To not understand how people fund their lives and feel a bit jealous?

“Having a go at the people who are paying the taxes which provide your services which you are nowhere near funding your own use of (even if you don’t claim benefits) isn’t going to make you better off. People aren’t going to study for years and take on tens of thousands of pounds of debt and work long hours in stressful jobs and sacrifice time with their own families to fund things for everyone else if they can never also achieve a lifestyle above that they could achieve on minimum wage, as a result of that extra effort.”

Spot on ……I’d be interested if anyone disagrees with this and why?

As I've said I don't resent anyone for earning more than me. What I do resent is being told I'm better off than someone earning four times as much as me because "i must get loads of free stuff and benefits" as I've already explained is not true.

While you raise some interesting points about the state of this country and the brain drain etc. That's not what I'm discussing I merely came onto this thread to say it's bullshit that everyone earning less than 60k is better off than everyone on over 100k because they get a load of mythical free stuff and benefits. As often gets touted on these threads.

The example you gave of someone on minimum wage having £3,464 after paying their housing costs? Well all I'll say is I've seen posters on other threads make similar assertions while failing to mention it's a family with numerous disabled children getting disability benefits.
Its not representative of the majority of low earners so why bother mention it except to manipulate the thread?

All true.

But I live as far south as England goes, have children (wouldn't be much point in being on Mumsnet if I didn't) and only bought my house last year.

Still Get no help paying my mortgage because benefits only help renters and actually get no benefits except child benefit. No free stuff (you have to earn less than 7k for free meals).

So is it still unreasonable to say I resent people whos incomes are four times my own telling me I'm better off than them because "i must get loads of benefits and free stuff"

I don't resent people with more money than me btw I just resent people talking shit. Important to clarify

How on Earth can a household on £180k be poorer than one on £30k?!

You are posting facts and figures but I am posting about my actual life. Not figures from a government website. The OP of this thread has posted about a holiday they are planning for £15k. I don't begrude them having that but do you really think I could afford a holiday like that on my income?!

As for “pulling number out of my ass”, when I’ve referenced their sources, @Samslaundry I just don’t understand why you have to be so offensive simply because somebody has tried to discuss economic facts and set it out in numbers.

Why is it necessary to be so insulting and unpleasant?

These numbers came from verifiable sources and data collated by Government bodies and you’re welcome to check them.

I have set out the numbers in detail so that you can see the net income.

People are mislead by gross salary figures thinking that makes someone rich with no comprehension of the huge amounts of their salaries that are deducted in tax or without considering the subsidies that they receive that those families do not. The only valid basis upon which to compare is net income after essetial expenses (housing and childcare and tax), so that is the comparison I’ve provided.

As I said, if you have any figures to refute any part of my calculations then go ahead. My point was to make clear how stupid these posters are who say “I earn 1/4 of that, what are you on about! You must be rich!”. Such comments, as my calculations demonstrate very clearly, show that these people have zero understanding of tax or economics and that many of the people they resent for earning more than them - and whom are paying for the access to state education for their children, their and their children’s NHS care, their infrastructure, policing, fire service, roads, railways, defence, AND their childcare and other child benefit etc that they don’t receive themselves - are actually poorer than them after tax, childcare and housing is paid.

Significantly poorer.

There’s only so long that people will tolerate that. The level at which you can escape that trap has been raised to such an extent that a vanishingly small percentage of people ever do so if they remain in the UK. So guess what? People choose to either 1) move somewhere else, if they are ambitious and don’t mind moving countries; 2) work fewer hours and spend more time with their families. Why would they keep working these crazy hours for career progression when it used to be that maybe the top 20% could achieve a very good lifestyle by doing so but now that will only happen if you happen to make it to the top 0.5%? Most in that top 20% bracket (who we absolutely need to be working as hard as they can because of skills shortages and to drive growth and productivity) will think they’re unlikely to get to the 0.5% and would rather spend more time with their families themselves than fund other people to do so and get nothing back in terms of increased standard of living, so they don’t; or 3) retire early, if they’re lucky enough to be a bit older and have put enough away to do so before tax rates became so insane, so they can just opt out (leaving further skills shortages).

