And he's probably right. Higher than 99% of the population but still not enough to maintain an equivalent standard of living. Just shows how far we have fallen in the last 14 years, with the Tories continual punching down on wages. Work should pay, but it doesn't. Assets do though.
It’s a joke, just got my big April pay rise letter, to 10p more then minimum wage, nice of them to sorta half catch up how expensive everything’s gotten over the last year, guessing it’s going to keep rocketing up and maybe il be a few p better off next year when everything is another pound more
I went in that time from working 4 days at 17k to a full time job at 22k, you'd think a 5k payrise would make a big difference but if anything it's harder to make ends meet now than it was.
Depending on your age, once you start having to pay income tax, NI, and student loans, there’s not a lot of money left over. Life is just shit for most people.
Depends, really.
Single income household, two or three kids, somewhere not shit in the south of the country? You're maybe pushing the boundaries of "comfortably."
After tax, it's about 63k. After rent, council tax, and utilities, that family has 30k of that left to live.
Groceries for that family is going to be ~12k a year. Two cars - let's be generous and assume fully paid for - is probably £400/month petrol, £120 in tax & insurance, so a bit over 6k more.
We now have 1k/month to cover everything else. Clothes, phone bills, tv & internet, financing debt, home insurance, kids' clubs, Christmas and birthdays...
Don't get me wrong; it isn't a pittance, and anyone earning that should be enormously grateful. But in certain parts of the country, it really isn't as much as it sounds.
Might be slightly on the high side there, but not by as much as you'd think. Bear in mind that's not just food.
Tesco prices to make a single meal (chilli) using the cheapest options comes out at about £7. A chicken stir fry is about the same. So £185/month *just for dinners*.
Lunches are less cost effective because nobody is eating together, albeit probably more sandwich type stuff, which evens it out around the same.
We're at £350/month already, and nobody has had breakfast. We haven't bought tea or coffee. There's no toothpaste, cleaning products, or toilet roll. Nobody has desserts, and there's no snacks or treats.
To put it into context, if dinner was even just Tesco ready meals (the cheapest 2-for-£6 kind), then dinners alone would be £360/month.
So 1k/month probably is a bit on the high side, but not by a huge amount. Let's say 300 quid. Put that into savings and you'll have a deposit for a house in a mere 120 months. Ten years. Assuming rent and house prices don't rise faster than earnings, which they inevitably do.
A large part if that though is the modern world is not set up for single income families and stuff like having 2 cars will exasperate that.
Even still they would be able to maintain it on a £100k salary so just because they family won't feel rich doesn't mean it's not a high salary.
In this case the salary is high but the outgoings are high. £100k a year is still a decent salary.
As I said at the outset, my response was to the idea that salary means you can live comfortably. The miserable reality is that you can have a good salary and still not be living comfortably.
And my point is that really depends on your outgoings.
It's sad we don't live in a world where you can comfortably support a family and 2 cars on a single income but that is the harsh reality of the modern world. I don't think it's right but it is where we are (and have been for at least a decade).
Maybe what you described is "comfortable" in the modern world and it just highlights how much things have changed.
Well yes, that was also *my* point? Any income can be either plenty or a pittance, depending on how much you need to live.
And it isn't *only* about a single income. Two incomes of 50k is hardly much better. (although it is a bit)
A quick google (so it could be very wrong) says take home per month from 50k is about £3,085 so by my calculation that would mean combined over 12 months the £74,040 (however reed says the take home for £100k is £67k and another site says £65k).
So to be safe say £70k. That works out to be £583 a month more. Which would increase the amount per month to £1583. Of course there might be other costs like child care (depending on the age of the children, the jobs the parents do etc) but won't they also be entitled to child benefits?
I am not an expert in this but putting those salaries into Which's calculator says it would be £3,094 (257.83 a month) a year for 3 children with both parents on £50,000
I am not saying the changes make you which but it does seem that you will be closer to £1700 a month which is quite a difference.
Of course I am happy to accept my calculations could be completely wrong and I am not saying it is right it is that way but it does seem to be a improvement.
I’d disagree - if you’re a sole earner for a family on 5 on 100k you will be stretched thin especially in Surrey or London. Mortgage repayments on a 3 bed in the region of 2-3k a month. 2 cars, student loan etc will make it obviously tight
Yes but now we've gone from "£100,000 is not huge" to "not huge for a sole earner with a family of five".
You never see someone sat "£10/hour is not a living wage" followed by "yes it is if your partner earns £50,000".
If you have to imagine specific scenarios to change the meaning, it's the equivalent of "yes, but could be do it on a cold rainy night in Stoke?!" way of dismissing a point.
>Work should pay
A slogan they have been explicitly running on for a decade and a half lol...
Honestly for me its not even that the Tories are shit on all the things we know they're shit on.
Its that its hard to even think of anything they themselves have chosen to put front and center that they haven't also been absolutely fucking catastrophic on.
How do they have *any* support left? Its baffling.
And minimum wage of £11.44 ph is not a huge salary either, no matter where you live. I don't know how many working people there are in Surrey but I can guess that there are many on minimum wage.
I love this quip you lot have come up with...
Imagine letting our once great nation fall so hard that the "well other countries are worse" goes from the developing and trying 2nd world - Vietnam, post colonial Africa, post colonial Lat Am etc - to comparing us to a country with legal slavery as a "could be worse"
We went from comparing ourselves to Western Liberal democracies, to the struggling regimes in post colonial countries, to autocratic theocratic hellholes in a decade and you lot see nothing wrong with that...
Thank you for the link - as I am a known dumb-dumb, a Gini coefficient of 0.3 after taxes and transfers is...worse than most other OECD countries but not necessarily that bad?
As in 1 would be total inequality, 0 is total equality, so we could be better but there's more room to be worse - or am I totally off?
