only have him come once every other month now.”
I find it hard to believe a household with a combined salary (No bonus included) of £345k can’t scrape together an extra 15 quid.
Get the feeling this was deleted because they realised it was utter bollocks, though that’s not much better as they allowed it through.
I know it’s not the point but a gardener isn’t doing shit for £230 a year. That must be a typo, that has to be monthly and if they have a big garden that could be weekly!
deleted by creator
depends, how much weed does he get for it?
Lifestyle sacrifices are news for the rich. Luckily there aren’t enough to support this kind of journalism.
A household with £345k income is not rich, lol.
Some folks barley scraping by need to throw your ass to the ground and just beat the fuck out of you for saying such stupid shit.
I swear, every day rich folk are becoming increasingly more unbelievable.
No way this snobby wannabe toff cunt has money, Succesful people dont spend their time trolling on lemmy lol Sounds more like a spoiled child, Only a fucking loser needs to get their dopamine from pissing others off.
Ahaha, ok.
£181k is all you need to be in the top 1% in the UK.
one day I might earn that much in a year.
Top 1% workers, not top rich.
Look, here’s a thing. 40% of all land in England is owned just by around 200 families. And they are laughing their arses off when they hear that peasants earning £181k per annum are rich.
Top 1% of income from all sources which includes your 200 mega rich families. 1% of 70m people is 700k people. Of course the top 0.1% are way richer.
No, these 200 families don’t have PAYE income at all. Man, you people are so ignorant… No wonder the rich play you like the fools.
So? A lot of people dont have PAYE income, they still have income. What point are you trying to make? Are you trying to argue that £181k doesnt put you in the top 1%?
If you’re earning that much money, you’ll pretty quickly end up in the 1% of net worth.
And these people earn around 10x the typical household income.
No, you won’t.
A household with that income is very rich.
Jesus, toffs are so separated from reality it’s unbelievable.
No, it’s not.
Nope, you’re wrong, look it up. Average income of the top 10% is like a third of that figure. https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk/
That’s irrelevant.
I don’t know what planet someone is on to think that sort of money doesn’t put this family in “rich” territory.
Maybe it’s the differing interpretation of “rich”. Maybe it’s living in London and losing perspective because you’re surrounded by wealth and lose scale
They seem to be insisting on an alternative definition of “rich” that means you don’t have to work for a living. That definition is fine, but they insisted on using it without explanation and causing confusion and then being condescending about it so I just blocked them.
It objectively is.
Wtf are you talking about? You must be a billionaire.
This family earns more than the value of my house in a year.
If they carry on earning this and work for 30 years they will have amassed a fortune of £10m.
It also puts the family in the top 0.5% of earners in the country.
I think that makes them fairly rich.
Do you understand that your logic doesn’t make any sense? First of all, half of their income goes into taxes. Second - they still need to spend money on bills, food, etc. So it will take them a lot more than 30 years to get to £10m. They won’t live as long.
You’re also confusing top earning workers with the rich.
My logic? Even if the income figure is gross and not nett, they are part of the top 0.5% earners in the UK. So… Logically… They can be considered rich by the 99.5% of the population who earn less. They are almost certainly millionaires. Their kids go to public school. They take 5 holidays a year FFS, how many people do you know who can afford that? If you don’t consider that being rich then you are either richer than that, being a troll or deluded.
Dude, just stop.
removed by mod
Depends who you ask
Anyone you ask.
Global indexes are scraping the ground against those numbers, I can tell you for sure they’re 1%.
1% of what? Lol. Please don’t confuse high earning workers with the rich.
It’s one banana, Michael, how much could it cost? 10 dollars?
By what metric? Where would you define rich?
The rich don’t work and don’t have income.
What does this mean? By this metric, the wealthiest person in the world is not considered rich. Elon Musk both works and has an income.
Don’t mean to get into the argument here, but the way that people like him have spending money is to take loans out against their investments, so they go into debt and don’t pay taxes on that. The banks don’t care because if they need to cover the debt they can just sell some of the shares.
His wealth doesn’t come from his income. His salary doesn’t mean shit to him.
His investments and stocks do provide income (although not a salary). Regardless, my earlier statement still stands.
Just FYI, I’ve tagged this guy as “kinda a dumbass” in the app I use.
I wouldn’t spend too much effort arguing with them.
Yeah good shout. I gave up after I realized. Thanks!
I’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 - basically never having to worry about your supply of money, 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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
That’s many times what the typical household income is, and most people would certainly consider that rich.
But that’s not rich, lol.
Y’all should know Aux isn’t an actual person by now
They’d have to delete the whole paper then.
This is real? Holy crap….
I smell a rat.
The image for this article, and the same family in slightly different poses, can be found across multiple websites.
The image held within the archived Telegraph article seems to be a generic library image yet there appears to be no reference of this. The footnote of the image implies this is the “hard up” family.
Maybe they had to sell their photos to an agency so they could afford that 5th holiday. Times are hard.
There is at least a real Telegraph article, but it’s odd that they seem to have used a stock photo, as you point out.
Not that odd, if anything I thought it was strange that someone would give their name and their family’s image to a paper, particularly on a subject as contentious as this.
“Al Moy” may also be a pseudonym. I wonder if “Al Moy” even exists.
Also, while the Torygraph have pulled the article on their site, it’s still up on yahoo: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/earn-345k-soaring-private-school-090000096.html
I read it as A I. Moy, which may be a clue to its origin.
It matters for journalistic integrity and it breaks the trust in factual reporting.
deleted by creator
Holy crap. Some people are hit so hard.
I actually know a couple of teachers at private schools and they say the people being hit hardest aren’t the rich twats but the families who scrimp and save just enough to try and give their kids the best opportunities.
Want to save a lot of money? Send them to a public school.
Guessing your not from the UK. It means something different in England and Wales https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_school_(United_Kingdom)
“state school” in UK terminology. Public school in the UK means private school. Weird I know.
Not all of the UK for bonus confusion
The article IS about a public school. State schools in the UK are not open to the general public, you must live in its catchment area to be able to get your kids inside and often match other criteria as well. Private schools are called public in the UK because they don’t have restrictions and are open to all members of public - if you have cash then your kids can study.
Tory graph is not a serious paper - its pure propaganda.
ok
Georgina should stop sucking rich people’s dick, its never honorable.
