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 wouldn't get out of bed for £500 a month

er you do know that that the job centre don't except that as a reason don't you? You would lose your out of work benefits pronto if you didn't take it so somebody actually has to work for that.

Seriously, why do you think this story is being run in the Daily Mail? It's not a paper that politically loves the poor, is it?
It's there to stop analysis of how few people are "comfortable" at the moment , and to stop us thinking about how much wealth they have, and what a teeny , tiny fraction they are.
And why that might be.
It's to stop people seeing connections, and to grow fear between thse with nothing, those with a bit, those with a bit more, and so on.
It's probably to soften people up for the removal of another previously universal benefit and it's replacement with an income based benefit - with the threshold set at a level that really will fucking squeeze.

My money is on health care. There are pilot schemes in place at the moment to charge for a whole load of GP services that used to be free.

THAT is what this story is about.

Don't fall for it.

thecat whilst I agree that a comparative analysis of what your neighbour has detracts from the key issues, there is a point at which complaining you are squeezed is absurd and I can well understand the vitriol.

I was at a dinner party recently and a friend was commenting that they had declined an invitation aboard another friends super yacht, the rationale being "the tips and transfers would kill us". They absolutely were not complaining - but I have heard people in similar circs do so and IMO there is nothing wrong in telling those who do complain to get a grip.

100k as being a low income - only on Mumsnet

The fact is that private education is a luxury which is why only a very small percentage of people can afford school fees. I have absolutely no sympathy for people moaning about how much it costs.

I never know why people agree to take part in articles like that. The first couple the big problem and indeed cause of many a financial problem in the UK is the woman has a low paid job. Had she gone with the programme in her teens, become a surgeon or actuary or whatever they family would not have less money than the woman wants. Feminism is always a huge part of the key to happiness and women picking proper careers rather than pin money jobs whilst expecting men to keep them.

£100k is a high income. If someone wants more earn more.

You know, not many people in London on 100k can afford private education.
Shock.
I reckon 25 per cent of my dad's class have a household income around that. It's an ordinary state school. The parents aren't being "right-on". They just can't afford private schools.
Personally, I'm crying no tears about that. The only reason I'm even bothering to mention it is because it's a red herring.
I am utterly convinced that this story is to soften people up for some nasty GP service changes.
The story will be all abou "austerity", and "we're all in this together", and about how only the "high earners" will pay.
And we will have lost a swathe of the principle of the NHS.

NHS - generations to found it. A load of Daily Mail reading muppets to lose it.

The thing that really frustrates me with any thread like this - and green grows last post just proved it perfectly - is that often those with very high incomes think they work harder / made a good choice / poor people didn't make good choices etc etc. Some of those assumptions may be true for certain situations and individuals but not all.

It's not as simple as those wanting more money should go out and get it. Of course it isn't. And it is very narrow minded and ignorant to suggest it is.

Most people - like my dh who is a graduate earning 15.5k working his arse off in retail management in East anglia for approximately 40-50 hours a week would absolutely kill to earn more - and believe me he is trying everything he can.

I have had a very high earning job and believe me it was far easier doing that than the very physical near minimum wage job I went into when I was made redundant.

I don't begrudge anyone earning lots of money. I am fairly happy with my lot in life and I hated work so I don't miss it but I cannot stand people making assumptions that earning less is down to laziness, lack of education or intelligence or anything else. Sometimes life just really is about being in the right place at the right time and having some good luck.

£100k is a lot of money - more than the vast majority of people in the UK earn. Only 300,000 people in the UK earn that much, and there are over 60 million of us here. So it can hardly be a 'middle' of any sort.

As for people choosing to spend it and so not having much left over, well, you could say that about any sum. For eg, I earn more than some people, but I probably have less left over because I choose to pay for my ds to do out of school activities that cost a fair bit of money. But I still earn more money than some people - what I've got coming in doesn't change! If you choose to have an expensive house and choose to educate your kids privately, it doesn't mean you have less money coming into your household and it certainly, if you're earning £100k, doesn't mean that you are in any kind of middle band of earners.