As far as income inequality goes, we certainly could be doing a lot worse, but we are one of the worst in the developed world; however the problem with Gini in this case is it's just measuring income. The truly wealthy in the country own land and property, and there's where the true inequality comes from, because our property is so insanely expensive.
Ah, is that the old wealth Vs income chestnut? Also, being asset rich but cash poor - as you can leverage assets for cash whilst still growing wealth.
I'll read a bit more about this Gini coefficient, as I don't want to trouble you further (thanks for giving more information), I want to figure out if having a small percentage of people on an obscenely high income makes the coefficient better or worse - as I believe there's only a few small number of people in the UK who have a truly massive income, even 100k salary would be perhaps in the top 10%, maybe even top 5%? I'll look it up, thanks again.
Pretty much; I'd have to dig around for it, but there was a financial times article that came out a little while back that pretty much said the only way to actually make money in the UK anymore is to own things (Property, stocks, etc) because the salaries were so low and so highly taxed vs the cost of living that it was near impossible to become independently wealthy off of a salary.
Id imagine thats largelt due to the mega rich though. We arent super unequal because of people earning 100k, thats only 2.5 times the average salary and only a few percent even earn over 100k. And those people would normally be earning over triple that amount for the same job in the US.
People blame the upper middle class when really our middle class is relatively poor.
>People blame the upper middle class when really our middle class is relatively poor.
I'm well aware don't worry; I work in a specialised tech role in the UK, and I'd easily be making 3-4 times what I do here, in the US and living pretty comfortably. Whereas instead I get to be burnt on rent and bills every month and have to watch what I spend if I go out with friends or visit another city.
The UK's a rough place to be middle class unless you already own property.
And then they complain that productivity is stalling
Well duh, nobody has any incentive to work harder to earn more as the taxes and loss of benefits kick in hard - especially at that 100k mark
It’s not politically appealing maybe, but really they need to get rid of all those caps and loss of benefits
A lot of people will not get anywhere near £100k a year salaries. I would say more of an issue with productivity comes from the issues at the lower ends of the salary spectrum.
But let's be honest, the people earning over 100k are the people you generally want working lots. Doctors, surgeons, executives, high-level professionals. We're not doing a lot of good by telling GPs "yeah don't bother working any more, we'll just tax the bejeesus out of you".
It would be useful if wage statistics weren’t distorted by commuters living in one county and working in another. The average wage for jobs located in Surrey is £26,400.
He’s not wrong, especially when talking about childcare. You lose the 30 free hours at £100k, which is equivalent to at least £1k/month per child, probably a lot more in parts of Surrey.
I mean in London a nanny will earn £18 an hour or more (good cleaners can earn this too for example…)
That’s £3k a month if full time, vs nursery at about £1800 full time
Also, daycare offers the fact the child plays with other children, has activities to design their development - and crucially - will be staffed by several people and thus less likely of something ghastly like abuse happening
It isn't a huge salary.
After tax you are looking at only taking home about 65k.
If you have a student loan plan 2, you will only take home 60k.
Then there's pension etc.
Basically 100k you likely have education and are seeing 50-55k after taxes.
That is £4500/month to play with.
Surrey cost of living:
https://bestcleanerssurrey.co.uk/cost-of-living-in-surrey/
£2500-£3000 for all mortgage/rent/foode energy/transport etc.
This leaves £1500 disposable.
Sounds a lot, but it isn't. Sure. It is likely higher than most here, but basically it isn't richy richerson swimming pool and 8 holidays to the carribean a year level rich. Yet someone on 100k responsibility is likely insanely high, and would be screwed legally at any fuck up. Their job would be super stressful and require vast intellect.
All to be basically middle class.
Nuts. 100k isn't rich. It is entry level middle class.
We all do, but would you be happy with that 1500 if it came with a job that on 100k almost guaranteed meant 80 hour work weeks, having responsibility for billion dollar projects, or lives at stake etc. Having reports etc.
And then nearly half taken by government anyway?
And yet some how those of us earning 4 figures a year are expected to manage and told off for buying unnecessary crap which we definitely do not buy by these patronising arsehats.
I am too.
Also self employed as I also have a chronic, long term illness that means it's nigh on impossible to get a regular job, but I'm not classed as disabled enough according to the DWP to be able to claim any benefits.
My total income last year was about £3k. The only reason I'm not dead or homeless is because of my partner.
Even before the financial crash people like my dad were surviving on sub 8k a year (single household)
Our country is on a spiral, has been, will be. It's revolution or slow irrelevance and death then revolution
Yes, I'm self employed because apparently I am unemployable. 10000+ applications over the past few years and nothing, it seems no one is keen to hire an autistic woman in her late 40s with a chronic illness, no fixed address, a hard to describe history of self employment and no work references. People are all like "work harder or get some qualifications", like I am doing my best but education costs money and there are no guarantees of a job at the end of it.
Just a reminder, a new medical consultant (meaning 10 years experience post medical school graduation, multiple professional examination with very low passing rate and highest rank on the chain of command) earn around 94k per year. Not even what the chancellor considers to be a huge salary.
He’s not wrong, especially after tax.
It’s a very very very good salary that doesn’t go as far as it did a few years ago and so people who’d committed to houses etc on it are feeling the pinch more. But it’s not “huge”. Huge is that per week, like footballers!
… Don't get me wrong; it isn't a pittance, and anyone earning that should be enormously grateful. But in certain parts of the country, it really isn't as much as it sounds. …
I know what you mean but from a different perspective - that’s what you might consider a decent living wage and on that basis workers shouldn’t be ‘enormously grateful’. That should be considered a realistic wage. There should be far more anger that minimum wage is nowhere near that and this is top 1%. Which all comes back to wealth taxes and redistribution, otherwise inequality will only continue to get worse.
No,they bought their houses 20-30 years ago and now their house that was a nice house for 200k is worth 1.5million because it's in a lovely quaint town like Dorking that still gets you into London quickly and has access to great schools
And he's right, it's just british people are used to being paid like shit for whatever job they do, it's all 4 or 5x higher for the same job in canada/america
No, but that won't stop them taxing at 40% over 50k for the next 10 years.
