Meet the Henry- High Earner not rich yet

Fiscal drag and inflation are a bitch. I'm seeing it directly in my own family - sister is a doctor in that bracket.The problem is, between the withdrawn allowances and the surplus tax, you don't see anything back. Realistically, you (at best) treading water until 120k after which the tax anomaly starts to smooth out again.
Obviously, if you have a family you will want to spend time with them. Which is why so many GPs are on 4 day weeks. Why work 6 days for less money in your bank account when you can do the same for four? Its not any different from people doing 16 hours on UC and not a minute more because their top-ups will be cut.

We need to reward hard work and ambition in this country. We don't. People in the top 5% should feel well off, but when you can't afford to buy a house or that second child because of nursery fees...you don't.

There's a similar theme on the small business side (and SMBs make up the majority of business in this country). The 90k threshold on turnover is ridiculously low and the paperwork complex enough to put off most owners. As a result, people will pause trading for a month, rather than go over it.

Rather than talk about diamond shoes, we need to talk about economic growth. Because, when NHS and social care costs increase (over 70s are the biggest service users and they are set to double), who is going to pay for it all?

Finally; yes house prices and energy costs are insane. We need to fix both of those things, but also find a way to increase the economy.

This is it. Apparently 100K salary now is equivalent to a 50K salary in the noughties.

Yes, it's about private rents as much as purchase price.

The housing prices have actually fallen 20% in real terms. Which is a good thing and I say that as a 2019 london flat buyer.

But people still can't afford the deposits, mortgage interest rate so they rent. And people want henry to move to Croydon with his 5500 disposable income to rent a 2 bed flat so god knows where the young families with 2 kids and no deposit on average salaries are going to live. I suppose they will just move up north but what happens to those on housing benefits in the north. Landlords will surely prefer to rent to 2 newly transferrred public sector workers than them.

I do believe that in part the rental crisis is caused because a lot of Henrys hold off from buying due to cost of stamp duty, leasehold and cladding issues, not wanting to commit to a share of freehold maisonette in zone 3/4 (which would be the alternative to newbuild leasehold), not being settled with a partner yet, wanting to keep the option of moving abroad open, higher interest rates mean return is better on investing than buying etc etc. They then rent and this drives up the price of rentals for everyone else.

£500 every month on toiletries, clothes and a haircut? That's far higher than it needs to be unless they guy is buying new pairs of Nike Jordans every month. Many men in London don't even seem to wear proper suits these days!

Remember that if someone is spending £4 on a coffee every morning (which is a cheaper end of things for a take-away coffee in a city, that amounts to over £1,000 per year just on a coffee!! And many people buy more than one every day, and do so even on the weekend/when they are on holiday. Given the starting salary for many teachers and other public sector workers is under £30k per year (and the average salary for all workers isn't much higher) it's astonishing how many people fritter away money on things like a coffee or regular consumption of booze (which is way more expensive than coffee) and then complain that they don't have enough for rent or to save up for a house deposit.

Those kind of "per year" figures can be very useful to drive home to people just how costly these "little" expenditures are. It's particularly helpful to underscore to younger people just how much they are throwing away on things that they can easily either avoid, or can replace with far cheaper alternatives. Sadly it seems that "influencers" and the desire to "look rich" on social media are making this situation worse: people are spending money so they can take selfies showing them spending money.

The figures on normal household bills underscore the dramatic difference having flatmates/housemates can have. Sharing the electricity and water bills would immediately save a lot of money - bearing in mind that adding a person to a household (especially when everyone is out at work all day, and typically sharing appliances) will typically not double bills, but will immediately be a cost saving for anyone who is then only having to pay half the service chages. Council tax is a good example too: the single person discount certainly is not half the amount of the regular bill, so going half and half with a person on a full bill will be an immediate saving.

Also age. Dh on 75k but did his masters in Europe where it was free and his undergrad fees was 3k per annum (one of the last cohorts). I had no student loan as an international student.

We were able to overpay 10k on the student loan while also overpaying 30k on the mortgage (on 400k flat) which will help with the daycare. So no student loans for either of us
Asian background so made money on the wedding due to cash gifts.

