AIBU to think many Mumsnet posters seem to be high earners?

Exactly. It's usually the way these thread go though.

I appreciate that yes absolutely. I do t have actual stats but I think the difference between lowest and highest paid has widened (whereas low to middle reduced with min wage, NI, etc).

And yes government will decide what revenue they will give up for their policies etc. I have a bit of an issue for example when I constantly hear that pensions are unaffordable (or triple lock) when huge amounts of revenue could be increased by removing certain things. Choices that governments have but I think the low wage one is particularly bad as people generally go to work and whatever job it should be enough for basic living needs, but that money goes towards individual company profits. Reducing gaps I guess is what I’d be looking for more of.

She probably means her income does not afford a good life. I get it I am a high earner but still have to budget carefully and cannot be completely “carefree” with money. Does’t change the data and stats though on average incomes.

This 100%. If you don't already know, a quick search will show you that neither money nor profile will protect a woman from emotional or physical abuse, regardless of how financially well off she is.

You mean as a combined income?

Don’t be so sure!

Where are those figures from?

I think MN skews middle class and older which may impact the numbers.

It's bizarre. I wonder what she does class herself as?

But you are a high earner within the context of the UK. That puts you in about the 90th percentile (I think.)

I very much doubt this is true. Or do you mean combined income?

There are many on MN who are incredibly envious of high earners and demand they to be taxed more.

I’ve retired so much of what I do from now on will be for my entertainment. The land is relatively easily managed and my choice of crops and animals is also based on ease of management. This time next year I will be totally self sufficient for food, water and power. I’m happy with the way I have chosen to live. It wouldn’t have been possible without being a high earner though.

The majority of parents over 35 in London will earn over £60k. There are 10 million people in London making it doubly as populous as Scotland and 3 times as populous as Wales. So that’s a lot of well off people likely to be on Mumsnet.

Even NHS workers are better off because they get the Hight Cost Area uptick. Now obviously the money doesn’t go as far. But that’s not what you asked.

That’s not how the gender pay gap works. There are still lots of women earning well. Not everyone’s male partner is earning more than the woman, and even if they are it doesn’t mean the woman isn’t also a high earner.

Because of the gender pay gap. I'm not happy about it at all. But it exists. Should be that that irks you not me, pointing out the stats.

People know what their friends earn when they are Nursery workers, teachers, NHS workers etc as those are easy to look up. I don't know any people in law, finance etc where salaries seem wild, so for me it's fairly easy to guess family income.

Indeed, but you have implied that people who aren't high earners haven't worked hard at school. Other posters have also said this higher up the thread.

Sure, they will be in a minority (possibly a small minority). I'm sure it's a fraction of the overall Mumsnet population but I'm not arguing that they represent an average.

The contention on here seems to be that anyone who says they earn over £100k pa must be lying.

I just find it frustrating that after something like 40 years of mass female participation in the workplace, rising incomes for women (at least until recently) and women increasingly becoming family breadwinners people find it impossible to conceptualise that a woman could have a high salary and want to pull down any woman who says she earns a lot.

But how is vilifying higher-earning employees helpful?

An employee who isn’t using tax avoidance schemes, receives no means-tested benefits and earns £60k or more is already making a substantial contribution through tax and NI. They are paying their way. Why should they pay more to subsidise lower-paying employers or those who could work but won’t?

I am pretty sure we can acknowledge that some workers are not paid enough without painting a target on the backs of those earning more than them, especially when they aren’t responsible for the pay disparity.

Seems reasonable to me that people should focus on why people are being paid less not attacking people who earn more than them. For the avoidance of doubt, I earn nowhere near six figures.

But even in London and the south East they will be massively outnumbered by those earning nearer the median salary
Its not as if its 75% of women in London earn 100k + ....but averages out to 1% nationally!

That's the choice she made then. Dh made the choice to maximise his earnings to provide for his family.

LOL. I think we're in agreement here.

I'm also enraged by the assumption that it's not possible for a woman to earn above the national average which you see so much on here.

DD worked hard at school and at university - she won an academic award for being the highest achieving student last year (post grad STEM degree) but I doubt she will be on 6 figures any time soon as she has no interest in the type of careers that pay those kind of salaries.

No. A high earner is a high earner wherever you are and whatever your mates earn and whatever your outgoings are.

@Thepeopleversuswork sorry I very lazily read the first line of your post and ran with the rest 🤣 I can’t edit my post now, but if I could I would remove the words disagreeing and would say “exactly!” And then go into my representative and holiday point lol.