Is mumsnet aimed at rich families ?

[starsparkle08]

I’ve seen quite a lot of threads on here where families seem to have a huge amount of disposable income .
Im a single parent without a huge amount and wondering if I am in the minority on here ?
I’ve noticed there seems to be more people with lower incomes on netmums ? Am I generalising or have others noticed this also

Slunk not spunk

It is amazing to me that people can’t seem to grasp that many people who have plenty of money still live what one might term a hand-to-mouth existence day-to-day, just at a much higher lifestyle point. Their idea of what is essential to a ‘normal life’ might be wildly different, but that doesn’t mean they don’t get to the end of a month and have to get by on not much money for week or so...

Big house - huge mortgage. Much of the monthly income will go on this

Savings - often this is looked at as one of the monthly ‘bills’ - it comes out of the monthly pay check and is invested. It is not looked at as income, therefore it doesn’t count for monthly spends

five children - school fees, extra curricular expenses such as sports, including all equipment at a very good standard, plenty of uniform again at very high prices, 3-4 clubs or activities for each per week, plenty of branded clothing, replaced whenever needed and often much more often, etc etc etc

Work - logistics such as commuting, etc. Plus in some cases paying for things that one conceivably could do oneself but it’s easier and more convenient to pay someone else to do it because it frees up headspace for work and/or actual relaxation/recharging when one actually gets a chance

General spends (clothing, shoes, coats, eating out, theatre and other events) - generally at a much higher price point

Holidays - expensive, but worth it

Food - Much more variety, chosen because people fancy it, whether it’s in budget is not an issue, you just buy it because that’s what you like. This can get very expensive very quickly

Cleaner and/or childcare

And so on, and so forth...

I can easily envisage there being little left at the end of the month, in terms of readily available cash.

No, they’re not skint like a poor person is, but their money is all used up.

Ugh *cheque, obviously.

"It is amazing to me that people can’t seem to grasp that many people who have plenty of money still live what one might term a hand-to-mouth existence day-to-day, just at a much higher lifestyle point."

Oh, I get this. The lifestyle point is a choice, though. I don't think it's OK to complain about not having much disposable income when you have chosen that course in life against other, cheaper options. It's exactly the same as me spending all my disposable income on diamond jewellery, and then complaining I can't go on holiday. You can't spend it twice, and I really struggle to feel much in the way of either sympathy/compassion for people who have good incomes but who have chosen a certain path of expenditure basically because of image, greed and entitlement.

I do, however, have enormous sympathy for people who are dealing with situations that are not so much of their own making. People who didn't get a good start in life as a result of abuse or trauma, and who are struggling - or those who have had significant health and wellbeing needs meaning they can't work. People who work incredibly hard, long hours, often in several jobs, and still don't make enough to buy basics. for them. No-one should have to struggle as hard as those people have done under austerity.

Of course, I agree with you on that.

But that has nothing to do with what’s being discussed here - I’m simply illustrating that it is perfectly possible for a poster to simultaneously be a) living in a huge house, b) a mother to 5 children, c) taking several lovely holidays a year, d) in a highly paid job and e) looking to make the last of the money stretch for the last week of the month.

I don’t get why people can’t understand that as your income goes up, so do your outgoings and unless you are fabulously wealthy you are likely to still use up your money monthly.

Yes, you have savings but you don’t go dipping into them every month, otherwise they’re not actually savings!

Shit! I'm on the wrong site, then.

I agree with Ninkanius as we have found ourselves in similar boat.

It is really easy to erode a substantial income just by living in certain catchment area or opting for private schools - especially with 3+ children. Of course it is a choice, but day to day what should feel like a good amount of cash to spend/save/invest, becomes more of a hand to mouth existence.

Also living in certain areas and going to certain schools, traps families in keeping up appearances when it comes to clothes, cars, kit, holidays. It's not right or wrong, it's just people wanting to fit in.

The difference is the OP was talking about disposable income. Surely this is the amount left after necessities? So savings/ a holiday/ after school activites/ more expensive clothes are never necessities- they're your disposable income being used.

Again, I’m not discussing the OP’s question here - that was a straightforward question about levels of income within the MN demographic and/or disposable income as an aspect of that.

I’m referring to comments implying that everyone who mentions a high income and various markers related to that, must be lying, since one couldn’t possibly have a very good income and still be looking to eke out a certain amount of money until the next payday. Similar to the earlier implied assertion that anyone who says they are a lawyer/accountant/whatever couldn’t possibly spend some of their spare time on MN.

