|
It doesn't actually have anything to do with how wealthy you are; solely based on how much your income is.
|
>> It doesn't actually have anything to do with how wealthy you are; solely based on
>> how much your income is.
Quite odd in that while it asks about Council Tax it doesn't look into the main housing cost - rent or mortgage payments. Include those and something for living costs (not clear if it's doing that by asking for number in household) and you can have a stab at Effective Disposable Income.
But even that's rough and ready. Travel to work costs for example make an enormous difference, as does debt.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 22 Nov 15 at 08:33
|
|
How were you surprised Cgn, in a good way or bad?
|
>>doesn't look into the main housing cost - rent or mortgage payments.
>>
>> But even that's rough and ready. Travel to work costs for example make an enormous
>> difference, as does debt.
>>
There are a lot of people who do not pay rent, have a mortgage, any debt, or travel to work.
I'm off on a long haul holiday next week, I am far from wealthy but have a little disposable income. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 22 Nov 15 at 08:52
|
>> There are a lot of people who do not pay rent, have a mortgage, any
>> debt, or travel to work.
Not denying the existence of such people ON but they're a minority of the population. A calculator of wealth/income that takes no account of real living costs is as useful as a chocolate fire guard.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 22 Nov 15 at 09:18
|
|
The only way to accurately assess a persons wealth, is for them to sell all their worldly goods, buy a tent, pitch it on some common ground, then ask them let you know what their current bank balance is.
|
>> The only way to accurately assess a persons wealth, is for them to sell all
>> their worldly goods, buy a tent, pitch it on some common ground, then ask them
>> let you know what their current bank balance is.
without doing that my current account has 850 quid in it.
If I did that my current account would have 850,000 in it. Think I am a 1000 times better off with things as they are - Be bleedin cold in that tent wouldn't it
|
|
Not if you had a proper goose down sleeping bag and down bootees. It's getting out of the tent for a pee that's the problem. Or so I have always found.
|
It's getting out of the tent for a pee that's the problem. Or so I have always found.
Note to self: cross tents off list of things to buy from C4P Classifieds.
|
>>If I did that my current account would have 850,000 in it.
I guess that would be considered moderately wealthy, north of Watford Gap.
|
The questions ask income & council tax and decides "how wealthy" you are - very poor "wealth check".
A couple (40 ish) I know well have an good household income (~£100k b4 deductions) BUT they have a mortgage, pension payments, 2 kids, costs of after school care, £800 / month travel to work expenses and most months have enough left to put away for a summer holiday after all the "normal spending" - they are "well off" by most peoples standards but do not have the disposable income their neighbours have and cannot splash out like they can.
What's the difference? - immediate neighbour - no mortgage (mummy & daddy bought for their daughter) - both work but do not earn big salaries - again Granny & Grandpa Trust Fund + M&D provide - cash every month, 2 x foreign holidays paid for (£5K+ each), new cars, kids clothed........ What do the people next door do? Work as shop assistants - they will earn maybe £25-30K and live "the good life"
|
>> The questions ask income & council tax and decides "how wealthy" you are - very poor "wealth check".
I second that. Also, income and wealth are not the same.
Income = what someone earns regularly
Wealth = the amount of asset someone is having, this may include inheritied properties/money etc.
A pensioner can be wealthy but with a low income. A youngster may have high income but not necessarily be wealthy.
>> money is not the key to happiness
Many researchers concluded that relationship between money and happiness is an inverse U shaped curve. Happiness rises initially with money but then after a level it actually falls with more money.
|
|
See notes on methodology and in particular on equivalised income in the link.
|
>> >>
>> Many researchers concluded that relationship between money and happiness is an inverse U shaped curve.
>> Happiness rises initially with money but then after a level it actually falls with more
>> money.
>>
>>
Beyond a certain level the reason people want more money changes. A top level footballer on two hundred grand a week will earn enough for several lifetimes during his career, but he'll still demand a transfer if he discovers one of his team mates is earning 300k. It's purchasing value has long been replaced by it's value as a status symbol, the reason many multi millionaires still work eighteen hour days.
|
>> >>If I did that my current account would have 850,000 in it.
>>
>> I guess that would be considered moderately wealthy, north of Watford Gap.
