“100k isn’t a big salary”

[cadburyegg]

I’ve just logged onto instagram and YET AGAIN a post comes up headed “100k isn’t a big salary, here’s why”. I’m so sick of seeing it. Most of us earn nowhere near 100k. I don’t spend my time moaning on instagram about how hard done by I am and there aren’t news articles about it. I don’t even feel like I AM hard done by. I feel lucky to be earning less than half that and to have a reasonable flexible job. I’m not going to the press saying poor me poor me because I don’t feel sorry for myself. Yet there seems to be shitloads of “awareness” posts about how shit it is for high earners and how it’s so sad they don’t have free childcare. I know people can have high expenses and I know it’s all relative and I’m probably overreacting but I seriously do not care anymore. It doesn’t mean the salary isn’t high. I’m so sick of seeing these out of touch posts. 🤯

But I wanted to and did so that’s that

I get that but my point is that food, gas, electric are all similar and regardless of what we earn we have to pay them
so if people are struggling on 100k how do they think people on minimum wage are coping?

Apparently the UC is topping them up so they’re actually richer.

Why don’t some of you quit your jobs or get lower paying salaries so that you can enjoy all of these so-called luxuries those on benefits get that apparently even a six-figure earner would envy?

@TizerorFizz I actually said a house that cost 300-350 here would cost 600-650 in greater London. if you read I never said anywhere you can buy a propoerty or 350K in London ( well im; sure you canget 1 bed flat in parts of London ) but you are saying I said something I didn't

see quote "where I currently live a decent 3 bed house in nice area is about 300- 350K a (similar house in Croydon or Redhill would be 600-650K)"

I said I lived in Scotland so was showing I know that a similar house would cost approx 300K more in Surrey

but any person walking around Surrey that earns 100K is earning more than 93% of the people they meet on the streets so although it doesn't go so far it is still objectively much more than almost everyone else living in same area

It’s ridiculous.

I remember someone on MN saying they were on a low wage because they were ‘only’ on £50k a year!
I almost spat my drink out.

I have to believe that someone on Instagram saying that £100k salary isn’t that much is going it purely for controversy and attention.
A bit like that Katie Hopkins used to do.

I don’t think it’s that they’re struggling, nor that they don’t think someone on minimum wage has life harder financially.

It’s that it doesn’t go as far as they would think, which is why they are discussing it.

You’d think someone with a top ~5% salary would have a higher quality of living than is actually achievable for many people on that wage - largely due to the high costs of housing and childcare.

I think that’s what at the root of the ‘complaints’ - people reaching X point in their career where they are apparently rich and successful and… it’s very ordinary.

You see that disjoint in this thread - the assumption C salary means Y lifestyle and… it just doesn’t.

I’ll help, the word you’re looking for is a lie.
Making things up which aren’t rooted in reality to back up your point is called lying.

I’m quite sure they probably don’t think about it. They are just thinking of their own situation just as you would only think about
yours

I’m not sure anyone is saying that someone on minimum wage claiming UC is better off than someone on 100k a year, but rather just that 100k doesn’t feel as “big” as it sounds- especially in certain circumstances and I can understand that.

Yes someone on 100k is better off than someone on 25k a year, but they aren’t necessarily better off than someone on 60k a year if both households have 2 young children for example, as one would be eligible for free hours & tax free childcare and the other wouldn’t. Plus the obvious fact that the cost of living has increased, and house prices have increased, so 100k doesn’t go as far as it used to and that’s also true, it’s true of any salary. We live in the North so house prices are thankfully not crazy but 20 years ago one 35k salary was enough to support a household & family here, now that isn’t the case, money simply doesn’t go as far as it used to.

urgh leave me alone loser

We are a household of a good way over £100k+ joint income.

I think where people get miffed is that £100k sounds like a kings ransom. But actually, it doesn't get you much these days more than say, £60k which is just above 2 minimum wage salaries these days.

My mother gasps that my husband is on a "fortune" a year. Actually we're living far from that. Our house is marginally above average. But it is above average I suppose.

I think what I'm trying to say is that we live nothing extraordinarily.But the reaction to being on £100k is a perceived lifestyle more akin to millionaires.

