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.

lets however look at the ones who take and take then, the people who refuse to work and contribute because it just isnt worth it for them. Who run their lives in a feckless way, who are the reason that the NHS need their staff behind glass door?

Ok handcream. Who are they and how many of them are there?

What I like is the conflict between '£100k isn't that much' and 'well you better watch out because the high earners will just leave and then you'll all be so sorry'.

To move to an entirely new country is extremely expensive. Moving costs, lack of access to public funds and thus school fees, medical costs, all sorts. Plus, you need a visa, unless it's europe - and surely people don't want to go to high tax europe! So you are either in a highly desirable job and thus your wages are not only high but your employment is also very stable/easy to find, OR you're rich enough to just buy your way in.

So basically 'we're struggling! we promise!' 'oh but we can afford to move to an entirely new continent if we want so nyer'.

YY have always thought Adam Smith must have been on something with his touching faith in perfect knowledge and perfect conditions and all other things being equal and people making what he saw as rational decisions - none of which applies in the actual world in which actual human beings live.

If your earn 100k surly after tax your only taking home 50 and in London that is not a lot at all the average house price is now 400k

suzanne yes I am familiar with it.
But how would it apply to books and which ones sell and which ones don't?

If it is a h/hold income of £100k, made up of 2 x £50k salaries, then £70k joint net annual income is more likely Thefishewife

arsenic I thoroughly agree with you about low earners.

I think it's bloody terrible how we allow profit makeing businesses pay their staff so little by topping up those crap wages with benefits!

Absurd!

As for the poor levels of literacy in the UK. Well I do think part of it due to the saturation of the primary years with far too much stuff. It seems that every week teachers are given more and more tasks and subjects to cover. Many things that we parents ought to deal with!

thewordfactory, you appeared to be saying that the market is determined purely by supply and demand, that's just how capitalism works, ie we have a free market.

We dont.

fishwife - no, that's not the case. People don't pay 50% on every penny they earn. If you earn 99,999.00 you will pay about 30k tax.

shashka - like I said upthread - where I worked, a large proportion of the junior people in my team (and in the wider department) were not from England. They had already relocated once - whether hopping across from Ireland, or doing the whole hog from Australia. I might be unlikely to move - but I don't see why they'd care where they work - nor do I see my DC being any less enterprising than these young people when in comes to seeking their fortune abroad if needed.

I agree with you Arsenic that it's mostly not our decisions that decide whether we will earn a lot or not. It's mostly luck and a teeny bit our decisions.

The state can, and should, even out that luck to the extent it can. The state can't do much about evening out some sorts of luck - say the IQ we are born with - but it can help with other sorts of luck - things like unequal schooling, unequal parenting, certain learning difficulties.

As you very eloquently say: "Only a communist would advocate policing the finishing line. I do think the starting line still needs attention though."

To move to an entirely new country is extremely expensive. Moving costs, lack of access to public funds and thus school fees, medical costs, all sorts. Plus, you need a visa, unless it's europe - and surely people don't want to go to high tax europe! So you are either in a highly desirable job and thus your wages are not only high but your employment is also very stable/easy to find, OR you're rich enough to just buy your way in.*

Or your employer has to overseas offices for you to go on secondment to. Medical insurance is paid, moving costs are paid, visas are arranged, accommodation is funded (at least in the short term), flights are paid for trips home, tax advice is provided. It's not unusual, we did it last year.

To move to an entirely new country is extremely expensive. Moving costs, lack of access to public funds and thus school fees, medical costs, all sorts. Plus, you need a visa, unless it's europe - and surely people don't want to go to high tax europe! So you are either in a highly desirable job and thus your wages are not only high but your employment is also very stable/easy to find, OR you're rich enough to just buy your way in.

Or your employer has to overseas offices for you to go on secondment to. Medical insurance is paid, moving costs are paid, visas are arranged, accommodation is funded (at least in the short term), flights are paid for trips home, tax advice is provided. It's not unusual, we did it last year.

I have a question for all those people on this thread who think the 'rich' are getting richer and avoiding paying their fair share of tax.

Has anyone seen the number of nail bars cropping up in most town centres in the SE? They are almost always people from Vietnam who are running them with clearly little training and probably no insurance. They take cash only - should we report those traders? They are very popular (I used one and it was rubbish) but they are cheap.

The one I was in was asked by a customer 'who owned the place' to be told 'they dont know and have never met the owner'. The customer service was non existent as was speaking good English. I got the wrong thing despite me asking twice if what they were doing was correct.

Are those the sort of places that should be closed down? Does anyone really think that taking cash and employing people who have had no training and probably no work permits the way to go?

In answer to your question handcream I'd says it's not U to think £100k pa is NOT 'the squeezed middle'.

Write out 100 times:

say

I don't really understand the relevance handcream but no, I don't believe that illegally run businesses are the way forward, no.

Incidentally, I'm a higher rate taxpayer. There always seems to be a bit of a misapprehension on these threads that the disquiet about the gulf between rich and poor is fuelled by financial envy. It's not so.

Please tell me that people don't think your average punter earning 100k has much opportunity to get out of paying their taxes through schemes and off shore etc .

I think it's bloody terrible how we allow profit makeing businesses pay their staff so little by topping up those crap wages with benefits!

Absurd!

Absurd is the word, TheWord

We dont, both DH and I are PAYE.

The state can, and should, even out that luck to the extent it can. The state can't do much about evening out some sorts of luck - say the IQ we are born with - but it can help with other sorts of luck - things like unequal schooling, unequal parenting, certain learning difficulties.

It's why essential public services cuts (especially to education) are just not defensible on 'defecit-reduction' grounds. Because the harm is concentrated on the children of the most vulnerable. The people who didn't benefit from the boom in the first place.

In 2013 the median income for a full time worker in the UK was £27,000
that is the income where half the people get more, half the people get less
www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/2013-provisional-results/stb-ashe-statistical-bulletin-2013.html

Therefore the "middle" are actually people with incomes nearly four times the median.

And remember that many, many people do NOT work full time
so true median incomes are a lot lower

And even a h/hold with two FT median wages (two FT wages not being the 'norm' itself) would only be halfway there....

Even in London which gets quoted all the time (and is a different country!) the average (median wage) is £32,000 a year or £658 per week. Therefore the "squeezed" middle even in London is between £32-50k per year . Outside London it is probably £26-40K PA The North Closer to £21-35K This is Median Family Income by the way.

People need to get real and over themselves about what squeezed middle actually means!.

Arsenic . I have No "plan" or idea , that's an answer to Arsenic.

Sounds about right Smoke.

(You need one, my dear. I'll come back over to your thread.)