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.

It's ludicrous to say 100k is nothing in the south east. I live by the sea down south in a 4 bed house in a really affluent area and take home a quarter of that. I am just really careful with money.

mme... well they should try my version of squeezed middle... I consider myself very fortunate on a salary of £30 k in the south....But I do sometimes wonder about those coming behind me in my proffesion. I have a degree, masters and Doctorate (I'm not an academic, it's just that my proffesion requires it). Many people now looking to train in my career increasingly have to work for free too.... that's a lot of debt and stress for what will (increasingly) be a salary that puts home owning/renting in an alright area out of the reach of many. I am super lucky in that I bought before property prices went nuts.... I still have a large mortgage as there was a period when we were forced to be interst only...but still as a i say lucky there is no way we could afford to live where we do if we were starting out now. And the trouble is society needs the middle class middle income profesionals to teach/work in the nhs/man public services...

What I want to know is how people expect to live on mine and dh income. Dh earns 21000 a years before tax. I get about £3000 a year carers allowance for severely disabled Dd. Then we get £6480 in tax credits. That's about £34840 a year. That is the same amount some people spend more than that on a house or school fees. They can easily downsize, move out of the city and commute or use state schools. How am I supposed to make ends meet when I am struggling? There is not much to cut!

JustMarriedBecca
DH and I live in London with an income of about £140k between us. We (...) can't afford the £100 extra per week to jump to a two bed flat). Outgoings on rent, packed lunches/food (...) , transport/Oyster cards and essential bills is about £2.5k per month. We are managing to save ... (about £500 per month) but we Aren't frivolous, have mainly second hand things for the baby and I spend £2 (that's TWO POUNDS) every fortnight getting my eyebrows done. Nor do we take expensive holidays. Oh and we don't have a car either. And neither of us spend loads on clothing.

These numbers don't add up.

If your earnings are evenly distributed at £70k pa each, your take home pay should approximate 4k pm each, so nearly 8k total. You account for 2.5k pm spending, + 500pm savings, which totals 3k pm, and you say you don't have £100 extra per week? Where is the other 5k?

Even if one has a disproportionate tax burden by earning 130k, and the other 10k pa, your combined total take-home should only be about 500pm less.

I do hope neither of you are in accounting.

To say that a salary of £100k is 'nothing' is ridiculous. As a pp said it's about what you chose to spend your money on. We all prioritise and then cut your cloth accordingly with what's left over, if anything. We lived in London and decided to move a bit further out and to make our money go further. It meant a longer journey to work but it was worth it for us.

Eh. £100k is definitely a really, really good salary. To describe it as 'nothing' is a disgrace.

On £100k, and with the lucky timing I mentioned earlier, we have a nice life. The lives of many of our friends are out of reach, but because our rent/mortgage isn't absolutely insane, as it would be if we were 10 years younger, we'd be just about able to stretch to private school for one child if we made that choice. So not the middle at all - and with a lot more options than most folk.

It's still silly to try to define a national 'squeezed middle' income bracket though. Too many variables.

People need to cut their coat according to their cloth, no matter how much cloth they have. People on 100k can still get into trouble by spending beyond their means. There will always be someone better off so if they try to keep up with the Joneses in terms of private school fees and luxuries they will still struggle.

I agree with social commentator Peter York who said that it is common for couples, like the Burghards, who live in the South of England and who are, in fact, doing very well, to consider themselves hard done by, because they develop an ‘unrealistic vision’ of the world, as a result of constantly comparing themselves with the super-rich with whom they socialise.

They are certainly very well off by most people's standards!

I did get the rage reading about the family that can only afford "very mediocre holidays" to Cornwall, Geneva or France!

I'm in the south east. Because I'm freelance our income has varied from £35,000 between us to around £80k. When it is at the £80k mark I feel very, very flush so I have no idea what these people are on about. I also feel very very lucky. I grew up poor so I am under no illusion what squeezed really means. And it doesn't mean foregoing a holiday or a daily cappuccino. When we are at the lower end things aren't easy, but I'm still aware that we're better off than many.

I'm always a bit aghast at those who say they can't move to save money or get a bigger place. It's exactly what I and many others like me have had to do. I lived in a one bed flat in centra london, pregnant with DD, with my son and husband... I could walk to work, DH had a 20 minute commute. But we couldn't afford to live in that area and get a bigger place - no matter how much we liked it- so we moved. We were late-ish on the property market (2006) but we know that our CHOICE was a rougher area of London, a zone further out or commuter town. You don't have to pay a rent of £28,000 a year and live in a one bed flat, you choose to. There ARE options when you have that kind of income. There are only no options when you have nothing.

I have a work colleague like this... Moans that her huge car costs too much to insure and tax. Won't get a different car because she NEEDS an expensive 4wd with two kids. No she doesn't.

People need a decent roof over their heads, food on the table, heat, water, education for their kids, a life worth living. Anything else is a bonus, really. I've never understood those who can't see it like that. It doesn't matter what your parents had or didn't have, you make you own life. Feeling entitled to things just "because" is pretty bratty.

Lousy DM journalism, as always. Choose 3 ridiculous examples and get the public opinion against the whole issue. Yes, 100k family income can be the squeezed middle if you are a working couple with 2 nursery age children (£2000 a month) and £500/week rent in London. No, you are not poor, you manage just fine, you are not worse off than a couple on 30k, but then you don't get any state handouts, and you pay out about 10 times more tax than a couple on 30k and at the end of the day you haven't got much to show for your money. So you've got every right to feel squeezed. You also have every right to think that since you earn twice the average salary per person you should be able to afford a bit more. Those examples in the DM article - junk, best use for DM is to line the cat litter tray with, except the cat might object to pissing in a dirty tray.

