Skip to main content
Living on Different Incomes in London: Can public consensus identify a 'riches' line'?
Can public consensus identify a riches line?

There is widespread public and political concern about economic inequality in the UK today but relatively little research exploring people’s opinions about high incomes, wealth and what it means to be rich.

This innovative study was commissioned by Trust for London and conducted by Professor Karen Rowlingson from the University Birmingham alongside colleagues from Loughborough University and the London School of Economics (LSE).  The research explored what members of the public with lower and higher incomes living in London think defines higher living standards and whether there is a point at which financial resources (income and wealth) are excessive or undesirable for society.

There was a considerable degree of consensus across participants from different income groups. They identified five levels of progressively higher living standards. The levels were not seen as equally spaced. These were:

E - Super rich
D - Wealthy
C - (Securely) comfortable
B - Surviving comfortably
A - Minimum socially acceptable standard of living

The perceived advantages of having wealth and a high income were not just material, but also related to intangible aspects such as security (financial and sometimes physical), freedom (including freedom from worry, choice over how to use your time, and where to live, shop and take your leisure), as well as positive aspects of power and influence (such as the ability to help family, or to be charitable).

While the research participants were able to find a broad consensus on standards of living well above the minimum, including the wealthy at the top and the super rich at the very top, they found it much harder to identify and agree on a point beyond which greater resources could be considered excessive.  This may reflect people’s current perceptions of precariousness, particularly relating to incomes, employment, housing and health. Wealth was discussed as providing protection against risk and unpredictable changes in circumstances while optimising opportunities and choices.

There was little sense that having more would cease to make a noticeable difference at some point, particularly in terms of intangible aspects such as freedom and security. However, people did agree that having great wealth, and often power and influence as well, is a great responsibility and that it is important that those who are more fortunate should be prepared to use at least some of their money for the good of others in society. Understanding these multiple dimensions of attitudes towards wealth and riches is crucial for developing policies that work with the grain of the aspirations and perceptions of members of the general public.

 This project was a collaboration between:

  • Centre on Household Assets and Savings Management (CHASM), Birmingham University: Karen Rowlingson
  • Centre for Research in Social Policy (CRSP), Loughborough University: Abigail Davis and Donald Hirsch
  • Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE), London School of Economics: Tania Burchardt, Ian Gough, Katharina Hecht and Kate Summers

 See more information about the Riches Line Project

Read the 'Riches Line' full report

Read the 'Riches Line' summary report