Or should that be the poor rich? Anyway, it’s hurting, and particularly would like to make it known that Things Are Not What They Used To Be. It seems to be particularly through their kids that they are hurting, more specifically that, y’know,
one does everything one can for Tarquin and Jemima, even, good lord, shopping at Aldi, driving a secondhand Fiesta and forgoing the annual holiday to Tuscany. But it’s really, really hard to make the public school fees, yah?
Shock, horror, even on £370,000 p.a. we can’t afford to pay to send them to private school these days. Whatever is the world coming to?
I indirectly know a couple who have had to send the SAHM out to work after 10 years at home to pay for the school fees. Obviously they think this is terrible, along with the beastly Government not giving them child tax benefit because he earns more than 60k. Oh yes, the ermine nodded. How terrible. dreadful, indeed, while secretly asking myself how it was that myself along with the other good taxpayers of England were subsidising their lifestyles and how it’s perfectly reasonable to ice child benefit for people paying higher rate tax FFS. He worked harder than me and earns more than I did, which is fine and as it should be, but me, and indeed someone earning 15k a year for that matter, paying for someone on well over the average wage to have kids? Don’t get me wrong, he was perfectly entitled to take it up when it lasted, but I’m not that amazed it was canned, and can’t imagine it made a huge difference to their lives 😉
Every so often the Ermine thinks back to the guys getting on their bikes to cycle out or get the bus to the old glass factory in Charlton when my Dad once worked, and where you’d see the wives line up outside the factory gates on Friday which was payday to make sure the money didn’t get flushed down the pub when the end of day siren blew[ref]for the record my Mum didn’t need to do this. But I think she did take me to see it as a nipper once when I said I didn’t believe it[/ref]. And I ask myself how the heck has Britain gotten so damn soft in 45 odd years that the rich need sponsoring like that – I believe CB was originally targeted at the poor though the history of child benefit is so convoluted I don’t really know.
How do you know you are rich?
Easy. You look at all the shit in the external world that tells you that you are great because you have it or consume it. The stuff you have, the size of your house, the services you buy like the au pair, the holidays, the cars you drive, how often you change it, the public school for your kids. For the sake of any non-British readers, in the UK if you deem the universal education paid for from general taxation to be beneath your dignity/requirements you pay for private schooling at what is called a public school, as opposed to a State school which is one paid for from taxation. I believe Americans quite sensibly called State schools public schools and public schools private schools, because they are logical that way. Go figure.
You look down on people that have and spend less, and you look up at people that spend more. You are rich if roughly speaking there are twice as many people below you as above you[ref]this is my guesstimate from observation of people who think they are rich. There is a seminal class sketch that satirises this. In the 1960s being rich didn’t automatically give you class in the UK, but I think it does now.[/ref]. To save you the embarrassment of doing this publicly you can head over to those guys at the IFS on where do you fit in. There is a hidden implicit assumption at the IFS that you spend everything you earn with that tool, which is of course not a way to doing well financially…
So why are the rich feeling poor, then?
The problems for the modestly rich is that they also look back along the time axis at their parents. Say you’re a GP on about 100k, the daughter of medics, and your parents sent you to public school. Assuming you’re married to another GP so the combined income is 200 kilosods, you are still short of sending both Tarquin and Jemima to Eton[ref]I may be displaying my chavvy lack of savvy about public schools, because I’m not totally sure Jemima would be allowed into Eton. ‘Cos she’s a girl, bur fear not, we have public schools for girls, so it can be fixed. Whatever…[/ref]
Fundamentally the problem is too many other people are getting rich. Although your absolute living standard[ref]you know, like how long you live, how warm you are, enough decent food. Humans are odd blighters, because being rich is not about having enough shit to live like a king of days gone by but all about being better than other people[/ref] is vastly greater than that of your parents, your comparative status has dropped, and you feel the draught. You feel poor and hard done-by. Your parents simply had the benefit of fewer rich people to compete with them for finite resources. You will live longer, have better food, better houses, better health than them but there are more people above you in the income scale, because this happened. I know it’s US data
so I am winging it a bit assuming the pattern is followed in the UK. Interestingly if you look at general plot of the S&P500 over the same period you get to see some similarities
So how do the .01% get rich? From the Atlantic
How’d they all get so rich? It wasn’t the way the rest of us get rich. It wasn’t their wages. It was something else.
The richer you are, the more likely your riches come from stocks, not salary. For the three groups graphed above—1 percent, 0.1 percent, and 0.01 percent—capital gains account for 22, 33 and 42 percent (respectively) of their average income. […]
Practically all the growth in average income at the top comes from stocks. Between 1992 and 2007, the average salary of a top-400 tax return doubled, but average capital gains haul increased 13X. Wages are for normal people. The richest get richer from their investments.
So now you know what to do. Listen to that Monevator fellow and get on the side of Capital, because that’s where all the action is, and it’s slaughtering Income.
So what’s with all this public school stuff then?
That’s the problem for our doctors, and indeed our rich poor. Capital is riding into town and eating their lunch, outcompeting them. The public school system has increased, but not by as much as Capital is increasing. These poor rich people’s mental picture of what it means to be rich is formed in their early years from their parents, but their parents weren’t in such a competitive space. So it stands to reason that the merely rich are feeling poor, and they’re pissed off about it.