OK, I agree, 50k salary is not the middle.

I think some people will always say they are 'squeezed' no matter what they earn because they go for the biggest mortgage they can and stretch themselves to pay for school years.
My DH earns 140k and had earned over 100k for about 8 years. There is no way we are squeezed. We didn't choose private schools or the most expensive house we could. We have lots of disposable income for a long haul, short haul and mini break holidays every year with our 3DC. We eat out a few times a week, have days out every weekend, Sky TV with everything package, a lovely home with all mod cons, 2 cars, hobbies etc.
We are too busy enjoying our very fortunate life to feel 'squeezed'.

Looking at the first couple I wonder if they were expecting the DHs income to increase more than it has.

Perhaps they put their DC I'm private school thinking that not paying the mortgage was very short term and he would soon be made a partner.

If he's the same age as the DH and he's still on 100k then either he was never made a partner or his firm has hit the skids?

Same with couple 2. It seems like they thought their businesses would work out better.

I think what those interviwed for the DM piece mean is that they don't have enough money to buy EVERYTHING that they want. That does not make them poor by anyone's standards.

I am so tired of this trope that you NEED 100K to live in London

I don't understand how people can be so delusional. Every day they walk around London and encounter Tesco clerks, baristas, bus drivers, postmen, cleaners, where do they think they all live???

We used to live in London on less than 30K combined, none of our friends make more than 50K combined.

We may be moving back soon and you can still rent a big 2BR in zone 3 or 4 south london for 1200-1300/month, with 20 minute train into Victoria or London Bridge. So please, spare me this idea that one MUST spend 20-30K a year on rent for a shoebox and there is NO choice.

I think I live in a different world to some posters I live in the northwest rent is no where near the ridiculous London prices we rent a 30,s three bedroom semi so big rooms big garden for £ 670 /month we could rent a nice terrace for less than £500\month I,m a nurse dh works in a factory so we earn less than£40,000 /year between us we run a car go on holiday once a year albeit in the UK to haven/butlins etci,m far better off than a/lot of people .How do ordinary people like us afford to live In London ? Do they get he!p with rent etc ?

As I said it's about expectations. The reality is that if you want to have the following:

DC in fee paying school
2 x private pension schemes
Savings
A large house
Run two cars
Winter and summer holidays + weekends away
Regular meals out
Expensive hobbies (riding, golf, sailing)

You need a household income well in excess of 100k

But not being able to afford all of those things does not make you poor

dreaming I agree it is embarrassing.

I have lived in London on a student income and I have lived in London on significantly more. You cut your cloth

100k????

Diddums.

I don't work, but we don't private school (and DH doesn't earn 100K).

I have friends who do send their DCs to private school on 60-70k, but with a much smaller mortgage and with help from GPs or scholarships. Others income I can only guess, but I suspect one parents money goes purely on fees.

The thing is that people come at this income level from both sides. To me it's a nice amount of money, I enjoy being able to have a holiday most years and not count every penny spent.

Neither DH or I went to private school (his sister did, but a sweet little girls school, did state sixform to get good science grades), so we don't see scrimping, saving, me working and relying 100% on paid childcare with all it's stresses is worth it.

Other friends come at it the other way, from business men, professional and high up public serve to Fathers and possibly family money, they went to private school. Their friends DCs go to private schools. Their DCs will go to private school!

Sometimes I'm not sure they've done the sums with modern school fees, housing costs, interest rates on savings, energy bills, petrol, extra curricular stuff, etc etc all of which have gone up, especially if you own a nice big house in the country side.

DH on over 100k, I have just gone back to work so increasing our income by about a third so feels good.

We have one just started in private that we could afford on DH salary and my salary will pay for the second. But DH travels a lot for work and I travelled a lot when I was younger so don't have a desire to have expensive / long haul holidays. Two cars but could probably cut down to one.

We are rich, life is very transient and it could all come crashing around us very quickly. I have MS, so very aware of the important things like health. I live in an aspirational part of the world and don't really like it, but this is the boys home.

If you earn £100K you take home £65K which isn't massive for a family living in London, assuming hefty rent or mortgage repayments.

And the disposable income probably isn't wildly different to two teachers earning £39,000 pa each once you take into account the loss of child benefit to those earning over £50,000 etc. And nobody would say two teachers were living an amazing life income wise.

There is far too much higher earner bashing.

www.netsalarycalculator.co.uk/100000-after-tax/

Our family summer holiday cost £10,000 for a fortnight and we only went to Greece, nothing overly fancy.

If you earn over £50k then you're better off than 95% of the rest of the UK population. If you earn £100k then you're better off than 98% of the UK population.

If you're already doing financially better than 98% of the population but feel entitled to the lifestyle of a Russian oligarch then life is never going to feel good because that level of income doesn't quite match the increased sense of entitlement.

There is far too much higher earner bashing.

My heart bleeds. It must be a bitch not having to live hand-to-mouth or being told to check out your nearest food bank.

As a single mother, working and claiming benefits, I don't honestly lose much sleep over people taking home 'only £65'. Have you any idea how much those of us at the bottom take home each year? And still get treated like scum for daring to have a family and be on benefits.

And as for your fortnight in Greece, 'nothing overly fancy' - again, what about those of us who can't afford a family holiday at all? I'm doing the very best I can for my kids, but we've had one holiday in 10 years - three days on the Isle of Wight - and my Mum paid for that!

Save your self-pity.