To think that 60k is a lot of money to earn a year?!

[MinkSlink]

I think it is a lot of money to earn per year but it seems a lot of people on mumsnet don't think so, am I in the piss poor minority here or what?!

My post was responding to the few posters who seem to think that you couldn't raise a family in London on 60k without struggling. I imagine if you have more that 2 children in nursery or you have massive debts then yes you would struggle on 60k in London but it was the suggestion that most people would struggle on 60k in London that shocked me.

Where was that suggestion? Because when I made it it was directly related to large families like mine because we manage but are frugal and not rich or secure living in the north west (and it isn't just London where housing is expensive and travel costs for the rest of the country are more of an issue outside London too).

As an overview; Of course some people will make choices that erode their disposable income but this is true of any people on any level of earnings and people don't make those choices for no reason, they may be for safety reasons or because to not do would be a false economy i.e. not being able to travel to work without a car or travel pass, never being able to improve finances without investing in qualifications etc, some people will benefit from circumstances others will have it tougher because of circumstances which are not down to any wise or unwise decisions they may or may not have made. It is all to easy to throw out "well why live in a one bed flat? when i was your age i lived in a houseshare" or "well why get a car loan?Get a cheaper car". What is the ultimate point unless you are arguing that everybody should be forced to live with what other people decide should be the very barest minimum with no regard to circumstances.

If anything it has been quite well demonstrated how choices purported to only be available to people on £60k are actually also available to people on £13.5k. The choice between food or fuel is not limited to people on low incomes anymore, that works both ways - some on low incomes are better off as well as some on higher incomes struggling (it is the interaction of individual taxation and household welfare calculations) and that could be described as a choice which is indicative of poverty and it no longer only applies to people with a low income.

However I don't think anyone was claiming poverty just saying it is still not uncommon to struggle on that income and there is a big difference between poverty and struggling. There is an even bigger difference between some people's ideas of poverty here and ideas of poverty in other places in the world the idea of choosing between high quality dental care and heating being the worst consequence of poverty on this thread is laughable in comparison to the people who are starving to death because of gaps in services/benefits even in this country. In reality no-one on this thread can really claim poverty although this may change with this rhetoric about "choices" you are buying into which supports the Tories' social Darwinism welfare agenda. Whereby people are starved into jobs that don't exist and punished for not earning enough to live by being cut off from any top up benefits.

Hardboiled possum - rent in my area £800 pm. Rent to my chambers - between £800 - 1,000 pm. Nursery £880 pm with additional childcare on top if I got stuck at work after 6pm.

Do you see why I left London? Yes, I earn a lot. Yes I am lucky. Yes I had choices to downsize and I exercised them.

But to read that I was stuggling because I 'pissed away' what I was earning is just laughable. Didn't run a car, didn't go abroad, didn't buy posh clothes and handbags, didn't join a gym.

I remain in awe and respectful on anyone in zone 1 or 2 in London, with a child, who managed easily on 60k. I just couldn't, so I had to leave.

Kensingtonkat on page 1 and 2 seems to think that it would be a struggle for a single person in London. A few other but can't remember names, can look back for you though. It was the few posters who seemed to think that a family on 60k in London would struggle, that I had an issue with.

Spero Having to pay chambers rent is not an outgoing that the average person has though.

It also makes a massive difference if we are talking about one parent earning 60k or it is between 2, or if they are a single parent. I can see how in some situations it would be a struggle but not in most.

I can't afford to live in Zone 2 anymore, I now live in zone 6 so I have had to make sacrifices. I probably won't ever be able to afford to buy a whole house in London, a flat if I'm lucky. But with my partner earning 28k we are doing OK living in London. I'm a bit upset that I might not be able to afford to go skiing with my friends next year but I don't have to worry about food and bills.

But this thread is talking about no-one not average.

Spero clearly exists...

And plenty of people have two children they need to pay childcare for whether they pay rent to chambers or not.

But my post was referring to people who were implying it was impossible not to struggle on 60k in London with a family. Also if you are paying for 2 children in nursery and are on 60k I imagine you would be in a similar position money wise to how we are on 28k with no childcare.

I accept that not everyone has to pay chambers rent. I am making the point, although it has been better made by Offred, that you can't simply say '60k? That's rich that is. So you shut up moaning because if you are struggling it's because you spend your money on getting your nails done'

That is a pretty fair précis of what a lot of people have been saying. And it is as ignorant and offensive as saying that everyone on benefits spunks all their ill-gotten gains on flat screen TVs.

