“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. 🤯

Again speak for yourself because there a few breakdown examples of why a lower salary is better than £100k. (Disclaimer £30k may not be the exact amount used for an example - before I get drama again - but the salaries used were much lower).

Most of us aren't disagreeing that £100k doesn't stretch to what it should or that on this salary with a family you will be hit by cost of living. OP's very simple point was about perspective on your position in this salary bracket compared to the rest of the population and it has been defensiveness ever since, and rebuttals that actually lower wage earners get tonnes of freebies.

Thanks, so I think I was right then that those earning £100k or more can claim this subsidy.

I have done some googling, I hadn’t realised that those on 100k still qualify for 15 hours a week funded childcare for 3+ year olds. So high earners are not “losing” 30 hours for that age range. They have to pay for the “extra” 15 hours or however more they need.

The funding for younger children (9 months upwards / 9-23 months / 2 years) has only been introduced in the last year or so. When my children were preschool / nursery age, we didn’t get any of that funding. My ds1 only got the 15 hours when he turned 3. My ds2 did get the 30 hours but again when he turned 3. I’m not complaining about it, as a result i paid a lot for childcare.

So, I’m not sympathetic to higher earners having to pay for the full amount because I did despite earning much less 🤷‍♀️

Yeah, we got fuck-all funded childcare when ours were little (1990s.) No free childcare, no tax credits, and a shitty 3 months maternity leave! If you finished a month before you had your baby, you had to return to work when they were 2 months old. Some women don't know how good they've got it these days. And people on £100K a year or more whingeing about their finances. PLEASE! 🙄

This thread shows nothing of the sort.

It's just you that keeps telling people "I don't think you understand xyz" because that's the only real response you can go with when the facts, that no one has difficulty with, don't suit your narrative.

On the contrary - this is exactly why you’re hearing so much more about it.

Two years ago with a 1 year old and a 4 year old you missed out on total £4k tax free childcare and 15 free hours. Total value? Say £9k.

In September with a 1 year old and a 4 year old you miss out on £4k tax free childcare and 45 free hours. Total value? Say £19k.

So in two years, the impact of losing the childcare support has more than doubled for a lot of people.

People won’t work for free, and with £19k of lost childcare help you need to be earning about £140k to be better off than earning £99k and claiming the hours.

The impact on £100k+ earners has dramatically increased, and that’s why you’re suddenly seeing people talking about it. No one wants to be working for free / actually losing money by earning more.

By your own admission you don’t have the funds to me letting me live rent free in your mind like this.

I think they are probably still giggling at your claim you can privately educate 4 kids privately and still own a luxury home home in London for this amount

Im not a benefits advisor. Im not sure if the course would disqualify you.

You'd need to apply and see what they say.

This really does sum you up. I’m not in the least bit surprised that you don’t earn 100 grand

Two people on £50k also pay WAY LESS tax

Ha, I didn't even see what was deleted, but by the high quality input throughout the thread, I can imagine

It’s better than yours.

Thank you to whoever reported the stalker comment. Much appreciated 🙏

Precisely 😆

@nought What feedback have you been given following your interviews

I can't be specific because it's outing, so I may share in a private message. Most of the feedback has been wishy-washy.

We promote people to £100k plus roles based on their skills, which also includes their ability to get on with people, to solve problems, and to take personal responsibility.

All attributes which I've held for more than 10 years.

If I had someone in front of me who couldn't see beyond tired old excuses for their lack of progression, I wouldn't promote them either.

Do you really think I said any of that to the people who interviewed me??

If it's a company culture problem, move companies - stop making it everyone else's fault.

Right, and who is going to look after my dependents if I relocate? Please stop and consider that everyone has different personal circumstances and we can't just all of a sudden move to a different part of the country.

I note that you didn't say that you are also ugly. So I am going to infer that you are at least somewhat attractive.

That means you have an advantage over me in any interview based solely on your appearance. I will always have to work harder due to being ugly.

so it’s everyone’s else’s fault you don’t earn 100 grand and not yours?

@DipsyDee so it’s everyone’s else’s fault you don’t earn 100 grand and not yours?

Well yes, isn't that the point I just put across?

I literally just explained that factors like not being ugly, cronyism, and nepotism have far more influence on salary than skills or qualifications.

It's very telling that you want to insist that your lack of progression is anything but down to your abilities.