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.

Sorry Sovery my mistake.
Yes we cope, the compensation of the high salary means we can have a beautiful house in a good school catchment area, lots of amazing holidays, eat out, go out a lot etc. Baisically we enjoy our totally unsqueezed life.

We haven't brought into the whole private school, massive mortgage thing. I thought the woman in the linked article sounded an idiot wondering where her money went when she is probably spending about 50k on school fees of pre tax income on something that could be free.

My DH will probably be able to do his job or another senior role for about 5-7 years. He is 48 now and his pensions start at 60 which I think is fantastic for this day and age. If he lost his job we could cover the mortgage between us and have been able to save monthly for about the last 7 years plus pay quite a bit into pensions so have a safety net.

I just thought I would post about my DH's job in my earlier post because some people don't get what the 100k job can entail. I did chuckle to myself way unthread when someone said care workers work as hard as some 100k people. I have never woken up at night stressing about my job, I do my hand over and clock of, job done.

Its all about choice though isnt it. Some people want to close that office door at the end of the day and not worry further, others have their Blackberries going off half the night as they are dealing on a multi country basis.

I saw a very interesting documentary the other day about EU people doing jobs that UK people were not willing to undertake. The big difference is that a young EU national was quite willing to share a large house with 15 other people, the young girl working in a cafe shared her room with a gay chap and seemed fairly happy. The UK person was looking for a better paid role even though he had little in the way of qualifications, he just felt more entitled.

Of course the answer isnt to have large houses stuffed full with people doing low paid roles. Economically they would be taking out more than they were putting into the UK especially if they had low rents and especially if they had children with them that needed to be educated and cared for

The migrants sharing rooms in order to do the jobs that UK workers can't afford to don't call this country home. They have a home elsewhere, go back there as often as they can and have all their belongings there. Their wages don't go back into our economy at all, in fact they are usually receiving tax credits due to low income and so it's also taxpayer's money going abroad.

This is the kind of thing the Resolution Foundation support. Government bailing out low wages.

It's a simple issue namely that the middle classes have for decades enjoyed high living standards, which have been eroded by property inflation and school fees.

These issues are irrelevant to the richest, and barely relevant to the poorest who have always used state schools, and are more likely to be in LA/HA accommodation, and can get housing benefit also.

The economic migrants benefit the richest, by doing work for low pay, and they squeeze the poor (by competing for jobs) and the middle (by pushing up house prices).

The poor are still protected by the government, which will pay up to tens of thousands in benefits to London's poor, but those on £100k are finding that it wasn't what it used to be, buying perhaps a 1-bed in Kings X: www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-44737873.html where the equivalent salary twenty years earlier would have bought a Victorian terrace in a n Islington garden square www.zoopla.co.uk/property/32-arlington-avenue/london/n1-7ay/15051300

I agree, Daughter, but lets take it one step further and look at families coming and putting up with very crowded conditions, maybe 4 person family sharing a room, those people will need NHS care, they will need their children educated. They might or might not choose to go back home but they will often take out far more than they will ever put back into the economy.

Those of you wondering where teachers came into it... No it wasn't teachers having a gripe about how hard their job is. It came about because some posters starting arguing that two people in even 'ordinary' jobs like teaching could make £100k, which isn't quite as true as those posters have implied. The (really quite large) caveat is that two teachers in London who've taken on additional responsibilities to get right to the top of the payscale might make nearly £100k between them. But that's quite a long way from the reality for the vast majority of teachers in the country.

It's relevant because it's a rhetorical move intended to make a household income of £100k sound really ordinary and average, rather than considerably higher than the vast majority of the country. Research shows that people at either end of the income scale imagine themselves to be closer to the middle than they really are, so it may be that people really don't realise how high an income £100k in terms of the whole population. Even within London (where the high earners tend to be concentrate) it's by no means an 'ordinary' income. It only seems ordinary to some because their group of reference are not ordinary.

Of course, it's not an absolute fortune (even though it sounds it to those on minimum wage). It's not going to put you in the global super elite. It's not going to buy you a yacht. But it's faintly ridiculous to be stamping your feeling and shouting about how it should buy you a big house, private schooling for multiple children, nice holidays abroad, fancy handbags and whatever else. It doesn't really make any difference that your dad could afford similar back in the day either. You play the hand you're dealt.

Having just experienced the NHS - its on its knees.

I could write a book about observing what was going on, nurses not particularly interested in their job (maybe they have been beaten down), patients with unreasonable expectations, lots of dementia sufferers who need special care, dont get it and are put into wards along with everyone else.

Hospital more interested in parking charges and offering bundle packages for TV, having a help desk at the front of the hospital that isnt manned during the weekend and when I first arrived and asked a question was told 'sorry, I dont know, I was just told to sit here for a few hours!'

Excellent post, Calamitously.

Actually, as I've said numerous times, it was me and it wasn't a "rhetorical move".

It was a response to someone saying that people like teachers can't earn that much. It was a statement of fact about my DSis and her DH (who are not London based by the way).

And someone else also came on and spoke about her nephew and girlfriend, also teachers also on that money and getting key worker accommodation.

And I wasn't for one minute saying that £100k is average. Nor claiming to be squeezed.

