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.

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
not sure how you got the 6th centime. From putting those figures in, it would give that only 6% of the population earns more than you. That's roughly 19/20 earning less than you. Not half.
So, maybe not rich, but certainly well off.

I don't think it's a fabrication that some of us earn over £100k which is why it is really good for women who may have now aspirations, particularly teenage girls, to know what many women do achieve. I also don't accept it is a loss to spend more time domestically. I have never for a second regretted changing 3 nappies a day rather and 23 and the children have benefited. So I don't see the consideration as a man or a woman (it's gender neutral) that if I stay at home or work 3 hours a day that means happiness and a lovely life whereas if I work full time and earn over £100k that is an awful result of no time with those you love. Quite the converse. Happier with a balanced life of work and children rather than unbalanced only at home and low income.

I have never had a problem with inequalities. It is not fair I have large breasts or XYZ IQ - that is just life - we are all born with different genes and you make the best of what you have and in a free society have choices.

In fact a lot of those of us who earn quite a bit on this thread are not particularly after material stuff. My car was my father's. Our second car cost under £1k this year. I have no interest in expensive stuff. However I do like succeeding over others, power, acclaim in my work field, ability to buy a large house (on a mortgage) and pay school fees.

I also know how little most people do earn so would never feel worse off than others ever. Every day I realise that what I earn an hour is the minimum weekly wage and am glad the things I chose to do resulted in that. I am glad of the inequality and think it makes society work better as it is human nature and I am glad I am in the half I am in. That does not mean I don't help others and in fact if women earn a lot they have much more capacity to help others than if they earn nothing and help out at Oxfam once a week.

Lweji, you have to enter net income, not gross.

You said 64k and that you had the calculations, so I assumed that was the net.

No you've entered gross income. If you enter £3300 monthly, which is our net income, 3 dc under 13 and £140 council tax, it will come up being in the 6th decile.

But still, 64k overall if it's a single income it's obviously not a lot, I agree. It is still a high income for a single person and one that allows one of the partners to stay at home, so I'd say that as a couple you are not particularly well off, compared to the population, but only because one of you decided to stay at home. And you presumably save on child care, which probably means you are better off than a couple earning 32k each.

I totally agree with you Lweji, but it's still not the riches that some might think it would be.

Yes a lot of those on benefits always seem to think "net". They say I have XYA when in fact they have XYZ plus their council tax and rent paid (and the equivalent tax/NI paid). They think someone on £20k must be rolling in it but they forget how much is taken in tax and how much it costs to house yourself and pay your council tax. It is that interplay between benefits and gross income which makes it so hard to do comparisons.

My usual example is single mother in outer London on £50k who pays out of that £14k tax and NI, £14k rent or mortgage and about £10 - £14k for her full time childcare plus also she has to pay for work clothes, travel etc. her twin sister who is also a single mother and does not work does not have too much less in net cash in comparison although the working one presumably knows eventually she will not have childcare to pay for and after 25 - 30 years if she has a repayment mortgage but only if she does and only if she does not move, she will not have rent to pay. So longer term the worker may do better unless of course the non worker has more time to look pretty and snare a rich man to keep her I suppose.

it's still not the riches that some might think it would be.

and nobody is saying that it is. In fact the thread is about people on 100k and over, and you're almost at 2/3 of that.
But you are still on the comfortable side of the population, even with your single income.

Its certainly not a fabrication that some earn more than £100k but there are not that many jobs that pay over £100k. We shouldn't forget though that the article was about a joint household income of £100k.

Out of my immediate friends who earn £100k or more for one job they are:

Myself - Self employed lawyer so no pension contribution but I earn over £100k which offsets this.
DH - lawyer (partner). Self employed so no pension contribution.
Friend - lawyer (partner). Self employed so no pension contribution.
Friend - consultant psychiatrist
Friend - consultant cardiologist
Friend - consultant oncologist
Friend - consultant (something to do with forensic medicine)
Friend - dentist. Self employed so no pension contribution.
Friend - PR specialist (runs own business). Self employed so no pension contribution.
Friend - owner of a property development business. Self employed so no pension contribution.
Friend - Very senior management in a university
Friend - Head teacher
Friend - Hedge funds (most highly paid)
Friend - owner of care homes. Self employed so no pension contribution.

There are more but it gives an indication of the types of jobs. In my work I deal with employment issues and so I see which roles pay six figures. It's generally senior management in international companies, very senior management in very large UK companies and business owners. I know probably hundreds of lawyers. Most outside of London don't earn six figures. Average is probably around £60k for a senior associate role (mid level just below partner). I also know lots of doctors who don't earn six figures. It's the consultants who do, particularly once they take on the private work.

Friends where there are two consultants in the family seem to be doing very well, particularly given that they also have amazing pensions. These are the ones who can easily afford to ski every year and have an exotic foreign holiday or two, have beautifully decorated homes, designer clothes, posh cars and children in private school. Their family income is £200k+.

I know a disproportionate number of people who have jobs that pay more than £100k because of my profession and the fact that my DCs are at an independent school. In each of my DC's classes more than half the children have parents who are medics.

Might need to NC after this!

I think I only know one person on that kind of income. We're middle class but state school area and more teachers/ots/cafe owners as friends.

