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

I think this is what people do not understand.

Many people will see a salary that is several times theirs and multiply up the net pay assuming it is the same. It isn’t.

Let’s compare a lone parent earning £180,000 to a couple earning the average UK salary each. Let’s assume each family has two young children to support.

£180,000 salary is a net pay of £8,932 per month assuming no student loan repayments (unlikely for those earning at this level) and no pension contributions (which would be irresponsible). Factoring in a 15% pension contribution and a student loan on Plan 2, net pay is £6,549.

Someone earning this amount will have no personal allowance, no tax free childcare, 15 funded hours for each child withdrawn, no child benefit. The average cost of a full time nursery place in England is now £239 per week (after deducting the universal 15 funded hours) so this is £12,425 per year or £1,035 per month, per child. For two children, £2,070. So the lone parent’s net pay is now £4,479. Bear in mind also that nursery costs are significantly higher in more expensive areas - at least 50% higher than average and sometimes more, so the net income after tax and childcare is likely far lower than this in reality as the childcare costs in expensive areas where there are good jobs are much higher.

The average UK full time salary as of 2024 was £37,430. Again, with a 15% pension contribution net pay is £2,165. So for a couple both earning average UK salary and making decent pension contributions their net income is £4,330. However, this couple will receive child benefit of £2,252 per year (£188 per month) tax free as well. They also receive an additional 15 funded hours per child at nursery which means they’ll only pay £127 per week per child for nursery care, and this is reduced by 20% through tax free childcare to £102 equating to £881 per month for both children. Their net income after tax and childcare is £3,637.

The difference in net income after tax and childcare costs between the couple with two children both earning the average UK full time salary and a lone parent earning £180,000 is, on average per the above, £4,479 - £3,637 = £842.

Yet people assume this person must be super rich, taking extravagant holidays, having children in private school (not a chance on that salary!) or mismanaging their money if they are finding things financially challenging.

Given that most people earning £180,000 per year will be living in very expensive areas of the country and having to pay very high mortgages or rents. If they move further away childcare would be impossible and commuting costs would take up most of the additional money, anyway. In 2024, the average monthly mortgage payment for a home in greater London was £2,340 (and that figure is skewed by people who bought a long, long time ago and therefore have very low mortgages now, so for a family with young children the real figure is likely much higher, but let’s go with this lower estimate for the illustration).

The lone parent’s net income after this average mortgage payment for an average kind of home is therefore £3,637 - £2,340 = £1,297. That is what they have left from their £180,000 salary after tax, childcare and housing costs (if they are lucky). From this they must pay Council Tax, utilities, commuting costs, food, clothing, insurance, house maintenance etc.

Hardly a life of luxury.

Meanwhile the couple can live anywhere in the country, where there is much cheaper housing and childcare is less expensive, even food in the shops is cheaper. The average UK mortgage payment across the UK is £1,441. So after their tax, childcare and mortgage payment they can have £3,637 - £1,441 = £2,196 left for their Council tax, utilities, commuting costs (likely lower as they can work locally given they only need to earn the average salary to achieve this standard of living), food, clothing, insurance, house maintenance etc.

It is therefore very apparent that a couple both earning average UK salaries are likely to be vastly better off than a lone parent earning £180,000 per year, with almost twice as much disposable income left after tax, childcare and housing costs.

The biggest problem with these discussions is that many people just do not seem to comprehend how redistributive the UK system is already, and how much is is absolutely hammering those who earn these higher salaries by means-testing all family support and taxing them marginal rates than in some income brackets exceed 100% when you factor in student loans and childcare funding withdrawal.

Then there is the fact that the couple might be able to work their hours around each other so that they don’t need full time nursery for their children, or even any nursery at all if they work opposite shifts. Meanwhile, the lone parent is trying to do everything they do in 48 hours in 24 hours, paying way more in tax and being left with less disposable income than them despite earning a gross salary of 2.5 what the couple earn combined. And anybody who thinks that earning that kind of money doesn’t come with huge demands, stress and sacrifices and a lack of time for home is kidding themselves, yet this person is expected to sacrifice their time with their children (who only have one parent) to keep paying these extortionate rates of tax to help other families who have two parents and twice as much time to split between earning and caring, yet told they shouldn’t access the childcare funding etc. that they pay for themselves.

I think there is an immense amount of financial illiteracy and people simply do not comprehend how much higher earners pay in tax and assume it’s a similar proportion to what they pay from their salaries. It isn’t.