Something that struck me, listening to Mr 60k+ and his SAHM about to go out to work after a 10 year break so they can pay for the school fees is that there’s a category error in their assumption. They assume that by sending their kids to public school they will earn more.
This isn’t the only reason – public schooling buys you influence, connectivity[ref]This only really works if you already have connections, so maybe a moot point for Mr 60k+ who doesn’t AFAIK[/ref]. The fact that entry into public school is selection by parental wealth[ref]I’ve never been able to work out if there is an intellectual ability entry standard, or if the smaller class sizes means that they can coach those that used to be called educationally subnormal in my schooldays[/ref] means you of course keep your kids away from chavvy poor people who make up the 93% of Brits that can’t afford it. You aren’t meant to say many of these things, but observation shows me that people become extremely tribal when it comes to their children – if I had them and I had earned enough I am sure I would send my children to public school too. Just whatever you do make sure you can keep doing it till they are 18 because if you suddenly can’t afford it and they are hoicked out of Eton to be sent to the local comp with all the rough sorts and chavs that make up the rest of the 93% of the population then Tarqin and Jemima are going to have a really, really hard time as the rough sorts take the piss. Not only will they get the detriment of a scummy State education like wot I had but their self esteem will take a bit of a hit.
She is far from being the only prominent liberal journalist whose children are privately educated, but her head seems to be furthest above the parapet.
Trouble is there is an opportunity cost, and if these kids are entering secondary school (at 11 in the UK I believe) let’s take a butcher’s hook at the costs. Apparently school fees are £14,000 a year, (update – from this comment it appears I screwed up here and the figure is double that – so double all the school figures from here) so that’s seven years at 14k, or 98,000, let’s call it £100k. There’s a lovely infographic on how much it costs to send your kid to public school on Nutmeg. Add onto that another 50k for university, which starts to look like a bargain. Trouble is, these kids are going to enter a world where humans need not apply. I know every parent thinks their little precious is a genius mathematician with great artistic talent and all round at the pinnacle of human existence, but after we’ve done the Lake Wobegon thing they are up against this
There is an alternative – the money set into this, accumulated over time and assuming you put the same 14k a year into university (£9k fees, £5k maintenance NOTE TO NON-RICH PEOPLE – MASSIVE WEALTH WARNING for God’s sake don’t pay up front for university rather than a loan until you have read and digested this) then this would accumulate
to £200,000 of capital. Enough to buy them a house outright in many parts of the UK and/or derive an income of about £5k p.a. Clearly they would have to go to school with the lowlifes that make up 93% of British schoolkids, and going to public school can buy you influence and all sorts of good stuff. But it’s certainly worth looking at the road not travelled, particularly if the child is likely to graduate into a world in 10 years time where humans will find it harder and harder to add value unless they are exceptional. MisterSquirrel has an interesting narrative of the last 30 years of the workplace and the direction isn’t good for the averagely talented. Getting on the side of Capital has much to be said for it…
The IFS is behind the time with their focus on income
FWIW the IFS informs me that I am abjectly poor, because it’s all about income. You have to search elsewhere to find out about capital – I got this chart from the government who got it from the IFS. Now unfortunately the IFS often talk about households whereas I always do this calculation as an individual, I believe ELSA is the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing so this assumption should apply to this. I was surprised to learn the the state pension is a capital wealth of 100k and have never factored this into my networth. Let’s just say that my position on this chart is not the same as the one on the where do you fit in site.
Clearly as a retiree I need to be on the side of capital. But if the rich are feeling poor, then they need to stop spending so much on consumer shit and McMansions and start saving and get their asses on the side of Capital, and particularly if they are going to be realistic about their kids not being poor then it’s time to think outside the public school box. Instinctively they know this, because of the keening noise about inheritance tax and many articles about how to avoid it.
I personally believe that people featherbedding their kids in the way they want to will lead to huge wealth discrepancies in Britain in a couple of generations particularly as the ability of earn and save capital from income falls for most people. By doing so you will advantage your children which is understandable but the societies they will grow up into will be violent, dog-eat-dog and the English revolution we never had may ensue. But I’m not going to fight that because I don’t have children so I am neither part of the problem nor the solution – I’d expect the revolution in about two generations of IHT being repealed, for which there is strong political pressure. Good luck all those future souls, and I hope the solution is peaceful and equitable.
It’s worth noting from the school example that the rich poor can give a decent amount to their kids within the tax threshold – even one-year olds have a personal allowance so from a standing start you can give your child[ref]It appears you need to take great care to avoid being taxed on the income if the capital comes from you. A junior ISA seems to be the way to go for up to £4k p.a. – I guess if you are saving the full £14k p.a. you can pay for advice in how to do it for greater sums. Laundering the money through grandparents and friends seems the obvious gonzo way to avoid the money coming from the parents but don’t blame me if that doesn’t work – DYOR :)[/ref] £210,000 by the time they are 21, and probably more because of compounding and investment – 21 years is enough to see a good few business cycles. Of course, you also have to bring them up with enough nous not to blow it all as they come of age…