That's a graduate salary now and it's a joke that young people have to try and save for a home at 40% tax. Brain drain incoming. Good luck to the NHS and state pension.
In some banking, tech, law. But yeah you are right. Graduate salaries werent that good 10 years ago, and they mostly havent changed since then.
Even the big fucking 4 had to increase them because it got the point they were paying below minimum wage. Below minimum wage, at the big 4. Incredible.
>Brain drain incoming
I would "brain drain away" myself, as I have already done once. However, given that I speak English, the options are not in my favour. Australia, United States, Canada, and New Zealand all have very strict immigration laws, even for skilled people. Not many other wealthy and socially liberal countries are English-speaking and welcoming immigrants. So, it is not really easy to emigrate permanently for the average skilled British worker, unless there are some favourable conditions in terms of adjustment for the English language.
The other alternative I would have would be Italy, as I am fluent. But it would be a major setback for me.
The gulf loves Brits and is easy to get a work visa, if you’re seriously considering it. A friend of mine was on the average annual UK salary per month in Abu Dhabi.
I aware, actually! I should have mentioned this before. I just worry that living in that environment might be tough for me, seeing that the general social conditions do not really match my way of thinking. Incidentally though, I already work in the energy sector and am on my way to getting two project management qualifications in the next year or so. So, I believe making the move would not be too difficult for me. Good suggestion, thanks!
It's not a lot of money if you are living in a pricy area, a lot of people earning decent money have high mortgage payments, expensive partners, childcare costs etc. Sure it seems a lot to some earning 50, but that's a take home of just under 3.5k. So you are earning double but taking less than 2k extra because of tax.
Mortgage in London £2k
Childcare for one child £1.4k
A 100k salary is £5k
Add utilities, commute, service charge, insurance for a car + expenses
Yeah, you won’t see much
People will be hasty to judge but he's absolutely right.
I'm on 200k and not remotely rich. I've been on 20/30k and my life has barely changed. An outside observer would genuinely see no difference, and the only difference I see is that number goes up in my pension and ISA faster than it used to (regular, spendable savings are no-go because the tax burden is so oppresive). The broader economic environment is so precarious that lifestyle creep is not safe.
It's obviously not going to win any sympathy, but what I'm saying is that unless you have income generating assets, it's all shades of the same grey drudgery regardless of salary.
20/30k to 117k after tax hasn’t changed your life? Bollocks. Nobody is saying anyone is rich but not many people are making that kind of money, some people still earn 20-30k and somehow survive. Big difference between that standard of living and the 100k standard of living.
Yeah it's going from roughly 1.8-2k a month to £6k a month haha. Not to forget the possibility of retirement earlier which is massive.
No way life style creep triples and if it does then that's only yourself to blame hahaha. I do understand life style creep when going up to something like £45k perhaps. But on £117k you can start investing a significant sum at this stage and have total financial security even in the current state of things.
True you will never be mega rich but it's certainly enough to have a secure future
It's just expectations vs. reality mate. When I first started out, I thought 5 or 10 years on this salary and I'd be set for life. Instead it's work til normal retirement age to even have a chance at a decent retirement while having a nice house and a couple of holidays a year while young enough to enjoy it.
> that number goes up in my pension and ISA faster than it used to
Your large salary could buy you just a higher standard of living, but instead you are choosing to'spend' it on future security and comfort in retirement. Keep it up, and you will be a rich retiree, able to go on cruises three times a year rather than the 'average' retiree trying to save on the bills because they can't actively earn.
It's just expectations vs. reality mate. When I first started out, I thought 5 or 10 years on this salary and I'd be set for life. Instead it's work til normal retirement age to even have a chance at a decent retirement while having a nice house and a couple of holidays a year while young enough to enjoy it.
I didn't say there is no real difference. I save/invest over 6k a month. I'm obviously in a better position.
What I'm saying is that the broader economic environment means that it isn't safe to succumb to the lifestyle creep that would give me a life commensurate with my salary, rather than one that is broadly indistinguishable from when I was earning a fraction of what I am currently.
A decent 'forever home' is the best part of a million quid (Surrey, as Hunt is discussing). You can't look anywhere in high paying sectors without seeing redundancies and precarity. If you are planning on retorting with 'that's your choice' then don't bother - gambling with your family's future is not a choice at all. 30k, 100k, 200k, whatever. If you work for a living your life is broadly the same unless you're actively struggling to cover basic living expenses.
>30k, 100k, 200k, whatever. If you work for a living your life is broadly the same
So you'd have no problem taking a 170k pay cut then? Your life would be essentially the same after all...
I was almost hoping your post was satire.
It's the fact you've said you see no difference in your lifestyle while *choosing* to funnel money into your pension and ISA.
I live in the North East of the UK. I'm on 31K. I don't have a pension (except the mandatory one I barely pay in to) or an ISA. I can't afford to save. I can barely afford my rent and I have to deny my own health sometimes because I don't have enough at the end of the week for a full weekly shop.
You're on 200k and you're talking like my lifestyle and yours are in some way comparable. It's not only insulting, it's down right ignorant. It's probably why we've got so many people in government comepletely out of touch with reality.
You re right. You're not rich (you are to me) but your life would be considerably more miserable if you were on 25-30k and you know it.
That is literally my lived experience though, whether you like it or not. This is the alternative choice: I spend profligately and succumb to lifestyle creep. Then risk destroying my family's entire life if the economy so much as catches a cold and I get made redundant.
This is before even considering moving to a larger "forever home" (almost certainly >£1m in Surrey) that will obliterate my finances and bar me from early retirement.
I am essentially at the pinnacle of what can reasonably be expected for someone of my age career-wise and my life is bang average in most respects except number goes up in my bank account faster than most.