>>
Plain wealthy in many parts. For example round here you couldn't spend that on a house, not for miles around anyway.
|
|
You would have to add in the value of any pension amortised as a lump sum which has value to you but no necessarily anyone else. A £3000 a week pension for a 65 year old could be worth around million.
|
" £3000 a week pension for a 65 year old..."
Blimey, CG, to be quoting an example of a £156,000 per annum pension ................ you must have worked in the insurance industry? I didn't even think that Brompt's public service people got that much!
|
|
Month I meant month! And its an example.
|
The only way to accurately assess a persons wealth, is for them to sell all their worldly goods...
...and if we made everyone do that, the value of worldly goods would collapse overnight and none of us would have any wealth at all.
|
>> ...and if we made everyone do that, the value of worldly goods would collapse overnight
>> and none of us would have any wealth at all.
>>
Well, as I'm sure you're aware, I wouldn't have expected everyone to do it. But do let us know how you get along.
|
It must be taking some account of living costs. My income as a solo artist puts me above the 90th centile; add a wife with a small income and two teenagers with none (and keep the council tax the same) and I join Bromp in the mid-60s.
My income could disappear abruptly too, so while I recognize I'm well-placed relative to many - especially those ten or more years younger than me - I don't feel wealthy or secure yet. It would be interesting to see the results before the impact of George's austerity, which has overwhelmingly targeted those of working age and ostentatiously exempted pensions and the NHS.
Incidentally, isn't this thing old? There was an appallingly superficial C4 programme on this - fronted by Richard Bacon and not rescued by the presence of Paul Mason - some time last year. We discussed it here at the time.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Sun 22 Nov 15 at 23:28
|
|
No, but it does give a good approximation of where you are on the income scale. I was surprised how low the average is.
|
>> No, but it does give a good approximation of where you are on the income
>> scale.
Then it should be entitled "What is your income?"
Surveys that don't even understand the basic concepts of what they are trying to measure don't inspire confidence that they have got anything right.
|
|
Yes it should and it's got a lot of faults but never the less less it is still interesting isn't it?
|
>>I was surprised how low the average is.
>>
So was I, though less so than I would have been a year ago (pre CAB). Illustrates why Tory MPs have suddenly realised that Tax Credits could be political bomb on scale of Poll Tax.
Expecting to be in the middle I'm actually in the centre of the 50-75% quartile.
|
>> No, but it does give a good approximation of where you are on the income scale. I was surprised how low the average is.
>>
I was surprised the other way. I overestimated how high up i was on the scale, i didnt think there were so many well off. I was much further down the list than i guessed.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 22 Nov 15 at 10:23
|
>> It doesn't actually have anything to do with how wealthy you are; solely based on
>> how much your income is.
>>
So it doesn't measure savings, house value, pension pot or value of public service pension.
Nor does it look at debt.
Also, and fundamentally in a mixed economy, it doen't include social wealth.
Even the dosser in a tent has quite a lot of that, compared with his equivalent in say Africa or India.
|
|
I spend a lot of time in my tent. Tread carefully friend...dosser indeed.
|
>>...dosser indeed.
He deserves amortising for that...
|
If I wake up feeling fit, healthy and looking forward to the day and others close to me seem similarly disposed, then I feel like I'm pretty well off even if I'm a bit skint. Nature of my adult life has seen several lurches from relative financial prosperity to near poverty and back again punctuated by most stages in between.
On the occasions I've had a bit of money I enjoy it of course but it's never been my main measure of happiness or success. I've been happier walking on a beach with my dog with naff all in the bank than I've been sitting in a luxury hotel on expenses and with a good income.
A certain level of material possessions do of course help to oil the wheels of life but it's also true to say that most of them are actually unnecessary in the pursuit of happiness.
Health, a modicum of self esteem and a positive mental attitude to life are all you really need. The rest is just packaging.
|
Would agree with all of that as would most I guess.
The intriguing thing is that since we all know deep down that money is not the most important thing for happiness why do we all (most anyway) spend our lives trying to acquire as much as possible and fretting over how much others have?
Why is the main driving force of the economy and society the acquisition of money rather than the acquisition of happiness?
|
> Why is the main driving force of the economy and society the acquisition of money
>> rather than the acquisition of happiness?