Two minimum wage earners working full time, also with two young children will earn £25,397 each so £50,794 in total. If we include a 15% pension contributions for each of them as well but no student loan - since you don’t need a degree to get a minimum wage job - their net pay is £1,563 each so £3,126 per month.

If we run these figures through a benefit calculator (the £2,116 gross earnings each before tax and NI, and the £317 per month each pension contribution), and add the average greater London rent of £2,026 per month and the Council Tax Band for an average UK property, it states that this couple will receive £522 per week i.e. £2,262 per month in universal credit. Their net income is now £3,126 + £2,262 = £5,388. They then pay their rent of £2,062 so have £3,276 left after tax and housing costs, plus universal credit. They will also receive £43.30 of child benefit per week, like the couple on average wages who have a mortgage property but in a cheaper part of the UK. This is £188 per month, so they have £3,276 + £188 = £3,464 left to fund childcare, food and other living expenses. Also, because they claim universal credit, 85% of their childcare costs are funded through universal credit, so it costs them next to nothing. They are therefore very significantly better off after tax and childcare than the lone parent working crazy hours to earn £180,000 to try to provide their children with a decent life. And they have 48 hours per day to take a leisurely approach to work and home life, two parents available to juggle home life and spend time with the children, and have more disposable income than the person who has sacrificed an enormous amount to train and work crazy hours to earn the £180k salary. Those kinds of jobs don’t just fall into people’s laps randomly.

Yet all the time we see these posts saying that people earning those amounts must be living immensely wealthy lifestyle. I bet they haven’t done the above calculations and realised that actually a couple on minimum wage in London would have far more disposable income.

At some point people will need to realise why all the people in these earnings brackets are emigrating, cutting their working hours, or retiring early (depending on age). A cash cow will stop producing milk if you milk it dry. If there’s no incentive to work any more (and indeed your net income will go down if you do so with marginal tax rates for people with children in some brackets exceeding 100%) then who would do this? There’s a difference between being socially minded and a total mug.

There’s a good argument for taxing the super-wealthy more morally, but it’s incredibly difficult to do without actually causing more economic damage without international cooperation, which will not happen. The people who are not wealthy, but work incredibly hard and have become moderately successful have been carrying this country for nearly two decades now but have nothing left to give and are giving up or shipping out.

What the UK population needs to realise is that the difference between the tax systems in other countries that have the service levels they covet and the UK system is not that what they deem to be “the rich” pay more (the rich, have capital, they don’t work for income). The difference is that in other northern European countries the low and middle earners pay a far higher percentage of income in income tax. People in the £75k- £150k salary ranges in the UK in particular pay some of the very highest tax rates in the entire world for that earnings level. You can’t get more from them now, as the above demonstrates. So the choices that at some point people will have to face are 1) accept a much lower level of services in the UK; or 2) everyone paying a much higher rate of tax, including low and middle earners (an increase of probably around 8% to make things comparable with other European countries with better standards of living).

But nobody wants to hear that. And nobody’s interested in maths. So we’ll carry on with the population squabbling amongst themselves and ignoring the large, grey animal with a big bottom and oversized ears and just hoping it goes away until even more painful decisions have to be made down the line when the national debt becomes unserviceable and all of our talents and ambitious young people have left.

Do you have a Just Giving page I could donate to?

I think that there is a misconception among lower earnings that this salary gives you an enormous amount of spare cash, when in reality if you have a large mortgage and other High outgoings, high taxes and no parental help it can be quite tough.

I don't think many people struggle to understand that if you have a higher salary and then spend it on a high mortgage, high outgoings and are in a high tax bracket then you won't have loads left. The 'it can be tough' is of their own making.

If I earn salary A and spend whatever on my outgoings and then get a promotion to salary B and increase my outgoings accordingly then I'd have to be a bit dim to wonder where my money went.

I think this is what people do not understand.

Many people will see a salary that is several times theirs and multiply up the net pay assuming it is the same. It isn’t.

Let’s compare a lone parent earning £180,000 to a couple earning the average UK salary each. Let’s assume each family has two young children to support.

£180,000 salary is a net pay of £8,932 per month assuming no student loan repayments (unlikely for those earning at this level) and no pension contributions (which would be irresponsible). Factoring in a 15% pension contribution and a student loan on Plan 2, net pay is £6,549.