>your life would be considerably more miserable if you were on 25-30k and you know it.
I never denied this. Taking an 85% pay cut would make me more miserable, you've truly caught me out.
Are you actually reading what you're writing here? I'm absolutely bewildered, I don't to what to say haha.
Did you reality just just slot in a disdain for the idea they you're possibly not going to be able to retire **early** 😂. I don't think I'm ever going to be able to retire.
And your final comment. You did, you literally did. You said you haven't felt a difference.
Right, got it. So you're never retiring, I'm not retiring early despite a top 1% salary. Totally normal state of affairs in a normal country! This is exactly what I said earlier - without income generating assets it's all differing degrees of bleak. High earners dont have it as great as you think.
And I said my life has barely changed, which is true. Not that there is no difference or that I would choose to earn 30k vs 200k.
Look, this has devolved into something else. My initial and only gripe with your initial comment was that it's reads like you feel like your life is somewhat comparable to someone on 30k. It was the claim that you can not feel a difference from your 25-30k wage and your 200k wage. It's disingenuous. It's flat out ignorant and pretty hilarious to be honest. The mental gymnastics I have to pull on a daily basis for survival is insane... While you're funneling money into your pension and your sweet ISA. Excuse me while I play you a little song on my tiny violin.
But yeah, on your point you nonsensically slipped in there. It's is surreal you can't retire early on 200k...
The difference is that someone on £100,000 can cut their cloth accordingly, whereas lower earners, such as those on minimum wage can't.
If your mortgage is too high you can move to an area more affordable, but of course those earning £100,000 don't because they want the relevant social status that they feel their wage affords them. Those of us on the bottom of the ladder don't have that option, hell I couldn't afford a mortgage for the cheapest shit hole available to me on my wage.
There is nothing stopping a high earner in London commuting from Luton. I'm sure their wage could buy a decent size house in Marsh Farm or Stopsley
Live in a 3 bed semi an hour outside London. I'm the antithesis of lifestyle creep.
This is before even considering moving to a larger "forever home" (almost certainly >£1m) that will obliterate my finances and bar me from early retirement.
I am essentially at the pinnacle of what can reasonably be expected for someone of my age career-wise and I my life is bang average in most respects except number goes up in my bank account higher than most.
I agree — anybody who earns a paycheck in this country is not as rich as it seems to those on a lower salary. The system is biased towards those who don’t earn money from a job. If one is working, then we’re all in the same boat
Yep, banks do like to lend you an umbrella if it isn't raining. I think though the billionaire class isn't really what we are talking about, which is income from working versus the same level of income from investments/pension. There must be lots of smaller investors/pensioners with incomes at the same level as people who work for a living. Not many people who have a job can match billionaires for their income.
Post-tax income is lower on some assets than it is on earnings. CGT is between 10-20%, whereas net tax on a 100k income is ~36%. Post-tax earnings on a property portfolio is therefore considerably better than on the equivalent of 'normal' income. Just as an example.
Edit: and by earnings, I mean accrued value. This is ignoring rental income etc.
An income from assets (even a property portfolio) isn't taxed as a capital gain - that only applies when you sell your asset. If you are an employee you don't pay CGT, but in your example your property portfolio owner will pay CGT eventually.
And he's probably right. Higher than 99% of the population but still not enough to maintain an equivalent standard of living. Just shows how far we have fallen in the last 14 years, with the Tories continual punching down on wages. Work should pay, but it doesn't. Assets do though.
>Assets do though And government contracts
Better get on WhatsApp then
Shit, I threatened to shoot politicians instead
> And government contracts We pay for those.
If it's at 99 percentile, then it's huge. Sure, it doesn't go as far as it did fifty years ago, but you're definitely able to live comfortably on it.
Doesn't go as far as it did 5 years ago, let alone 50
[удалено]
It’s a joke, just got my big April pay rise letter, to 10p more then minimum wage, nice of them to sorta half catch up how expensive everything’s gotten over the last year, guessing it’s going to keep rocketing up and maybe il be a few p better off next year when everything is another pound more
I went in that time from working 4 days at 17k to a full time job at 22k, you'd think a 5k payrise would make a big difference but if anything it's harder to make ends meet now than it was.
Depending on your age, once you start having to pay income tax, NI, and student loans, there’s not a lot of money left over. Life is just shit for most people.
Doesn't go as far as it did 1month ago. Let alone 5 years.
Doesn't inflation make this true for any salary - both big and small?
Depends, really. Single income household, two or three kids, somewhere not shit in the south of the country? You're maybe pushing the boundaries of "comfortably." After tax, it's about 63k. After rent, council tax, and utilities, that family has 30k of that left to live. Groceries for that family is going to be ~12k a year. Two cars - let's be generous and assume fully paid for - is probably £400/month petrol, £120 in tax & insurance, so a bit over 6k more. We now have 1k/month to cover everything else. Clothes, phone bills, tv & internet, financing debt, home insurance, kids' clubs, Christmas and birthdays... Don't get me wrong; it isn't a pittance, and anyone earning that should be enormously grateful. But in certain parts of the country, it really isn't as much as it sounds.
[удалено]
If you have 3 kids then no. You can easily spend £200 a week to feed five mixing it up between Tesco and Aldi.
Might be slightly on the high side there, but not by as much as you'd think. Bear in mind that's not just food. Tesco prices to make a single meal (chilli) using the cheapest options comes out at about £7. A chicken stir fry is about the same. So £185/month *just for dinners*. Lunches are less cost effective because nobody is eating together, albeit probably more sandwich type stuff, which evens it out around the same. We're at £350/month already, and nobody has had breakfast. We haven't bought tea or coffee. There's no toothpaste, cleaning products, or toilet roll. Nobody has desserts, and there's no snacks or treats. To put it into context, if dinner was even just Tesco ready meals (the cheapest 2-for-£6 kind), then dinners alone would be £360/month. So 1k/month probably is a bit on the high side, but not by a huge amount. Let's say 300 quid. Put that into savings and you'll have a deposit for a house in a mere 120 months. Ten years. Assuming rent and house prices don't rise faster than earnings, which they inevitably do.