Big fan of the king of Bhutan?
|
>>
>> Big fan of the king of Bhutan?
>>
Don't know - Is Bhutan a happy place?
|
>> Don't know - Is Bhutan a happy place?
>>
Can't say I've been, but he likes the idea of Gross Domestic Happiness rather traditional financial measurements.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 22 Nov 15 at 18:55
|
|
He just needs to convince everyone else now.
|
And that is really my point. We all know money is not the key to happiness but carry on as if it is.
Will Dido Harding be happier with another million a year? Almost certainly not. Does she know that? Almost certainly. Will she be looking for another million a year almost certainly
Odd isn't it? We are nearly all the same.
|
>> And that is really my point. We all know money is not the key to
>> happiness but carry on as if it is.
I wouldn't be too sure about that. Many find great pleasure in items they buy. I guess it's one of those open ended questions. How much is enough?
Would people with enough or too much give it away? Some do of course but not that many i think.
|
>>How much is enough?
Depends who you ask and when you ask them I guess. If you were one of those poor souls in a refugee camp your aspirations might be fairly basic as in desiring only some means of keeping yourself and yours clean, fed, sheltered and safe. Whereas my wife is slightly put out this morning because I tend to disagree that our lives would be significantly enhanced by the immediate purchase of some new sofas.
;-)
|
"money is not the key to happiness"
But it allows you to be miserable in comfort.. :-)
I think debt might the key to unhappiness, too.
|
Money doesn't matter as long as you have enough. And most people eventually figure out that it isn't 'stuff' that makes them happy.
I carried on working too long...because I was putting a bit more 'wool on my back' every year, when in fact I have enough wool, more than I am likely to have time to enjoy provided we are not needlessly extravagant.
I was surprised by the results of the 'test' though, which I don't understand. I put in our guaranteed household income (currently about £15,000) and it put me somewhere around the 90th percentile.
But I have always felt well off, even when I wasn't, because I have almost never had any debt other than the long-gone mortgage. It puzzles me that people want to spend money they haven't earned yet, to feel richer, while making themselves poorer.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 22 Nov 15 at 12:23
|
>>Work as shop assistants - they will earn maybe £25-30K
That seems a generous salary. Might they be retail managers?
|
>> Might they be retail managers?
Combined income of £25K - say approx £12K each!
It's nearly December the "wealthy neighbours" next door will be buying their 8/9 year old party dresses - 2/3 probably & £100-£150 each dress - outgrown last year's which will go to a charity shop.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 22 Nov 15 at 18:55
|
>> That seems a generous salary. Might they be retail managers?
Most shop assistants I come across are on min wage or a bit more. At mid point between £25k and £30k you'd be on £13+/hr.
|
"Most shop assistants I come across are on min wage or a bit more."
My daughter (31) is a bakery assistant in the local supermarket and her top line (inc unsocial hours) was £14,600 last year; after tax/NI, it was £12,900. She lives at home still, and is saving everything to buy a small house ..... with our help. The idea is that without a mortgage, she would be able to pay the rest of her living costs, even on a small wage ...... we are thinking of a time when my wife & I turn our toes up.
|
Totally agree Runfer
Walked over to Feizor from Settle yesterday afternoon. Pot of tea & toasted teacake cost £3. Walked back over Smearsett scar with glorious views in all directions. Only 1260' but views south to Pendle Hill, west to the Lakes, Three Peaks & Fountains Fell close by. Good company, snowy and crisp underfoot, four hours exercise out in the cold with a bitter wind. Home just as it got dark, roaring log fire in my local. Friendly banter, good beer.
I felt like the richest man in the world.
|
Compared to considerably more than 75% of the world's population I'm stinking rich. I wouldn't turn down a few bob more, but I ain't complaining. All of us here were born with a winning lottery ticket.
Ok, that's today's sanctimonious sermon over. As you were.
|
Compared to considerably more than 75% of the world's population I'm stinking rich.
