“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 don’t qualify for free prescriptions or dental on £30k either, or on PIP!

Housing costs for a household at this income level might be £2.5-3k a month though - and they’ll still have the same maintenance costs etc as you.

No mortgage might double your disposable income.

https://www.cityam.com/100k-isnt-a-big-salary-and-we-need-to-talk-about-it/

Eliza Filby is someone I really respect and she had an interesting take on this question yesterday.

Henry looks really cross about his salary.

It’s worth noting that single earning households obviously have less money.

My partner and I both earn, neither of us are on £100k but our combined household could easily surpass Henry’s, because we have twice the earning potential. There’s also the point that the tax is split.

I don’t think anyone would class us as wealthy, however I think we’d be naive to not acknowledge that we have a higher income and financial comfort than others. Yes our expenditures are higher, but that’s because we have the funds to spend on those things. Which however you look at it is a luxury in this climate.

People who earn well aren’t wrong to acknowledge their money doesn’t stretch as far, because nobody’s does, but I don’t think any of us should be ignorant to the fact that we’re better off and likely couldn’t imagine living on what others have to.

Yep, I pay 45% tax. Zero personal allowance and, quite rightly, I receive no help with childcare costs and have never picked up a penny in Child Benefit.

I only mention this because some of the people sneering at higher earners are also in receipt of benefits paid for by tax generated by…higher earners. Most pay more into the system than they take out.

Earnings of 100k are out of reach for most. Thank goodness they are there though to help keep the welfare state ticking over for those who need it the most. It is appreciated by most of us.

of course 100K doesn't go as far as it did 10 years ago neither does 50k, 30k or 20k
100K in London doesn't go as far as 100K in many places outside London

also moving from 99,999 to 100,001 results in some pretty steep knife edge tax rises
The same happens at around 27K for many as suddenly your extra £1000 ( 680 after tax and NI) a year has to cover paying student loans, no council tax help no FSM, no help with dentistry or eyecare or prescriptions, no uniform grant etc all the above cost way more than your £680 a year extra in your pocket so often the tiny promotion above NMW leaves you worse off

student loans repayments are taken out before tax and are payable when you hit 27K which is not much above NMW so people will be repaying loans on 30K and 50K

childcare costs are not totally paid for; free childcare is often offered at set hours (9-3) so if you need more childcare ( because you have to be at work for 9 and can't leave before 5) you are still paying for it even at NMW there is a limit to the amount you can claim surprise surprise this is less than the cost of childcare! it is the same with housing benefit it will almost certainly not cover the costs as most rents are way higher than the allowance

if you are a single parent with 2 under 5 on 100K you will not have much spare cash, and it will seem like you are not much better off than those on 40-50k

however statistically the more you earn the less likely you are to be a single parent

if however you are not a single parent and earn a 100k , you will either have a SAHP so no childcare costs or the other parent is also working so you are not bearing all the costs yourself and your household income is well above 100K

being single on any salary at all generally means you are worse off than a couple sharing the same income so 2 people on 50k will have more take home than 1 person on 100k but so also will 2 people on 25K have more than one on 50K
also generally a single person's bills will not be half a couples bills, while food and transport and a mobile phone will be roughly 50% council tax will be 75% and
heating broadband TV licence etc will be the same

Most people's gripe is not that 100K is untold wealth it is just some people's refusal to acknowledge that they are in the richest 2% ( about richest 7% in London) and so are way better off than almost everyone else; also the cost of living rises hit poor people most as often it is next to impossible to cut bills any further
if you are feeding a family of four on £70 a week trying to cut 10% off that is really hard if however you are spending £200 a wek on food reducing it by 10% is much easier

Those richest 2% or 7% figures you quote - are they dealing simply with gross income? Do they take account of benefits, unearned income like investments and pensions or income per household member or local living costs?

when calculating these figures they include income from employment, self employment, pensions and investments

they do not include top up benefits which are subject to a benefit cap

this is individual income not household income ( however median household income is only about £3000 above median fulltime salary) both figures for UKas a whole are 34K and 37K and even in London well under 50K about 44k

income is gross income it does not include living costs or the fact that incomes vary across the country hence in the UK as a whole 100K makes you richest 2% but because salaries are generally higher in London and Southeast in these areas you are in richest 7% as more people in these areas earn higher sums

they do not include top-up benefits which are subject to a benefit cap which does not apply to those who receive certain disability-related benefits or those who are in households with disabled members. Specifically, if anyone in the household receives benefits like Attendance Allowance, Disability Living Allowance (DLA), Personal Independence Payment (PIP), or Adult Disability Payment, the benefit cap does not apply. Additionally, if a household includes a disabled child who receives DLA, PIP, Child Disability Payment, or Adult Disability Payment, the benefit cap is also not applied.

How many households are exempt from the benefits cap? I expect this is quite a high number.

FWIW we’re a relatively high income household, in receipt of 50% DLA for my stepson.

We save it, because it’s his and we don’t need it to meet his needs day to day. We then use it for larger expenditures that are specifically for him - specialist bikes, rebound trampolines, 1:1 hydro pool sessions.

Holidays, day to day living costs, the many many miles of fuel he gets through in a weekend, we provide ourselves. Others would have to use it for those things, I assume.

If that’s a dig at me, I worked and paid tax for 25 years before becoming disabled. Everyone who is working pays in, not just higher earners.

Then this thread isn’t for you if it’s making you feel bad….I suggest you hide it.