My usual example is single mother in outer London on £50k who pays out of that £14k tax and NI, £14k rent or mortgage and about £10 - £14k for her full time childcare plus also she has to pay for work clothes, travel etc. her twin sister who is also a single mother and does not work does not have too much less in net cash in comparison although the working one presumably knows eventually she will not have childcare to pay for and after 25 - 30 years if she has a repayment mortgage but only if she does and only if she does not move, she will not have rent to pay. So longer term the worker may do better unless of course the non worker has more time to look pretty and snare a rich man to keep her I suppose.

The twin who owns her own house might have to sell it to pay for a care home, as well.

There was a thread once asking people to post about what jobs they did that earned over 100k.

It was an eye opener in the vast variation if work that achieved it ,but also in the numbers of women posting that it was their husbands who earned it.

I wouldn't be able to say if I knew others, I suspect at a household level there are some. But from outside appearances I doubt anyone would put our household income at the level it is. e.g. 2 years ago we bought our house for less than my annual salary, I drive a 10 yr old car, our self catering holiday abroad will cost 500

I work in the City in London so a large proportion of the people I know are on well over £100k.

In my street there are lawyers, bankers, hedge fund traders, accountants, medics, dentists and business owners, all of whom would earn well over £100k.

On the other hand, my oldest friends earn less than £25k.

At almost every income level I know people (including folks on £400k) who totally overspend and then moan about being broke. As someone else said you cut your cloth according to your income so while I have empathy with those on less than £25k the ones on 6 figures annoy me.

We have a joint income over 100k. We feel 'squeezed' but we have choices: work full-time (both part-time by choice), move house to a smaller place and slightly worse area, budget better etc. We don't have private school fees, use some family and our own time for some of the childcare, modest holidays etc. Definitely squeezed compared to 3-5 years ago, let alone 10, but not enough to sadface in the DM. (Keeping that for rock-bottom.)

Lady, I like your username (Chekov fan)

It is really interesting, the 100k thing.

I know lots of people who live in big houses (mortgaged to the hilt) and send their kids to private school, yet struggle enormously financially.

Some people just are not very good with money, that does not make them squeezed, just a bit daft/careless/deluded.

You are not the squeezed middle on 100k, 100k just isn't the "middle" and any "squeezing" is self inflicted by lifestyle choices.

I think sometimes you need to have a word with yourself. Remind yourself what's what.

I know 2015 will be a financially slow year for me because I'm not going to write a new book but I have accepted three radio commissions,

But I still won't be able to claim hardship.

I know one couple that I absolutely know earns (husband) well over 100k with very generous 30k+ bonus's

But I don't really know what my other friends/their husbands earn

I am very nosy though and would love to see how some people manage their budgets and in some cases get new cars and holidays (one friend has a very rich dad)

My husband earns a good wage and we do have nice holidays (crap cars!!)

Chandon - yay! it is from Chekov. Yes, we're not middle and some is not being great with money. We have no debts apart from mortgage but still expect to live as we did 15 years ago pre-kids. So we see our holidays much reduced, not eating out, not enough money for us as all goes on kids etc. However, even compared with 3-5 years ago we are 'squeezed'. We lost child benefit x 3 and low level DLA x 2 for the kids. Plus living expenses all higher, petrol for commuting and the rest of it. Oh god, here I am, moaning with the best of them.

I live in the South East, not a posh area but a nice area with decent state schools.

I do know quite a few people on or around 100k. A few pilots, IT people, bankers, these are the jobs the men do. For the women a real mixture from accountants, clinical psychologists, teaching assistants, running their own business and SAHM. So their income is possibly 0-50k at a guess.

All but two of these families send their DC to the local state schools. One has one DC and the other are really loaded and have 3 DC. They are probably in the 500k plus a year league. 1.5 million pound mansion, Maldives for Christmas, a couple of Ski holidays a year, cleaner for 7 hours a week, gardener, someone who goes to their house to valet the car, 60k a year school fees, house abroad but they prefer holidaying elsewhere during every single school holiday, 3 brand new cars and so on.

Chandon I'd tend to agree with you, but isn't the squeeze people on around that income feel caused by external factors - govt policies, inflation, etc - while their lifestyles have stayed the same?

I don't disagree that the answer is to change lifestyle, by the way. But it's factually accurate to say that for people on that sort of household income, its buying power is significantly less than in the past.

I'm like Lady (although our household income being just under 100K is pretty recent) - our money goes less far than it would have five years ago, but we have a fuckload of choices that people on lower salaries don't have.

I work in the City and earn above the mythical 100K. I agree that the people in the article were twats it is about expectations. People often think that a salary of that size should give them a better life style than it does.
However
They often have a much better lifestyle than they realise. I think its when people mix up needs and wants that things start to get problematic. We all need a roof over our head, food for our family and an education for our DC. You don't need to live in a 5 bed house in Surrey; you don't need to spend 200 pw in Waitrose; you don't need to send your son to Eton.

I choose to send my DC to a private school, it is a choice and I accept the financial consequences of choosing a paying option over a free one. I also accept I am lucky to have that choice. We choose to live in London in a smaller house than we could afford if we stretched ourselves because it is sufficient for our purposes and allows us to cover the private school. We would have more disposable income if we lived in a two bed maisonette but we choose to live in a house.

Most of the spending that leads people on higher incomes to feel squeezed is entirely discretionary but because they expect to be able to do it and maybe because the people around them are making the same choices, the spending feels essential.

What jassy said

atticuslaw - vulgar vulgar vulgar. I have no idea how much my friends earn. And I certainly don't know about their pension arrangements. Ewww.