These are economic facts. This is what is happening, hence the brain drain. Hence all doctors and nurses being from foreign countries that are significantly poorer than ours, and our trained doctors leaving for Canada or Australia or other European countries. This is why living standards here and productivity decline year on year. This is why our PPP declines every year relative to what used to be our comparator countries. Have a look at PPP in northern European countries and Australia and the US and how that has changed compared to the UK in the last 10-15 years.

No matter what level of income you have or wherever you are on the socioeconomic spectrum (I’ve been at the very lowest places at some points in life, by the way) this is in nobody’s interests. Why you would want to perpetuate this decline, especially if you have children, is beyond me. It’s spite overruling rationality or any willingness to engage with economic facts, which won’t bend to your political perspective.

Because they are for a couple who rent in one of the most expensive Cities in the World!

Do you think they would get that amount if they lived in Stoke or Swindon?

Jeez, give your head a wobble. I assume you’re reasonably intelligent people to be earning that level of salary. Go back to basic figures and work your ins n outs.

Pennycrown saying "i have a mortgage" is meaningless. If you live in a cheap northern town & have no kids your mortgage might only be £500/month on a small house. If you are on a low income you may be on social rent covered by UC, typically far cheaper than the private sector.

If you've had to buy or rent a home more recently in a more expensive area because that's where your job/family childcare is, you will have paid vastly more.

I'm not angry, nor do I hate anyone richer or poorer than me, are you confusing me with another poster?

You've pulled some example out of your ass, who on minimum wage has that much money after housing costs? It's probably a family with ten disabled children. That's how I've seen similar posters to yourself mislead the thread into thinking everyone earning less than 50k gets bucket loads of benefits before.

Also it's not only rich people who have mortgages, I have a mortgage to pay too and benefits only help out people who rent with their housing costs.

I'm not blaming anyone for anything but admittedly I do resent being told by people earning three or even four times as much money as me that I'm somehow richer than them because I apparently get loads of benefits and fre stuff when I don't and most of these posters are talking out their ass.

How is it “not representative”? The figures I provided are factual, based on 2 x minimum wage for 40 hours per week and the current tax and NI rates.

Yet above I’ve proved to you that a parent supporting two young children who has £180k gross earnings is significantly worse off than a couple earning minimum wage renting a home in the same area. They will have £3,464 left after housing costs and tax to pay their living expenses such as Council tax, utilities, food etc. They also won’t have to pay for house maintenance of buildings insurance, and will have minimal childcare costs, if any. By contrast, a single parent earning £180k living in the same area who has a mortgage will have only £1,297 left after tax, housing and childcare costs (with me taking the lowest possible estimate for the latter two per the ONS data) for pay for their Council tax, utilities, food, and also the additional costs of insurance and maintenance of a mortgaged home.

I have proved, with numbers, that assertions from you and other on this thread that anybody earning such a salary is “rich”, is “taking the piss”, is “mismanaging their money if they are struggling”, or needs a “tiny violin” are misguided and simply exemplify mathematical illiteracy and a total ignorance of how redistributive the UK tax system is already.

This is why we are losing so many of our most qualified and talented young people to other countries, and why we have huge skilled shortages in many critical areas because people are either retiring early, leaving the country entirely, or cutting their working hours because it’s simply not worth working more or aspiring to promotions if the tax rates will be something between 80% and over 100% (seriously - these cliff-edges mean that at some levels if you earn more and work more hours or take a promotion, your net income goes down).

You can be angry all you want and play along with the politicians’ plans to turn people against each other, hating everyone either richer or poorer than they are personally, if you wish to. However, if you and many others like you continue to do that then UK living standards will continue to be in freefall for the foreseeable future because the only way out of that is increased productivity, and the only way to achieve that is to address the ridiculous cliff-edges in the tax system that I have raised, which exist at various levels of earnings from people claiming UC, to those being denied child benefit, to people who’ve worked to get qualifications and then worked 70 hour weeks for over a decade to work their way up and then found that they have no better living standards than those on minimum wage.

