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

I don't think it is patronising though!
I think what OP is trying to say is that there's this idea on MN that in order to live in London you absolutely must be on 100k+ and that's just not true.
Yes, it helps if you have that kind of money. But it's not a necessity.

I live in London and aside from rent/mortgage, I also don’t see what is more expensive about being here. My utilities cost the same as they would anywhere, the supermarkets charge the same price for food as anywhere else, commuting within London is far cheaper than having to pay to come in from one of the outer areas. If you have kids, there’s tons of free stuff to do with them here. So I do get what the OP is saying. People talking about childcare costs, well wouldn’t you have them anywhere you lived? Do London childminders charge more? I don’t know. But when you subtract housing costs, I don’t see London as any more expensive than anywhere else.

I don’t think 100k is a massive pay if you live in London. Obviously you acknowledge you are very lucky to be in council housing, not everyone has that luxury. Would you cope on 22k if you had to pay for a place in full yourself at the market rental value? I highly doubt it. So you are only managing in zone 1 as you have assistance
I’m a single parent on 30+ but I have full rent of 1250 to pay, as well as for my LO. That’s for zone 5.
I think you need to remember the majority of people aren’t in social housing and don’t get a massive discount on rent. So you are lucky in your situation

It is a parallel universe to me because I don’t know anyone who pays £650 zone 1

So it can be done but there’s a huge support system (provided for by tax from others)

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
In 10 years time, if not sooner, it is likely people who have paid a fortune into their own pension in addition to high taxes will find themselves not meeting the eligibility for the state pension. People on £22k all their lives will probably fare no worse on the state pension whilst still renting and getting HB than families who have paid into their private pension who might still be paying some of their mortgage.

And OP is disingenuous when she only refer to her salary and leaves out what over money she is likely getting each month from other sources.

Well the cheapest flat to rent in zone 1 with 2 beds I can see look to be ex local authority for 1600 a month. So you would need to earn around an extra 1200 a month gross to compare your situation to others.

I have only just gone back to work (young children) I will earn 17k a year and I feel rich
I could only dream of earning 100k, that would buy all the riches
Although we don't struggle for money and have only just started taking the dcs on holiday (Bulgaria last year, this year Turkey!) I've managed to make £30 last a few weeks so all this extra money coming in now is so handy

I think the OP implied her take home is £22k, not her salary. Also that she doesn't get benefits.
Many posters have claimed she will live on similar per month to someone earning £100k. But then mention private schools, 2 cars, nannies and gadgets!
The point the OP is trying to make is that if you can afford all that, you are 'rich in her eyes. I'm inclined to agree.

I think people are missing where the OP said:

Why is this specific to London?Other than house prices

People are focusing on the £650 rent where it clearly says other than house prices, and it’s the house prices that make private rental costs high.

Childcare is more in London that’s another big hit

It also really depends on London, it is huge. Strictly speaking where I live is London but it’s the London/Surrey borders so happily lived for years on less

The other problem is housing. We have lived here and owned for 13 years before stupid house prices, this OP has a s3cured tenancy another one paid of mortgage. We could not afford to buy our house now and live, we can happily afford the mortgage we have on it because in our late late 30s and early 40s as a couple we bought before the recession when house prices were low. A couple 10 years younger will be paying 200k more which is a huge chunk of monthly incone

Also OP being lucky enough to live in zone means you really don't need a car. Living in zone 4, 5 and definitely 6 would be another matter altogether and cars are expensive to run. And for the outer zones fares into central London for work would be very expensive.

With your very cheap housing you have all of the benefits of being very central and few of the downsides. Lucky you, but you are hardly typical.

zone 1

Yep, the social housing rent will be changing your perception OP - I left London a decade ago, we were paying £1,100 a month rent for a 2 bed ex-social housing flat in zone 3. I hate to think what that flat rents out for now. (And friends thought we had a good deal!)

We moved outside the M25, but to a commuter town influenced heavily by most of the inhabitants working in London, and yet I feel the difference when we go into London. Eg. Go into a pub and order a G&T and a pint and pay just a bit more than you would in a similar "poshness" pub in our town, go to pizza Express and just pay a bit more per meal. And food in supermarkets does seem a bit more expensive inside London. On the other end, private school, cleaners, gardeners, all those "rich" trappings are more expensive. You'll pay more to have your bathroom tiled.

