Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Household income. Where are you?

416 replies

chonka901 · 26/01/2025 11:43

https://ifs.org.uk/toolsanddresources/wheredooyoufitt_in

Using this link and putting in everything joint net income ,including child benefit and maintenance which I think it takes into account. It has us at 73 percent. Not a stealth boast before any states that. Genuinely surprised.

I certainly don't feel like this but appreciate people survive on less. It doesn't take into account mortgages, rent, generational wealth, inheritance, childcare etc so is a guide.

It is eye opening though.

I feel poor compared to my friends though. We definitely are not the London elite. Just public sector workers in the North. I guess the maintenance helps. My friends must be in the top 20 percent.

OP posts:
Flev · 26/01/2025 13:59

We're just under 50%, which really surprised me, I'd have thought we were closer to 60%. We were managing just fine until VAT on school fees was brought in (although foreign holidays were way out of reach) - now things are getting much tighter though.

WellerUser · 26/01/2025 13:58

boxyboxs · 26/01/2025 13:46

This matters because a family where both earn just over £50k which tips them both into 40% will be in the 91st percentile.

@WellerUser I don't see that. You need 8.5k net to be 91% with 2 dc which means at least 140k gross. it will need to be higher if including pension & student loan deductions.

Well I put that amount and council tax costs into the calculator and it came up as 91%. This seems reasonable as the 40% tax level has unofficially affected the top 10% of earners. Where did you get your figures from?

Cartwrightandson · 26/01/2025 13:58

Billbo46 · 26/01/2025 13:50

I think it's stupid. It doesn't consider your accommodation cost. Are rent is more than 50% of our income. That make us poor.

Theres a button to press above calculate that says

Check this box if you would like to calculate your place in the income distribution with housing costs deducted

Click on it to add your housing costs.

Also make sure your household income is minus all tax

RamblingEclectic · 26/01/2025 13:57

I think it's stupid. It doesn't consider your accommodation cost. Are rent is more than 50% of our income. That make us poor.

There is a little box to tick that says "Check this box if you would like to calculate your place in the income distribution with housing costs deducted"

Tootsey11 · 26/01/2025 13:57

10% yep bout right.

RamblingEclectic · 26/01/2025 13:55

Interesting. I've had a lot of financial changes over the last year, so I did it a few times to see how we've moved. I didn't add on the housing.

First is where we were last summer before my oldest went to uni: 2%

Then where we were after (he's on a sponsored cadetship so we're not paying any of his costs when he's away, so I just removed him): 4%

And where we're are now with my career change and my second child becoming an adult in an apprenticeship working full-time (so moved her from child to adult and adjusted the income): 18%

I thought we'd be higher, I'm quite content with where we're at, but that may be in comparison to where I've been before.

Another calculator that may be of interest, looking at it from a global perspective, though unlike the IFS one, it doesn't change from what I can tell if you count people as adults or children - it's just number in house, income, and which country as it calculates cost of living per country: www.givingwhatwecan.org/how-rich-am-i

With that one, I've moved from richer than 67.9% to 72.4% to 80.7% of the global population.

Teateaandmoretea · 26/01/2025 13:55

boxyboxs · 26/01/2025 13:52

It’s really quite difficult to get it right I think. It’s also really weird the way that if you put in you have no children you’re put at a lower one - surely couples without kids would earn more not less?

is it because of increased age of first time parents, lower birth rates & it's couples with higher incomes who are the ones having dc's?

It makes no sense. We are then told by the Rowntree foundation constantly that 1 in 3 kids likes in poverty. But according to this the average couple with 2 kids earn 100k.

FastChange · 26/01/2025 13:54

In conclusion, Your income is so high that you lie beyond the far right hand side of the chart.

So it says. It doesn't make us feel wealthy.
Thank heaven for public service pensions, contributed to over many years.

Octavia64 · 26/01/2025 13:53

3%

This is misleading.

I have a very low income - basically disability benefits. I own my own home and have substantial savings which I am actually living on until I get my pensions (also substantial)

boxyboxs · 26/01/2025 13:52

It’s really quite difficult to get it right I think. It’s also really weird the way that if you put in you have no children you’re put at a lower one - surely couples without kids would earn more not less?

is it because of increased age of first time parents, lower birth rates & it's couples with higher incomes who are the ones having dc's?

Margorett · 26/01/2025 13:51

78%

SnidelyWhiplash · 26/01/2025 13:50

95% which I’m very surprised about and doubt very much.