@Cottagecheeseisnotcheese Ok. However they are quite a way out of London. Croydon isn’t desirable! No, the person earning £100,000 doesn’t have the same spending power as someone where houses are half the price! Their disposable income isn’t that great because commuting costs will be high if they work centrally too. Plus Surrey isn’t the same prices everywhere! Even where I live (not Surrey but commutable) a 3 bed semi is more like £850,000. Opposite our flat in Zone 2, a wreck of a 3 bed terrace has sold for £1.3 million. Very good transport links but any house near our flat is over £1m.

I think people are forgetting about the tax burden on those earning that kind of money. They dont take home £100,000, they take home about £65,000 - £70,000 and they get none of the benefits / tax credits that a lot of the population do.

It isn’t- yet it is taxed way too much.
100k is double what I earn but is no where near double what I take home
we punish progress and performance in this country

I'm making no judgement about people's lives or the resilience with which they deal with the problems they come up against.
Rich or poor... shit happens.
The OP said that £100k is a big salary, others said its all relative etc... I agree with the OP, it is objectively a big salary.
I do feel lucky, because I'm happy and I have people who love me... but do I occasionally feel pissed off that we dont earn enough to buy a big enough house etc... yes, I do. Mea Culpa.
...and have my eyes nearly rolled out of my head reading this thread. Christ yes.

Literally everything you’ve listed is a choice. Not moving out of London - a choice. Having 2 kids instead of sticking to one (or not having any if you feel you can’t afford the costs) - a choice. Yes, 100k goes further in some areas than others but if you choose to stay in an expensive area in an house rather than a flat and have lots of nursery costs then you’re choosing to spend all your income. Just because you’re doing that doesn’t mean it isn’t a high salary.

You're just one of those posters that thinks everyone should think and live their lives like they do and can't moan if they don't .

Like the ones that savage anyone who might be upset that they get no help from grandparents 'so suck it up you chose to have children' or those who have a useless husband, 'well you shouldn't have married him'.

People are allowed to offload. if you don't like that stay off SM. I think it's tough in London with kids, even if you're not a cleaner. You're far more irritating with your smugness about your life choices than anyone earning £100k.

But you could argue that those on benefits should also limit their children then going by your argument

IMO if the option of having two children is unaffordable, I don’t think you can really be considered ‘rich’. A rich person wouldn’t be worrying about two sets of nursery fees, or affording a three bedroom property.

Different parts of the country have different costs of living.

Is it a high salary for the area if you can’t afford a small house or 2 kids?

It seems crazy that people are so adamant it’s such a high income but also think it’s fine that it can’t sustain anything other than living in a cramped flat and only being able to have 1 child in many areas.

You would think the “choices” people were frustrated at not affording were yachts and diamond shoes.

If someone lives in London and is forced to make the “choice” to only have one child on their 100k salary then they aren’t exactly going to feel like it’s a huge income.

That's the essence of it.
£100k gives you about £68k after tax. You deduct your £21k rent and then about £36k childcare for one child. So you're left with £11k pa to live on incl all bills. And yes, for this salary you work way much more than 37.5 hours /week.
But you live in the same property as someone on benefits and you child goes to the same nursery. What's the point?

ETA: people will always jump that it's a choice to have a child or to live where you live. Why the same doesn't apply to people who chose to have children they can't afford and who complain if they are offered to move somewhere when their housing is paid by taxpayer?

100k is so much money but don’t expect to live in more than a flat and definitely don’t consider two kids.
What??

I haven’t used the word rich - it is simply a fact that it’s a higher salary than 95% of the population and is by definition a lot of money. And your last sentence - yes, that’s exactly my point. If you choose to live somewhere with a very high cost of living you’ll have less money left over and have to make choices like a smaller property or fewer children if you want more disposable income. If that’s unacceptable to someone they can adjust their priorities and move somewhere cheaper.

It’s completely irrelevant that it would’ve bought a mansion in 1964 - that’s capitalism for you. I’m pretty sure the people complaining it’s not enough money also wouldn’t be happy with a socialist system where property ceased to be an asset or was price capped.

I don't earn that, but it's only just over 5k after tax. They get no child benefit, no tax free childcare, and no free nursery hours.
So if you earn that and have two kids at full time nursery and pay rent then of course you feel 'poor', more poor than someone who earns 35k on universal credit and child benefit who has nursery paid for or subsidized. I work part time and no incentive to be remotely ambitious career wise until my child is at school.

The fact that you can be thousands a year better off if you earn 99k than 100k is mad.