AIBU - We’re struggling to get by on £200,000 a year

[BreakingDad77]

next.ft.com/content/d6f1e58e-20c9-11e6-aa98-db1e01fabc0c

Just actually gobsmacked by her comments -

“In theory, with our household income, we are in the top 5 per cent of the UK population and yet it does not feel that way,” she says. “If you’re earning millions of pounds, then you’re OK — and at the other end of the spectrum you get everything paid for. We are caught in the middle where we are paying for everything.”

Yeah because you know those on benefits get such a cushy deal...WTAF

Just all feeds into why UK is one of the mist unequal countries in Europe.

Its ironic as with the EU ref Brexiters going on about how all the other EU countries are crap and yet we have some much bigger problems closer to home.

Bogofeternalstench - I"m thinking of households with children. Child benefit and tax credits.

There is London weighting on all public sector jobs (and student loans etc) which adds about 10% to the cost of running health, education etc. A disproportionate percentage of the government and civil service for the whole country is based in London contributing to the London economy. Infrastructure in London is more heavily invested in and subsidised than in the rest of the country. Housing benefit spend per head is about twice the level of the rest of the country - where I live if you have 1 minimum wage FT worker in the HH you will be extremely unlikely to qualify for HB.

As many on this thread have pointed out not everyone in London is a high earner. I think the few that are may barely be contributing enough to subsidise the rest of Londoners let alone the rest of the country.

OTOH I have been playing with the UK income tax calculator. A single earner on £120k has the same take home pay as 2 earners on £50k each in 2016. They have no entitlement to CB. In 2000 the £120k earner would have been £6k plus CB better off than their double earner counterparts. There are not many £120k jobs where I live but there are lots of £50k jobs within a 10 minute walking commute offering sufficient flexibility for a couple with school age DC to have minimal childcare costs.

howabout: Your anecdotal comments are a reflection of the poor quality of the English education system. The statistics re London subsidising the rest of the UK are very clear. Details here: www.centreforcities.org/blog/how-does-tax-and-spend-play-out-across-britain/

(namechanged)

I'd consider us the squeezed middle. We're on £100k between us.

That's around £5,500 a month after tax, but because we live in central London £3,500 of that disappears before we can blink - £2,000 on housing and £1,500 on childcare (one at full time nursery, one after school club) - these are both quite cheap for the area, so we're lucky!

Then we have something like £1,000 in loan repayments - loans taken out mostly for work on our home, or to cover maternity leave. That actually leaves us with about £250 a week to live on, for four people. We tend to cycle and make our own sandwiches, and we really notice spending more on heating in the winter. It's NOT penury, and we do go out occasionally, but given that headline figure you'd think we would be a bit more comfortable eh?

People might say we could live further away from work, but you have to move a LONG way to make a real difference.. and then we'd spend money and more importantly time on commuting. 7am-7pm childcare to spend 3 hours on trains? Not going to happen. So we are trapped by the London-ness of both our jobs.

And in truth we rather like that; we love where we live. But we do live frugally.

retro that is a really interesting report. I did try to be balanced in my illustrative anecdotal generalisations, but I should have been clearer in making a more specific comparison between Central London and the rest of the UK rather than the South East and the rest of the UK.

It is noticeable that while public expenditure per head is pink (low) in most of the South East it is dark red and therefore high in Central London. It may well be the case that the hard pressed highly paid commuters of the Home Counties are subsidising Central London as well as the rest of the UK but you are correct in pointing out that it would take me a bit longer than my coffee break to wade through the analysis to test my initial observation properly.

FWIW I have never been exposed to the English education system in all my 48 years. Make of that what you will

"Are we still talking about the original couple in Croydon? Why is their mortgage £3,500 per month?"