The issue is that housing costs are hugely beyond most people's means and those on low income have to get top up benefits just to live. That is simply unsustainable.

The people I know who live in London or indeed Hertfordshire make sure they don't have to pay two lots of nursery fees by spreading the children out if they have two.

If only I'd told that to xp when he raped me mosman and when I naturally conceived twins with dh maybe I should have just willed one into reabsorption...

Spero I'm not saying that at all, I'm sorry it has come across like that. I was just responding to the few posters who seemed to think you can't live in London without struggling on 60k, because plenty of people do manage.

I agree about housing costs. I wish there was more affordable housing and something should be done about it.

Sounds like £600,000 wouldn't help you then offred

What's the point you are making mosman?

That under the circumstances you describe money would be the least of my worries.

bored of offred
hide thread

In that time I've been in various financial situations and money wasn't necessarily the least of my worries in any of the times, in fact money worries make everything else much worse, not least when I was left pg, with a 9 month old and a load of debts/bailiffs chasing me that xp had ignored and hidden.

Money was also the very main worry when we found out I was having twins, dh was working hundreds of miles away and was on a salary of £35k (plus bonus) back then (which at the time was doing us very nicely), fortunately his boss left and he applied for and got the job (he didn't want it but we needed any opportunity to earn extra) we also got crippled by an incorrect tax code which HMRC wasn't sorting out and which we have only this year recouped £3k that was mistakenly taxed year meaning we have finally paid off some overdraft I had left over from when xp shafted me.

It isn't true to say money is the least of your worries when you go through trauma for a lot of people it is the biggest worry they need to feel secure to be able to cope and heal. compared to a global scale rape and uncontrolled fertility is rare in the uk that much is true but society still needs to account for the most vulnerable. Any worries you have; rape, cancer, disability etc are compounded by money problems.

Not having enough money makes you frightened, desperate and disempowered, struggling for money makes you tired, fearful and frustrated any other worry on top of that is made harder and it isn't always cut and dried.

Having been in an abusive relationship I'm afraid of the fact I have to take student loans in my name (payable within the period of study) despite having no legal entitlement to dh's wage, it requires a whole load of trust.

Knowing that if xp tried to bring me to court again (and he did last time for no reason) or to take me to mediation then I'd be liable for the full costs of that in the same way and it creates huge fear. Of xp and his power.

If I wanted to work I'd have to convince dh to pay for childcare... Similar story. Money worries can be varied and really crippling and actually in a lot of ways more damaging than some trauma because of how unequal our society has become and how unstable the jobs market is I think for the vast majority of people of my generation money will worry them all of their lives:

£60k is a huge amount of money to earn.

It's not enough to rent you anything other than a 1 bedroom flat in a far from naice area such as Clapham North.

Would it be churlish to point out that NONE of the Mumsnet gobshiters claiming Spero and Kensington are talking nonsense appear to actually live in Zones 1-4?

34 pages of women arguing over something that nobody would dispute: you can be in the top 10% of earners and still not earn enough to live comfortably in the capital.

I think the arguing has been about precisely that 1605 (and I don't think the problem is just in the capital)! There seems to be a confusion amongst people that being in the top ten percent means you are rich, can have a cleaner, if you struggle it is because of your poor choices or because of your inevitably posh house. Clearly 60k is a relatively high income for an individual within the distribution BUT it doesn't necessarily tell you someone is rich.

Of course when child bnefit goes it will not be 60k anymore. We will be losing £188 per month.

Personally I don't consider myself rich on such a salalry level, comfortable yes, but not rich. Rich to me is earning salaries of several million a year, where you don't really consider the amount you spend. Salaries around 60k - 150k may still involve some planning and decisions about what to spend. Totally agree that these decisons are probably quite trivial when compared to those at the mid to lower end where decisions are food or heating or which item of clothing can be bought this month.

60k -100k is within the reach in professions such as head teachers, doctors, consulatants, senior managment etc the rich to me are the 'superstars' of football, tv & film as well as business people (i.e get paid in the millions not thousands!!) . In numbers these are probably the top 2-3% but actually own the vast majority of the wealth in this country.

1605 You are talking rubbish. You can rent a 1 bed room flat earning half as much as 60,000 in Clapham Common (the nice part), I know because we have done it. We moved to zone 6 because we needed a 2 bedroom flat, which costs as much as our 1 bed did in Clapham, and we are on a lot less than 60k.