More like 90%
|
www.globalrichlist.com/
More like 99%
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 22 Nov 15 at 11:19
|
“Wealth consists not in having great possessions, but in having few wants.â€
― Epictetus
|
|
I have a vague memory of reading a newspaper article a few years ago which suggested that one might be considered wealthy if one had something like £100k/150k after mortgage and all other debts were cleared.
|
|
Pension rise to £119.30 a week from April 2016. I'm almost looking forward to becoming a pensioner in 2 years time :(
|
|
It's a great incentive to living as long as possible.
|
|
Especially for the fit & well if they carry on working past retirement age.
|
Actually, you might just be one of the fortunate dozen or so to qualify for the forthcoming, better-than-now, super-duper, enhanced flat rate pension of £150 per week.
Fingers crossed.
|
>> Actually, you might just be one of the fortunate dozen or so to qualify for
>> the forthcoming, better-than-now, super-duper, enhanced flat rate pension of £150 per week.
>>
>> Fingers crossed.
I will become 65 under the new arrangements (if spared of course). My "new" pension when I last got a forecast was £115 a week (41 years NI, but lots of contracted out) so I will get £125 based on the "old" method with some SSP.
I think everybody has twigged now that the "uprating" will be net moneysaver for the taxpayer.
|
>> Actually, you might just be one of the fortunate dozen or so to qualify for
>> the forthcoming, better-than-now, super-duper, enhanced flat rate pension of £150 per week.
>>
I get £155.59. I've no idea how or why. I've never knowingly contracted in or out whichever it is
|
>> I get £155.59. I've no idea how or why. I've never knowingly contracted in or
>> out whichever it is
The full basic state pension is £115.95 per week so you will also have some Second State Pension (formerly State Earnings Related Pension). My £115.95 will be reduced by long periods of contracting out but then added to by some SSP, unless George has another go at it between now and then.
It can only be a matter of time before he has a go at the triple lock - pensioners are currently getting 2.5% rises (and people like me who aren't drawing it yet are getting revaluations at that rate) while inflation is lower. That was the point of the triple lock of course, but I don't suppose that will protect it.
|
>> >> Actually, you might just be one of the fortunate dozen or so to qualify
>> for
>> >> the forthcoming, better-than-now, super-duper, enhanced flat rate pension of £150 per week.
>> >>
>>
>> I get £155.59. I've no idea how or why. I've never knowingly contracted in or
>> out whichever it is
>>
I don't want the new flat rate...I get about £163 a week plus about £110 pw disabled and carers allowances after the by-pass operation.. SWM get about £75. With a couple of other pensions I feel we are well off...not wealthy. No debts apart from a few hundred on credit cards which are paid off monthly and a chunky 6 figure sum in the bank we're very happy. Should last me out...70 at new year....then the wife can sell the house...stick 300K in the bank and get a nice modern flat nearer the kids. Sorted.
|
>>you might just be one of the fortunate dozen or so to qualify for the forthcoming, better-than-now, super-duper, enhanced flat rate pension of £150 per week.
I don't really take any interest in what the state pension is because pensioners are old people usually :)
But, I mentioned to wifey that from 2017 there will be a flat-rate pension of £144 a week (in today's money) and, being she knows about things like that, she reckons I'll get it but she wont, which seems a bit unfair really because we are more-or-less the same age.
|
>> But, I mentioned to wifey that from 2017 there will be a flat-rate pension of
>> £144 a week (in today's money) and, being she knows about things like that, she
>> reckons I'll get it but she wont, which seems a bit unfair really because we
>> are more-or-less the same age.
Get a pension forecast, google it.
|
>>Get a pension forecast, google it.
I Binged it:
"You’ll have to contact the Future Pension Centre to get an estimate of your pension. This is because the State Pension will change on 6 April 2016."
:o)
|
>> "You’ll have to contact the Future Pension Centre to get an estimate of your pension.
>> This is because the State Pension will change on 6 April 2016."
Just fill in the BR19 on your computer, print it and post it. After the gestation period of an elephant, they will send it to you in a letter.
www.gov.uk/state-pension-statement
I haven't tried ringing them up, but I'm guessing you will need to assemble all the same information anyway.
|
>>Just fill in the BR19 on your computer, print it and post it.
Cheers Manatee, I will indeed do that and let y'all know the outcome.
|
>>Cheers Manatee, I will indeed do that and let y'all know the outcome.
£151.25 pw in September 2017. Too much really IMO.
|
|
That was quick, took them months to do mine!
|
Surprised me too, especially after hearing about the experiences of others via Radio 4.