Both assertions are incorrect.

Dorathe Eplorer.
Actually, beingnpoor roes attract compassion. If you are in absolute poverty you become invisible and powerless. you hear of rich proplekilling themselves because they are wealthy, people don't understand. However, if you see your children go without and your life falling apart added financial pressure is one more depressing thing to worry about. I remember being pregnant and not eating so I could feed myson. As my husband was in a low paid job and was being paid wèekly. Running out of food and money for the gas meter. So I was also cold. This was before tax credits etc.

sorry about typo's have arthritis.

However, my circumstances improved a lot. I ended up going to uni and nowown a lovely house.

I'd have to agree with OP purely based on the "swears by" emails that arrive in my inbox. For example the latest one has £75 trainers and a £35 tee. I'm working a lower wage job atm and the trainers alone would be eight and a half hours work!

@Ninkaninus — of course people understand that. People with money save more money and spend more money on more expensive and more things. That’s not the same as being skint though. It’s just not. If you don’t understand that I don’t know how to explain it but the beat I can say is that those people are actually getting the things that money buys, most importantly the sense of security that comes with knowing you will probably always be able to provide for your family and never worry about basic needs.

FWIW I check all of the boxes you describe, but I would never, EVER describe myself as skint. Putting money into savings doesn’t mean we are broke at the end of the month FFS.

Nink is right, I've been here years under many names and as our disposable income has increased as the children have grown up, our lifestyle and spending has changed. We do find ourselves sometimes being even more frugal towards payday, I'm an Aldi shopper as are most of the middle class/income people round here in an affluent area, but we do still budget just not the same as we used to.

Anyway I've never looked at Netmums, should I look? I like it here because I can swear, I like swearing because it passes my very boring days

I am literally not discussing that here though!! I’m firmly on the side of the argument that you’ve just laid out, and I’m not sure how anyone could read anything into what I’m saying to comclude that I disagree with you on that!

I am not arguing that being ‘skint’ when you’re on a six figure income is the same as being poor, in any way, shape or form!

I am specifically making the point that a person on Mumsnet who says they live in a big house, have five children, go on multiple holidays per year and work in a highly paid job but who then on another thread says they have only got X amount of money to last til payday, or who ‘whinges’ about being skint or is trying to ‘make ends meet’ for a specific period of time is not automatically lying.

Similarly, someone who says they are a lawyer, or accountant, or in any other professional, highly paid job, is not automatically going to have absolutely no time in their busy lives to faff around on Mumsnet.

This is in reply to other people on this thread who have implied the above.

It irks me, because it’s a stupid assumption to make. And so I”m challenging it.

Oh dear I've just gone and looked at NMs and the post on here last week about the neighbours who built a glass extension the size of a petrol station where the wife was putting the dishes away in a pink tracksuit, well it's posted on there too today, I'm most disappointed 😂

I agree with Nink

You get accused of lying if you say you have an ok wage or whatever in a way that no one would ever say to someone on a lower wage

I get that people may not have much sympathy with the problem but it is obviously a problem if they feel they have to ask the question on an online forum

Perhaps they are asking the internet because they don’t want to ask people in real life and have a situation like the OP has described?

KatherineCam as ever "but London is so expensive" bollocks! No £40-50k IS a good income wherever that household lives. There's plenty of households in London on far less, living in nicer parts of London, having a big family, having a bigger house etc - all CHOICES doesn't mean that income isn't good just that if the people on it have CHOSEN to allocate it in certain ways meaning they have a smaller discretionary spending budget (thanks to the pp who explained that) doesn't make them poor, it perhaps means they've made poor decisions, but they're absolutely not poor.

Nobody's saying high earners have done anything wrong JUST by being high earners. It's when they plead poverty they piss people off - cos they're NOT POOR.

Ninkaninus - no it's not that we can't grasp they've no money left at the end of the month, it's that we grasp that all of those things are choices, they could easily manage their spending much more sensibly, such spending is not essential to life even if the people spending on them think it is doesn't make it so.

It's frankly obscene and insulting to describe such a lifestyle as a "hand to mouth existence" it's not!

dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hand-to-mouth

It's overspending and not living within your means.

KatherineCam as ever "but London is so expensive" bollocks! No £40-50k IS a good income wherever that household lives.

engage brain, and realise that the price of property, the cost of transport, transport tax might make a difference on your lifestyle?

