High earners - how do you spend your salary?

Actually School does teach children to clean up after themselves from a very early age, they’re taught to put away things after painting to clean up the brushes etc, they also garden from a very early age at kindie they grow their own fruit and veg, conflict management is almost instantaneous the moment they enter the school system they are forced to share, I don’t actually particularly agree with that.

caring for others and parenting well again yes there is the home corner in every nursery up and down the land. Most three-year-olds know which end the bottle goes into the baby doll and which end it comes out of.
so as I say it is a conscious decision to not explain what the annual predicted rate of interest is to people.

if people knew that it was going cost them a third on top of the capital that they will repay back to purchase a car to drive to work they might potentially decide to take a job where they do not have to drive to work and therefore they wouldn’t pay tax on the additional 1/3 income and support the financial services industry by taking the loan and support the automotive industry by buying the car. additionally they will pay VAT on all the fuel that they will put in the car.
did anybody ever sit down and explain to you that when you look at the overall picture you would be financially better off and have a higher quality of life by taking the local job that you could walk to that pays 1/3 a less ? Of course they didn’t.

There is many many life skills not taught at school. School focuses on academia, not life skills, which is down to the parent to teach. Finance management is no different. There is no huge conspiracy here, it’s not like the teach everything else and leave this one out. They aren’t in there teaching you how to clean, navigate conflict, care for others, garden, parent, that’s not what school is. School is teaching children academics, English, history, maths, geography etc.

To my eyes it should be a mandatory subject and they should go back to the way it was in 50s/60s with children learning life skills such as sewing in primary.

Sewing is a life skill?

I was in Primary School in the early 90s and I had a lesson every week on how to sew. It was completely pointless.

Secondary school children are not going to have sewing as their hobby……and by the time it comes to having to having to actually sew a button onto something they aren’t going to remember anything from sewing lessons they had 20 years ago.

If parents are so bothered about their children learning to sew then they should teach it themselves and let schools focus on what really matters.

And as for economy lessons at schools…..I imagine it will just open up a whole new can of worms and the classes will go just like this thread has…..those from very wealthy families making those from poorer backgrounds feel like shit. I imagine the class will provide a great platform for bullying.

Finance, budgeting, learning about pensions etc should be provided by the children’s parents……people who’ve probably experienced what it’s like to need to budget and struggle with the battle between their incomes and their outgoings, as opposed to a twenty something old teacher fresh out of Uni.

Just to cut in here - home economics used to be on the syllabus more prominently prior to the 90s. Giving children guidance on household management, child development, budgeting and economics, cooking, sewing, health etc.

It has been cut back due to funding restraints on education, much like the arts and geography actually, to make way for predominant STEM related subjects.

Now the syllabus is much more nutrition/health focused, which I don’t agree with. And fewer classes are offered.

As I say much of this is due to funding constraints and expansion of other subjects (such as economics, expansion of health for biology, integration of textiles into art and design), but also students are given a choice and they are not choosing HE as it doesn’t lead to career roles people want.

To my eyes it should be a mandatory subject and they should go back to the way it was in 50s/60s with children learning life skills such as sewing in primary.

It’s ridiculous most have no clue about financial management, child development and can’t darn a sock!

Okay I’ll rephrase it then lots of people need to get into debt just to survive to buy the basics, washing machines, cookers, TVs and to enjoy their lives to go into debt for a holiday or some days out of a car to take them there.

Ive even known people use their credit card to buy the bus pass to get to work, lots of people definitely go into debt to buy cars to take them to work.

if it was actually explained to them that by using a credit card/loan they will pay 1/3 extra in interest on average on top of the initial outlay then lots of people would have no choice but to suck it up and deal with it and pay and some other might choose not to do it.

And that’s why there’s very little encouragement from the educators to explain this.

Sounds like an elaborate conspiracy. However, there’s no doubt the government wants us all to spend, spend, spend - our economy relies on it, and inevitably that will lead to debt for a lot of people.

It’s an extremely conscious decision to not put teaching finances on the curriculum the whole idea is that the masses never get out of debt, debt is the enslavement of the free take that away and why would people go to work

seriously? How else would they buy food, clothing pay utilities have a home? People don’t work just for debt, they work to feed and house themselves.

It’s an extremely conscious decision to not put teaching finances on the curriculum the whole idea is that the masses never get out of debt, debt is the enslavement of the free take that away and why would people go to work ?