Everything is just that bit more. This means that you need a higher wage point for the same standard of living. A friend living in Yorkshire had a theory that you could half the London wage for a same standard of living in Yorkshire, I've got to say that seems correct when you look at it.

yes, it is a parallel universe when someone claim they can rent a 2 bed for £650, and why is everyone else needing more cash.

OP, just calculate the actual cash amount someone on a 100k salary BEFORE tax takes home, look at the price of properties in your zone 1 for the rest of the world and add bills, council tax, transport. No one has ever pretended they have to starve, but rich they are not.

The median household income for London is less than £40k. A household on £100k is well minted whatever way you look at it.

@TrendyNorthLondonTeen
£100k does not equal £8000 per month take home salary.

Two things:

(a) Yes 100 k is a very good salary, on average. YANBU in that respect.

(b) A monthly 650 rental in zone 1 in London is very, very rare. YABVVVVU in suggesting that if you can manage, anyone can manage. You are extremely lucky (and perhaps most of your acquaintances live in council housing in similar conditions - well, they are extremely lucky too).

The point is that, for that vast majority of people, even a very good salary isn't quite enough to live in London, because for most people it's ridiculously expensive.

@Imustbemad00
You’re very fortunate re housing.

How is OP patronising?

Maybe she's fed up of seeing posts from people who live on 5 times her salary, who complain because they have no money left at the end of the month.

People are talking about the costs of cleaners, music lessons, expensive cars, foreign holidays - like these things are a necessity once you earn over a certain amount!

If you earn a lot of money you don't have to have a cleaner, it's just a nice addition. Similarly, your kids don't need expensive music lessons or private tutoring - those are things you choose to spend your money on (a valid choice but they're hardly necessities) - so people are probably thinking it's a bit rich (no pun intended) to complain about being broke at the end of each month when you're choosing to spend vast amounts of money on things that millions of people can't even think about paying for in the first place.

You don’t need those things to live in London and I agree not everyone is on big salaries

But the biggest issues are housing, so yes possible if you bought years ago and cc so yes possible if not required or subsidised

I don't think anyone is saying housing in London is cheap - but if you're on 100k a year you can afford expensive rent/mortgage and still have a decent lifestyle without spending hundreds on cleaners, music lessons, private tutoring etc.

But living in London is also a choice. If you don't think your 100k goes far enough (probably not wise to tell people about that though) then you always have the option of moving and living elsewhere!

It’s the same in most places...we live in an ok area..90 mins to London.our house is to small for us..way to small..we pay over£1000 a month in mortgage ...my friend has a housing association house .she pays £80 a week..for a bigger house with 3 less adults in it.
Her bathroom and kitchen are redone every 10 years
We have to turn our shower on with pliers .our bathroom and kitchen are 20 years old.
Stupidity it never occurred to us to go on waiting list for a council house..our home is falling apart and we can’t afford to fix it.
So although my friend and I have similar household income ( without going in to her benefits)..you can see how much more disposable income she has than me.
Her garden is huge .while mine is a postage stamp.
I suppose this is the same all over .

Are you paying for childcare? Because that's the killer cost here. It's not forever, and I still think that £100k is a lot, but our ridiculously expensive childcare system means that during the young-child years, you can be earning very well and taking home very little.

Op - takes home £1833 a month after tax
Sally on £100k - £5500, which is clearly hugely more

OP - £695 rent, lifetime tenancy, zone 1
Sally - £2500 for a small double bed, zone 1. No security and £5k deposit needed

Childcare - op doesn't mention any. But on salary of ~£28k (for £22k take home) she should be getting at least £120ish a month in child benefit, and 30 hours a week if child is nursery age

Sally - likely working full time, and long hours. Despite what pps have said, she couldn't afford a full time nanny, who would be well over £3k a month in central London. She'd be looking at childminders and wraparound childcare, and only 15 free hours either. If she have long after school care and a child at nursery she will easily be paying over £2k a month, which brings her to less than £1k for general living, not so dissimilarly to op.

This is not forever and in time Sally will be much better off - but in the short term, you can see how people can be earning well but feel stretched.