“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. 🤯

like you could send a child to private school on £100k, we aren’t far off and struggle with basics mortgage is 1500 council tax is 300 gas electric is 300 a month. we aren’t in a rich area our car is owned and three years old. anything after 40k really doesn’t add significantly to your take home

Yep...they are not in the real world...I work in retail...paid min government wage....and struggling on all bills....but have just found out...local Fareshare food....so thankful 🙏...don't think I can retire in 5 years time 🙄😪

I put in £65,000 because £100,000 salaries lose around 1/3.

What are you talking about?

When comparing salaries or earnings, everyone with half a brain understands we are talking gross not net.

Of course £100k is a big salary even if people who earn it don’t feel it goes very far. People’s expectations move with the salary so it only just stretches to cover their expanded lifestyle choices.

Objectively if you are on £100k you are a high earner even if subjectively you don’t feel as rich as you thought you would.

I have earned £100k+ for a long time (I work in the City) and there are times I wish I earned more but that is due to my lifestyle choices not need.

You are illustrating the point - day school fees in London are around £20k a year. 100k a year is about 70k take home on a single salary or 78k if it’s two people earning 50k each.

So if a couple earned that and paid two sets of secondary school fees, they’d have 28 - 40k after tax, which if they had a mortgage on a 3 bed in a half decent area - house price about 750k - would probably be unaffordable on a single salary and pretty punishing on two.

No one would suggest it isn’t a very good salary - of course it is - but it doesn’t buy the lifestyle most people would imagine.

Again, you seem to be talking about a household income of under £100k. Which isn't the same as an individual salary of £100k. If you earned £200k between you, I expect you would be able to opt for private education if that matters to you.

Well that must be part time.

Let's take dd and her boyfriend and this is hypothetical and neither has a student loan. £120k between them. They net about £6k between them after pension contributions.

Rent 2 bed flat in zone 3 London: £2500
Council tax 200
Utilities 150
Subs and phones 100
Insurance 50
One car 300
Food 400
Fares 750

Outgoings are £4.5k. That leaves them with £1500 for spends and saves. They have no children and should be having the time of their lives in their late 20s. They are very, very lucky they both have good prospects.

They cd live a bit further out or rent a one bed but as I've said it's hypothetical.

The wealthiest and the very poorest. UC doesn't expect a primary care giver to job seek till the child is 3.

JFC why are people illustrating their nonsensical points with combined incomes?

That’s almost x4 my salary, I would be living a pretty luxurious lifestyle on £100k, as no young dependents or huge mortgage, as adult son and in a HA property.

It’s relative.
But honestly, for as long as Brits refer to 100k salary as ‘massive’, and people earning it as ‘out of touch’, the system will succeed in making people who earn £35-40k think they’re doing really well for themselves.
Wages have been stagnant in this country for years. £100k isn’t what it used to be. £101k is even worse.

Average household income is not double average income. Average household income is a fraction above average income of a single person (£36,700), which shows that the average home has only one person working full-time.

It’s ridiculous. I’ll never earn that. In fact I earn slightly more than half that, am the sole earner with a mortgage and an (expensive) teenager.
I do ok. I’m not “rich” but I’m not struggling.
Edited to add - south east - very expensive coastal location.

In London.

It is where I live.
Average house prices in my area are £371k (I also live in the most expensive area of the borough for house prices) and the average salary is £27k (the median being just over £25k)

Salary is very relative to where you live, so it is pretty tone deaf to make a blanket statement like that.

We don't all live in London and the south east.

Of course its a big salary.

I do secretly enjoy reading/listening to people trying desperately to argue its not though. No idea why, it just brings me joy somehow 🤣

If you're on 100k, you aren't struggling. I don't care where you live. DH is on about 14k a year part time and I get about the same in benefits.

I’d say our household income is around £100k maybe a bit more, and I think it’s quite a big salary!

We have a very comfortable life on that. Big house with land, 3 cars, fairly expensive hobbies, kids who do lots of hobbies, regular travel, nice UK/European holidays.

But day to day, we live sensibly. We don’t blow it on new cars or expensive holidays (my holiday cost £500 this year including food and spending money). Our kids go to state schools. We don’t have gym memberships or buy coffees and lunches out at work. We don’t eat out really. I cook at home from scratch. We don’t have expensive clothes or shoes. Basically, we don’t spend a lot beyond bills and hobbies and essentials. No £50 takeaways and no £60 family days out. That stuff adds up.

I think £100k provides a very generous lifestyle if you aren’t a spendaholic and you aren’t trying to live a lifestyle beyond your means. It isn’t going to buy you new Discoveries and independent school for multiple children, but you can live very well. Unless you are silly with your finances.

How much is your mortgage and childcare fees?

Absolutely this.

“I earn a huge salary but choose to spend it on living in one of the most expensive cities in the world. I wonder why there’s not much left?”.

It doesn’t change the fact that it’s a huge salary, and once the mortgage is paid off you will own an extremely expensive asset.

A while ago there was a wonderful graph someone on here had created that detailed the actual take home income of a single earner with two children at each 10k increment between 10k-150k. It took into account benefits and they’d used the entitled2 online calculator.

What it showed was exactly the reason there are so many of these £100k isn’t a lot articles around because the actual difference between the take home money at the end of the month was shocking! I seem to remember that there was quite a big range (between the 10-60k ish if my memory serves me) where there was very little if any difference between the take home amounts. UC simply topped up the lower earners and levelled the playing field. Around 60k I think it tipped and the take home began increasing but not by as much as you’d think. At 100k a bunch of benefits were lost that realistically took away the increase thereafter.

A few variables couldn’t be accounted for regarding different living situations and childcare but it was all worked out pretty fairly based on an average person situation.
if anyone can find that graph again I’d love to include it on here. Was doing the rounds a while ago!

I do not and will not ever earn that amount of income, so I have no skin in the game when it comes to defending that pov.

But I think it reflects the fact that your quality of life in the UK 2025 is defined much more by your (or your parents') wealth than by your income.

My cousin is a TA, married to a self employed music teacher. They probably have a household income of £25k, but they were given a house by his parents, so don't have any housing costs. They don't have to pay their student loans back and pay hardly any income tax so they have a much higher disposable income that a couple on £100k who are paying £3k a month in rent and having to try and save £2k a month in the hope of one day having somewhere permanent to live and being able to start a family.

This is also true of people who have paid off their mortgages and can live comfortably on two modest pensions, to whom £100k might sound like loads, but is actually far less condusive to a nice life than a smaller income and larger amount of wealth.

I am concerned for the number of posters on this thread who lack the most basic comprehension skills.

I think this is a very good example actually.
That leaves them with £1500 for spends and saves.
Thus is huge. For many people, this is close to an extra salary coming in. I have around £150 spare and this needs to cover ad hoc and unexpected expenses. £1500 for spends and saves is very comfortable.

My cousin is a TA, married to a self employed music teacher. They probably have a household income of £25k, but they were given a house by his parents, so don't have any housing costs. They don't have to pay their student loans back and pay hardly any income tax so they have a much higher disposable income that a couple on £100k who are paying £3k a month in rent and having to try and save £2k a month in the hope of one day having somewhere permanent to live and being able to start a family.

No shit Sherlock. And, once again, this thread isn't about couples earning £100k it is about a £100k salary. For one person.