I’m pretty crap with money, but I’d definitely echo what someone else said upthread. Your mortgage will likely be the most cost-effective way of borrowing possible. I would fix for a longer term, at a slightly higher rate, just to know that that element of outgoings isn’t going to change for a number of years.

I hate the way these threads go. I have no one “senior” in my family to get good financial advice from. There’s nothing wrong with seeking info from a forum. I’m not rich, never will be, but I’m not going to mock those with queries outside of my lifestyle.

I definitely think that part of the school curriculum should be dedicated to household finances/budgeting/pensions etc. Way more useful than remembering how to work out the circumference of a circle!

I wouldn't say high earner, but I'm comfortable. I spend a fair amount on private healthcare - go on, MN, be jealous of that. Plenty of people earn lower than me, but don't need to spend any money on healthcare because the NHS actually looks after them and/or there's nothing wrong with them.

People don't fall into high paying jobs it often takes years of study and hard work.

@hattie43 this is quite offensive actually.

Nurse’s/Teachers for example work very hard to attain a Uni degree, and many have postgrad as well but no matter how hard they work they cannot hope to achieve the same salary as say somebody in finance.

Also some young people have caring responsibilities or have to go out and work to support their families rather than pursue other routes. Or there is some reason their parents withhold funding to support them and they can’t get a grant due to parental income, so options are limited. Those who are able to swan off to Uni footloose and fancy free with financial support at 18 are incredibly fortunate and privileged.

It doesn’t matter what her profession is. Or her level of intelligence.

OP does not have the advantage of a wide social circle of affluent people (family, family friends, own friends potentially too if they were state educated) to draw information from. Which matters a hell of a lot more than book smarts.

I am old enough to retire but still do a relatively high pressure job that is pretty well paid. Earning a decent amount allows me the luxury of being rubbish with / seldom thinking about money. I spend my disposable income on horses. And vets bills. And buying services so I don’t need to do things that I don’t enjoy and can outsource. If household outgoings regularly exceed income, I look for work that pays more. I have savings for emergencies but don’t find it important to save more because I have reached an age where delayed gratification no longer feels sensible.

£150k combined income, split relatively evenly. 50% of my salary goes into my pension. We try to save £1k a month between us. The rest goes on mortgage, nursery bills (higher than mortgage!) and normal bills. We have about £600 each to spend, but I inevitably end up in my overdraft every month.

£600 on drinks out in bars, £1000 on travel, variable £ on clothing. Know we’re very lucky, count our blessings every day.

No with children the big hindrance is childcare and then potential university. Plenty of high earners are happy to keep faith with the state school system and find our kids end up at the same universities as those who were sent to expensive private schools.

I don't have a mortgage but I do have a child at university so a chunk of money goes on his rent. Otherwise I save a lot. Jobs can be lost very easily for lots of reasons, so it's good to know that you won't starve (probably not the case if you work in the NHS but absolutely the case if you work in the law).

Otherwise money goes on holidays, meals out, exercise classes.

I think it’s clear it’s upsetting you, I don’t see this as boasting, she’s allowed to talk about it, maybe it’s best to hide the thread if it’s upsetting you so much? 💐

I seriously doubt she will too. But she should because boasting about your wealth to complete strangers is truly embarrassing.

High earners having no children means a large degree of flexibility regardless of what you spend your money on, with children the big hindrence are private school fees.

I really don’t think she’s lying. These are standard salaries for their careers at this age.

Citygirly If children are on the horizon I’d look into and build a buffer for ongoing childcare expenses. With law plus medicine you may need a nanny rather than nursery for the long/irregular hours which is going to be a high ongoing cost.

You should probably be putting more into pensions for you (definitely anything above the higher rate allowance if you can) but I’d stick with the minimum NHS contribution for your husband as many doctors have been hit by the lifetime allowance (worth looking up guidance from the BMA on it). Also worth looking at Lisas and investing in stocks and shares isas.

You’re on a high income but childcare will eventually swallow a lot of it . You have a few years to have fun and build wealth/a financial buffer before children make that a different proposition.

Nope. Nobody ever lies on Mumsnet. Ever.

Oops, I just did. 😂

I also don’t think there is anything wrong with the thread. Everyone knows there ar high earners, if seeing that upsets you, just hide the thread.

there’s nothing to be embarrassed about now, or when she’s older. I seriously doubt she will be “cringing her tits off” when she’s older or any other such nonsense being written.

It’s shit lovely. I’ve been there. I truly have

if you need a friendly ear. I’m always here

No, it simply can't be. This system is built on inequality.