You also conveniently forget that higher earners receive no help, no benefit, no child credit and whatever the long list is and are not entitled to the cheaper properties so have no choice but paying the top rates!

Since when is putting a roof over your head, feeding your children, paying for childcare an actual choice or "over spending". Seriously, give it a rest, you are talking rubbish.

disportionately, yes, but of course not exclusively. the great unknown is the difference between the income of hte average reader vs the average poster.

Is there a middle ground? Is there another forum? I've been on Netmums recently deleted the MN app in a huff, due to some bitchy comments. It can seem so negative on here and sometimes the threads made me feel quite down. Plus I'm an unmarried SAHM so I get judged. But it was very quiet on Netmums, no such a range of discussions tumbleweeds blowing through.

Oh ffs I’m done trying to explain this to people. It gets incredibly tedious having to repeat myself!!

Once more:

I am not making any comment on money vs. no money. I’m not discussing socio-economics, I’m not talking about poverty, relative poverty, middle class squeeze or independent wealth; I am not making any pronouncements on any aspect of this incredibly complex issue.

I AM SAYING ONLY ONE VERY SIMPLE THING:

JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE POSTS ON MN SAYING THEY HAVE LOADS OF MONEY, AND THEN LATER YOU FIND THEM ON A THREAD ON CREDIT CRUNCH, OR TALKING ABOUT NEEDING TO MAKE £30 STRETCH TIL PAYDAY, OR SAYING THEY HAVE NO CASH, DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE MAKING IT ALL UP. IT IS PERFECTLY POSSIBLE FOR IT TO BE TRUE. THE ONE DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY NEGATE THE OTHER.

PLENTY OF PEOPLE ON THIS SITE HAVE PLENTY OF MONEY. JUST BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE CAN’T GRASP THE NUANCES OF FINANCES AT THAT LEVEL DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERYONE ON MUMSNET IS LYING ABOUT WHAT INCOME THEY HAVE. SOME PEOPLE PROBABLY ARE, MANY MOST LIKELY ARE NOT.

(Capital letters for emphasis only, I am not shouting at anyone)

Goddammit I wish i’d never said anything.

to anyone who feels they need it after that. I’m leaving this thread before my head explodes. Enjoy your evening, all!

disorganisedmum as has been said many times disposable income is money after tax ie take home pay - council tax

how much money is spent on keeping a roof over your head is a choice; if you only have average household income of 26K before tax rent has to be less than £1000 a month to survive, if your roof costs more than £2000 a month that it is a choice you could live in a smaller house and /or in a cheaper place, it is also a choice how much you spend on food and utilities and phones and childcare etc you have to have them. Bread can cost 50p a loaf or £2 a loaf, 50p is the necessity but the other £1.50 is a choice

( when people say disposable they really mean discretionary which is wants not needs or better standard of necessities)

if on 40K ( this is still more than average for greater London) you have no money left it is because you have choices over the standard of necessities rather than the truly skint who have no choices everything has to be the very cheapest a run down house in bad part of town etc and there still is not enough money to shop in Aldi

it annoys the truly skint when people earning 40K+ (ie richer than 70% of the population) complain of being skint; no-one is saying they are rolling around in spare fivers but they are not skint

while property in London and SE is much higher than elsewhere other costs are different ie public transport is much cheaper more frequent and diverse in London than rurally

engage brain, i have and realise that the price of property, the cost of transport, transport tax might make a difference on your lifestyle? just as it does for people on much lower incomes

You also conveniently forget that higher earners receive no help nope - I just understand they don't NEED that help, something you seem to be struggling with no benefit, no child credit and whatever the long list is and are not entitled to the cheaper properties so have no choice but paying the top rates! they aren't entitled to social housing because they can afford other. If they CHOOSE more expensive properties/areas that's nobody's fault but their own

Since when is putting a roof over your head, feeding your children, paying for childcare an actual choice or "over spending". Seriously, give it a rest, you are talking rubbish. housing is available at cheaper prices than what those claiming they're struggling on such incomes will accept paying as they WANT nicer homes. Having children at all is a choice. On that level of income it's perfectly possible to feed your children a pretty good diet

NOT taking rubbish at all (and wondering if you're a poster I engaged with a while back who claimed they 'couldn't cope' on a pretty decent income, it became apparent to myself and others on the thread that they WERE overspending in many areas)

People are often now confusing "want" with "need".

Wanting to live in a nice area of london, in a nice, good sized properly, have children, have savings etc are not needs.