I still don't get how people afford 2 kids. We are one and done and dh even got a vasectomy cos we don't see how we can ever afford a second even if we got massive pay rises.

I assumed it was to explain how £100k lifestyle in London wasn't as lux as most people seem to assume. Did you read it?

Well, increasingly the ones who aren't insulated from the worst of the costs because of a higher earning partner, family help, SH or having bought a long time ago... don't. That's the problem. People who are actually fully exposed to 2025 London housing costs often can't afford to live there.

I'm up north, so its not really any skin off my nose. But it would worry me a great deal if I lived in London.

I am a HENRY and so are most of my friends. The scenario in the article is fictional but it accurately describes our experiences. We do spend a bit too much on brunch.

I think there are two points which are under discussed:

1. Timing: it's quite common (as in the article) to reach £100k via a couple of big promos near age 30 after you finish post-grad studies, qualify after your traineeship, etc. So you enter the expensive years of wedding, house deposits (could be £100k+ inc stamp duty in London), young kids, daycare but without much of a savings buffer - but people see your salary (that you just started earning) and judge you for not having masses in the bank yet.

2. Generational wealth. The social divide in my circle is increasingly along this line. I'm not talking Duke of Westminster levels, but the ability to contribute 5-figure sums to a house deposit goes a long way. I genuinely believe that the last few generations, where a single person not from wealth could join a professional middle-class occupation just by going to university and doing well, were a historical blip and we are returning to an age where family wealth means more. Even in my very well-paid City job, there is a divide between those who have funds to go on ski trips with each other, etc, and those who are still spending huge amounts on student loan repayments and the like.

100k is not as much as it sounds. However, majority of people have to live on less in the same location while working equally hard. It is a lot easier with a 100k salary than 45k salary.

People should afford basics with their salary, high earners should be able to afford luxury. It is messed up that you work full time and still have to live in a house share. Or move away and be miserable living somewhere you dont want to. Or pay insane commuting costs. But still 100k is more money for the basics than lower salary.

@cimena how many of the people you refer to live in nice houses because family have helped with a deposit? I’ve also got lots of friends in London on those salaries but they can only afford to “live very happily” thanks to family support.

Another thing I’d say is that often the very high paid jobs come with very high demands in terms of hours and availability expectations. Eg I regularly work until midnight and am expected to cancel holiday and work on holiday if required. If you are making those kind of sacrifices in your personal life and not seeing much “return” in terms of standard of living then you do start to question the point of it all.

Also where do the people who used to rent the Croydon flats live if a guy on 100k (who is probably going to move the girlfriend in) is expected to live there.

If all the Henry's on 100k and their partners (men on that income level are more likely to get a girlfriend) all moved to places like Croydon that would just drive up the prices. My london suburb basically became gentrified when all the yuppies could no longer afford highgate and moved one station down. In the 50s it was apparently working class..now the houses are 1.3 million plus for a tiny terraced but as there are a lot of flats the flats are on average 450k (I paid 400k) which is affordable by london standards and why we were able to buy. A lot of high income or wealthy types don't think of the areas as a good place to rent or buy flats for which I am grateful (other than as buy to lets and that is dead in the water since osborne tax reforms).

They mainly buy houses here when their kids are of school age as it has good state schools and good access to hampstead/highgate for the private schools.

not buying it and especially not buying the ‘everyone will leave’ thing.

In London have a bunch of friends on £80k+ and despite variations in circumstance (some single, some coupled with kids, some sole earner etc) every single one of them is having a perfectly nice time. We’re not all flying business class to Antigua constantly but we eat, drink, shop and live very happily.

Other friends are more £30-£50k and that is tough going. Manageable but tricky.

Isn’t that the whole point though. At 35 and on £100k, it isn’t unreasonable or irrational to expect to be able to live in both a grotty flat (not even a nice one) AND eat lunch at itsu. (Which isn’t even good!). At that age and on that salary you don’t expect to be in a flatshare.
I earn a bit more than him but DH is a much higher earner which allowed me to cut to 4 days a week and put almost the max tax fax free into my pension to keep me at £100k taxable income.
if I was single and didn’t have children and earned what I do, I’d definitely be looking at Asia or the US.