Enjoy the ever-declining living standards. The pointless responses on this thread show precisely what is wrong. The “Four Yorkshiremen” mentality isn’t going to make anybody better off. Having a go at the people who are paying the taxes which provide your services which you are nowhere near funding your own use of (even if you don’t claim benefits) isn’t going to make you better off. People aren’t going to study for years and take on tens of thousands of pounds of debt and work long hours in stressful jobs and sacrifice time with their own families to fund things for everyone else if they can never also achieve a lifestyle above that they could achieve on minimum wage, as a result of that extra effort.

The extreme people on either side of the political spectrum find economic facts unpalatable, but objective reality doesn’t care whether they like it or not. Unless the population of the UK wake up, stop attacking each other, refusing to actually look at the maths and vote for evidence-based policies that will actually work, rather than slogans and political ideology, nothing will change.

I find it so depressing that so many people, on both sides of this debate, are so keen to blame the others rather than look at the clear economic mismanagement which is staring them in the face.

So skip the holiday one year buy yourself some kit.
I live in London, income about £35k, mortgage, one kid at uni other lives on his own but I help out. Five year old car. Three pets. I’d say I’m pretty comfortable, as I got on the property ladder in the 1980s which is how I can afford to live where I do, without having a large income. I can afford a takeaway or odd meal out without worrying about it. I don’t get any benefits or free stuff or whatever. We go on holiday every other year.
Im sure some of my friends earn a lot more than me. So what? Yes they have a bigger house and their ‘oh we aren’t doing a big holiday this year’ turned out to be a week in Spain, another in France, and possibly a third in India! All I can do is smile and look forward to the photos. I even have one friend who lives in a stately home and hosts weddings there. Another had four kids in private school at once, a second home in Canada and two nannies (the wife didn’t work). I also had friends who worked very long hard hours and are living hand to mouth, decided they could only afford one child who had to share a bedroom with her grandmother for the first ten years of her life.
So get over yourself. You are doing much better than most. And there will be people doing much better than you.

They provided their own income as proof. The figures posted are not incorrect but they are based on specific examples. The couple on minimum wage getting £2,262 a month is not representative of most low income households but people will read it and it will confirm the idea that low income households get high top ups to put their incomes on par with higher earners.

I've given you evidence for everything I've said?

I've been told on similar threads to these that I'm better off than someone with twice or sometimes even three times my income because I "must be getting loads of free stuff including free school meals, universal credit and other benefits". I've told you the only benefit I get is child benefit (only 25 a week hardly making me better off than someone with three times my income) and I've told you you have to earn less than 7k to qualify for free school meals.

So yes I think posters who tell me I'm better off with 35k income than they are on 80k+ income are talking horseshit. That is all my point is

So you will call something “horse shit”, that is set out and documented with verifiable numbers, and yet provide no evidence yourself to the contrary?

@Travelenthusiast this is so twisted. What do you mean you can’t afford clothes or a new car? Because you’re spending the money on holidays and eating out instead? Time for some self reflection…

I don’t even know where to start - out income is over 100000 less and my life is as you’ve described yours (except with nearly 20 year old car that I still had to go into debt for) and no holiday to speak of. Almost never ever eat out. Everything we have is second hand/freebies/really old.

If this car ivd just had to finance dies it will literally sink me.

you must have insane outgoings

Yours is an interesting comment, I don't dispute it.
However I've been told on similar threads to this one that people on 70-100k etc have it harder than me because I apparently "get loads of free stuff and universal credit and my children must all get free school meals"

With 35k a year we don't get any benefits except child benefit. Also free school meals you have to earn under 7k but to read a Mumsnet thread you would think it was under 50k.

Some posters just don't want to accept there are millions of people in between X posters high income and unemployed on the dole that budget better than them. The average salary is 37k I think. But posters constantly moaning they are broke on 80+k? I for one don't buy it.

Please read my post above and tell me which figures you disagree with any why. Salary data etc from the ONS. Tax calculations performed per the rates available on .gov UK. Average mortage/ rent data again from ONS. Let me know which part of it you think is incorrect.

Deleted - duplicate post due to weird internet!

Even the Guardian has reported on this.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/13/full-time-part-time-work-no-longer-pays-uk-economy

Jeremy Hunt commissioned research on why UK productivity is so low. He was told why: these cliff-edges in every part of our tax and benefits system which discourage work. Did he rectify it? No. Reeves has been told the same. Has she rectified it? No.

