"We're on good money"

In my head a decent wage per person should be 60k to 100k . For most qualified middle aged adults .

If you are brining in 100k+ per person into a household , I would have thought that you should be more than comfortable. Eg. Be able to afford a nanny for the kids , a decent property in a decent postcode , able to educate the kids at decent schools etc .

I classify most people , who earn 50k and below as struggling. Although I appreciate entirely on our goings and area and whether it is a 2 parent home etc .

For reference I earn 50k and classify myself as poor . Not because we can't afford to live etc but we have no assets.

Of course a large part of that effect is obviously the tax problem: that between £100k and £150k families using childcare make no gains (losses!!) on net income, therefore only £50k of the £100k "increase" in earnings between £100k and £200k actually increases net income after tax and childcare when the tax rate drops back down to "only" 45% plus 9% student loan plus pension (say 15%) therefore they get in net pay to spend (31% x 50k)/12 = £1291 extra per month for doubling their salary from £100k to £200k... I am sure most people would assume that £100k increase in earnings would equate to far more disposable income than that!!

@FredtheCatsMum unfortunately the spread of UK salaries is no longer a good benchmark of what constitutes a good benchmark for a decent lifestyle because UK salaries have been stagnant for 15 years while costs have risen so standard of living is determined far more now by wealth (and therefore age cohort). Being less poor than others in the UK does not make someone "well off": The average UK citizen is now significantly poorer than the average citizen in what used to be our comparator countries e.g. Germany, France, the Netherlands etc. and is poorer than those in every US state except the very poorest (Mississippi). As you noted, due to these effects and the current UK tax system the kind of lifestyle that used to be achievable on £100k even 15 years ago now requires £200k. The Times published a good article on this a couple of months ago with all of the costs, tax effects etc quantified.

To put some perspective on it have a look at stats for income in the UK.

The ONS talks about after tax income (which they call disposable income).
If you have £32k per year, or £2666 per month to spend including on pension contributions, you're at the midpoint / median of household incomes. So, in some ways, you might say anything above that is 'good money'

If your household has is £66k per year, or £5500 per month, you're in the top 20%, and I would call that 'good money'.

If you're a single person, you will need to earn £96,890.52 to take that home, which is definitely good money. For a couple, £41755 each gets you there.

Of course, if you've got that, but are paying off a London mortgage, you may not feel that its good money.

ONS Average Household Income stats and a useful Salary Calculator

I don't really have a set figure in my head. As others have said very much depends on your age/stage in life, location, average amongst people you spend most time with and to a lesser extent your outgoings.

A 19 year old on £30K and living at home will be on good money, but by the time their 25 it won't be. Likewise a 28 year old in the midlands on £50K will be on good money but in London, not so much.

Earning £100K+ (anyone, any age) was considered very good money when I was 30 ish but now it is more like £200K+ twenty years later at 50. I would still say £100K is good money though for most individuals but less so for a household with dependents.

Anyone referring to themselves or their spouse as 'making good money' I would think as a big braggy/insecure/crass though.

I do take the point that technically someone earning six figures is still "on good money" if that phrase is taken to mean "earns a good salary" however, it is a mistake to infer from that that they are financially comfortable, or must not be managing their finances sensibly if they are not. This thread and many others demonstrate that many people make that false inference. The assumption that someone's financial stability/ living standard can be roughly determined from their income is wrong. You see it all the time here when a higher earner posts about financial worries and lower earners pile on with sarcastic comments and attack them.

It's very toxic and seems to be the result of this inability of people to understand that a high salary does not necessarily make someone well off. Being "rich" is about assets, not income, and because of the way the UK economy and tax system functions this is increasingly the case. I look at colleagues in my industry 20 years older and the lifestyles they could afford were entirely different: children in private schools, huge houses, luxury holidays. The reason? Salaries haven't risen in real terms in 15 years but costs for many things have more than doubled. We are all being slowly impoverished like boiling frogs, even the apparently "successful", in relative terms.

It’s so area dependent though. A household income of 100k in the south, with childcare bills and high property prices, would probably leave a family without an enormous amount of scope for big holidays and cars and luxuries.

We have friends on a similar income to us, but even with more kids, because they live in a cheaper area up north they have an absolutely massive house and loads of expendable income.

If your net starts with a 3 each month.

I think outgoings are irrelevant. If you earn 200k but spend 199k a year that doesn't change the fact you're on good money, it just means you're spending a lot too.

That's simply not the case. In order to earn that kind of money in many sectors you have to live in an expensive area and/ or pay large commuting costs. If you have children then to continue to work and earn that money you have to pay for childcare for them which will also be more expensive in an expensive area. If you have disabilities or your children do then additional costs come with that. If you are a single parent you have higher costs for childcare generally, and are taxed more and have to pay all living and child costs alone. None of the above factors are a choice (other than having children in the first place) if you want to continue to earn your salary.

I also think in these discussions many people don't understand the impact of tax on these higher salaries. For example, a single parent with two children using childcare who earns £99k will have a lower net income after tax and childcare than if they earned £150k! And yet a poster upthread stated £100k is well off and £150k is "mega rich". Yet in some circumstances someone earning £100k is better off than someone on £150k after tax and childcare.

The situation is complex and headline salary is meaningless until you consider outgoings as well.