10/10 for the peops in Belfast.
|
|
£71.58 if you are a higher rate tax payer.
|
At the end of the day,
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen, nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
|
I will be wealthier by £0.25 per week come December next!
Did the survey thing and I'm poor!
OTH, No mortgage, a cheap to run house, no work travel or clothes, little spent on entertainment, a modest 52 plate car, means we are OK and can even contribute a bit to our grand-children's education.
|
The state pension seems to be run by the Flat Earth Society.
The flatter the rate gets, the more complicated it becomes, and the more the variations in its rate.
In the end they'll admit it's not flat, it's curved so that as you get near the edge, it moves further away.
|
I did the survey and I don't believe the results it gave.
It said that I am wealthier than 99% of the population. Apart from anything else, that seems a very neat percentage.
|
|
I just put in a take-home income after tax of £9,000 per month (well mines not that obviously!), council tax equivalent of £1400pa and two adults and no children. And the result is 91% are poorer..... so how did you become richer than 99% of the population?
|
|
He's either Bill Gates or he hit per week rather than per month in the income field
|
|
Put in £2600 per week and no council tax and 2 adults, still only richer than 98%. So I assume if you're right he takes home after tax about £31k per annum,
|
I must have cocked it up as well. When I did it again I got about 50th centile. Considering that we are not extravagant, have no rent or mortgage, and spend about £12,000 a year more at present than the income I entered, at least half the people in the country must be struggling to balance the books.
It doesn't matter how much money capitalism generates, the poor will always be with us.
|
>> It doesn't matter how much money capitalism generates, the poor will always be with us.
Poverty is relative.
|
Unsurprisingly kids are a killer to your 'wealth'.
With just me and the missus is somwhere over 95%.
Add our spawn and it's under 90%.
|
>> Unsurprisingly kids are a killer to your 'wealth'.
>>
That's another flaw in the survey.
They may be a drain on income, just like any other optional item of consumer expenditure, but they don't alter income itself, any more than going to the pub every night or collecting classic cars do.
They only drain your wealth if you chose to give them any. And they might actually be an investment for old age.
|
>>I just put in a take-home income after tax of £9,000 per month (well mines not that obviously!), council tax equivalent of £1400pa and two adults and no children. And the result is 91% are poorer..... so how did you become richer than 99% of the population?
It cross-links to posts on t'interweb and knows you have a VAG car, hence knocking your wealth down a couple of notches ;-)
|
I drive an Audi but I don't own it. It's not my car.
It probably should have taken account of rent/mortgage as well. Did anyone else see something in (I think the Telegraph) of a family with a joint income of £190k and wondering how they'd afford private school fees. That couple had only a few hundred pounds in savings.
|
|
Not the Sunday Times one ? I was aghast at the cheeky mare. Owed around 15k in school fees and wanted to come to an arrangement with the School...."Take your brat to a comprehensive and pay your debts !"
|
"the cheeky mare. Owed around 15k in school fees and wanted to come to an arrangement with the School...."
My wife teaches at a private school - and yes, these people certainly exist - there's usually a bad 'un or two every year - along with a surprisingly high number of 'late-payers' who have to be reminded a few times.
|
>> a family with a joint income of £190k and
>> wondering how they'd afford private school fees. That couple had only a few hundred pounds
>> in savings.
>>
I can believe this, depending on the school. Top private schools are in the order of 30k per annum now, so two or three kids and suddenly a 200k pre-tax family income isn't all that. Middling private schools are 15k per annum. I've come out of this survey with 93% poorer than me, we have 2 children in middling private school and no savings - we don't feel rich I can tell you. We would if we used the state education sector though, I'm sure of that.
Still wondering whether I can afford a 750 quid scrap gearbox for my SAAB........
|
|
The point was that couple weren't paying school fees at the time, and they were wondering how they were going to.
|
>> This is the piece in the Telegraph I was referring to:
>>
>> www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/12000288/We-earn-190k-a-year.-Do-we-need-to-sell-our-flat-to-afford-private-school-fees.html
>>
Ah, thanks. Evidently these people are slightly profligate. Still, it's not hard to imagine circumstances where significant incomes are gobbled up by private schooling. We're not up to their level, but we have a joint income I couldn't have dreamed of 15 years ago, and having taken the private school route it really doesn't go that far - as evidenced by the state of the contents of my driveway.
|
And the point still remains that, depending upon numbers of children and the particular schools in question, sending children to private schools could still challenge a family income of the 190k quoted.