They have a house which cost £700k. I am assuming they might have £100k equity in it and that their repayment mortgage therefore is on about 3% and comes to £3,500 a month. I assume they live somewhere like this one
www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-53861167.html

User the original article couple say that they bought the house a long time ago for £200k

I just read it again and could only see this
"Aged 45, she works in IT marketing for a large consumer goods company and lives in a £700,000 house in Croydon". It is probably true that they bought the house when they married. Their child is 4 and about to go to prviate school so probably they bought the property before they married say 5 years ago? (Or may be a lot earlier because Asian families tend to be very sensible in buying houses earlier than some others).

I agree if they paid £200k for it they will have a much smaller mortgage.

This lady should never have agreed to be featured on the article. She says she made it clear she feels very lucky yet of course the press never present things like that. I bet she's kicking herself that she ever got involved in it but then that's the risk you take with these things. No one will ever have sympathy with any couple earning nearly £200k between them and quite rightly so.

Not reality - if you are spending 3000 a month on home thats an investment that long term someone on far less than that a month wont have.

i understand you not feeling as rich as you feel you ought to but you child wont always be in nursery and you'll have a home not many can afford in london (with work done on it).

100grand is in no way the squeezed middle. A basic salary calculator suggests you are in the top 10%.... that is not the middle!!

I think so many people assume what they earn is "normal" (surrounded by people on similar income) and that "rich" or "well off" is more than them..... but really 100 grand is not the squeezed middle...

Yes, people get used to what they have. Also some people forget the single mother on £50k gross with full time childcare to pay for is probably worse off in net terms than a couple with one not working who earn a lot less and get tax credits or even housing benefits.

user there was another thread I think in the "In the News" topic linked to a more detailed gossipy article. It doesn't say anything about how long they have been earning £100k each but it does say they bought for £200k 16 years ago, perhaps with a 100% interest only mortgage, as was the fashion at the time. They could have waited until their 40s to have their 1 DC because they started out in admin jobs and retrained in their early 30s or they could have been living the high life all along. Either way I would probably not describe them as "squeezed" but they may be a lot less wealthy than their current earnings suggest.

I agree it is generally foolish to discuss anything with the press but it is probably equally foolish to take anything journalists report at face value.

I think this post just goes to show you spend whatever you have! Everytime you get a new job and start earning a bit more money your standards go up. You buy slightly more expensive bottles of wine, stay in nicer places on holiday, pedicures and facials become essential where before they were luxuries. etc etc

It's so easy to slip into.

So obviously more money doesn't make you happier. But who doesn't imagine that it will? We're surrounded and bombarded with consumerism and it's really hard to live a different way.

Have to say, it's a brave woman that writes that post though!

@BishopBrennansArse: And why would your disability benefits amount to £200.000 per year? Are they using you for research to cure cancer? And if you were working, you believe you'd be making £200k a year is that right? I seriously doubt it. I think people like you should be thanking her and her husband for paying their taxes and supporting the 'less fortunate'. Not saying you are in this situation by your own choice, but there are plenty of them out there who should be paying for their own expenses instead of relying on the government. Working professionals who struggle and sacrifice their family time and actually work hard for their money are getting screwed over by the government in order to support leeches that don't contribute. At least this woman is paying a hell of a lot of taxes a year which could support (and does) at least a dozen families. At least give her that.

As for @BreakingDad77: I agree with your statement on inequality, but not for the reason you stated - I believe people who earn a lot are punished by the government and basically ripped off - that's unfair to me. What should be done is make drastic changes or remove the benefits system altogether (or keep it at a minimum low for families who work and STILL struggle to put food in their mouths). In that case, the most 'disadvantaged' people would have to actually get out and strive to make an income (as people should) and this woman - who's actually pretty well off in most people's eyes- would be paying a lot less tax and wouldn't have to complain. While she may be struggling for the wrong reasons (lavish life, private school), I think she should be admired instead of bashed because she is working hard to earn it. It means her and her husband's skills are highly sought after in the UK and she's actually contributing to this country's economy, and not the other way around.
Look at it this way: if people with a low income/benefits are struggling is because of their own life choices. You can't expect the government to support your family just because you can breed. If she struggles, it's due to her life choices as well (and partly the system being unfair), but at least she's not being a burden to society.