Billbo46 · 26/01/2025 13:50

I think it's stupid. It doesn't consider your accommodation cost. Are rent is more than 50% of our income. That make us poor.

Smokesandeats · 26/01/2025 13:50

We’re at around 50% which surprised me as I feel quite well off.

wsdr · 26/01/2025 13:49

Higher than 55%

I am aware how privileged we are as my siblings run their households on half our income.

Teateaandmoretea · 26/01/2025 13:49

WellerUser · 26/01/2025 13:40

What the calculator doesn't tell you is that those in the 1% have miles more income than even those in the 97th percentile (mine and DH's gross income £157.5k).We're 94th after tax etc.

The top 1% are taking home millions and of the 60 million population, they number 600,000. This skews the data.

More importantly there are millions more on benefits or retired who bring in much much less which skews the data the other way.

This matters because a family where both earn just over £50k which tips them both into 40% will be in the 91st percentile.

This is why even the high earners feel they're skint.

You aren’t 91st centile on 50k each with 2 kids. We earn more than that.

rrrrrreatt · 26/01/2025 13:48

We’re 94%.

It seems stupid housing costs are calculated solely by council tax - our mortgage repayments are pretty reasonable as we’re on a pre Truss fix and live in the North. People renting, or that bought in London/South East, probably spend way more than us on housing and people who’ve benefited from intergenerational wealth probably pay a lot less.

Teateaandmoretea · 26/01/2025 13:47

It’s really quite difficult to get it right I think. It’s also really weird the way that if you put in you have no children you’re put at a lower one - surely couples without kids would earn more not less?

65 apparently. We’re really well off though I think. Bizarre.

boxyboxs · 26/01/2025 13:46

This matters because a family where both earn just over £50k which tips them both into 40% will be in the 91st percentile.

@WellerUser I don't see that. You need 8.5k net to be 91% with 2 dc which means at least 140k gross. it will need to be higher if including pension & student loan deductions.

user1471538275 · 26/01/2025 13:45

74% so doing fine.

There are 4 of us working though, not all full-time for this household income.

MightyGoldBear · 26/01/2025 13:41

I'm not sure that quiz is very accurate.
We came in at 9% whilst we can't afford extra stuff or abroad holidays I still feel pretty lucky and privileged.

Part of my work is working with the homeless/vunerable so I guess it's all relative to who and what circumstances you're comparing too.

WellerUser · 26/01/2025 13:40

What the calculator doesn't tell you is that those in the 1% have miles more income than even those in the 97th percentile (mine and DH's gross income £157.5k).We're 94th after tax etc.

The top 1% are taking home millions and of the 60 million population, they number 600,000. This skews the data.

More importantly there are millions more on benefits or retired who bring in much much less which skews the data the other way.

This matters because a family where both earn just over £50k which tips them both into 40% will be in the 91st percentile.

This is why even the high earners feel they're skint.

RockPaperS · 26/01/2025 13:39

boxyboxs · 26/01/2025 12:06

To get 95% plus doesn't your income need to be 220k plus?

98% with 260k and 2 kids. And still 98% after adding 5k/month housing costs.

LeroyJenkinssss · 26/01/2025 13:37

im always surprised when people say but it doesn’t take into account x or y, because at base you do earn more than 80 or 90% of the population. That’s not a disputed opinion, it’s fact.

I don’t think my family setup is unique - 2 adults 2 children. But I’m doing it at 94% income whereas others are managing on much less. Whether I feel comfortable or not is on me - what are we prioritising? What are we spending?

like a previous poster pointed out - their monthly outgoings can’t be at £4.5k as it’s determined by their salary. So higher earners can’t pretend that they couldn’t possibly manage on less as people obviously do. We’ve just made choices as to where our money goes.

CharSiu · 26/01/2025 13:36

At 96%, I would have guessed around 90%. We have no mortgage though as paid off a few years ago. We have a couple of holidays a year. Sometimes they are expensive if a cruise or a few weeks overseas. We are very much a hide in plain sight non flashy types. We live in the smallest house in what is deemed a desirable road in our area, you pay a premium to live on it.

That financial assessment is also about income only and not assets, it’s a very rough and imperfect tool but does give an indication.

The plan is to buy a house with some land in a couple of years. I know full well we are not remotely poor. My brothers are very wealthy though, they fly first class everywhere and one has a house with 7 bathrooms that is pretty much a modern mansion that he was involved with designing. They do live in America though and land is much cheaper.