Someone earning this amount will have no personal allowance, no tax free childcare, 15 funded hours for each child withdrawn, no child benefit. The average cost of a full time nursery place in England is now £239 per week (after deducting the universal 15 funded hours) so this is £12,425 per year or £1,035 per month, per child. For two children, £2,070. So the lone parent’s net pay is now £4,479. Bear in mind also that nursery costs are significantly higher in more expensive areas - at least 50% higher than average and sometimes more, so the net income after tax and childcare is likely far lower than this in reality as the childcare costs in expensive areas where there are good jobs are much higher.

The average UK full time salary as of 2024 was £37,430. Again, with a 15% pension contribution net pay is £2,165. So for a couple both earning average UK salary and making decent pension contributions their net income is £4,330. However, this couple will receive child benefit of £2,252 per year (£188 per month) tax free as well. They also receive an additional 15 funded hours per child at nursery which means they’ll only pay £127 per week per child for nursery care, and this is reduced by 20% through tax free childcare to £102 equating to £881 per month for both children. Their net income after tax and childcare is £3,637.

The difference in net income after tax and childcare costs between the couple with two children both earning the average UK full time salary and a lone parent earning £180,000 is, on average per the above, £4,479 - £3,637 = £842.

Yet people assume this person must be super rich, taking extravagant holidays, having children in private school (not a chance on that salary!) or mismanaging their money if they are finding things financially challenging.

Given that most people earning £180,000 per year will be living in very expensive areas of the country and having to pay very high mortgages or rents. If they move further away childcare would be impossible and commuting costs would take up most of the additional money, anyway. In 2024, the average monthly mortgage payment for a home in greater London was £2,340 (and that figure is skewed by people who bought a long, long time ago and therefore have very low mortgages now, so for a family with young children the real figure is likely much higher, but let’s go with this lower estimate for the illustration).

The lone parent’s net income after this average mortgage payment for an average kind of home is therefore £3,637 - £2,340 = £1,297. That is what they have left from their £180,000 salary after tax, childcare and housing costs (if they are lucky). From this they must pay Council Tax, utilities, commuting costs, food, clothing, insurance, house maintenance etc.

Hardly a life of luxury.

Meanwhile the couple can live anywhere in the country, where there is much cheaper housing and childcare is less expensive, even food in the shops is cheaper. The average UK mortgage payment across the UK is £1,441. So after their tax, childcare and mortgage payment they can have £3,637 - £1,441 = £2,196 left for their Council tax, utilities, commuting costs (likely lower as they can work locally given they only need to earn the average salary to achieve this standard of living), food, clothing, insurance, house maintenance etc.

It is therefore very apparent that a couple both earning average UK salaries are likely to be vastly better off than a lone parent earning £180,000 per year, with almost twice as much disposable income left after tax, childcare and housing costs.

The biggest problem with these discussions is that many people just do not seem to comprehend how redistributive the UK system is already, and how much is is absolutely hammering those who earn these higher salaries by means-testing all family support and taxing them marginal rates than in some income brackets exceed 100% when you factor in student loans and childcare funding withdrawal.

Then there is the fact that the couple might be able to work their hours around each other so that they don’t need full time nursery for their children, or even any nursery at all if they work opposite shifts. Meanwhile, the lone parent is trying to do everything they do in 48 hours in 24 hours, paying way more in tax and being left with less disposable income than them despite earning a gross salary of 2.5 what the couple earn combined. And anybody who thinks that earning that kind of money doesn’t come with huge demands, stress and sacrifices and a lack of time for home is kidding themselves, yet this person is expected to sacrifice their time with their children (who only have one parent) to keep paying these extortionate rates of tax to help other families who have two parents and twice as much time to split between earning and caring, yet told they shouldn’t access the childcare funding etc. that they pay for themselves.

I think there is an immense amount of financial illiteracy and people simply do not comprehend how much higher earners pay in tax and assume it’s a similar proportion to what they pay from their salaries. It isn’t.

Two minimum wage earners working full time, also with two young children will earn £25,397 each so £50,794 in total. If we include a 15% pension contributions for each of them as well but no student loan - since you don’t need a degree to get a minimum wage job - their net pay is £1,563 each so £3,126 per month.