I think this post just goes to show you spend whatever you have!

A friend of mine once claimed that any significant change in income feels dramatic for about two months then it becomes the norm and usually seems to be "slightly less than you feel you need". Expectations expand. I remember being a student and being pleased when I could afford boiled rice with a spoonful of pesto because the pesto was a luxury. Last week I found myself bemoaning the price of my organic veg box, which is kinda ridiculous really.

I think for people who do long hours and work at a high level of responsibility , manage their childcare , etc can make huge sacrifices . It's easy to attack what you don't understand ? Also - Wd each one of us who judge the what this woman is saying be willing or able to do what she does ?
I wouldn't be able to so I don't judge her choices .

msmsmanu - I don't think I've ever read such an ignorant or prejudiced post as yours. "People on low incomes are strugggling due to life choices." You think anyone who is poor/low income its their own fault and shouldnt be given any help.

Shocking anyone could think like that.

Msmsmanu - I am struggling to articulate how offensive I find your hate-filled comments. You must be an extremely unhappy and bitter person. If I were being generous I could feel sorry for you.

Mov1ngOn I do understand that, we're lucky and we know it and it isn't meant to be a boo hoo story, it's meant to illustrate for those outside London how what sounds like a very healthy income can leave you with rather less to actually live on than you might think - mainly because of the ridiculous property market here (which also drives up the cost of childcare).

These two items alone - really quite modest accommodation, and having someone look after the two kids so that we can actually go to work - between them take up nearly two thirds of our net income. Which is ridiculous. That was my point.

msms that's the Tory view isn't it, that those who have deserve it and those who have not must have done something wrong. There are plenty of people working hard to earn peanuts and thank goodness there are, because one day, no matter how well off you are, you might need someone to wipe your arse and they won't be earning £200,000 per year. I have much more admiration for those working in essential low income jobs. I don't think we should be grateful for anyone paying their taxes- we all benefit from it. And let's not forget that the vast majority of the welfare budget goes on pensions and disability benefits, a tiny fraction pays for out of work benefits.

I am in a higher tax bracket household- yes we work hard but we are also fortunate and we don't forget it or begrudge paying tax. I've said it before and I'll say it again - if you think you are rich because you deserve it you are kidding yourself. Even if you are that very rare person who worked their way up south no particular advantage, there will be ten others who worked just as hard and didn't make it.

Msmsmanu talk about buying the propaganda as you are so bigoted prejudice and mean spirited.

Many work for lower and lower wages but they are poor because they are not strivers, what nonsencr
nonsence.

Theres no such thing as deserving poor just tory spin.

I hope you never suffer a disability or have a husband leave you or be made redundant or the million other things that happens that contribute to being poorer.

NorReality - yes we often found that - housing costs and full time childcare (in our case it was full time for 3 children under 5) takes up most of what you earn at times. As people say above good times may come later (over 50 and after 30 years of paying a mortgage I have now paid mine off so yes that paid off) and your hcildcare costs stop (but I am going to fund my youngest at university over the next 4 or 5 years so that will cost pretty much the same as full time childcare - but again my choice which I am lucky to have and should pay off later as the children won't have student loans to pay off).
I do think some people on lower incomes assume these high incomes mean cash in hand. In fact about half goes back to the state and they you might well spend all of the extra money over what the lower earners earn on your full time childcare and housing costs so your net spare income is pretty similar to some people on lower incomes particularly those who get things like tax credits, have no childcare costs as they don't work and who don't have rent to pay as they get housing benefit and council tax help.

Yes blah blah blah blah blah, still doesn't make any household on £200,000 pa the squeezed middle does it? If they were the squeezed middle they would earn somewhere around the average salary bracket give or take. But they don't. Stupid people.

They aren't in the squeeze middle and she didn't say so. The newspaper might have said so as it gets attention and sells papers and most of us are intriqued as to how people spend their money. It's always interesting. I doubt she is stupid (except I suppose it's a bit silly to allow yourself to be the focus of articles like this).