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

Where do you live Adeline do you have children? Are you a single parent? What other additions do you receive after your taxed take home pay of less than 20k?

www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in

Tells you where you stand with regards to income - however does not take account of where you live.

Average monthly rent in London is now £2k. So you need to be earning significantly more than £24k to live.

Living in London and spending 2k a month on rent is a choice, though.

If you don't want to spend such a large portion of your income on rent or mortgage then you don't have to. Do what thousands of other people do and move to somewhere cheaper. Or, pay that much on rent but accept it means that you can't spend as much on other things.

I think it riles people because living in the capital is not compulsory, nor is having a cleaner, paying for tutoring, music lessons or anything else. It's all a choice. If you want to make that choice, that's fine, but don't complain when it means you don't have much of your six figure salary left afterwards.

@Ellenborough in the north west. No children. No benefits to speak of. My salary is 18k per year.

I couldn't afford to live in a big city (especially not London) so I don't. It's not compulsory to live and work in the capital.

What does no benefits to speak of mean? What do you get? Tax credits? Any council tax relief for a single person?

With respect I don't think you can really comment on how far 100k goes bringing up a family in London when you live in the north west and don't have children.

And I agree with you, it isn't obligatory to live in central London but neither is it practical for EVERYONE to move out! Many jobs don't exist outside of London or major cities and anyway, that would just create more competition for housing and jobs somewhere else and push prices up outside London accordingly.

@Ellenborough

No benefits means exactly that - no benefits. I live with my husband but we don't claim anything. No council tax reduction. No housing benefit. Nada.

The only income is our salaries. Joint, we earn 32k per year before tax. We don't get anything else.

You have a few things all working together to make your set up work affordably. Some of these things will not be available to many people for various reasons and some people will want to make different choices, primarily they may want to own their home and this is massively expensive in London. Even if they rent, you said yourself, market rent is massive as well.

Oh and you are extremely lucky to have an outstanding school nearby.

The clearing - I can't believe you're complaining about outstanding state schools putting up prices of private schools.

It's not only rent/mortgage that costs more in London. Childcare costs more too and that with a mortgage/rent takes up a huge chunk of monthly income.

A round of drinks in a pub is also massively more expensive - obviously it's not compulsory to go out, just as it's not compulsory to live in London, but the cost of living a comparable life outside London .

...us much cheaper when comparing the same purchases.

£650 pcm is cheap no matter where you live. Presumably you also use state schools, NHS etc. If you were paying for everything yourself at market rate you wouldn’t manage at all let alone in London. For people who couldn’t get by on £100k they are accounting for paying for services like education or private health insurance as well as a house at market rate.

Those of you talking about how you need private schools, music lessons, a nanny for school age children, long weekends dedicated to expensive sports, eating out often, expensive holidays: are not doing your case any favours.

Even worse, it's implied that OP must be claiming mega benefits to make her £22k stretch to a lifestyle that is minimally acceptable. As if anyone in FT work gets £78k/yr in benefits.

Zone 1 at £650 pm... seriously?!! I used to live in Zone 4 and my rent went from £850pm in 2009 up to £1350 by 2017 for a 2 bed flat. I don't know how you got that deal OP but I can assure you that is not the norm. Unless you are subsidised and not private renting? Even if that were the case that is low for Z1.

With our rent, on top of childcare which was nigh on equivalent, plus bills etc our combined incomes of around £90k didn't go too far.

Our income was not enough to live the high life in London which is more what I think ppl assume you are able to do on that money. We don't drink, smoke, go out etc. We had one holiday per year which we booked a year in advance and paid off monthly. By no means well off. Careful with what we had but not able to save for a deposit so stuck in the renting trap.

The only reason we were able to buy a property was because I inherited some money which covered the deposit. BUT we had to move 60 miles out of London to afford a house with garden.

There's been so many posts on this recently I just don't understand why ppl are so confused by it. It all depends on each persons circumstances

Just rtf and seen you are a secure tenant - you don't pay what private renters pay OP simple as that. You'd be paying at least double that for an equivalent property. I also assume you get other benefits? Correct me if I'm wrong. So where you might get single persons discounts or benefits to cover any shortfall, those who don't get the same have to cover that.

Oh my days this thread is bonkers.
£100k is double our joint salary but we are up north where we live comfortably without ridiculous housing costs.

Comparing things like having to pay for private school or healthcare but it's ok for you as you choose to use the NHS or local state schools. In my world they are massive luxuries that you choose to spend your money on! As are nannies/housekeepers/domestic help. Also brand new cars, multiple holidays and days/nights out. All luxuries. You choose to have that lifestyle because you have a higher salary. You can't have a go at the OP because she can't afford all that.

