6 figure incomes and can't afford a load of bread?

[LemonyFresh]

Is it just me or has there been a influx of posts about household incomes of over 100k or similar and complaining or wondering how they're skint at the end of the month and struggling? Is it a stealth boast or do these people actually struggle?

Am I really in the minority with a household income of less than half of this?!

I know we tend to spend to our means but even when DP and I are having a flush month I don't see the point in over spending for the sake of it.

What does "first of all you don't pay taxes" mean then want?

100K is rich however you cut it. 100K income is top 2% of income before tax, top 5% after our 'progressive' tax system.

However this comment is interesting:
Now if the household income was £200k then I agree that is plenty

Because its a fairly well observed phenomenon that people mentally adjust their own situation to be a norm and view others accordingly. So on 100K you judge 200K as the point at which noone should struggle. The people on 50K judge that as being say 75k and those on 200K struggling along assuming they would be fine if they only had another 50K.

The fact is that in the UK in this day very many families manage in the South paying housing, commuting and childcare (without all living in one room or living in houses they bought in the 80s/90s/00s) on far less than 100K.
Somewhere in the region of 40% of incomes are less than 20K and they are not getting social housing, tax credits and do not feel 'better off' than people on 100K.

man you are missing the question mark. I was asking a question because my understanding is that on that income of course you pay taxes but that you also receive benefits because it's acknowledged that income isn't enough to live on.

I know what's it's like to earn less than £20k and I'm fortunate enough to know what's it's like to have an income of £100k to live off. I'm fortunate to be married to someone who is now earning a lot more than that. To get to £100k it's not easy. The hours are at least 50-60 a week and you are expected to have a masters which is fully self funded with loans that must be repaid in full.

What has shocked me the most about the difference in gross income was just how little the difference in disposable income is when you have children.

First of all, i would. ever saycwe a struggling - we are not. but income and disposabke income are cery different things.
my sister (northeast of uk) and i recently compared costs. both have 2 kids under school age, both parentsxworking, house tecently bought.
us: have to live near London, jobs don't exist elsewhere
income after tax £5000
mortgage for 2 bedroom terrace: 1300
childcare (50 hours a week due to long commute): around 2400 (going rate per hour for childminder is £6), parents can't afforddto move closer to help
commute: 400 for both of us together (train, don't have a car)
thats 900 left for counciltax, food, ....
my sister : 3500 monthly income
mortgage 800 for 5 bedroom detached house
chikdcare: 900 (only 40 hours a week per child due to nonexisting commute, parents moved close to help out and do several days, rates are 4.50 per hour)
commute: 600 (they have two cars financed)
1200 left for council tax, food etc

so, we are both comfortable but they have way more disposable income than us, starting from a substantially smaller income

As I have said multiple times on this thread. I earn 13k. I pay tax and national insurance out of that. I don't claim any benefits for lots of reasons, some of which I outlined earlier. All the low earners I know pay tax and national insurance and don't claim any benefits. I also don't get maintenance or get any support with anything.

Want2beSupermum - Which planet are you living on.

man you are missing the question mark. I was asking a question

Well actually no you weren't.

Oh and you only have an income of £20k to spend right?

Is a question.

First of all you don't pay taxes?

Is a statement albeit with a rising inflection.

Do you live in social housing or get housing benefits? Do you get working credits? Do you get child benefits?

Are all questions albeit apparently with an expectation of an affirmative answer.

Which is why you're getting the response you are.

Youre writing in quite a colloquial style I suppose if you meant it as a question. I'm confused now.

What has shocked me the most about the difference in gross income was just how little the difference in disposable income is when you have children.

Oh come on, you are having a laugh. Like you I've lived on both ends of that spectrum (and frankly the low end was some of the worst hours, not the high end) and the idea that was not much worse off at the bottom end is just risible.

I live in my own home, which I bought. I've never lived in social housing. I've never claimed out of work benefits. I have claimed tax credits for a short time, many years ago. I just needed to clear that up.

I pay 4k a year for childcare.

Trying to work out how much disposable income a family has is like asking how long is a piece of string.

If rich families moved to a cheaper part of the country, lived in a small cheap house in the cheapest area, bought value range food, didn't pay for private school, sold the car and got second hand bikes instead etc; then their disposable income would rise considerably.

To be fair to want she lives in the US not in the UK and much of what she is saying appears to be anecdotal from her doctor friends who apparently don't have two beans to rub together at the end of the month and have to be sent food parcels .

However, you are clearly wrong want. I'm sorry but there is still a very large difference between an income of £100k and an income of £20k even with tax credits/benefits. Your friends are clearly choosing to use extremely pricey childcare apparently costing them £45k a year out of their taxed income (which is ridiculous). They are not even vaguely representative and I hate to say it but they sound like they are spinning you a bit of a yarn.

I'll forgive her then. She clearly doesn't have a clue what's she's talking about. I wouldn't have a clue about earnings in the US either.

CH8 When I earned £20k a year I worked 7am-3pm Sunday through Thursday. It was hard work but overall the hours were family friendly. Now I earn more I'm working 6-7 days a week and when it's quiet I work 50hours a week. At busy times I work 16 hour days 6 days a week. When DH is away for work the cost of childcare wipes out any benefits we get from the higher income. I would love to be able to spend £4K a year on childcare like namechanger does. In July and August we spend about that each month. I work at a loss those months as there is a three week period where I work crazy hours and DH is traveling. We end up having two people looking after our DC because its too much for one person.

