Meet the Henry- High Earner not rich yet

I feel like that about made up Henry too. No one is rolling in it. He also could have been saving for a deposit when he was on 50k and had a total home expenditure of £850. Instead he was out living it large.

The Henry in this example isn't working in the type of law or finance that means he's been working 14 hour days. If he was at 34 his salary would be closer to 200k than 100k. Henry is working in a more 'normal' job, where he has over 10 years done well and has worked his salary up.

You do get Henries working 14 hour days in law/finance but they will be in their 20s not their 30s. Those types of roles are also the outliers I mentioned before where salaries have substantially increased over the last 20 years and it's a very restricted group of people who can go into that area (salaries in city law are getting pretty ridiculous now). If you're one of those Henries you'll be expecting serious salary rises over the next 10 years and achieving that 'rich' lifestyle is probably just a case of accepting you have to tighten your belt a bit for now. You're also probably perfectly happy to be in a house share - it's normal in your 20s!

If you're on 100k at 34 (and are not a career changer that started late) you're probably not expecting any dramatic salary change in the next 10 years.

[Note I know that there are some jobs in law/finance where there are 14 hour days but not the big salary packets but I discount those people from my discussion because if you're working those hours in law/finance in London at 34 and are only making 100k you are either a mug or someone doing some form of passion career, which is then complete choice]

Henry (or more likely Henrietta) is already a problem - lots of female GPs work part time to avoid the tax cliff edge and claim child care hours - that's one reason why we are short of doctors. There are others in other professions too - which affects productivity. Why bother to work when you face a marginal tax rate of 70 odd % (plus the loss of free childcare). Why aspire to a decent career when you can't see it ever paying off.

I've said this on lots of threads but I will repeat it again. When I was at school one of my friends was the daughter of a GP her mum had been a nurse and was a SAHM after the children arrived. They did not come from money so no bank of mum and dad to help. That single GP salary paid for a large house in one of the nicest streets in my home city - think 6+ bedrooms and a large garden with a tennis court. They had 4 children all in private school and ran 2 cars. Holidays abroad every summer and at least one other holiday as well. Nowadays a couple of GPs would struggle to afford that house let alone 4 lots of school fees.

£600 a month for one we spend about that maybe £700 for 5 of us (all adults). He must be a bit thick.

Sorry, I meant that percentage live alone.

It's not just boomers and it's a mistake to think that. There are plenty of people in their 40s and 50s (i.e. Gen X) who are in this position as well. If you bought a house before about 2005 and have not had to take significant equity out of that house, you are likely sitting on significant equity that has come about purely because of house price rises (I'm not talking about the amount they've paid off a mortgage). How much obviously is very dependent on the area you bought in (and whether and when you sized up) but house prices have roughly doubled in that time. If you bought the average house in the UK 2004 and have lived in it since, you will have made around 150k just from having been in a position to buy back then (average house price in the UK is now ~300k). If you bought in 2000, you'd be sitting on over 200k.

I believe in progressive taxation in the sense that I support people with higher ability to pay, contributing a bit more to even things out a little.

However, the idea behind this is that the higher earner should still essentially be in a better position overall than the person he subsidises, just not as much better.

When Henry is living in a flat share into his mid 30s, holding off on starting a family and buying a house, so that he can subsidise someone with massive housing equity or with a much lower mortgage on a 3-bed detached in the north somewhere, to live a life objectively more luxurious than his own... I mean, it's not hard to see where all the Nicolas, 30 ans memes come from.

28% of Londoners live in a flat share? Can you share the link to that piece of data?

29% according to the last census and for any number of unknown reasons, so not relevant to the discussion.

Why did you not feel able to live alone while earning £100k?

I think it’s quite interesting to see people telling someone who would be described as ‘rich’ and a top ~5% earner needing to ‘cut his cloth’ because he… rents a one bedroom flat alone.

Would a couple earning £50k each be ‘dicks’ for ensuring to rent their own place?

Exactly!

@Staffling 20 years ago a starting salary of 70k was not normal.

i earned 24k in London in a respectable job as my starting salary, i had a flat share until i was 32 when i moved in with dh.

i have never ever assumed I should be able to afford living alone - it is an EXTREMELY expensive thing to do and always has been in London especially.

HENRY is a bit of a dick and should have cut his cloth.

I think the position that a top 5% earner in their mid 30s shouldn’t’ be able to afford their own flat is absolutely extraordinary.

9 million people live in London, they don’t all live in flat shares.

This thread really highlights the perception challenge we have on this.

Its all very well to say Henrys need to be fiscally prudent, forgo holidays, downsize to north of England, live in a flatshare until their mid 30s or whatever, but if that’s genuinely the case, then let’s stop insisting that Henrys are rich/wealthy. Rich people don’t live in multi person house shares in their mid 30s or drive ten year old cars.

And if that’s really the standard of lifestyle we expect people who are in the top 5% to have, then what kind of life do we expect the other 95% to have?

I can understand it the emotional reaction- If you’re scraping by then of course 100k is riches. But it’s only riches if you’re living a frugal lifestyle in a low cost area and, as others have pointed, if all the Henrys start buying former council flats in South Norwood and Croydon, who are they going to be displacing?

20 years ago my brother got his first job in London with a starting0 salary of 70k, which allowed him to rent a beautiful, massive flat (even if in the cheaper east of London). At that time we thought his monthly rent of 2k was insanely expensive but even then his low expenses at that time meant that he could live very comfortably without having to worry about money.

