To think £100k pa is NOT 'the squeezed middle'?

[ArsenicFaceCream]

Link

The article is very confidently attributing the definition to Danny Dorling, but did he really name this figure?!

These women are fools.

DH not DG.

I couldn't survive on £100k per year living where I do.

oh, come on. we have a high income and live in central London with two kids and a mortgage (in state school, though currently considering private school). I know we could quite easily survive on less. yes, we may have to give something up, but perspective is key.

Christine 25K a year is less than 2K PCM surely?

But hats off for squeezing so much out of £900PCM non housing. I'm spending £150PW on food (6 people in the house), £70 PCM petrol, heating, electric, broadband, water, council tax is near on £100pcm iirc.... I think I've hit the total even before I spent £100 last weekend replacing DC worn out uniforms and underwear.

I don't think the squeezed middle has anything to do with income. It has to do with what is seen as "middle class".

It then depends on what you view as a "Middle Class" lifestyle.

I probably had what I consider to be a very (upper) middle class lifestyle:

We had 4-5 week summer holidays in either Europe or far-flung places (U.S., Australia, Africa, Asia…). When we stayed in hotels, it wasn't uncommon for us to stay in suites. I can only recall ONE summer holiday where we stayed in the country. I did horseback riding and so did a lot of my friends. Others around me would play tennis, etc. Most families around us could buy gadgets, etc. without having to think about buying them. My dad bought new cars - one for him, one for my mum. Mum was a SAHM. Dad had a very stable job. My brother went to private school for a while, I went to grammar.

My DH and I have a current household income of over £100k. We have a very small household, and know we'd need to earn more, if we wanted to have two DCs (nursery fees x 2 = min. £2k per month). There is no way we can afford the life I had when I was a child, but that is the life I normally associate with being 'middle class'. To have that sort of lifestyle, I think we'd need a combined income of over £300k. Hopefully, one day, we will get there. But it feels weird doing essentially similar jobs to your parents (both of us), and not have the same life you had whilst growing up. Because of that, it does feel like you're 'squeezed'.

Now, I know that there are plenty of people earning less in the UK. But to afford the "middle class" lifestyle, you do need a lot more money these days than what middle class jobs can offer. It's not about being on the breadline. It's about not being able to afford what you EXPECT to be able to afford, because you're essentially doing the same job as your parents (in fact, double so as there's no SAHP. That is the essence of being squeezed.

I think the idea is that 100k pa income is being squeezed from the bottom by the perception of being comfortable enough to absorb tax-hikes/cuts in support - and squeezed from the top for being a mug enough to earn a taxable salary, rather than being wealthy enough to have complicated off-shore finances.

And also being careless enough to commit your income to fripperies like 3 bedroom suburban houses.

… in addition to my lengthy post above, however…

There are some people around who do a lot of the keeping up with the Jones's thing. I think that can seriously cause problems, because you'll find some people may be able to afford things you don't… for reasons you may not have thought of.

I know a few people who are buying houses on interest-only mortgages, but counting on inheritances that will come their way in years to come. Other people around them (same job perhaps), then think:

"Well, if he can afford it, I should be able, too."

And they go ahead and buy a similar house, when - maybe - they don't have that large inheritance coming their way like those other people.

Similarly, some men I know sometimes peg what they should be able to afford with what I can afford (that really happens!), simply because we do similar things job-wise. That is nonsense, however, because many of them are the main earners in their household, often having a wife who is a SAHM or works part-time.

I work full-time… and currently my DH earns just a little bit more than me. That basically gives us more than twice the income the above-mentioned people have, but they expect to be able to afford the same things.

In the boom years our household income was about 20% more than £100k. Now it's 3/4 of that. We bought a largish flat in what was then an untrendy area and concentrated on paying mortgage off early - took about five years. Any overseas holidays are nearly always to visit family. We don't have a car (by choice). The Mail likes to select people like this as being representative of the professional classes but really they just have major entitlement issues and anyone, from any background, can have those. I'm surprised that the women spoke so freely about spending their husband's money like that.

Anyone on over 100k (before tax) is easily in the 3% upper centile for the UK.
If you keep in mind that over 97% of the population earns considerably less than you, you are rich.
If you count after tax, then only 1/100 earns more than you.
The problem is that only the rich can afford to live in certain parts of London these days.

It really depends where you live. £100k would go a very long way indeed in certain parts of the UK, but if you had a family and where paying central London rent or mortgage levels you would be especially well off. You'd be too well paid to qualify for any kind of top ups not not well paid enough to be feel rich.

I also agree that you cannot whine about being hard up when you pay school fees. I am not against private schools in the least, but they are a lifestyle choice, not a necessity and there is always another, free option. If your only available free option is dreadful, then move. You can't have it all ways.

you would NOT be especially well off, I meant.

£25k is around £1700 possibly, depending on pensions and student loan repayments. Add child benefit for three kids and it's close to £2000 all together.