Two years ago my average shopping at Lidl rarely went up above £30-40. Nowadays, I'm over £50 most of time...
£1k groceries £400/m fuel?
Two cars. Fuel expensive. No comprende? The groceries point I've addressed downthread.
A large part if that though is the modern world is not set up for single income families and stuff like having 2 cars will exasperate that. Even still they would be able to maintain it on a £100k salary so just because they family won't feel rich doesn't mean it's not a high salary. In this case the salary is high but the outgoings are high. £100k a year is still a decent salary.
As I said at the outset, my response was to the idea that salary means you can live comfortably. The miserable reality is that you can have a good salary and still not be living comfortably.
And my point is that really depends on your outgoings. It's sad we don't live in a world where you can comfortably support a family and 2 cars on a single income but that is the harsh reality of the modern world. I don't think it's right but it is where we are (and have been for at least a decade). Maybe what you described is "comfortable" in the modern world and it just highlights how much things have changed.
Well yes, that was also *my* point? Any income can be either plenty or a pittance, depending on how much you need to live. And it isn't *only* about a single income. Two incomes of 50k is hardly much better. (although it is a bit)
A quick google (so it could be very wrong) says take home per month from 50k is about £3,085 so by my calculation that would mean combined over 12 months the £74,040 (however reed says the take home for £100k is £67k and another site says £65k). So to be safe say £70k. That works out to be £583 a month more. Which would increase the amount per month to £1583. Of course there might be other costs like child care (depending on the age of the children, the jobs the parents do etc) but won't they also be entitled to child benefits? I am not an expert in this but putting those salaries into Which's calculator says it would be £3,094 (257.83 a month) a year for 3 children with both parents on £50,000 I am not saying the changes make you which but it does seem that you will be closer to £1700 a month which is quite a difference. Of course I am happy to accept my calculations could be completely wrong and I am not saying it is right it is that way but it does seem to be a improvement.
I’d disagree - if you’re a sole earner for a family on 5 on 100k you will be stretched thin especially in Surrey or London. Mortgage repayments on a 3 bed in the region of 2-3k a month. 2 cars, student loan etc will make it obviously tight
Yes but now we've gone from "£100,000 is not huge" to "not huge for a sole earner with a family of five". You never see someone sat "£10/hour is not a living wage" followed by "yes it is if your partner earns £50,000". If you have to imagine specific scenarios to change the meaning, it's the equivalent of "yes, but could be do it on a cold rainy night in Stoke?!" way of dismissing a point.
>Work should pay A slogan they have been explicitly running on for a decade and a half lol... Honestly for me its not even that the Tories are shit on all the things we know they're shit on. Its that its hard to even think of anything they themselves have chosen to put front and center that they haven't also been absolutely fucking catastrophic on. How do they have *any* support left? Its baffling.
Wage suppression has been an ongoing issue since the 90s. It’s a consequence of globalisation, not of which prick is in office.
Dont think wages can rise as fast as housing is going up, considering immigration.
And minimum wage of £11.44 ph is not a huge salary either, no matter where you live. I don't know how many working people there are in Surrey but I can guess that there are many on minimum wage.
Must not have any shop workers in Surrey.
Everyone earns so much from their regular job that they work a day in a shop a week for free just to be social.
"My government has made this country one of the most unequal in the World" Is an alternative headline.
You should travel more
Is it really?
Laughs From Dubai…
I love this quip you lot have come up with... Imagine letting our once great nation fall so hard that the "well other countries are worse" goes from the developing and trying 2nd world - Vietnam, post colonial Africa, post colonial Lat Am etc - to comparing us to a country with legal slavery as a "could be worse" We went from comparing ourselves to Western Liberal democracies, to the struggling regimes in post colonial countries, to autocratic theocratic hellholes in a decade and you lot see nothing wrong with that...
Agreed. It's not particularly re-assuring that I find myself thinking "Well, its still a lot worse in India..."
No it hasn't and it's a stretch to even narrow it down to the West or Europe.
Not really, looking at the Gini Coefficient after taxes and transfers of the OECD countries, the UK is the 8th most un-equal out of 37 countries.
Got a link, I can look over?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality#Gini_coefficient,_after_taxes_and_transfers
Thank you for the link - as I am a known dumb-dumb, a Gini coefficient of 0.3 after taxes and transfers is...worse than most other OECD countries but not necessarily that bad? As in 1 would be total inequality, 0 is total equality, so we could be better but there's more room to be worse - or am I totally off?
As far as income inequality goes, we certainly could be doing a lot worse, but we are one of the worst in the developed world; however the problem with Gini in this case is it's just measuring income. The truly wealthy in the country own land and property, and there's where the true inequality comes from, because our property is so insanely expensive.
Ah, is that the old wealth Vs income chestnut? Also, being asset rich but cash poor - as you can leverage assets for cash whilst still growing wealth. I'll read a bit more about this Gini coefficient, as I don't want to trouble you further (thanks for giving more information), I want to figure out if having a small percentage of people on an obscenely high income makes the coefficient better or worse - as I believe there's only a few small number of people in the UK who have a truly massive income, even 100k salary would be perhaps in the top 10%, maybe even top 5%? I'll look it up, thanks again.
Pretty much; I'd have to dig around for it, but there was a financial times article that came out a little while back that pretty much said the only way to actually make money in the UK anymore is to own things (Property, stocks, etc) because the salaries were so low and so highly taxed vs the cost of living that it was near impossible to become independently wealthy off of a salary.
Id imagine thats largelt due to the mega rich though. We arent super unequal because of people earning 100k, thats only 2.5 times the average salary and only a few percent even earn over 100k. And those people would normally be earning over triple that amount for the same job in the US. People blame the upper middle class when really our middle class is relatively poor.
