It’s like a parallel universe

[Imustbemad00]

Inspired by a few threads recently about money. Specifically money in London. I’m shocked at how many people seem to think you need to be rich to live in London (£100k per year is rich to me) and how many people think £100k is not a lot in London.
Why is this specific to London?Other than house prices?
Just to put it into perspective, I’m a single parent with 2 children living in zone 1 London. I take home £22000.
Admittedly, cheap rent at £650pcm. But we manage. Obviously we’re not well off, can’t afford fancy holidays, buying clothes for summer at the moment is a struggle, have no savings, can’t afford to decorate. But we have what we need, the occasional treat, short break
Most people I know locally are in similar positions. But I suppose people have a tendency to mix with their own kind.
I just find this ‘other london’ bizarre. The London where you need 100k to barely get by

Agree that 100k is rich.
I think OP very well off people lose track of what is normal.
And for me managing means paying the bills and not a lot else. Plenty of people have a decent life in London on a lot less.

Barbara, benefits are high when kids are pre school because of child care vouchers. But this is a tiny number of years in anyone's lives. Totally different once kids start school. And very different once they are grown up and earning themselves.

When I was looking at leaving my husband, the closest to London they could house me was Birmingham!
I currently live in zone 5. The flat below us is an exact replica of ours. Two bedroom, but the second is a box room and just about fits a toddler bed and a wardrobe, the toys we have to keep in the living room as there is no space. Is second floor so no garden and has 1 parking space and no visitors space, just like every other flat in the building. It went for 550k. A nothing special, 3 bed semi house in this area, you are looking at around a million. I'm not talking a mansion, I'm talking a normal house that if, for example was in a northern town, you would be looking at 190k I reckon.
So I think your view is skewed because I don't think you realise just how expensive London can be.

Your post OP is the parallel universe and not at all related the how the majority of people live. A liftetime tenancy near an outstanding state school that offers music etc? I think you need a reality check on how lucky you are. Just for one moment imagine trying to live on your salary with market rents and your local school is in special measures.

So that huge £100k salary, that's nearly five times yours ends up as an extra £1100 per month, or 40% as no child benefit or help with childcare.

This is why people who say they have to scrape by on an earned low income but fail to take into account all the top up benefits and subsidies they get when declaring 'I have to manage on X thousand' are always incredulous that many people who earn above the threshold for getting any benefits at all (and don't have the benefit of a zone 1 council house) say they struggle to afford luxuries and can barely afford to live in London.

Absolutely paperplain, OP hopefully this has told you that you're incredibly lucky and you're basically only there because the state is subsidising your social housing to what seems to be a ridiculous extent. You obviously know alot of other people in a similar situation which is why you're surprised a family in a similar area can't get by without a high salary.

I own a 1 bedroom flat outside London but commutable = the rent is £850,and that is one of the cheaper ones.

I know people younger than me paying £800 for a room in a house share in zone 2 or 3.

Ellenbirough, that poster has made up a scenario with maximum benefit entitlement that does not apply to most people.
And many people on low wages get no benefits.

And most people in London in lower wages do not live in central London. But plenty are in outer London renting 2 bedroom flats for £1400 a month.
And most people on £100k are way off better than someone on £23k. Once your kids are at school, so no entitlement to nursery childcare vouchers, any benefit entitlement is very low.
The only reason the government is so generous with pre school age childcare vouchers, is it wants to keep mums in work. And it knows this entitlement is only for a small number of years.

We rent out our zone 3 flat for £1400 a month so 650 in zone 1 is pretty much impossible in the private market.

Yes I know it's a made up scenario Amanda but it's nevertheless relevant even if not totally accurate. People claiming various top up benefits, tax credits and subsidies and either getting HB or cheap council housing or both, do have a habit of claiming to live on X and comparing it to others living on Y, without acknowledging that the don't actually just live on X at all and are very often on the same or more than Y once all the add ons are taken into account.

Yes it is a relevant comment to the OP ellenborough. But it still irritates me as a general issue because in general someone on £100k wage has way more money than someone on £23k. Because most people get very minimal or no benefits.

And social housing that anyone would actually want to live in is incredibly rare these days. My sister and bil and 3 kids who have a very low income were offered only a tiny flat in a block next door to a drug dealing house, with many addicts and alcoholics living there. They turned it down and now pay a lot in rent. Hb payments are capped so are often pretty low.

Because most people get very minimal or no benefits.