This won't be forever but while the kids are young childcare will finish off any disposable income you thought you had.

Seriously want come off it. You earn hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and live in manhattan. Surely you can understand that when you spend £4k a month on childcare you are in a very different situation from almost everyone here in the UK.

I earn six figures and so does DH and so we have a very good family income. I agree that actual income and disposable income are two very different things but your experiences both with your own situation and with your doctor couple are nothing like the reality of life for the vast majority here in the UK, even with those of us who are high earners.

I don't understand why it's necessary to spend 4k a month on childcare? A full-time au pair would cost a quarter of that amount.

The thread wasn't about how hard people work. Poor people work really hard too.

I earn less than 20k and don't claim benefits.
I earn 14k, and claim nothing. And to be honest, I don't think I'd be entitled to anything, either.

Want2besupermum

I work similar hours to you, in a job that requires a professional qualification on obtained by degree. Even at my most senior postion, there is no way that I will earn circa £100,000. I'm not complaining; I love my job. However, I do get irritated when high earners forget that there are lower earners who also paid a lot of money to qualify, who work long hours and who cannot clock off at 5.30 pm on the dot.

Ah yes, if only number of hours worked equated to £££ paid or qualifications gained!

want when I was earning the '20K ' salary it was a 50 hour a week job on a good week requiring higher degree level qualifications. To make ends meet I was doing long shifts at unskilled rates in the local pub Friday/Saturday nights (another 16-20 hrs per week).

I changed career but my colleagues who didn't managed life with children on salaries which go up a bit but not much - typically to average salary, sometimes more so 27-30k equiv. In London. Try telling any of them that an extra 80K makes very little difference to their disposable income and you would get very short shift.

Now I am on the big salary but not because of the 70-80 hr weeks (of which there are plenty) or my qualifications but because the market puts a premium on what I do. I know the difference between supporting and managing a family on average salary and a top 1% salary in London - its absolutely massive.

Yeah I am in a very different situation because if I lived in the UK we wouldn't be able to afford me having a career. Sure I could have a job but anything beyond helping out with DHs business would not be an option because my salary wouldn't cover the cost of childcare.

Where I live aupairs are on annual contracts that cost $26k a year for 20 hours of help or $30k for 40 hours of help. Even if in the UK we couldn't use an aupair for DS because he has autism. To hire someone capable of looking after him costs more. We would have to hire two aupairs for the help we need in July and August which would be $60k a year.

candy What I've been talking about is families where both parents work and they are living in London, so an income of £50k each or a similar permutation. If you are outside of the SE bubble your income goes so much further because childcare and housing are much cheaper. Nurses and teachers also work long hours but in either profession it's a lot easier to move out of high cost of living areas compared to certain areas in private enterprise.

Want2besupermum There's a crisis in teaching. What happens if all the teachers move out of London? Also, your point about the "SE bubble" doesn't hold water. It's just an excuse. You can live in commutersville and get a decent property for better money than in inner London. Yes, you've got commuting costs but, it's much more affordable but people just don't want to move away.

People always make excuses, despite being in the top 5% of earners. It's embarrassing that some MNers are making excuses for themselves. Basically, what you're alluding to is that only the elite should really live in the south east. Who will care for your children while you're working if lower earners are told to move away? Who will clean your office? Who will give your children their vaccinations? Who will teach them?

"I'm talking about friends of mine who have moved into cheaper parts of London which most wouldn't even consider."

This, in my opinion, is where a huge amount of the 'oooooh London it's impossible to live on anything less then seventy-a-million-thousand-pounds" stuff comes from.

Because there are no parts of London that people wouldn't consider. That's its nature as a major city. There are an awful lot of parts that people who live in the posh bits think are 'unconsiderable'. And I highly doubt they've ever been there. And they normally mean Tower Hamlets, I don't think they even realise Plaistow exists.

I mean, OK Plaistow isn't beautiful, and yes, if you live in Chelsea your posh friends will definitely judge you if you halve (or get rid of entirely) your mortgage by moving to a three bed terrace in Tottenham. But if you're bringing in £100k and struggling, then that's an option for you. These 'realities' about what parts of London can be considered worthy to live in are wrong, and frankly offensive to the majority of Londoners - we live in them!

so true kaputt

It's good people at all income levels talk to each other.
It is dead easy in the UK to work out after tax income as there are .
£13k is monthly net pay of £1083.
100k net pay £5455 a month ( about 5x as much)
£50k £3058.

Lots of full time working couples in London will pay about £2k a month for childcare particularly if they need a full time nursery rather than just part time hours.

I don't think any of the sums are hard to work out. If you do well at school and pick a high paid career that tends to benefit you. My daughters like I am are lawyers and both pay 40% tax etc and earn well. They have high expenses, mortgages and one has childcare but none of us at those income levels are going to ask people on my son's postman income to weep for us. We do well and even after childcare and mortgage costs have more than a family on £20k with tax credits and child benefit.

There is an interesting cross over spot however where someone on say £40k with full time childcare a mortgage etc has less net pay than someone on benefits and that is the problem the benefits system has - make work pay (although loads of people work full time on say £14k a year and get benefits too of course) and you incentivise people usually women not to work or just to work part time and how could you blame them?