No, of course I'd take the expensive one if it was FOC - I'd be an idiot not to as I'd be turning down free money. However, I'd probably sell the £50k one and use some of the proceeds to buy something a lot cheaper, maybe not an outright banger, but something simple and basic.
I just don't "get" the mentality of needing to make a lot in order to be able to spend a lot. For most people, earning more means working longer hours, not going into a different line of business. If you've found a niche that pays well and gives job satisfaction, that's great, but you aren't typical. Material standard of living doesn't increase in direct proportion to your income. As you move up the price scale (for pretty much anything), the law of diminishing returns bites harder and harder - much like how aerodynamic drag rapidly increases the faster you go. Something that costs 10 times more than a basic item isn't going to be ten times better, it might be twice as good if you are lucky. Take the bikes mentioned; the thread started talking about a £3k bike, then it's talking about a £6.5k super version of the same bike. The only obvious difference I can see it that you pay £3.5k extra to achieve a one pound reduction in weight! VFM = Very Poor!
Now if I really did want the £6.5k version, (and I don't, as I'm completely with
@vickster when it comes to ugly plastic aero bikes) I'd be looking to buy it secondhand for around the price of the standard model new. Let someone else take the hit for the VAT and depreciation.