What do you mean 'most people'? Single people without children perhaps, but that's about it.

Or someone earning 23k who is living with or married to someone else who earns more.

I think this thread shows why climate change protests are doomed to failure.
People like their lifestyles of “ better than managing”.No one is going back to living minimally anytime soon.

Ellenborough, couples without children, couples with grown up kids, couples with teenage kids.

A couple without kids both on minimum wage would not be entitled to any benefits where I live unless they are disabled.

Deftandglory, and people's ideas of being comfortable seem to expand the more money they have. So for some people being comfortable means replacing their car every few years to a new car, going on multiple holidays a year, spending a lot on meals out, clothes, hairdressers, etc.

the gap is nowhere near as much as the gross salaries suggest
That! For one, you seem to have forgotten to add the benefits you'll get in addition to your salary and any child maintenance. This could double your net income especially as child maintenance is not counted for benecit purposes. Families on £100k are most likely getting nothing at all (and rightly so).

Then you have the outgoings. You already say you benefit from very low accommodation where you are. You are lucky. A family on £100k would probably pay at least more renting a similar property privately. Same with a mortgage and then of course you had all the property maintenance costs which you don't have.

Are you paying into a pension? If so, your contribution is likely to be very low. The family on £100 could be paying up to £1,000 into their pension.

Finally, it very much depends on children's age. If we are comparing a family with young kids, you'll get 70% of your childcare costs paid, the family on £100k assuming both are working FT will get nothing and pay a fortune.

Let's not forget that your outgoing include only one adult compared to a family of two adults, so double some of the costs. So yes, it is perfectly possible that someone on £22k could actually end up with almost as much disposable income as a family on £100k.

Salaries mean absolutely nothing, the only thing worth comparing is disposable income after all essential bills have been counted.

If OP is earning 22k she will be paying tax, and realistically the amount she would get back in benefits on that income is probably less than the tax and NI she's paid out. So for all those saying 'you can afford to live in London because my taxes pay for you', just sod off with your snobbishness.

100k salary is a LOT. Yes, in London it wouldnt get you particularly far, but that's because of how expe sive London is. And saying OP has her rent subsidised (again, by the tax payer ) isn't entirely accurate either. Because social housing pays for itself. It's the private rents that are hugely inflated, particularly in London. What OP is paying in rent is a reasonable amount for a 2 bedroom house. We used to pay £350 a month for a huge 2 bedroom Housing Association house in Kent, with a large garden, off street parking and in a lovely neighbourhood close to some great schools. Our HA made a profit every year, which was always invested back into the properties, but they received no govt funding whatsoever and most of the families in our area were working households. There were 2 on our street who didn't work and claimed HB.

Just checked. Just over half of families with kids receive some benefit. That includes child benefit and state pension. For most the benefit payment is small.

Are you paying into a pension? If so, your contribution is likely to be very low. The family on £100 could be paying up to £1,000 into their pension

Are you serious? So a well off person is somehow disadvantaged because they are going to have a better pension than lower paid people? Ffs

I think, OP, the issue is that you're referring to this "parallel universe" as if your situation is at all usual. You probably feel like it is because you live around and socialise with people in the same situation, but you and they are very much in the minority. Most people who live in London will absolutely have to have a hugely higher salary to simply get by...

You live in social housing and only pay £650 per month on rent. You’re really not comparing like for like.

I also live in zone one but I’m not entitled to cheap social housing and pay £2000 per month on my mortgage (as well as over £1000 per month on 3 days per week at a very cheap, by local standards, nursery).

Living in London is expensive whichever way you look at it - housing costs, childcare costs, food costs (we don’t have a big, cheap supermarket anywhere near us and the nearest aldi/Lidl is nearly an hour away).

We also don’t want to “just get by” - we want to live a “normal” life by middle class British standards and that means eating out occasionally, buying new clothes whenever they’re needed, going on holiday, doing the food shop without having to worry about what we’re spending etc etc. These are the things we could do much more easily if we didn’t incur all of the additional costs associated with living in London. And yes, we could live somewhere else but our jobs can only be done in London and we actually quite like living in London, despite the expense.

Comparing your lifestyle and monthly outgoings with someone not in social housing is like comparing two different countries.

I know plenty of families in London. None live in social housing or have a huge salary. They do all live well away from central London and in areas none of you may consider as suitable though,

Op your tone is really patronising. It’s not a nice look.