To be fed up with all the threads about high earners feeling poor

Not to £5k a month. Nowhere near!

can you explain where a band 5 nurse with two kids in London is living then? That was my point.

if you need a min of 5k to pay childcare and mortgage/rent on a small flat, does that mean everyone in London is earning that?

no. People cut their cloth.

fwiw I’ve also been in that situation. In London, big mortgage. Fine until we had kids.

i went interest only on the mortgage during the nursery years, and stopped paying into dh’s pension. For 3 years while we had two in nursery. We also had saved prior to kids and fixed the mortgage.

i wasn’t on anywhere near 5k take home either. Or gross for that matter. If I could manage, someone on 5k net can manage.

there are options that don’t include “moving north”. Because there are people in London who aren’t on big wages.

Have you read the posts on this thread from people who have childcare costs of £2k - £3k plus similar costs for a mortgage or rent? It’s not a case of over extending or needing to overhaul a budget. If you earn £5k a month in London/SE it is perfectly possible to live in a small 1/2 bed flat, live frugally via a strict budget and still struggle because the essentials (housing, childcare, bills and food) are so high. Surely that’s not difficult to comprehend? I’ve been in that exact situation.

Of course people on £2k or £3k have childcare and housing costs. I’m not sure what point you are making there?

Can you explain what these ‘options’ are that the person on £5k has that the lower waged person doesn’t? They can’t get rid of childcare as they won’t be able to work. The famous MN silver bullet to just “move to a cheaper house up North” isn’t a realistic option for everyone, particularly if your job is London/SE based.

If someone finds themself unable to afford the things they easily could a year or two ago, despite their wages remaining stable or even increasing, then they are struggling.

Recognizing that, and quite reasonably verbalizing that this is indeed a problem, isn’t saying that other people don’t have it worse, on account of the fact that it’s not a ‘poorer than thou’ competition.

Not everything has to revolve around the struggles of those with the least. Mumsnet is a huge and diverse forum that is open to posters from all walks of life. One section of society doesn’t get to demand that that every possible financial complaint has to revolve around them.

I depends what you’re counting as ‘high’. Just because they earn more than you it doesn’t make them high earners. Also, spending 3+ years studying for a degree whilst others are able to work full time should mean you have more opportunities for well paid work. The area also makes a difference. If I was in my job up north, I could have a bigger house and a nicer lifestyle (I’m a teacher and the pay would be identical but family and friends are down here).

Exactly this. My DB lost his job in the pandemic and asked me to lend him £1000, and then again a couple of months later. When he asked a third time I told him that I couldn’t keep throwing money at him but I’d help him go through his outgoings. When I did, I suggested he had his SKY tv cut off (£120 a month!). He absolutely hit the roof and told me there was no way, because films and football were his only luxury. We don’t have SKY tv because it’s too expensive, yet he thinks that I should have to pay for his.

If someone can’t afford to pay their bills once they’ve paid school fees, then the kids should go to a state school. If you can’t afford a pony or ballet lessons, find a cheaper activity. Nobody will die.

Its all bollocks. The only threads more annoying are the ones where someone asks what do you earn and a poster replies "my dh earns 150k"...

Do you think the bashing of higher earners on here is anywhere as vitriolic as those who receive benefits? You can read posts on this thread from people who think they live the high life.

The fact you call it benefit bashing speaks volumes. Is this thread ‘bashing’ as well?

Rubbish. That would make you a pariah on here. Benefit bashing is very popular on here.

But people on lower wages get UC top ups don’t they?

Yep.

Somebody who pops out 4 children by 3 different men without a job and relies on benefits is championed on here, is never accused of ‘entitlement’ yet the people who work to provide those benefits are ‘entitled’ for wanting a good standard of living?

It’s utterly mad.

Or threads like this one where people sneer and insult higher earners. Again, let’s ignore who’s actually at fault for economic deprivation and focus on people who take home £5k a month but are genuinely struggling as they spend almost all their take home pay on housing and childcare

it’s not sneering. It’s failing to recognise their privilege.

people on 2k and 3k net income also have housing and childcare costs.

people on 5k take home are not “genuinely struggling”. They have options that those on lower net incomes don’t have.

if people are “genuinely” struggling on 5k net they’ve either overextended at some point or need to overhaul their budget.

