Labour has chosen £60,000, equating to approx $96,000, as the fictional line between rich and not rich. Sounds about right in Britain, and in Canada...?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24184473

I guess it's all relative to the lifestyle you have and your current income level.

To someone making 100,000 a year they may not seem themselves as rich, but to someone like me who makes 10-15,000 a year, well 96,000 is pretty damn well off and probably considered rich.

Not sure you can put an exact number on what is rich, what is rich to one person, could be pocket change to another.

Isn't that below minimum wage? Or perhaps part time?

I may well be wrong, but didn't I see a post on here not long ago saying that the 'average' family is living on $29,000 pa?

I would feel rich on that for a while but would soon get used to it and want more. I don't think it puts you in the rich category more comfortably off with nice cars and toys .

It's up around the 85th percentile (UK households) so represents the "start" of what would be termed rich. Average income is indeed much lower.

It shows that the divisions between the haves and have-nots are growing.

Personally I don't think that GBP 60k would qualify anyone as even remotely well-off in London, but in most other places in the UK, it would be a very handsome income indeed. Sixty grand in the Welsh valleys or the east end of Glasgow?

The trouble is that policy-makers - as ever - only seem to have eyes on London.

Where I used to live, on 60,000 a year, you'd need to borrow nearly four years of income to buy an ex-council terraced house.

I don't call that 'rich'.

Min. wage full-time before deductions is about 19,000 a year or so in BC.

I rarely work full-time, and generally don't have a permanent position, so I spend a large amount of time looking for a job, and less time working.

Add in health issues and makes finding and keeping a job harder since employers tend to be less then understanding when you need time off.

Millie, not the average family income but rather the median individual income.

I can't be bothered to look up the average family income but I think it's in the mid $50ks.

As to GBP 60K being rich... pull the other one.

According to stats can average incomes after taxes:

Married Couples:

Overall average 76,100

2 parent families with children average: 93,700

Single male: 33,500

Single female: 32,900

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tabl...mil21a-eng.htm

Cheers.

So, $96,000 certainly isn't rich, unless it's a single income, then it's above average by quite a bit. But not rich.

Edit: Oh, hang on, that's after tax? That makes a bit of difference if the GBP 60K comparator was before tax.

60k GBP would be a decent enough salary for most people but it's a long way from being rich.

A red letter day! We agree on something. 60K GBP would I think be better classified as "not poor".

The original BBC article headline stated £60K as "not rich", the flipside of which is indeed not poor. The figure is in the context of where tax rises should be applied, and Labour is suggesting that at £50-60K (well above median income) people are not rich, and implying that above £60K they can start to be considered rich. 30-60K is midrange income in the UK; 60-120K is upper range; beyond that true richness starts!