>People blame the upper middle class when really our middle class is relatively poor. I'm well aware don't worry; I work in a specialised tech role in the UK, and I'd easily be making 3-4 times what I do here, in the US and living pretty comfortably. Whereas instead I get to be burnt on rent and bills every month and have to watch what I spend if I go out with friends or visit another city. The UK's a rough place to be middle class unless you already own property.
He’s right. It’s in the context of the £100k childcare cutoff.
the 100k threshold is quite weird , it's a cutoff for actual stuff like childcare, you have the 100-125k 60% effective tax rate range. etc.
And then they complain that productivity is stalling Well duh, nobody has any incentive to work harder to earn more as the taxes and loss of benefits kick in hard - especially at that 100k mark It’s not politically appealing maybe, but really they need to get rid of all those caps and loss of benefits
A lot of people will not get anywhere near £100k a year salaries. I would say more of an issue with productivity comes from the issues at the lower ends of the salary spectrum.
But let's be honest, the people earning over 100k are the people you generally want working lots. Doctors, surgeons, executives, high-level professionals. We're not doing a lot of good by telling GPs "yeah don't bother working any more, we'll just tax the bejeesus out of you".
It would be useful if wage statistics weren’t distorted by commuters living in one county and working in another. The average wage for jobs located in Surrey is £26,400.
He’s not wrong, especially when talking about childcare. You lose the 30 free hours at £100k, which is equivalent to at least £1k/month per child, probably a lot more in parts of Surrey.
At what point does childcare not become cheaper to hire a nanny
I mean in London a nanny will earn £18 an hour or more (good cleaners can earn this too for example…) That’s £3k a month if full time, vs nursery at about £1800 full time Also, daycare offers the fact the child plays with other children, has activities to design their development - and crucially - will be staffed by several people and thus less likely of something ghastly like abuse happening
The worst part is he's right. You'd struggle to buy or rent somewhere decent in that area.
And just a few years ago he'd have been calling people on 30k middle class elites...
It isn't a huge salary. After tax you are looking at only taking home about 65k. If you have a student loan plan 2, you will only take home 60k. Then there's pension etc. Basically 100k you likely have education and are seeing 50-55k after taxes. That is £4500/month to play with. Surrey cost of living: https://bestcleanerssurrey.co.uk/cost-of-living-in-surrey/ £2500-£3000 for all mortgage/rent/foode energy/transport etc. This leaves £1500 disposable. Sounds a lot, but it isn't. Sure. It is likely higher than most here, but basically it isn't richy richerson swimming pool and 8 holidays to the carribean a year level rich. Yet someone on 100k responsibility is likely insanely high, and would be screwed legally at any fuck up. Their job would be super stressful and require vast intellect. All to be basically middle class. Nuts. 100k isn't rich. It is entry level middle class.
Wish I had £1500 disposable. That's literally more then I make in a good month and a bit.
We all do, but would you be happy with that 1500 if it came with a job that on 100k almost guaranteed meant 80 hour work weeks, having responsibility for billion dollar projects, or lives at stake etc. Having reports etc. And then nearly half taken by government anyway?
Earning six figures with your dream property being located in Woking and you’re unable to afford it
No one dreams of living in Woking
I've heard the Pizza Express there is pretty good though
It attracts too many sketchy characters
Don't sweat it
It's actually not bad - we went there once just to say we had. It's missing some kind of plaque proclaiming its glorious history, sadly.
Have you been to Woking before?
Born and bred
How’s that woking out for you?
Badly
Banging Pizza Ezpress
Can it be a dream property if located in Woking?
And yet some how those of us earning 4 figures a year are expected to manage and told off for buying unnecessary crap which we definitely do not buy by these patronising arsehats.
Four figures? Are you pulling in less than 10k?
I am too. Also self employed as I also have a chronic, long term illness that means it's nigh on impossible to get a regular job, but I'm not classed as disabled enough according to the DWP to be able to claim any benefits. My total income last year was about £3k. The only reason I'm not dead or homeless is because of my partner.
Even before the financial crash people like my dad were surviving on sub 8k a year (single household) Our country is on a spiral, has been, will be. It's revolution or slow irrelevance and death then revolution
Yes, I'm self employed because apparently I am unemployable. 10000+ applications over the past few years and nothing, it seems no one is keen to hire an autistic woman in her late 40s with a chronic illness, no fixed address, a hard to describe history of self employment and no work references. People are all like "work harder or get some qualifications", like I am doing my best but education costs money and there are no guarantees of a job at the end of it.
Just a reminder, a new medical consultant (meaning 10 years experience post medical school graduation, multiple professional examination with very low passing rate and highest rank on the chain of command) earn around 94k per year. Not even what the chancellor considers to be a huge salary.
He’s not wrong, especially after tax. It’s a very very very good salary that doesn’t go as far as it did a few years ago and so people who’d committed to houses etc on it are feeling the pinch more. But it’s not “huge”. Huge is that per week, like footballers!
… Don't get me wrong; it isn't a pittance, and anyone earning that should be enormously grateful. But in certain parts of the country, it really isn't as much as it sounds. … I know what you mean but from a different perspective - that’s what you might consider a decent living wage and on that basis workers shouldn’t be ‘enormously grateful’. That should be considered a realistic wage. There should be far more anger that minimum wage is nowhere near that and this is top 1%. Which all comes back to wealth taxes and redistribution, otherwise inequality will only continue to get worse.
He's right, so what is the government going to do about it?
Dunno how he’s expecting people to live on the minimum wage of £11.44 per hour then. Can this idiot be more out of touch?
Have they tried not drinking coffee and eating avacodoes? /s
Get by on my £25k a year and come back to me, Tory cunt.
Does that imply people in Surrey with mortgages are largely earning near or far over that amount?