Im a reasonably high earner...middle class income..I come from working class background. I understand the aggrieved. Some people cannot seem to get a break. Its not always their doing. Theres a poor rich divide/ divide and conquer rhetoric ...and more so on mumsnet.

Who do you think pays the taxes that go towards paying for Government spending? When you see some of the whinging, entitlement and expectation that 'the Government' should pick up the tab for people's fecklessness, I think they can absolutely feel aggrieved. If you are a net contributor you are literally subsidising other people's lives and the choices (passive or otherwise) that they make.

It’s completely understandable that low earners take issue with people on a high income complaining about their finances. It’s obviously near impossible to feel sympathy for someone on £100k if you are earning £10.50 an hour.

However higher earners are not to blame for low wages. Government policy allows employers in this country who generate billions in revenue to pay wages that are so low that employees need benefits to top-up their income despite working really hard.

This has created an unequal society but the object of people’s ire shouldn’t be the woman who has worked her arse off and earns £150k and is complaining because she doesn’t feel well off (and yes, the woman on £10.50 an hour also works hard), it’s the government and the corporate friends they work hand in glove with to keep wages suppressed.

Honestly, the Tories have provided a Masterclass in how to divide and rule and successfully deflect blame. This is proved by the countless benefit bashing threads on here, almost always started by someone on a low income, who is bitter because Jane from the school run is on benefits but has a big car, widescreen TV and took her kids to Disneyland and so OP wants to know if she should report her? Never mind the U.K. billionaires who don’t pay their share of taxes, let’s target the benefits claimant because clearly she’s the bigger culprit.

Or threads like this one where people sneer and insult higher earners. Again, let’s ignore who’s actually at fault for economic deprivation and focus on people who take home £5k a month but are genuinely struggling as they spend almost all their take home pay on housing and childcare.

No, it wouldn’t.

This is often said as a “gotcha”. I appreciate you don’t seem to mean it like that, but more as a genuine question.

On a societal and economic level, the idea is that people should not be in lower paid jobs for life. They should make progression through them. (This obviously varies on an individual level according to a persons needs, wants, and abilities).

So, for example, someone starts on the tills in a supermarket as a school leaver, progresses to supervisor, to deputy store manager, uses the transferable skills to become area manager for a company in a different industry, and so on. In the meantime, obviously someone else has started on the tills.

There is never a scenario where the lower paid jobs stop existing, but they are (many of them, not all) supposed to be a rung on the ladder, not the only step.

Of course some people can’t progress, some don’t want to progress, some make an active choice to stay for various reasons. But the argument that society will collapse if people have aspirations is highly flawed.

Anecdotally, I know someone working as a care worker while waiting for her nursing training to start. Someone working in a nursery while training as a teacher. Someone working as a cleaner while building her business. There is nothing at all wrong with the jobs they are doing now, and they are proud and happy to be doing them, but they don’t intend to be doing them in 5 years time. And, more relevantly, in 5 years time when they have moved on there will be someone else filling their shoes.

You absolutely do not need to be on £100k to buy an average house in most areas, possibly London/south east but certainly not where I live. My mum lives alone, earns £27k and owns a 3 bedroom terrace that she bought 2 years ago for less than £150k (Nottinghamshire). She did have a 50% deposit but there is plenty of affordable housing in many areas.

DH out earns me X5

I used to be his supervisor and took 5 years out raising 3 kids.

Of course it makes a huge difference.

Teachers in todays wages would be earning £80K and have a detached house a kids in private schools. Wages have dropped massively.

Just because someone earns more than you doesn’t mean they are richer in today society.

My generation could by a property on x3 of one salary - you can do that now unless you are a super high flier - you need to be on £100,000 to by an average house.

You are deluded.

I am on the Tube now and I really can't be bothered to link.

Where is that then? I was obviously referring to another on AMA.

No. Did you miss the new one about a divorced woman in tech who earns that in her own right? Please go check before being snide.

Did you miss the bit that most of that was earned by her husband?