To wonder what it's like to earn £200k per year?!

[ABCD1000]

Friend's husband earns just over £200k per year, with an annual £150k bonus for the last few years! No jealousy (much!) just wonder what life would be like?!

It wasn't my point chronically You asked the question about their comparative pay and I answered it. I am neither a teacher nor a GP and I'm not saying "boo hoo" on behalf of either group

i see - we're basically in agreement in any case - GPs should earn more than teachers as they train longer for it. That said, i feel very sorry for the hours the teachers I know work, for what that's worth.

there is a big difference between occasionally having to rein in your spending, and the low level constant worry about unexpected bills that you face if you're living very close to the margin every month.

If I overspend, I have a couple of credit cards I can whack things onto, and I cut back next month - it's clearly not the same if I was so close to the bone each month that overspends aren't recoverable.

DH is totally worth the money he is paid. Between him and his boss they manage $300 million in sales just for the US

And well done to them. But it's hardly a noble cause is it? Making a large, profitable company even larger and more profitable?

You think he is 'worth' his salary as he's increased the sales (i.e. profit?) of X company. Many people would probably agree with you.

Just as many would probably think that, as a society, there are many more worthy professions that 'should' deserve that kind of high salary rather than a very high-brow and accomplished salesman in an office.

I knew when this thread began yesterday that it would descend into a lot of jealous sniping about high earners and minimising people's jobs, saying they don't really deserve it etc

Anyone want to see my tax bill? My high earnings contribute a great deal to the taxman. I don't access schools or healthcare or welfare benefits but am happy to contribute to others use of them.

As for what it feels like to earn £200k plus, well, I have no debts or financial worries and that obviously makes my life a lot less stressful than some. I don't think about what I'm buying in the supermarket, just throw it in if I fancy it. That's nice to be able to do. I'm not profligate though and enjoy a bargain same as the next person. I do think about the cost of lots of other things and would balk at a £300 haircut because I would feel I was being fleeced and I don't like that.

We are not so rich that we don't sometimes worry about redundancy and how we would manage on far less. But we would manage. Neither of us were born into money so we know how to live cheaply.

the point house was that want2's DH had saved and created jobs - that is desirable and moral in my book, a completely worthwhile thing to do...I'm sure the staff were glad to keep their jobs and have better prospects as part of a growing company.

Yes chronically, like I said, many people would probably agree with Want2b on her assessment that her dh was 'worth' his salary. Just making the point that that some people would also feel differently.

you mis-stated it though - the argument was about job saving and job creation, for the moral part. If companies didn't grow, we'd have far fewer jobs. Only communists are against private enterprise surely?

Blame our capitalist set up.

Thing is, it's just much easier to measure financial 'worth' in the private sector, particularly in consultancy type jobs where you're selling business the whole time.

For example, I've worked with colleagues who have personally brought in ten million pounds worth of business for a company. That will have been all their own doing, with very little support. That provides jobs for others, keeps the company afloat, pays lots of tax.

It's understandable that the company wants to pay them a damn sight more than £250,000. To keep them and keep that revenue in the company. Otherwise they'll go elsewhere and do the same for someone else.

In that sense, they're 'worth it'. However, we don't have the same easy straightforward measures to measure the 'worth' of public sector workers. And that's where the problem lies.

Houseful talking about worthiness and nobility is neither here nor there. We live in a capitalist society. We sign up to the social contract. People like the super salesman are hugely important, because they generate lots of revenue for the exchequer, which then goes towards paying for the doctors and nurses and teachers that do those noble and worthy jobs. If we lived under a socialist regime, it would be totally different.

This thread is LOLZ.

"Its shit earning £200k because I spend all my money on a massive mortgage, private school fees and holidays and eating out so I don't actually feel rich"

Although TBH I do have sympathy for that. I don't exactly feel 'rich' on c.£100k and not twice as rich as when I was on £50k but I am self aware enough to recognise that I am in fact extremely privileged (e.g. savings, no worry paying for private dental care, great holidays, eat out etc).

There is a huge difference between feeling poor because you spent too much money and actually being poor because you never had any money in the first place. Don't confuse the two.

There is a reason why some skill sets attract a high wage - it's because they are for very difficult and demanding jobs that most people couldn't do.

I don't disagree with this. However that isn't really how capitalism works. Capitalism isn't a straightforward meritocracy. The fact is that there are jobs which are overpaid and jobs which are underpaid. There are plenty of jobs which require a high skill level and which are difficult and demanding and most people couldn't do without training and experience that are not highly paid.

Most jobs that are really highly paid are so because they are "money jobs". They are ultra capitalist jobs and in current society they are valued above, well, anything else really - even when those roles contribute to banking crises, financial crashes, credit crunches and austerity for the masses.

There are also quite a lot of people making lots of money by selling (generally overpriced) goods and services to the ultra rich. These people are opportunistic and often come from money or have capitalized on an existing family business which has become mega profitable as its clients have become mega rich.