Yep agree with this. I’ve done everything “right” in life - child of single parent, grew up on benefits, made it to Oxbridge and got a first class degree, now work in a high paid job in the city (more than double what Henry is paid). Yet I live in a smaller house than the one I grew up in, in a fairly dodgy area (because the commute is short, so I can see my kids), kids are at state school and we can’t afford lavish holidays.

I don’t expect to live the life of a millionaire but I do feel that my kids should have a better lifestyle than I had as a child. And the fact is, other than I can afford to buy them new clothes rather than hand me downs, they don’t and they won’t.

Yes I am grateful for what I have, but as a top 1% earner I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a normal middle class (not luxury) lifestyle. The only way to have that in London now is if you have had massive handouts from mum and dad (which I will never have).

As a result I’m considering checking out completely and moving to a cheaper part of the country and working a lot less. I’m paying £100k a year in tax atm and if I and others like me stop doing that then the country is going to suffer.

You managed to miss all the other context in the post - there’s limited (and possibly no) value to moving out and spending £1000 extra a month on travel.

You aren’t getting much more house, you’re spending far more time travelling, and you are £1k a month down on travel costs. How does a 8-6 nursery work if both parents are doing a 90 min commute twice a day?

‘just move out’ isn’t as simple as it sounds.

We moved. It only works because I commute only 1 day a week to London and my partner 2-3. I often worry I have severely limited my job prospects if I need to move from my current role. We try not to go in on the same day because trains are too unreliable and we can’t risk both being stranded in London and being unable to collect our son!

We spend £600 p month on travel.

I often wonder whether we should have stayed in London and put that money in a bigger mortgage.

There’s no doubt we live in a more pleasant environment by moving out.

I don’t think there’s any easy answers. For my partner, he’s had no doubts it was the right move, for me it’s more 50/50 and I have less certainty.

Big trade offs either way.

I have limited sympathy… ‘Henry’ could move out to zone 3 or 4 and easily afford to buy a flat within a 30 commute to work. ‘Henry’ also has a girlfriend earning over £100k and they haven’t even begun to add their finances together yet.

Why would they need two? He isn't living with his girlfriend.

Or a flat. We bought a 2 bed flat in zone 3 for 400k.

Ambition means living off lentils and austerity for a good long while. We all have to do it. Ambition doesn’t mean way way wah £5800 isn’t enough ( it is)for a single person to live in one of the most expensive cities in the world.

I don’t think it’s a good example anyway as I think you can live fine as a single adult on £100k in London but…

… he’s probably in the top 1% of earners in his age group, do you not think you’d expect something slightly better than being able to rent a flat in Croydon?

20 years ago he’d have been buying a flat in zones 1-2.

It's sounds completely ridiculous that someone on 100k should need to do that .

My advise to Henry is buy a shared ownership, pay off the mortgage asap and then don't buy anymore but invest in stocks and shares.

This article is spot on (even if written by AI) and I do think it's important this issue is getting more airtime.

There is a huge 'them and us' attitude in this country, with lower earners believing it's absolutely fine to keep whacking the 'rich' with tax hikes to fund rising welfare costs. The problem is, if you ask a lot of lower earners what rich looks like, they'll say it's 100k, believing that people on that kind of salary are living the life of riley and can well afford to have more of their pay packet taken away from them every month. The reality is they can't, and so that's where we have a massive problem - the supposed 'rich' don't feel rich at all - and resent continued tax hikes that make them struggle to afford to live - and they either start investigating tax dodges or emigrate. This results in fewer people paying into the system and so we end up back at square one.

100k now is not 100k in the 80s and 90s - it simply doesn't go anywhere near as far - and people on that salary really are not 'high earners' in real terms anymore. We need to adjust our standard of what a 'high earner' is, and as others have said, adjust the psychological response to 100k. It doesn't mean what we think it does - at least it doesn't if you are in London or the SE, and the sole earner of your household.

The reality is - you can't keep squeezing and squeezing the same group of people. Eventually they will run out of juice.

No idea what you earn but the same as 2 salaries will equal better tax so more after tax each month.

Henry can easily afford £500 a month season ticket, London is one of the most expensive cities in the world. Nobody has a right to live there.