Those on higher incomes spend their money on different lifestyles (fair enough) which cost more but surely you can see that you aren't really skint and you don't have to have all that to live, you want that lifestyle.

for the OP
I don’t understand how people don’t understand true costs of living their own lives.

Her lifestyle doesn’t cost £22k gross.
she might earn 22k but add in all the benefits /reduction in taxation and the salary requirement to service a non subsidised 2 bed in zone 1 and her notional take home is far higher than £22k

she’d starve on 22k post tax if she wasn’t being subsidised up the arse by higher rate tax payers and given secure accommodation well under market rate

@lljkk but we've said, on £100k and paying market rent for a 2 bed in London, you still couldn't afford a nanny (not just for school age children), or private school for 2dcs etc.

It's still a lot of money for those of us living a 'normal' life - all people have said is that when you imagine being rich, you think nannies, private schools etc. And this isn't enough for that.

Also op is taking home £22k - on £100k you'd be taking home £66k. Again, still lots! But not much more than a dual income household with two people both earning £40k, who would be seen as very comfortable but not necessarily as 'rich'.

I’ve noticed that benefits will top up to around a £23k income for single parent and 2 children. So I’d guess most working families on low incomes have around this amount to manage on for bills, housing, food etc which is vastly different to managing on £100k.

The main difference isn’t how much money you have left to use but that you gain more choices. An average family can only get better deals on electric etc to a certain point after which there are fixed costs that can’t be reduced more. Someone earning more can chose how big a house they have or if they are going to go on holiday, use a private school, have a housekeeper etc.

Working full time is working full time, whatever job you do - and yes, sometimes even a low paid job means you can’t switch off and have work to take home.

Everyone comes home tired and needing to do household based chores etc. Higher pay means you can choose to get help with that - and pay - or not. Low earners generally won’t have that choice, for example.

To me that is what earning more means. More choices.

I don't have a pension to pay into, neither does DH. And now I feel incredible sorry for those on 100k having to put money into their pensions, poor things

Also, not really getting the whole 'I pay 2k on my mortgage each month'. That's an investment. Your house must be worth a fortune on a 2k a month mortgage.

2k a month rent, then you're talking. That would really hack me off as that's just pissing money up the wall.

To me that is what earning more means. More choices.

THIS ^^

SO many sneering, bitter, judgemental and snidely posts on here. to the OP for daring to come on the hallowed turf of Mumsnet and speak confidently about a lifestyle that isn’t the same as other posters

The OP isn’t saying “I’m not lucky.” She acknowledges her good fortune with the lifetime tenancy.

She’s saying, and I believe correctly, that she could also, in another universe, do very comfortably on £100k in London.

And I agree with her, because I’ve lived it three years ago in Zone 2 on £100k, no family money, my wife and I did fine.

We didn’t however rush to spend every last penny of the monthly income on private schools, music lessons, etc in order to show just how hard up we’d be if we didn’t have it

This thread reminds me of how depressing Britain can be sometimes, everyone quick to point out how close someone else is to a fall, instead of celebrating their ability to live

Talking of costs in London; it is mainly housing. But I moved within my borough to a 'niacer' neighbourhood (same postcode), and my water rates doubled. When I rang Thames Water they said they are allowed todo this.

Re: living in zone 1. There are low paid jobs in zone 1; cleaning, hospital porter, carers, low paid health care workers. Should zone 1 have no low cost housing? Should low wage workers have to live expensive miles away from shit jobs?

I've lived in London all my life. The way property and rent prices, and selling off council properties, and even HA no longer charging social rents, has ruined London. Listen to people here, moaning at the OP as she is 'lucky' enough to not pay a crippling rent or mortgage.

We all make choices as to what we spend our money on. I’m on a decent wage (nowhere near 100k though!) but I don’t hire any help, don’t belong to a gym, don’t get hair and beauty treatments, don’t run a car etc. I think all those things really add up. I do go on nice holidays though. That’s where my money goes. But to some people those things I have listed are necessities and they would see my life as “going without” to me it isn’t going without because I don’t miss or want those things. If I got a job tomorrow earning 100k I still wouldn’t spend money on those things so I’d have loads of money left over!

You're very lucky to have a cheap secure tenancy. Most people don't have access to that.

And to everyone saying 'move somewhere cheaper' - that's all very well but by the time you've then paid out thousands for your train season ticket it's actually cheaper to stay in London and pay the high rent.

I was in this situation when I got a job in London two years ago. I could either stay where I was (in Hampshire), pay lower rent there and pay £6,000 for a year's train ticket, or I could move to London and pay £350 more a month in rent (so £4,200).

Much cheaper to move to London. And I don't have to spend almost 4 hours on a train every day.