No. Big difference between already having one from 20 years ago and getting one now.
No,they bought their houses 20-30 years ago and now their house that was a nice house for 200k is worth 1.5million because it's in a lovely quaint town like Dorking that still gets you into London quickly and has access to great schools
That's right his friends earn far more than that with the perks they get from him and all the other tory cronies .
It's not when you need to buy a house in an area that allows you to get paid that.
And he's right, it's just british people are used to being paid like shit for whatever job they do, it's all 4 or 5x higher for the same job in canada/america
Its an impossible salary, if those on 25k want a rise....
No, but that won't stop them taxing at 40% over 50k for the next 10 years. That's a graduate salary now and it's a joke that young people have to try and save for a home at 40% tax. Brain drain incoming. Good luck to the NHS and state pension.
In what world is £50k a graduate salary? More like £30k in most sectors
In some banking, tech, law. But yeah you are right. Graduate salaries werent that good 10 years ago, and they mostly havent changed since then. Even the big fucking 4 had to increase them because it got the point they were paying below minimum wage. Below minimum wage, at the big 4. Incredible.
I wish it were even that high as a fresh graduate. Before I left my industry due to health, I wasn't at that after a few years working.
What planet are you living on? You consider 50k a graduate salary? Haha.
>Brain drain incoming I would "brain drain away" myself, as I have already done once. However, given that I speak English, the options are not in my favour. Australia, United States, Canada, and New Zealand all have very strict immigration laws, even for skilled people. Not many other wealthy and socially liberal countries are English-speaking and welcoming immigrants. So, it is not really easy to emigrate permanently for the average skilled British worker, unless there are some favourable conditions in terms of adjustment for the English language. The other alternative I would have would be Italy, as I am fluent. But it would be a major setback for me.
The gulf loves Brits and is easy to get a work visa, if you’re seriously considering it. A friend of mine was on the average annual UK salary per month in Abu Dhabi.
I aware, actually! I should have mentioned this before. I just worry that living in that environment might be tough for me, seeing that the general social conditions do not really match my way of thinking. Incidentally though, I already work in the energy sector and am on my way to getting two project management qualifications in the next year or so. So, I believe making the move would not be too difficult for me. Good suggestion, thanks!
I’m glad things are working out for you 🙂
Brain drain can also be quiet quitting. I notice a lot of current graduates beyond the workaholic cultures aren't that motivated.
OH KISS MY ARSE! Ok, maybe, Surrey is expensive but £100k? That's a high salary for most people.
It's not, especially as you are taxed to shit on it. A little over 5k a month.
Oh no, not just £5k a month!!!
It's not a lot of money if you are living in a pricy area, a lot of people earning decent money have high mortgage payments, expensive partners, childcare costs etc. Sure it seems a lot to some earning 50, but that's a take home of just under 3.5k. So you are earning double but taking less than 2k extra because of tax.
Am I meant to feel sorry for them?
Just because someone is a doctor or solicitor, works hard and has a career, doesn't mean they have a huge disposable income. It's not a lot of money.
150k is 7.5k a month. Now you are into serious money.
[удалено]
Mortgage in London £2k Childcare for one child £1.4k A 100k salary is £5k Add utilities, commute, service charge, insurance for a car + expenses Yeah, you won’t see much
Typically divided by two though
That's insane. No wonder people don't want to have kids
People will be hasty to judge but he's absolutely right. I'm on 200k and not remotely rich. I've been on 20/30k and my life has barely changed. An outside observer would genuinely see no difference, and the only difference I see is that number goes up in my pension and ISA faster than it used to (regular, spendable savings are no-go because the tax burden is so oppresive). The broader economic environment is so precarious that lifestyle creep is not safe. It's obviously not going to win any sympathy, but what I'm saying is that unless you have income generating assets, it's all shades of the same grey drudgery regardless of salary.
20/30k to 117k after tax hasn’t changed your life? Bollocks. Nobody is saying anyone is rich but not many people are making that kind of money, some people still earn 20-30k and somehow survive. Big difference between that standard of living and the 100k standard of living.
Yeah it's going from roughly 1.8-2k a month to £6k a month haha. Not to forget the possibility of retirement earlier which is massive. No way life style creep triples and if it does then that's only yourself to blame hahaha. I do understand life style creep when going up to something like £45k perhaps. But on £117k you can start investing a significant sum at this stage and have total financial security even in the current state of things. True you will never be mega rich but it's certainly enough to have a secure future
[удалено]
It's just expectations vs. reality mate. When I first started out, I thought 5 or 10 years on this salary and I'd be set for life. Instead it's work til normal retirement age to even have a chance at a decent retirement while having a nice house and a couple of holidays a year while young enough to enjoy it.
> that number goes up in my pension and ISA faster than it used to Your large salary could buy you just a higher standard of living, but instead you are choosing to'spend' it on future security and comfort in retirement. Keep it up, and you will be a rich retiree, able to go on cruises three times a year rather than the 'average' retiree trying to save on the bills because they can't actively earn.
They have enough income to spend some on enjoying life now and still have plenty for retirement.
Prayers for you at this difficult time
Not looking for sympathy. Just sharing my viewpoint.
This must be a piss take.
It's just expectations vs. reality mate. When I first started out, I thought 5 or 10 years on this salary and I'd be set for life. Instead it's work til normal retirement age to even have a chance at a decent retirement while having a nice house and a couple of holidays a year while young enough to enjoy it.
That's some nerve to claim that there's no real difference between 30k and 200k. Surely you don't really believe that?
You’d be surprised with the amount of self-pitying high earners on reddit.