If we run these figures through a benefit calculator (the £2,116 gross earnings each before tax and NI, and the £317 per month each pension contribution), and add the average greater London rent of £2,026 per month and the Council Tax Band for an average UK property, it states that this couple will receive £522 per week i.e. £2,262 per month in universal credit. Their net income is now £3,126 + £2,262 = £5,388. They then pay their rent of £2,062 so have £3,276 left after tax and housing costs, plus universal credit. They will also receive £43.30 of child benefit per week, like the couple on average wages who have a mortgage property but in a cheaper part of the UK. This is £188 per month, so they have £3,276 + £188 = £3,464 left to fund childcare, food and other living expenses. Also, because they claim universal credit, 85% of their childcare costs are funded through universal credit, so it costs them next to nothing. They are therefore very significantly better off after tax and childcare than the lone parent working crazy hours to earn £180,000 to try to provide their children with a decent life. And they have 48 hours per day to take a leisurely approach to work and home life, two parents available to juggle home life and spend time with the children, and have more disposable income than the person who has sacrificed an enormous amount to train and work crazy hours to earn the £180k salary. Those kinds of jobs don’t just fall into people’s laps randomly.

Yet all the time we see these posts saying that people earning those amounts must be living immensely wealthy lifestyle. I bet they haven’t done the above calculations and realised that actually a couple on minimum wage in London would have far more disposable income.

At some point people will need to realise why all the people in these earnings brackets are emigrating, cutting their working hours, or retiring early (depending on age). A cash cow will stop producing milk if you milk it dry. If there’s no incentive to work any more (and indeed your net income will go down if you do so with marginal tax rates for people with children in some brackets exceeding 100%) then who would do this? There’s a difference between being socially minded and a total mug.

There’s a good argument for taxing the super-wealthy more morally, but it’s incredibly difficult to do without actually causing more economic damage without international cooperation, which will not happen. The people who are not wealthy, but work incredibly hard and have become moderately successful have been carrying this country for nearly two decades now but have nothing left to give and are giving up or shipping out.

What the UK population needs to realise is that the difference between the tax systems in other countries that have the service levels they covet and the UK system is not that what they deem to be “the rich” pay more (the rich, have capital, they don’t work for income). The difference is that in other northern European countries the low and middle earners pay a far higher percentage of income in income tax. People in the £75k- £150k salary ranges in the UK in particular pay some of the very highest tax rates in the entire world for that earnings level. You can’t get more from them now, as the above demonstrates. So the choices that at some point people will have to face are 1) accept a much lower level of services in the UK; or 2) everyone paying a much higher rate of tax, including low and middle earners (an increase of probably around 8% to make things comparable with other European countries with better standards of living).

But nobody wants to hear that. And nobody’s interested in maths. So we’ll carry on with the population squabbling amongst themselves and ignoring the large, grey animal with a big bottom and oversized ears and just hoping it goes away until even more painful decisions have to be made down the line when the national debt becomes unserviceable and all of our talents and ambitious young people have left.

Haven’t read whole thread but just wanted to show solidarity with the op and that i can completely understand why you feel this way.

We are in a very similar position, three children, joint salaries of around 150 K, live in the north-west but in a pricey area.

Three children, two at uni which is crippling. One dog. One holiday per year abroad, not particularly extravagant with spending, but will eat out occasionally and pay for phones, and clothes shoes etc for DC’s.

There is very little to spare, and the tax bill is enormous.

I think that there is a misconception among lower earnings that this salary gives you an enormous amount of spare cash, when in reality if you have a large mortgage and other High outgoings, high taxes and no parental help it can be quite tough.

I feel like as a society we are being sold a crap aspirational dream of big cars, luxury holidays, constant home remodelling and renovations, high-maintenance beauty regimes, constant eating out, ever-changing fashions. Total victims of capitalism that we feel our value is measured against all this. If you live in suburbia life me, I think the pressure is worse. We're not rubbing shoulders with the people who are managing to opt out of all this.

This is so true. Its often debt funded too - we were at a barbecue last weekend with friends and a few threw into the conversation that they were absolutely stretched to the max on car payments (driving a huge bmw) & mortgage, having done a huge reno on an already impressive large house. A lot are seriously neglecting things like pensions to cover this lifestyle affluenza.

A lot of the people who come on here and say "we've got a 30k household income and we have 2 holidays a year and a 3 bed semi in the south east" are eother talking shite or not giving the full picture.
They are typically leaving out that:

• they receive benefit top ups which hugely boost their post tax income
• the house is a social home
• the rent is paid by UC
• They are mortgage free
• they have no children still home/no childcare costs
• they live in the "south east" but in a much cheaper/deprived area (eg jaywick is technically in the south east!!)