Having lived in absolute poverty when younger I do understand how it's difficult for some people who do not earn very much to understand that someone earning a six figure income could be struggling for money but it absolutely can be the case, and not because of poor financial management or irresponsible and unnecessary spending: it is not uncommon to have such an income and have to budget extremely carefully for essential living costs with no money for luxuries, holidays etc.

That's the kind of ball park figure I'd guess at.

We're South East, the friends we have that would say that they're on "good money" are pushing 100k pre bonus etc. I'm in the public sector, on £30k. We couldn't afford to live in the MN declared "grim" town we live in on my salary. Elsewhere I'm sure it would go further

I associate good money with the 'average/general' (whatever) salaries for that particular location, not someone's personal circumstances.
This is because COL does influence salary that's why even the NHS has London weighting (although it's nowhere near enough).

My current job for example pays at least double in London. But I wouldn't be able to enjoy the same standard of living. So it would be silly to compare a good salary in the North West to a good London salary. Of course, after a certain point a salary is good wherever. And similarly below a certain point (min wage), it's low wherever.

I consider myself to be on good money but I see people posting on here about being skint whose mortgages are on a level with my entire monthly take home. Our mortgage is £450 for a lovely big flat in a nice but rural area, so we are very comfortable on an income which would posters with big detached houses in SE England feel like they'd been plunged into extreme poverty.

DH grew up very poor and I grew up with parents who were pretty cautious and had been raised to think of things like foreign holidays as unimaginable luxuries, so we don't really feel like we're missing out. People post on here about cleaners and private tutoring and paying people to do basic DIY for them, and from the outside it looks like they're earning loads of money in order to pay other people to live their lives for them.

Personally, I find it interesting that people associate being on good money with outgoings, I associate it with the salary solely, and for me I would say good money starts at £3000 net if you don’t live in a capital city.

I am technically on “good money” salary wise and I am also mortgage free, and in a low cost of living city, but ironically even if I earned minimum wage and could still live quite well due to the low COL and being mortgage free I wouldn’t ever say I am on “good money” if I earned minimum wage, I would, at best, say I am in a “comfortable financial position”, which for me confirms that I see being on good money as what the person brings in money wise and not their overall financial situation.

Equally, I am on good money but if I had a high mortgage, high childcare or private school fees and lived in central London, I might still be on good money but in a tight financial position. So for me a good salary remains a good salary and a bad one a bad one and one’s outgoings and financial position remains a separate issue and one should be able to judge if someone is on good money based on salary figure even if their salary might lead to a good or tight financial position based on their outgoings/personal situation.

Like for me 100k will always be being on good money even, if it might be tight in London for the sole reason that most people don’t earn that and so it would feel weird to imply that someone on 100k isn’t on good money just because they have a £1.5million mortgage. And 18k will always be a low salary even if the person is mortgage free and barely spend anything.

Except it kinda does have everything to do with outgoings…

If I earns £40k I wouldn’t be able to afford my mortgage and so I’d consider this not good money…

Pre kids we were on about £90k household and that felt like good money. We’re now on £120k and what with mortgage increases, childcare costs, cost of living etc, it doesn’t feel like as good money as before. Don’t get me wrong, we’re comfortable enough and don’t go without but it’s all very relative to an individuals situation.

How comfortable you feel depends on your essential outgoings and where you live.

I don't share my income with other people and certainly not with people on here, but I don't have a mortgage to pay or childcare costs and those seem to be the biggest outgoings for most people.

Depends on the area.

I don't think it's relative to outgoings though, you can earn a very high income and spend it all but that doesn't mean it still isn't a very high income.

I think it really depends on the individual.

I got more financially comfortable when I started bringing in over £3k a month. So I’d say £50k+ is good. But I won’t feel like I’ve achieved what I wanted until I’m on £100k.

Our household income is £120kish and we are comfortable but we still have to think about big spends etc. but our living costs are around £4k a month.

I have a friend and her partner just secured a job on £37.5k and she thinks it’s amazing and he’s earning so so so much money… she also has £4k on her pension at 30 and thinks that’s amazing too. I think it all depends on your upbringing, outgoings and general ambitions as to what you consider good money.

As others have said it’s relative to outgoings. I’m on 60k but my outgoings are very low at around £300. Split bills with my partner but no rent and I wfh so don’t have regular travel costs. I consider this good money for London because my costs are low

But running a household with only a single earner is such a hit to take.

I just think that it means you can have a nice home, run cars, buy decent clothes when you want and have trips and a main holiday. My youngest is only on around £22k, mortgage is £200 a month, for a three bed with gardens. She has two holidays a year, eats out when she wants, buys the clothes that she wants and goes out once a week. She always has three months salary in savings. She has enough to be happy on. It's having enough so life doesn't feel like a permanent slog with no end in sight. Everyone has to cut their cloth, but you need enough cloth for your circumstances.

Good money= more than your peer group

People’s perception of their own wealth is tied to comparisons with friends and family. A person on 40k whose friends are all on 25k feels wealthier than someone on 100k whose friends earn 200k.

I'm on a full-time salary for a part-time job, so I'd say that's good money.

When I'm reading posts on MN and people say they earn good money, I tend to assume they earn 75k or more. Probably wrong though.

I would.class a single person above £35k as good money.