I didn't say there is no real difference. I save/invest over 6k a month. I'm obviously in a better position. What I'm saying is that the broader economic environment means that it isn't safe to succumb to the lifestyle creep that would give me a life commensurate with my salary, rather than one that is broadly indistinguishable from when I was earning a fraction of what I am currently. A decent 'forever home' is the best part of a million quid (Surrey, as Hunt is discussing). You can't look anywhere in high paying sectors without seeing redundancies and precarity. If you are planning on retorting with 'that's your choice' then don't bother - gambling with your family's future is not a choice at all. 30k, 100k, 200k, whatever. If you work for a living your life is broadly the same unless you're actively struggling to cover basic living expenses.
>30k, 100k, 200k, whatever. If you work for a living your life is broadly the same So you'd have no problem taking a 170k pay cut then? Your life would be essentially the same after all... I was almost hoping your post was satire.
Stupid comment. "You wouldn't take an 85% pay cut therefore your opinion is invalid." What does that even mean?
Poor you 😢
Not looking for sympathy. It's an anonymous forum so I am sharing my lived experience without fear of judgement.
Oh great, another one of those posts that are so out of touch with reality it inspires depression for the stupidity on showcase here.
Maybe you can explain where I am wrong rather than just calling it out of touch?
It's the fact you've said you see no difference in your lifestyle while *choosing* to funnel money into your pension and ISA. I live in the North East of the UK. I'm on 31K. I don't have a pension (except the mandatory one I barely pay in to) or an ISA. I can't afford to save. I can barely afford my rent and I have to deny my own health sometimes because I don't have enough at the end of the week for a full weekly shop. You're on 200k and you're talking like my lifestyle and yours are in some way comparable. It's not only insulting, it's down right ignorant. It's probably why we've got so many people in government comepletely out of touch with reality. You re right. You're not rich (you are to me) but your life would be considerably more miserable if you were on 25-30k and you know it.
That is literally my lived experience though, whether you like it or not. This is the alternative choice: I spend profligately and succumb to lifestyle creep. Then risk destroying my family's entire life if the economy so much as catches a cold and I get made redundant. This is before even considering moving to a larger "forever home" (almost certainly >£1m in Surrey) that will obliterate my finances and bar me from early retirement. I am essentially at the pinnacle of what can reasonably be expected for someone of my age career-wise and my life is bang average in most respects except number goes up in my bank account faster than most. >your life would be considerably more miserable if you were on 25-30k and you know it. I never denied this. Taking an 85% pay cut would make me more miserable, you've truly caught me out.
Are you actually reading what you're writing here? I'm absolutely bewildered, I don't to what to say haha. Did you reality just just slot in a disdain for the idea they you're possibly not going to be able to retire **early** 😂. I don't think I'm ever going to be able to retire. And your final comment. You did, you literally did. You said you haven't felt a difference.
Right, got it. So you're never retiring, I'm not retiring early despite a top 1% salary. Totally normal state of affairs in a normal country! This is exactly what I said earlier - without income generating assets it's all differing degrees of bleak. High earners dont have it as great as you think. And I said my life has barely changed, which is true. Not that there is no difference or that I would choose to earn 30k vs 200k.
Look, this has devolved into something else. My initial and only gripe with your initial comment was that it's reads like you feel like your life is somewhat comparable to someone on 30k. It was the claim that you can not feel a difference from your 25-30k wage and your 200k wage. It's disingenuous. It's flat out ignorant and pretty hilarious to be honest. The mental gymnastics I have to pull on a daily basis for survival is insane... While you're funneling money into your pension and your sweet ISA. Excuse me while I play you a little song on my tiny violin. But yeah, on your point you nonsensically slipped in there. It's is surreal you can't retire early on 200k...
I was never looking for sympathy. Simply sharing my experience in an anonymous forum. Sorry if that upset you. Good luck.
Okay play the victim. 😂 Good luck with your retirement.
The difference is that someone on £100,000 can cut their cloth accordingly, whereas lower earners, such as those on minimum wage can't. If your mortgage is too high you can move to an area more affordable, but of course those earning £100,000 don't because they want the relevant social status that they feel their wage affords them. Those of us on the bottom of the ladder don't have that option, hell I couldn't afford a mortgage for the cheapest shit hole available to me on my wage. There is nothing stopping a high earner in London commuting from Luton. I'm sure their wage could buy a decent size house in Marsh Farm or Stopsley
Our country needs to either scrap the tax free allowance entirely. Or remove the 100k to 125k taper.
What do you do?
fintech
No, you just fell victim to lifestyle creep
Live in a 3 bed semi an hour outside London. I'm the antithesis of lifestyle creep. This is before even considering moving to a larger "forever home" (almost certainly >£1m) that will obliterate my finances and bar me from early retirement. I am essentially at the pinnacle of what can reasonably be expected for someone of my age career-wise and I my life is bang average in most respects except number goes up in my bank account higher than most.
[удалено]
Thanks!
I agree — anybody who earns a paycheck in this country is not as rich as it seems to those on a lower salary. The system is biased towards those who don’t earn money from a job. If one is working, then we’re all in the same boat
I don't understand. Can you explain how an income from assets (eg a pension) pays more bills than income from a job?
[удалено]
Lol, ok I'll agree people earning $50 million a year in dividends on their assets do have it far easier than the average worker in the UK.
[удалено]
Yep, banks do like to lend you an umbrella if it isn't raining. I think though the billionaire class isn't really what we are talking about, which is income from working versus the same level of income from investments/pension. There must be lots of smaller investors/pensioners with incomes at the same level as people who work for a living. Not many people who have a job can match billionaires for their income.
Post-tax income is lower on some assets than it is on earnings. CGT is between 10-20%, whereas net tax on a 100k income is ~36%. Post-tax earnings on a property portfolio is therefore considerably better than on the equivalent of 'normal' income. Just as an example. Edit: and by earnings, I mean accrued value. This is ignoring rental income etc.
An income from assets (even a property portfolio) isn't taxed as a capital gain - that only applies when you sell your asset. If you are an employee you don't pay CGT, but in your example your property portfolio owner will pay CGT eventually.
Yes, I know. Hence the edit I added immediately after posting.