“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. 🤯

You’ve quoted the wrong person

Why do you think I want your money? 🤨

For some reason some people on this thread think that if you earn 100 grand you get to keep every single penny! 😆

I included you because you described the behaviour as ‘grim’, and my post points out why you have perhaps misunderstood the maths, and why people are annoyed by it.

I’m really sorry… I quoted the wrong person 🥰

No one has said that. Most working adults are aware of how the tax system works. I’m not sure why people keep putting their exact figures out there - I don’t care what individuals earn gross or net and more importantly I am aware of the higher tax brackets. I’m capable of working it out for myself.

None of it changes my opinion that 100k is a high salary, even if a lot of it is swallowed up in tax, childcare, high mortgage payments etc. Several people on this thread clearly do earn in excess of this, good for them! I don’t resent them at all, unlike what many people seem to imply. A lot of projection going on here.

I don’t think most people do… £30k vs £150k is a factor of 5 but the difference in tax payments is a factor of 10! Then take out child benefit, free nursery hours, personal allow reduction etc etc. most people clearly don’t understand it.

I don't think many of you know how the 30 free hours for childcare works. It's a subsidy, not entire coverage. Not only does it not cover a full working week but it doesn't cover the full year. It doesn't fund meals or other additional nursery fees from the childcare. So recipients of this are still paying fees. For those who cannot afford to pay any fees they are relegated to the days and hours the nursery accepts funded hours. They will need to find other arrangements for the hours not covered, which leads to some mothers staying at home or finding restricted part-time work. Here's an e.g. breakdown I found online:

• Full time 5 days per week with no funding = £1,517 per month / £18,200 per year
• Full time 5 days per week with 30 “free” hours = £1,078 per month / £12,938 per year

Apparently those who earn £100k are eligible for 15 hours/week for 3-4 year olds, which isn't a lot, but the narrative on this thread is that there is no provision whatsoever.

I was pointing out the difference between £30k and £150k 🙄. Read the post - I never once suggested I shouldn’t pay for them.

I think people understand it perfectly well.

In your example, adding tax free childcare, the total value of the funded provision is £7,262 a year.

To earn that £7,262 over £100k, you would need to earn an extra c. £19,000 pre-tax.

Indeed. One family I know (income under 100k) actually pay more for childcare since the 30 funded hours offer was extended to include younger children. Apparently nurseries have had to increase the fees for non funded hours so they are actually worse off.

I say “apparently” because my children are school age now.

You shouldn’t have brought it up at all in your comparison because people on 30k don’t get those things either.

of course they do - they get 30hrs free nursery care, they get a full personal allowance and child benefit for up to 2 children.

This thread would suggest many of the higher earners don't. Good that you do though if you say you do.

Try framing this through the context of someone who is earning £30k and still paying 20% on their already low salary, and potentially still paying over £12k of their salary on childcare for one child alone. There are people in this thread swearing up and down that the lower owner is better off because of childcare fees when in reality the saving means many barely scrape by, hence why mothers earning this amount may stop working until their kids are of school age.

As I said in my first post which quoted you, I’m talking about free prescriptions and dental treatment.

The irony of you telling me to “read the post”….

Yup, heard this to. Nurseries are trying to compensate and many have reported the system is a nightmare because it is the councils paying out and the admin is a mess, meaning they aren't getting their money flow as they wish. This means not only charging higher fees but more restrictions with days they provide funded hours.

On the surface of it 30 hours/week free child care sounds bountiful but for those in dire need of funding, it doesn't cut it.

I haven’t seen anyone arguing someone on £30k is financially better off than someone on £100k with one child in nursery due to access to free hours / tax free childcare.

The only argument I have seen made (and on all threads on this topic) is people saying that the loss of childcare help means they are not as well off as one might expect / has a very significant impact on their take home pay - particularly if they have two young children in a HCOL area.

TBH I think the only time I’ve ever seen anyone saying £100k doesn’t go as far as you’d think, are parents of young kids in HCOL areas.

Yes, I've noticed this too. Some people seem to feel entitled to the salaries of high-earning individuals and keep demanding more from them. Political parties (all of them) don't make things better either. The current government is proposing several controversial measures, including forcing the sale of farms under the guise of improving the nation's finances.

It's kind of funny seeing people argue that high earners shouldn't use state services available to all citizens just because they're "rich," as if they're only meant for people with lower incomes. High-earning individuals pay taxes that support the entire system, so they shouldn't be judged too harshly for using services like benefits. Of course, if someone wants to decide who should or shouldn't access state benefits based on their financial situation, they're free to do so.

posted in error

This stuff is easily google-able but you only get free prescriptions if you are under 16, 16-18 ft student, over 60, means tested benefits, pregnant, war pensioner or specific medical conditions. Where are you lot getting this stuff from?

They have and you quoted them. Look at the £7600 pay comment

I have seen this but tbh I can't verify 100% accuracy. But apparently the 15 hours at that age is not means tested.

Yes correct, personally I don’t think it can happen soon enough. The entitlement of low earners in the UK beggars belief.

Yeah sorry, made a mistake. I’ll post again shortly when my phone stops overheating

15 hours for 3 and 4 year olds is not means tested.

What is means tested:

• 15 additional hours for 3 and 4 year olds
• 30 hours from 9 months - 3 years
• Tax free childcare