Quote Originally Posted by SWv2 View Post
Out of curiosity who was it that decided this arbitrary figure of £70k??

It does not seem a lot to me as you have correctly pointed out a few normal outgoings would eat into that quite considerably.

Moving away from the cut and thrust of debate regarding the concepts of rich v wealth, I personally would define being wealthy as being able to live the life one wanted to the very full, and at 70k I am not sure that would always be the case.

I suspect the figure was the output of some scientist of analyst **** with a massively large head, a chap (or female, who knows) who once they stepped out of the safe environs of their office or lab would struggle to find their own arse using both hands.
The Labour party, opening its election campaign by declaring that they will increase taxes on 'the rish'. When presse, they defined these 'rich' as those earning £70k+.

You are quite right. A decent safari holiday, for example, is going to cost you a minimum of £25k. A rich man who can't afford the holiday he would like is not, by definition, rich.