Plus I'm very aware that our household income is nowhere near the middle. we both earn six figures and as the daughter of a fork lift truck driver and a part time cleaner I'm very conscious that its not the norm.

I like the assumptions you're making about me though Calamitously

Lets not forget the teachers at private/state boarding schools who are given accomendation and often very discounted school fees in exchange for teaching (as well as their salary of course). For me that's when it gets to be a very attractive role - lots of keen pupils with parents to step in if there is an issue

The holidays are even longer and whilst I do recognise that work might need to be done in the evenings if you had to attend a hospital or a dentist appointment you have weeks to plan it without specifically having to book annual leave.

I always find the comments about what people's parents had fascinating partly because I wonder if these parents of the People who describe there idyllic childhood would describe things in the same way. It was much rarer to eat out 30 or whatever years ago, or have two cars, I bet a lot of parents were juggling bills more than their DC realized. Also because people tended to have DC younger there was less opportunities in their 20's for travel and generally enjoying themselves which is something I read a lot on MN as to why people waited to have their DC in their 30's.
I had quite a poor childhood but I tend to just remember it being all cozy and my parents playing games with me.
Also the what my parents had comment is weird for me because it implies that someone has a right to certain things because their parents had them.

Play with this link .....
www.ifs.org.uk/wheredoyoufitin/
2 adults, 2 children under 13, household income of £100,000, council tax of £2500
makes
you have a higher income than around 96% of the population - equivalent to about 60.4 million individuals.

Zillionare is correct. People's expecations are so much higher now, everyone has a mobile, Sky TV is common, we have two cars, growing up we didnt have a car because neither parent drove and we lived in London.

Holidays abroad werent particularly common, women didnt always work - even if they did the husband filled in the tax return on behalf of his wife. My father never revealed how much he earned. The house was in his name. Its laughable now but that was the norm.

There was also much less dependancy on the state.

handcream
If you go back 25 years, there were no zero hour contracts, there were no internships, houses cost 3 times average salaries, there were no buy to let mortgages I had one of the very, very first in 1996

the vast majority of benefits go to pensioners : the triple lock and non means tested amounts are past their sell by date

the next biggest tranche go to families in work : if Tesco can get away with NMW zero hour contracts topped up with tax credits, they will

So, would we rather be in the last generation or now I wonder?

As I mentioned before there is a ticking bomb with regard to an ageing population. My parents and PIL all retired at 60 with Final Salary Pensions. My FIL is a higher rate tax payer still at 76.

Its interesting. All those people complaining about Final Salary and how its been tinkered with - I have one and it was changed to a Career Average which tbh is much fairer. There were too many instances of people being promoted near retirement to allow that to continue.

However my DH earns 3-4 times what I earn. He puts in a fair amount into his pension, yet when we had an assessment done. I will get near enough the same pension as him. He better stick with me then!

Handcream
I bought my first house at 21 for £30,000 - 3 bed terrace with a decent garden - with a £1500 deposit.

DB Pensions stopped being affordable 20 years ago (which was when the private sector got rid of most of them).

Houses stopped being affordable about 15 years ago.

I genuinely worry for my children because by the time they get to age 30 pensions will have ceased and the health care bill for the elderly will have resulted in crippling tax rises.

That isn't quite right Talkin. You have to enter net income not gross income. A gross income gives you that 96% figure. I haven't worked it out as net as I'm not sure what a net salary on 100k would be. Also, I guess it depends if you earn it as one or two people, as the latter will yield a higher net income. I worked it out for us with a single earner on 64k and 3 dc and we are in the 6th centile. Apparently just under half the population earn less than us, so not as rich as you'd think.

Sorry, meant decile not centile!

sorry ihategeorge gideon is his real name you are right
FWIW with both DH and I working part time - but self employed so lower tax bills - I'm 85th centile ; poor by Greengrow's standards but not really

I think half the Working Population earn under £23,000 a year not £64,000 a year. Tell me how many £64,000 a year jobs do you see advertised in the local newspaper ?. If you have a income after tax of 100k you are probably in the top 2 to 3% of families (in terms of income) I think this is what the most of people mean Income (Take Home !.

Talkinpeace. You have misunderstood since everyone on here is either in the to 10% of salaries, Academic Abilty and everything else, it is reasonable to suggest that an £100k in family income relates to 4% . That is the squeezed middle as far as this site goes.

Talkin -that's interesting. I brough my first place at 22 with a boyfriend, one bed flat in London for 30k. Moved a few times and then newly single brought a place for 80k and sold for 60k.... However, I lived in it for 6 yrs and the mortgage was fine.

I have never wanted to move from the SE, its where the higher paid roles and choices are so now in our 50's we live in a nice house with lots of equity which is why I dont worry about one of us losing our jobs and not being able to afford the school fees. If you cannot feel relaxed and Ok at 50 plus I am not sure when it will come.

smokepole
silly me

Upthread, someone said that 100k ended up more like double - rather than quadruple - a 25k salary as a household on 25k would have tax credits etc.

Just to say that that certainly isn't my experience. In my last job, our household income was £26k. Only benefit was child benefit - no tax credits etc.

On that, I worked 7am to 7pm most days - plus blackberry on all night, and I was woken up an average of 2-3 times a night for work.

our income is now 30k pa and the difference between 26k and 30k is noticeable. 100k would be idyllic.