Just seen OP’s also either changed her name or come off Mumsnet. That’s not really what this community is supposed to be about is it 😕

How did you come to that conclusion? She may very well have decided not to return to the thread which is understandable as the congenitally envious/jealous have lambasted her for even asking the question she did. She can't name change within a thread so there's that. She may have left Mumsnet but why, all she'd need to do is mute notifications.

Just seen OP’s also either changed her name or come off Mumsnet. That’s not really what this community is supposed to be about is it 😕

We don't earn as much but apparently we are in the top tier of earners. We have nice holidays but that is it in terms of lavish luxuries, 9 year old car, no designer brands, no iPhones, no meals out unless on holiday, no takeaways, 1 trip a year to the theatre or a concert, etc. A day out involves transport, entry tickets and a picnic from tesco (or M&S!) etc yet I see families on days out spending seemingly without thought in the gift shops and in the cafes etc and just don't understand how we are considered very high earners. I am happy with my life so I am not complaining but I do wonder how other people afford to be frivolous in their spending when we can't.

My conclusion is that it is because we are both employed rather than self employed. So everything we earn is taxed (heavily), nothing is hidden from the tax man. I think that the income declared by many people running their own companies or self employed is just the tip of their income iceberg. If you only declare half of your income then you have effectively just doubled the half you didn't declare as you don't lose half of it to tax. So the lifestyle of a £100k family who are PAYE can be achieved at a much lower declared income level if it is not all properly taxed.

I think there must be a huge number of people appearing with much lower income in the stats of household income levels, who are actually,secretly much richer. They are just paying considerably less tax than they should be because otherwise it really doesnt make any sense.

Just that really. Mid-30s and we have what I have always seen as a healthy income of £180k per annum (obviously been lower when we were younger and increased over time), and had some family help - about £50k to buy our first house several years ago.

And i’m not complaining about our quality of life- I know we are lucky and can afford a good holiday every year, and a more expensive/ luxury holiday occasionally. DS does a few extra-curricular activities, we don’t have to worry about the food shop total (we aren't extravagant at all) and can afford to eat out a few times a month etc. And I know we are lucky as I grew up in a poor family and understand the stress and implications.

But we have a very modest 3-bed house (with a big mortgage), our car is ten years old and there’s no way we could replace it, we can rarely afford to replace clothes and shoes for us (of course do for DS), days out are thought through to reduce cost, would make pack lunches to take into work and don’t buy shop coffees, we could not afford private school, and often we cut out the eating out to add to savings instead- basically £ is not abundant. And we are relatively careful financially and not big spenders generally. None of this is me saying our life is bad- I know we are really luckily, but just trying to give an idea of limitations / life.

We do live in SE commuter belt (not london) where everything is very expensive.

But we are surrounded by families who have so much more, so apparently effortlessly. We are genuinely one of the only local families without a 4x4 (i know cry me a river 🤣). How do others have it all and have the big house, the new car, endless holidays, SAHM often, the new clothes, meals out, lots of savings? Is it simply that they earn much more? I know we are lucky but I just don’t understand how so many can be so wealthy? Could most of our network really have a household income over £200k?!

Oh how one could only dream, while my household income as a single parent with three children is £25K total (maximum). I'm not in any debt... You get nearly 9 times my income and I honestly cannot say that I feel jealous of other people in the way you do. It's just so wrong.

Controversially, I think OP is getting a lot of harshness on this thread.

We have to remember that on a 180k income, the tax and NI contributions will be high so the take home pay will eat in to the 80k. OP will also lose things like tax free childcare and 30h funding which will bring nursery / breakfast and afterschool clubs to full price. Mortgage repayments these days will also be high. Commuting in to the city for the job that pays so well will also eat in to the monthly outgoings as train and tube costs an awful lot. So whilst they are not on the poverty line, and clearly aren’t struggling, 180k really isn’t as much as it appears on paper.

OP didn’t come on here to say ‘I’m really struggling we only have 180k to live on’. She very clearly stated she’s aware of how lucky she is and that she has achieved a lot, but wonders how the people around her have more. Nothing wrong with that surely? It’s not just people on the poverty line that are allowed to wonder how someone else has more.