This is where it is seriously skewwed. 25k salary is apparently close to 2k per month with child benefit. Dh earns 68k whichs sounds amazing but it is 4k per month net. We do not get child benefit of course.
Personally I feel the squeezed middle are those who are single parents with 3 or more dc who only just reach loss of child benifit category. Or dual income families where one is in the 60k category and one low paid. Next up sole earner 60k and sahp. I am a sahp due to dhs long commute and long working hours.
We live maybe 50 miles from London in a 4 bed house with 3dc. So we are lucky. However, we are not able to send dc to private school or even afford music lessons. Mortgage and pension and endownments etc equal 1500 per month. We are fortunate to run 2 very ordinary cars. Mine has just bern replaced and we are paying 300 per monthloan so it will be paid off quickly as dhs car will need replacing soon as he drives some 450 miles per week for work. Also have small loans for home improvements.
We are squeezed in a sense as we lost 188 per month child benefit. This happened within a year of giving birth to a surprise 3rd child.
We were probably better off when we had one child and dh worked locally on 35k.
Now our eldest is at middle school our expenses have just risen again. £15 per week on bus and school dinners. £10 per week on school dinners for ds2. Yet if our children were younger we wouldn't have to pay this but hey ho. O
O and no overseas holidays here. Just a week at John Fowler.

I agree with 3non, that squeezed middle are single parents probably with no support from an ex who work full time, pay child care and are just over the limit for losing child benefit.

On the other post above about lifestyle as a child our middle class lifestyle was not like that with new cars and the like all those year ago. We were in the 1970s at their worst when tax rates rose to 83% (my father paid 65% tax on his NHS salary plus an extra 15% on top of that on his savings income) and the country was very badly off indeed and things people take for granted now like central heating and lots of fresh fruit were not common even in the middle classes. I don't feel my middle class lifestyle today is worse or harder than that of the 60s or 70s when the country was on its knees and we had no power 3 days a week for a time. It a very difficult time. We also had inflation which over 3 years came to 60%. That wiped out the savings in effect of those who had tried to save like my parents. It was very difficult and unfair and there was an almighty property crash in the 70s too. We did however get the Equal Pay Act 1970 which was a huge step up for women. Feminism began making more progress so in that sense it was the start of good things for equality.

(Someone above saying I had a bad divorce lawyer because my ex got more than I did is wrong. It is English law which is bad in favouring lower earners. If you earn 10x your spouse you get fleeced on the divorce however the children live with. That is not an issue for most mumsnetters as a lot of them live off their husband's earnings so they need not worry about it).

dontdrink the argument is not whether 100k makes you "rich" - it doesn't.

However it certainly doesn't make you "poor" and it is ridiculous of people on this thread to suggest it does.

op should say "squeezed upper middle" which is different to my idea of squeezed middle.

I think the disconnect is that, at 100k, you think you are earning a fortune. It's a rude shock to find out that you can't afford the wealthy lifestyle you thought you would be able too.

I don't anyone is seriously trying to argue that they are 'poor' though are they? Merely that despite the fact they earn four times the average, they still feel 'squeezed' and under a degree of financial pressure after paying for what they consider to be a reasonable standard of living for someone on an above average income.

4K per month net IS a fortune

Totally. Different. Planet.

On 25K combined income in the SE and no benefits, I'd say we are the 'squeezed bottom'. I find it impossible to summon up any pity for a family on four times that

jack - as is paying £2K per month mortgage; as is paying £100 per day childcare; as is paying £100 per week train ticket. Absolute fortune all of it - a river of money flowing in and out. It's not poor - but it is easy to see how people get caught out.

And the point is that a salary of 100K does not take home 4 times what a salary of 25K takes home - a long way from it once you've considered tax, child benefit & so on.

It's all relative. But £100k is by no means squeezed. At that level you have choices. They may not be the choices you think you should be entitled to at that salary but you still have them.

Our income is more that that. At present we have a more than manageable mortgage which will double to a fairly scary amount if our house purchase ever goes through ( about the conveyancing process). We've chosen to buy that house though, we've chosen to prioritise space over disposable income. We are very lucky to be able to make those choices. So we won't be moaning about them.

And as for those of you who think £1 million isn't much, or a £10k holiday isn't expensive give yourselves a slap with a wet kipper and grow up.

Can I just check something

Didn't some media person say that people on 100k are the squeezed middle

That's not actually something that people on 100k came up with and I don't think anyone on this thread has said they are the squeezed middle (or in RL)

They may say squeezed/struggling but not middle and surely the "middle" quote is the infuriating thing!!

Lots of people on 100k are squeezed! Its all about how much your house costs. If you moved somewhere cheeper then they would get paid less. Try living in a safe area on 100k in London with two kids and a three bed house.

4K per month net IS a fortune

We've been on around this some months.

So, £4k net:
£1200 childminder fees
£600 essential travel/petrol to be able to get back and forth to work
£100 parking fees for dp
£800 mortgage
£350 other utilities (gas, electric, c tax, tv licence, water rates)

That's £3050. So that leaves £950 pm for all other bills and to live - car tax/mot/, home and car insurance, mobile contracts, Internet. Not to mention food, clothes, school lunches and trips etc.

We're not poor by any means. But not are we anywhere near living a life of luxury.