The answer of “no” in both cases was to do with political optics, in different directions, but exemplifies why the UK economy is in such a mess. There is no evidence-based policy making, short-term savings are continually attempted despite the politicians (or any colour) knowing that this will result in larger longer term costs.

If the Government (any Government) genuinely wanted to raise UK living standards then they are well aware this can only happen by increasing productivity and therefore growth. It’s far easier to get the electorate to squabble over the crumbs, and often more politically expedient. All they care about is the next election and public perception, rather than long-term evidence-based policy making. That is why we are in the mess we are in and living standards in the UK will continue to drop until this changes.

They know what they need to do. Yes, long-term infrastructure projects (vastly neglected in the UK for decades) may improve growth, in 5-20 years. Yes, reforming the health service and education and state pensions all desperately need to happen (but not in the ways that this Government or the last one proposed).

What is, however, entirely within their control and would have an immediate effect i.e. change behaviour within a few months is to reform the UK tax and benefits system and remove or at the very least immensely reduce these cliff-edges that discourage economic activity at every level.

They have been told this. They know it. Reeves does has some economic training so she absolutely knows that she could do this and improve things massively raising living standards for all people in the UK because it would increase tax revenue to spend on services (this can be seen from the HMRC data with “bunching” below each threshold where there is means testing).

So the question we should all be asking the politicians is why aren’t they doing it? Are they more bothered about how “it looks” and what the media will say than actually raising UK living standards for all of our citizens? Clearly the answer to this question is “yes”, or they’d have done it already, It’s a no-brainer.

Your reduce the universal credit taper rate from 55% to maybe 35% or 40% and suddenly it’s worth people working more hours and the shortage of care workers etc disappears. You abolish the withdrawal of child benefit (means-testing that - as in ,most situations - has cost more than it saves so benefits only the additional HMRC employees who have had to be employed to administer the means-testing system) and you abolish the withdrawal of the personal allowance and the withdrawal of childcare funding and make them universal again. Within a matter of months people at all levels of earnings will be working more hours, reconsidering early retirement or moves abroad to escape these tax traps, or staying on benefits when they could work more because the marginal financial benefit is too low to bother.

It’s not rocket science. We know what works, we can see it demonstrated in many, many other countries around us who used to be our international comparators but whom we’re falling behind in PPP year on year.

But they’re too scared of being “soft on benefits” or “giving tax cuts to the rich” and treat the electorate as though we are all intellectually impaired because they think it’s too difficult to communicate the economic fact that removing these insane policies (which the Government could do tomorrow) would make everyone in the UK better off, not just those it effects directly: there would be more tax revenue, lower welfare claims and more money to fund public services.

This is just one aspect of UK economic mismanagement, part of a far larger pattern. But it is such a blindingly obvious one and easily provable with facts from freely available online calculators: you don’t have to be an expert in economics to see if for yourself. It’s as clear as day, factual, not subjective. Yet the electorate squabble amongst themselves rather than challenging the politicians on why not one party is suggesting this very obvious way to start to improve things for the people who live in this country.

Rather than attacking each other, it might be worth some thought why the majority of the UK population is happy to continue in this way becoming poorer year on year when there are measures our Government (whichever incompetents they happen to be at the time) could take to improve this for us all but choose not to do so, despite multiple independent economists having pointed out the way forward to them.

Are people happy with this?

If not, what are they going to do about it? Will they contact their MPs and demand change?

No, of course not. Let’s just continue making angry posts online resenting everyone in a richer/ poorer situation that they personally happen to be. I’m sure that’ll fix it….

Same here. These threads always bring out posters talking such shit as "it's so hard on 100k anyone earning less than 100k doesn't understand because they get loads of universal credit and benefits"

It's such horse shit our income is 35k a year and get no benefits except child benefit (only 25 a week hardly makes us richer than someone on 100k) and also have a mortgage to pay.

They're just making excuses for their own bad budgeting

To add….what is happening with some of our high earning friends is they are retiring early or dropping hours to reduce their stress and tax bills.

if enough do this there will be even less money to be used to pay for services