I don't have an issue with people being well paid for a difficult job well done. What I have a problem with is the divide. With the extremes of wealth and poverty. Why should a CEO of a company be paid a fortune if the majority of the employees are on low wages as is often the case? If the CEO is so marvellous and worth so much surely that would be because they have made the company so profitable that all the employees are paid well. Where is the true success if there is only money for the CEO and the shareholders?

Plus men are overwhelming overrepresented in highly paid sectors so we can clearly see that there are sociopolitical elements at play and that it isn't a straightforward case of merit. If only.

The CEO of DHs employer is paid less than a lot of other people. Most CEOs are not making $10m+ a year. The majority make far less, about $1-5m a year. The media paint a picture of all CEOs earning as much as those in top public companies make. It's about 250 companies with CEOs making more than $10m a year.

I don’t understand why anyone on that kind of money is driving around in 6 year old cars or doesn’t have a big tv etc.

A close friend is earning six figures, drives a six year old Golf, lives a fairly normal looking life. He once explained that in his opinion, the unhappiest people in his office were the ones who'd let their fixed costs rise along with their income, so they had no choice but to keep working at a job they hated, because they couldn't see a way out. By saving a large percentage of his income, he was making sure he had a Plan B in case he wanted to stop working in finance. I can only dream of his kind of income, but I can't argue with his logic.

That is exactly our approach. You never know when it will end and it's not healthy to raise DC around so much excess. We are a one car family. Taking public transportation is absolutely fine. I rarely take a car service.

The other thing is that people earning that kind of money tend to be financially very savvy. Nothing in this world depreciates as much as a brand new car, so I wouldn't be surprised to see them buying second hand cars for cash as that's a much more financially astute thing to do.

A close friend is earning six figures, drives a six year old Golf, lives a fairly normal looking life. He once explained that in his opinion, the unhappiest people in his office were the ones who'd let their fixed costs rise along with their income, so they had no choice but to keep working at a job they hated, because they couldn't see a way out. By saving a large percentage of his income, he was making sure he had a Plan B in case he wanted to stop working in finance. I can only dream of his kind of income, but I can't argue with his logic

This still doesn’t answer the question for me since a much more recent car is still only a drop in the ocean on that type of salary.

Driving a 6 year old car when you really do not need to isn’t making sure you won’t feel let down if you ever wanted to leave your place of work.

We're well off. A new car is the last thing we'd think of buying. New cars are for mugs and flash Dans.

A question for all the socialists on the thread, if it’s morally wrong to be paid a lot. What are the moral minimum and maximum pay levels?

This still doesn’t answer the question for me since a much more recent car is still only a drop in the ocean on that type of salary

Well you don't get rich by spending your money!

A new car isn't a drop in the ocean. So you want one every 3 years to be 'new'? And you want a nice big comfortable motorway cruising car? That's £40k+? Every three years?

That's a rather nice Caribbean holiday every year.... I know which I'd rather have.

kursk - the argument is often made that the amounts aren't absolute, but should be comparative. Check out the info on Gini coefficients -

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

Many social democrats would point to the reduced levels of inequality in Scandinavia as a model. Socialists would probably go further.

I don’t understand why anyone on that kind of money is driving around in 6 year old cars or doesn’t have a big tv etc.

Well, maybe they don't care hugely about that sort of stuff. My DF is worth seven figures, but wears a falling apart jumper (because he's not bothered by clothes), drives a battered old car that just about goes (because a new car would be wasteful) and shops at the co op, and would live on beans and toast if he could as he doesn't like food.

But he has spent £££ on a top of the range telescope. He doesn't like to waste money, but wants to know if he does want something, money will be no object.

A new car isn't a drop in the ocean. So you want one every 3 years to be 'new'? And you want a nice big comfortable motorway cruising car? That's £40k+? Every three years?

There's quite a distance between a brand new £40k car and a six year old Golf though isn't there?!?

I have no interest in cars at all. I could win £100m tomorrow and still can't foresee me buying an expensive car.

But I wouldn't be pulling in £10k a month and driving an old car either...with old cars comes an increased liklihood of reduced fuel economy and breakdowns and problems and grief. Why would you?

This still doesn’t answer the question for me since a much more recent car is still only a drop in the ocean on that type of salary.

Yes, but you don’t NEED a new car all the time. My DH would quite like a particular car. We can afford to buy one. He’s been thinking about it for a year or more. He won’t buy one because they cost £40k or so and to him (and me) that’s an insane amount to spend on a car.

Well let's face it, a six YO golf is hardly banger terriotary is it?

It's not really likely to break down, or drink fuel any faster than a new one is it, and it'll still be comfortable on the motorway and look reasonably smart.

If you like cars, you'd want something newer/swisher and could have it. If you're not bothered and just want something that does the job reliably and doesn't attract attention, a six YO golf would be perfect.