“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. 🤯

I get £24k in pensions and manage ok. I don't feel hard done by.

But you can assume if you need childcare (so preschool) if you are on £100K or close to it when you had the baby, so say a year or two ago, that you are more likely to have had a baby with someone else who also works (so you can assume on these sums two workers)

Which then frees up more cash.

This is my friend and I have to bite my tongue.

5 bed massive house, two lovely cars and two kids in private school. Yet their salaries aren’t that large and they had to scale back their holiday plans this year from 20k budget to less than 10k due to the VAT at private schools and cost of living.

OP you are right, it’s a large salary, well above average. Anyone who says but nursery fees or mortgages to mean it’s not large are dreaming. It’s still large but that person is living within their means.

Expensive lifestyle choices do sometimes have to be in London though. Work is in London. It’s not available in Carlisle. I don’t believe either of my DDs have much choice about where they live. One earns a lot more than £100,000 but when she and boyfriend buy a house it’s not going to make them feel rich! If she could do her job and maintain earnings elsewhere, no doubt they would by buying the local manor house! In London it’s a semi at best.

Even in London the average salary is only 44k

maybes 10% of Londoners earn 100k or more

that still means you are so far much better off than most people - and yet not bright enough to recognise that

Being a sahm is a huge luxury though, that's something only the wealthiest can afford. I'd love to be one but that would lower our household income to £50k.

This again - it’s on here pretty much every week now people arguing about this

it’s not big amount of money for us - combined income or 110k

but we have 2 full time nursery bills and a very high mortgage

when nursery is finished and our mortgage comes down in a few years wel be laughing!

but at the moment basic outgoings before bills is 4900

so fuck all
left over right now

its really all relative

These brag posts could be about the cost of living now kicking in for the higher earners, so that they are complaining that because they have a bigger house, mortgage, newer bigger cars, and everything is going up and up and up in cost they are in a more similar position that the vast majority are always in.

Their disposal income has been reduced so whilst paying for the house, childcare and car, there is much less left over for all the other high end holidays, activities and such like.

If you earn £100K you will be fine, you won't be homeless and you will be able to eat healthily so really you will be fine.

It's a question to ask ourselves as a society, do the wealthier want to keep keeping more and more and more of a percentage of the cash and let more and more, decent just as hard working, lower paid workers struggling?

Or do we want a society where nurses and police can afford a decent home after a hard shift and a holiday once or twice a year?

Personally I am hoping that the increase in NMW and shift in tax brackets do create a society where lower paid workers have a better standard of living.

@HononIt’s not a luxury when nursery fees are very expensive and you work just to pay them. Sometimes it’s vital to stay in work to keep the career going but loads of averagely paid women don’t work but go back after dc. Teachers and nurses for example.

The fact of the matter is though that it isnt a big salary any more.

As only 5% of the working population earn £100k or more you are clearly deluded if you don't think it's a lot.
I get that it doesn't go as far as you might think after deductions but as 95% of the working population have far less to manage on it seems churlish to moan, after all, your expenses are down to your life choices(location, childcare, private schooling, size of mortgage etc)

Gosh, you really sound like you want an argument.

I think sahms tend to be either very wealthy or very poor.

It’s a big income

that you spend it all isn’t my problem

Irrelevant. A combined income of £110,000 is very different to a single income of £100,000.

Could everybody posting "but it doesn't go as far as you'd think!" kindly just stop. We KNOW THAT. Everyone knows that. It just makes you look a bit stupid.

How far it stretches is not the point.

Of course it is, only 5% of the working population earn that much. It may not get you what is used to but that's the same for everyone.

@fussychicaThe others are not managing with the same costs though are they? Living in a cheap area just isn’t possible for everyone and salaries reflect job done and where it is. Always has done.

I used to earn just under that as a lone parent in London. I led a pretty frugal life. Paying huge amounts of tax and no help with anything (not that I would expect it).

£2,000 on mortgage (tiny terrace house that most people would sneer at)
£1000 childcare
£600 bills (council tax, water, electricity, gas, phone, house insurance)
£400 food
£200 transport (no car, just tube and bus, very occasional uber)

You could not send children to private school on that money easily

You would not get a large house in London on 100 grand.

I see both sides, here.

On the one hand, it's a lot higher than the average wage, so it seems tone deaf to even make that statement.

That said, most families have 2 working parents and with the average wage being around £37k, that's 74k per household, which again would seem like a lot to those on minimum wage.

I have a few friends who are bringing in around 100 between them and they're not living the life of no restraint.

The cost of living is so high at the moment that this wage, that I'm sure seems like the stuff of dreams to many, doesn't stretch that far once you have a few kids, a mortgage for a house to fit them in, 2 cars and a family holiday each year.

Again though, a mortgage and a family holiday IS a luxury.

So, yeah - both sides.

It’s a very big salary to me!

Our joint income is just over that.

We are waist deep in the childcare years though. Nursery fees £1k, Mortgage £1k, all other bills £1k.

Still paying off some 0% debt we got into when we extended our house 5 years ago.

Got a letter today to confirm our final payments for kitchen and bathroom of £530 will be 8th July.

We're practically dancing around the living room as we finally have some breathing space.

Next year our youngest gets 30 hours funded and our oldest will be in school. Someone on here used the term Henry's (High Earners Not Rich Yet) and I couldn't agree more.

How is it not a lot please?

The IFS has a calculation tool for looking at where a take home salary puts you in terms of uk earnings. I put in £65,000 because £100,000 salaries lose around 1/3. I said no dc and said housing costs were £3,000 a month. Council tax £3,000 pa. This calculated the income as being in the top 27%. You can play around with it but most people earning have taxes, pensions and outgoings so £100,000 gross isn’t top 5%. It might be net and with no outgoings!