ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
AIBU to think there is a problem on MN discussing anything at all to do with income(335 Posts)
There are a lot of threads started nowadays, that are causing offence to people who are on low incomes.
It is getting increasingly difficult for those on higher incomes to discuss quite a lot of things.
I dont know if the answer is for those with more income, to not talk much about anything, or those with less income to let them talk about what they want to talk about.
I dont know the answer to all of this.
I would like both sets, or indeed anyone in the middle, to be in harmony on MN!
if you want an squeezed middle topic op, can you ask for a "carers shafted by the government" one too
...and then proceed to lecture people for bring insensitive.
Not that I seriously expect MNHQ to start up a "Squeezed Middle-class"forum but.....
On MN, as in the Real World, there are people who are struggling financially or their children are struggling academically.
Some of these people don't really want to hear about other people's piano tutor problems or which GS offer to accept or how they can only afford one holiday a year instead of the usual two or... or ...
Some of these people will simply ignore such threads. Others will inject themselves into a thread about what is a good salary for a returning to work SAHM for example and lecture people on how they are being insensitive to people who can only dream about being on what has been labelled as a "low" salary.
This latter category of MNetter will inject herself into a thread even though the forum is "Squeezed Middle-class" and it's in flashing neon.
PEACE AND LOVE SnowLivia Mumsnet
t'would be lovely
[sorry, not sure why I have not spotted your reply till now]
Any chance of a "squeezed middle" thread, to go alongside the "credit crunch" thread?
[not sure there would be too much PEACE AND LOVE if the "squeezed middle" posted in credit crunch].
I was once torn apart on a "nanny thread". Nothing I thought to do with the issues which concerned settling my youngest DC and about which I was genuinely upset.
It was like open season and more than a handful of posters suggested I was a selfish bitch for having a nanny - dont think I'd have got that sort of response if I'd mentioned a CM.
I thought the OP on the piano thread was amusing and it didn't appear to be malicious in intent. Relative poverty is just that and so it was a shame she was subjected to such vitriol although there were a couple of very odd posts and one at least that was a blatant (and off topic boast) weird.
I would like both sets, or indeed anyone in the middle, to be in harmony on MN!
or as I would put it, PEACE AND LOVE
The taxman says you are a high earner if you make £130k or more in the tax year. It doesn't look at the number of days you've worked and say "oh, you made 15k but only worked 12 days, so you make £1200 a day, if you worked FT you'd be a HE therefore we'll put you in the higher bracket."
Lougle, I get your point about having more choice, but that doesn't make you a HE, just a low earner with time on your hands.
I don't really agree. I think sometimes the threads are fine and sometimes not. For example, I once posted something about all the pre-credit crunch things people missed. And no arguments, nothing mean, just people sharing how they missed perfume and haircuts and so on.
Then this morning, a thread in which a piano teacher couldn't afford to get the piano tuned went haywire. I think it's often the word "class" that's the red flag rather than money.
primafacie, I disagree. If you are a high-earner in 'per hour terms' you have the luxury of choice which a low earner in 'per hour terms' does not.
If you are able to charge yourself out at £1,200 a day, you can always work more days. You are a high-earner working PT.
Lougle, I see your point but being a high earner is not defined by reference to the time spent earning - you are only a high earner if your earnings are high in absolute terms. Earning £15k a year is not being a high earner, it doesn't matter if you've earned it by working one day or 350.
You may be time-rich and cash poor, but that is an entirely different matter.
It also works in other ways.
Someone who says 'I earn £1200 per month' may or may not be a high earner.
If they earn £1200 per month working 1 day per week from home, they are indeed much 'richer' than someone who earns £1200 per month working 6 days per week in split shifts during unsociable hours.
Again, the reminder that they are fortunate to be able to choose a working pattern that is both short and convenient while bringing in a good salary, wouldn't be unreasonable.
mumsnetters are from both ends of the scale, rich and poor and middle, it is an open forum. When i win the lottery I shall moan on which mansion to buy, so watch out it will happen, fingers crossed and every thing else, in the meantime working poor.
It's not that people on high incomes can't post. They can post what they like. But if someone on a very high income posts about feeling poor because of the choices they have made in terms of what to spend their money on (private school fees, large house in expensive area, multiple pricey holidays etc) then it's actually probably a good idea that they are reminded that they are making those choices and that they are privileged to be able to do so.
If everyone thinks they are skint, and conveniently forgets that they have an extremely enjoyable and comfortable lifestyle from their money, then we're going to finish up as a miserable, envious society, where even the wealthy aren't happy with their lot. It's probably a good idea for people to have a bit of a reality check every now and again.
There's also a big difference between posting "We've got very high outgoings and should be a lot better off than we are - any advice on how to make savings. BTW I know we're lucky to have these choices" and "I can't believe how poor we are - we've only got £1000 a month left after paying all the bills, four sets of school fees, the livery fees for the horses and the deposit on next month's ski-ing holiday. Poor me."
DP is a fairly high earner. I'm a fairly modest earner. We've opted for a biggish mortgage and DP works away part of the week so we have quite high outgoings due to effectively being two households part of the time. We have had cheap, UK-based holidays for the last three years and we have to be quite careful about expenditure. But those are our choices and we can't complain about them - otherwise people would be quite right to say "er, you could buy a smaller house and move closer to DP's work."
So while I might moan about specific aspects of our financial situation - eg cost of childcare meaning that my personal contribution to the household finances is fairly negligible, or losing my child benefit which paid for part of that childcare - but I'm not in any position to make sweeping complaints about being poor!
Ah, what a wonderful thread! I have only my imagination to go on for the actual picture, but it is so vivid.
Thank you Tony- I shall put my pyjamas on and peruse it in comfort...
yy me too, such kindness and politness in the face of such oiled horror...
You are lucky to have a man like Timon Hul.
Sensitivity, warmth and buttocks that can crack walnuts. You are living the dream
Did you? I thought it made them all seem rather wonderful?
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Oh thank you TonyDanza
I loved that thread. I loved the people desperately being nice to Hully when faced with that picture. And the rude one who called it akin to prostitution. Fab
Was around at the time but still in nappies!! But it's a bit of a classic.
Also recall from Economics at school a description of the spread of wealth as represented by height - like a parade (Keynes maybe - or Galbraith - blimey not sure now!).
The first part of the parade goes on for a while - very very small people for a very long time, then gradually height gets bigger until you get to average height, doesn't last that long, then you'd get a run of giants followed by a few super super super giants. Also shows how the wealth is distributed, so the few at the top end tend to loose touch with those at the tail end.
Keep thinking we are average 'height' but when you really look at it we are more like above average tall but not in the giant part of the parade.
If you have come from further down the parade (so to speak) then you can forget what it was like there, similarly if you have been fortunate to always be tall it can be difficult to understand how the short and the very short manage. It's quite a good analogy.
So now on MN we can talk about height vs income!!
Thread with naked Hully is here BOF.
My favourite bit is the way you keep it in the sitting room Hully
Thank you for the link Nigella!
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.