Don't you wonder why someone at the age of 34 with a pretty good job needs to live in a flat share now when they didn't have to 20 years ago? I mean we don't have to wonder. We know. But it's still sad for the younger generations. They will have to struggle ahd work as hard as us but will be able to afford less.

The point is not what henry could do to save money. The point is that we are all becoming poorer in real terms for the same (or in most cases higher) effort.

Both dh and me have doubled our salary since we have started and we were lucky to buy our house more than 10 years ago as we wouldn't be able to afford it now. We work longer hours and have more responsibility but we can afford less. I know I'm still very lucky because I don't have to worry about being able to cover basic expenses but the point is that most people who are in full time employment and who have not had severe misfortune that would impact their ability to earn or meant very high expenditure expect to improve their quality of life with age and career progression. This doesn't happen anymore. You still need to work hard and progress but now it's so that you are not substantially worse off. This what happens in a stagnant or shrinking economy.

I know this might stir the pot, but it needs to be said.
It’s a bit alarming how quickly so many people criticize those who essentially bankroll the system we all depend on. Like it or not, the top 10% of PAYE earners contribute over 60% of the UK’s total tax revenue. So before sharpening pitchforks at those earning £100k+, ask yourself: who’s funding the NHS, state schools, Universal Credit, and even your bin collection?
I’ve read the City A.M. article and seen the outrage from those offended by someone earning six figures saying they’re not exactly living in luxury.
But seriously, can we add a little nuance?
No one’s claiming that £100k is poverty. But in London, with skyrocketing rent or mortgages, nursery fees, student loans, commuting costs, and general living expenses? That money vanishes faster than you can say “inflation.”
It doesn’t mean you’re destitute. But it also doesn’t mean you’re flying off to Saint-Tropez every weekend or burning £50 notes on Jo Malone candles.
Most of these so-called HENRYs (High Earners, Not Rich Yet) are just people who:
Spent years studying
Endured 14-hour workdays in law or finance
Dealt with stress, exhaustion, and job insecurity
…who now just want a flat with a working boiler and the occasional guilt-free lunch.
There’s a big difference between barely scraping by and feeling financially stretched. Both are valid, and one doesn’t invalidate the other.
Let people vent. Just because someone earns more doesn’t mean they’re lying when they say London is a financial grind.
And—this is said with love—the loudest critics of HENRYs often seem like the same people who’d jump at the chance for a six-figure salary and a kitchen spacious enough for a wine fridge.
Too many of the replies lately have been borderline smug:
“Well I manage just fine on £30k a year in 2025 — why can’t you?”
Because we are not all living in the same economy.

No, he shouldn't be to afford to comfortably buy or rent his own place, when atypical Henry chooses to live alone in one of the most expensive cities in the world at this current time. After tax, NI, student loans and minimal pension contributions he would have £5,200 left. About £2.9k would go on rent and bills (would be about £900 all in sharing with two others in a decent part of the city), £800 for travel and food, so £1.5k disposable which isn't much on that salary but understandable when that person chooses to live alone in London. I don't feel any sympathy for 'Henry' or anyone else in this position, but like I said it just rarely happens.

If ETHEL is a pensioner on a taxable income of 34k then she will receive winter fuel allowance. She may have a comfortable life and own her property outright. Henry may be paying a lot to rent a cold; damp flat; and paying a large share of income in tax to support Ethel.

Older people should not go cold or hungry. We are a society and need to look out for each other. But Henry may feel that no one is looking out for him; and a generation shifts towards Ayn Rand style Objectivism rather than social democracy

Was she not on £180k not £250k?

Probably the London mortgage - two child childcare horror of £4k a month on each childcare and mortgage.

£100k less tax = 5.5k a month
£80k less tax = £4.5 a month.

Less potentially £8k on childcare and mortgage.

Usually several people on these threads who have found themselves in this situation. Insane I know but not uncommon.

If you've only got hundreds left on a £250k income, then you've made some rather silly choices. We're a high income household (though only about half of yours), and we manage to save and invest and chose which ever supermarket we fancy. Where's all your money going?

I think they are called boomers. My MIL tells all her children she is poor as she earns 17k. She is a mortgage free owner of a 3 bed terraced house in z3 nw london. Of her children, only dh owns a small flat, the other 2 live with their in laws (abroad) and in their 30s. Youngest lives at home with no prospect of moving out.

They actually believe it too, my sister in law's fiancee told me oh she doesn't have much money. This is the same guy who has been on the social housing list in netherlands for 14 years and is living with his parents though he has a graduate role and is due to get married . He feels his job is highly paid. I don't want to tell him the truth cos the truth is too cruel. The problem is global.

I didn't say I didn't have a choice. I said that I feel the difference at the end of the month and it's material to my savings goals because after my fixed costs, I've got "hundreds" rather than "thousands" of discretionary spends.

My situation isn't comparable to someone who isn't saving at all for retirement/children's house deposits, and I'm certainly not pleading poverty - but then again, me and my children have increasingly closer to zero hope of ever accessing state support so I don't see these costs as optional.

Earlier in the thread everyone was falling over themselves to tell us to cook with beans and lentils more and we'd be grand... I thought you'd be pleased to know that we do indeed have Aldi beans in our pantry cupboards! And not a Chanel bag in sight!

Good point. This did happen to some desirable pockets outside of London when WFH happened and I recall that those local residents weren’t best pleased with the knock-on effects to their housing supplies.

Of course you can shop where you like. But drop the faux we don't have any choices bollocks. You can shop where you like and barely feel the difference and you know it. Everyone has fixed costs.