£190k per annum is about £15k a month net. Let's say 3x school fees at 30k per annum per child is £7.5k per month. Family like this might have a 5k per month mortgage. 2x £500 per month leased white Range Rovers/Audis. Etc etc. See the squeeze yet?
|
£190k per annum is about £15k a month net.
Don't think so; £10k total tax, NI, pension contributions? £10-11k more like, depending on tax allowances across two earners.
|
>> £190k per annum is about £15k a month net.
>>
>> Don't think so; £10k total tax, NI, pension contributions? £10-11k more like, depending on tax
>> allowances across two earners.
>>
Fair enough. £10k a month certainly isn't that much if you've got a couple of prestigious private school fees and a big mortgage to pay.
|
>> The point was that couple weren't paying school fees at the time, and they were
>> wondering how they were going to.
>>
Simple, live within your substantial means.
|
|
I know of a chap with a 6 figure Pension who has to raid his "substantial savings" to live - paying fees for 7 grandchildren @ fee paying schools - youngest are day oldest are boarders/ or at University! - this after handing out substantial funds for homes for his kids 15 - 20+ years ago!!
|
|
Had he plans to spend it on something else?
|
>> I know of a chap with a 6 figure Pension who has to raid his
>> "substantial savings" to live - paying fees for 7 grandchildren @ fee paying schools -
>> youngest are day oldest are boarders/ or at University! - this after handing out substantial
>> funds for homes for his kids 15 - 20+ years ago!!
Much more modestly, we paid for the initial kitting out of uniform and sports gear and extra clothing items, for our two grand-children (circa £1400) and pay a very modest £25 per month into the "school fund" account. We'll probably buy the lad his cricket whites next year and the lass her own hockey stick as she has taken to the game.
|
>> I just put in a take-home income after tax of £9,000 per month (well mines
>> not that obviously!), council tax equivalent of £1400pa and two adults and no children. And
>> the result is 91% are poorer..... so how did you become richer than 99% of
>> the population?
That's why I said :-
"I did the survey and I don't believe the results it gave".
No, I can't explain it.
|
Re-done with slightly more accurate numbers, reflecting fully the income from my CAB job.
My position varies dramatically depending on whether I count The Lad (at University) in the household or not. If he's not counted were 74% of the way up the greasy pole. If he's included we're only 56%.
In reality his loan/grant covers his living costs at Uni (or would if he didn't pi** it up against a wall). Ok, we feed him if he's at home and he uses the car but his room is there and heated whatever and it makes no difference to the Council Tax if he's here or in LPL.
|
78% are poorer than me, apparently. Whole thing is a gross simplification and I don't know why I bothered.
And I probably put too much in the council tax as the question is per month and with my council, you pay for 10 months and then have two months off.
Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Tue 24 Nov 15 at 13:54
|
You might get a better idea from your postcode. Your perceived wealth is closely related to where you live.
checkmyarea.com
|
>>checkmyarea.com
That's an interesting link.
|
Interesting.
"Wealthy mixed households living in rural communities"
There are only 4 houses in an area about 2 miles square. I wonder where they get the information from?
|
|
Do you live next door to Duncan?
|
>> Do you live next door to Duncan?
>>
NOBODY lives next door to me!
|
>>checkmyarea.com
This postcode is typical of 0.81% of the UK population.
^_^
|
Dubious about checkmyarea. For my explicit postcode, which is about 20 houses all on the same road, it says" Properties are mainly detached or semi-detached and are owned outright or mortgaged. The typical property price is average."
They are all semi's and I would estimate average price to be £320k - £340k which I believe is above UK average. Other data is similarly questionable
Last edited by: smokie on Tue 24 Nov 15 at 23:29
|
What is wealth to one person is poverty for another.If I can't heat the house when it's cold or buy healthy food that is poverty to me.
Our rates are high second highest in the country.
|
How wealthy are you? - hjd