I don't think many people on £100k in the south of England could afford private education if they have more then one child - unless they have paid off their mortgage or have grandparents. At £15k per child per year it's out of the question for us although we jointly earn more than £100k pa.

Actually, just to add to what I said above: "Only 300,000 people in the UK earn that much ...

... and all 300,000 of them seem to post on Mumsnet."

I don't think you can give an objective figure to those who are squeezed. We live in London - with the kind of work DH and I we would be hard pressed to find a job elsewhere. A two bed terrace on our road costs 600,000 - 800,000 pounds. With our income (around 100,000k) we can't afford a two bed terrace here, we rent. Especially as nursery here costs 80 pounds a day per child, an annual rail pass around 2000k, and a local haircut is around 50 quid. I wouldn't characterise us as 'struggling' but we definitely watch our food bills, buy a lot of the kids' clothes second hand, and I keep a hairstyle that doesn't involve going to the hairdresser much. However on our current income we could afford a mansion in Cumbria, with some change for foreign hols and fancy clothes. It's all relative.

100k is nothing in the south east

Lol. Dick.

It's not relative. If you earn more than 99.5% of the population (someone help me with my maths here please - is that about right? I mean 300,000 out of 60,000,000?), you are not in the 'middle'.

noviceoftheday - but it's not sensible to look at individual incomes. You need to look at household income, because easily the biggest expenditure for most people is rent or mortgage and it costs no more for a couple to rent a house than it does for one person to rent a house. A £150,000 income wouldn't even put you in the top decile for a household of two adults and two children.

If you're even discussing not being able to buy a bigger house; how expensive the tube is; only being able to holiday in the UK; the price of car insurance then you are significantly better off than many.

I really don't understand how people can read threads on here about parents relying on food banks and not being able to afford shoes for their DC and consider themselves poor because they had to forgo a week in Santorini

£100K is a hell of a lot of money; anyone who says it isn't has their head in the clouds!

Average pre-tax earnings for a London household are about £49,000

So on 100K you're still doing pretty well

I thought the first woman in an article sounded an idiot when she said she wasn't going to do a low paid job. She could have been earning 1k plus a month for the last god knows how many years instead of being so 'Squeezed,. Plus her reasons for her boys having to go to private school annoyed me. Do 93% of children not play sport?

That other woman with an iPad addiction also sounded stupid.

Household income brackets:

www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/25/uk-incomes-how-salary-compare

Have a look at this for household income in London:

data.london.gov.uk/visualisations/atlas/gla-household-income-estimates/atlas.html

Yes, if you want to live in Knightsbridge, 100K is not very much. But look how much of the city has much lower averages, even in the 20s.

The problem is that so many people are delusional enough to think that Knightsbridge IS London.

You cut your cloth by your measure. Downsize your home, no private schooling, less holy days and there you go, more cash.

100k buys you a great life if you are in your 40's - 60's and you bought 15-30 years ago.

If your 30 years old, live in the south east and have a child in nursery and your rent and bills are 3k a month before childcare and buying a scrap of food or travel to work you really don't have very much.

The 100k is an illusion here if two thirds of your take home pay is going on a shitty rental in zone 3.

Some people are incredibly well
Off on a 100k as they're living in flats and houses worth literally millions just because they bought 15 years ago.

It's nothing to do with the money itself, it's about what it buys you

The article talks about HOUSEHOLD income. Yet all the lefties on this thread are talking about individual income. The comparison is meaningless.

Two head of teachers would earn more after tax as one lawyer on £100,000 gross.app Nobody would mark the teachers out as being fabulously wealthy .

When my DH died suddenly in 2011 we went from a family income of £140k to £70k ish. I had three DC, one at uni and the other two at state school. We have managed fine and I am now slightly ashamed of all the money DH and I wasted. Although the life insurance did pay all debt I feel I am privileged to have the income I do and feel that if these 'squeezed' people do not realise how to cut back it is a little surprising they earn so much! Real poverty is having to choose between food or electric not facials or pedicures.

It's still a lot. You don't have to live in London, look on the outskirts or along a mainline route.