Moaning about being ‘poor’ when rich

[freetone]

AIBU to think if you are childless, go on 3 holidays abroad per year and live in a 4 bed detached house on a private road then you don’t have the right to moan about being ‘poor’? My DF and his wife have been like this recently. He earns over £150k a year. It shows how far away from reality they are imo. Really gets on my nerves when there are millions of people genuinely struggling. Anyone else experienced people like my Father?

"maybe silver cuckoo doesn’t understand your situation but do you understand hers?" What exactly are we supposedly failing to understand?

"I spent some time as a single parent on benefits" when? It's changed a LOT in the last 2 years alone and it's unrecognisable compared to 5 years ago and beyond.

Bitbored - well said!

Woah, did someone just suggest that being on 100k a year isn't much better than being on benefits? Cause, y'know, the cost of the nanny and stuff.

Winner of all time entitled shitty comment on MN.

I don't believe for one second someone would jack in a 70k job to work part time and claim benefits and be better off.

People need to remember that you can't even get tax credits anymore I would be entitled to around £1000 a month if I could get tax credits but because DH works and I will going back to work after mat leave universal credit isn't open to us that is terrifying for families minimum wage where 50 hours child care a week costs the same as working 40 hours a week you can't live on Benefits any more and you can't live on minimum wage either due to them slashing Benefits it's the sad reality of modern life!

ladybirds "attitude of gratitude" I LOVE that!

Woah, did someone just suggest that being on 100k a year isn't much better than being on benefits? Cause, y'know, the cost of the nanny and stuff
Quite sad that there is no attempt to discuss the matter rationally, but rather personal insults are thrown.
There are jobs where a nanny is the only childcare option that works. It is not a luxury choice, but often a pre-requisite of having a six figure job. When a couple of a SAHM + a man on six figures split, the usual sentiment expressed on mumsnet is "she enabled his career by staying at home to look after the kids when they are small / sick / DH is working late / on a business trip etc". In the case of a single woman with children and on similar pay, same posters somehow develop a selective blindness and do not see that this woman requires similar arrangements for childcare, and does not have any other option but to buy them at the market value.
Regarding mothers jacking in a £70K job, it is simple. A £70K salary simply does not cover two cheapest full-time nursery places and a one bed flat rent in London/ Greater London. It's not like they actually have a choice.

Quite sad that there is no attempt to discuss the matter rationally, but rather personal insults are thrown.

There have been quite a few attempts to discuss it rationally. It doesn't matter whether a lot of your salary needs to be spent on a nanny at the moment? It won't be in few years. However much you have left at the end of the month you are much better off than someone on universal credit and the fact that you don't get that shows that you are incredibly out of touch. Even if you do run out of money one month you can always borrow at a good rate of interest. You are also probably paying pension contributions and you most probably live somewhere that is much nicer and more expensive than you could live on universal credit. The idea that it is less stressful than working is also ridiculous. How stressful to you think it is to have no money to feed your children and no way of getting any?

Why has this thread been derailed? I don't give a shit about six figure salaries and nannies.

It's about having empathy and sensitivity.
If you can't get how crass it is to compare being on benefits to funding a lifestyle with a nanny then there's no hope and no point discussing it.

I think complaining how hard done by you are because of your choices in front of people who aren't in your pay bracket and have no choice is crap.

Because those struggling to make ends meet, contrary to some mumnetters beliefs, on the whole, arent on benefits and work their arses off.

There are jobs where a nanny is the only childcare option that works. It is not a luxury choice, but often a pre-requisite of having a six figure job.

So if it's not financially worthwhile, go and do something else, and live somewhere else?

A £70K salary simply does not cover two cheapest full-time nursery places and a one bed flat rent in London/ Greater London. It's not like they actually have a choice.

How do you think teachers, nurses and gosh you know people who work in Boots manage then?

Regarding mothers jacking in a £70K job, it is simple. A £70K salary simply does not cover two cheapest full-time nursery places and a one bed flat rent in London/ Greater London. It's not like they actually have a choice

Happy to discuss this rationally.

First, does the woman not receive any maintenance from the father of the children?

Second, how old are her children? If 3 or 4 they’re entitled to 30 hours free care. This will reduce her childcare bill. If school age they will not require care during school hours.

Third, if she voluntarily leaves her job this may affect her entitlement to state benefits so this apparently lucrative source of income probably won’t be available to her, at least in the short term.

Fourth, even if right now her children both require full time childcare and that’s expensive, it won’t be the case forever. Once they are older she’ll still be earning £100k a year and won’t need to spend it on childcare. Unlike people who are receiving benefits because their work is low paid, or they can’t find work, who will be in the same difficult situation no matter how old their children are.

Fifth, do you have any idea whatsoever life is like for people who have to rely on benefits? Being constantly afraid of being unfairly sanctioned and unable to afford food. Knowing that the DWP messing up your claim and leaving you unable to pay your rent might mean lose your home. Knowing that if the landlord puts your rent up you’ll have to leave and might not be able to find another home anywhere near your children’s school. Struggling to afford school uniform, new shoes, simple birthday gifts for your family. Because most people on benefits do not have the luxury of thinking they’ll “try it for a year” and go back to a £100k a year job if it doesn’t work out.

I’m happy to discuss rationally but I have to say it’s hard to stomach someone saying life on benefits sounds good when they’re earning a salary the majority of people can only dream of.

Only people in the top 10% of earners could have the brass neck to say they would be better off on benefits.

What this thread shows in spades is that high earnings aren't linked to intelligence or ability.

"There are jobs where a nanny is the only childcare option that works. It is not a luxury choice, but often a pre-requisite of having a six figure job."

Yes but not many, and certainly not when your children are in school. Its badly thought out.

"A £70K salary simply does not cover two cheapest full-time nursery places and a one bed flat rent in London/ Greater London. It's not like they actually have a choice."

Yes it does, even Kensington and Chelsea only has an average take home pay of about £65k. The majority of Londoners live on far less.

What are all these jobs that require nannies? I was a nurse my job was 24 hr care, night shifts,late shifts ,early shifts, weekends, there were plenty of single parents I don't think anyone had a nanny .

even Kensington and Chelsea only has an average take home pay of about £65k

This is the problem when you look at income & not wealth.

People I know that moan about being 'poor' are usually either on the scrounge to get something out of you, or on the defensive because they think you want something from them.

I assume it is the latter? Have you asked him whether he could help you with something recently?

Of course, there are a few that are genuinely poor. But certainly not earning £150k!

Although your figure is way too low

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/791181/NS_Table_3_14_1617.xlsx

It isn't.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2019/may/06/london-v-england-where-does-your-area-fit-in-the-great-divide

Even using your own data that you linked median total income for K and C was £39,000.

"This is the problem when you look at income & not wealth."

But we aren't talking about wealth, we are talking about income.

Most wealth doesn't readily present its self to being spent or to facilitate day to day living costs.

The average house price in K&C is £1.4 million. You can’t, however, eat a house or pay for childcare with it, so wealth isn’t relevant in this context.

That data is very interesting though, and rather makes a mockery of all the ridiculous statements made about minimum levels to live in London.

Median earned income for London £26,500

Median total income for London £27, 900.

I'll repeat it, this thread shows that high earnings are not related to ability or how clever you are.

Or that people just talk a load of rubbish on the net in an attempt to impress people they've never met.

Having read through the whole thread (and see my comment echoed several others) I also don’t understand how the poor people earning £100k think the woman who works in Tesco metro in Sloane Square is doing that makes her (probably) minimum wage allow her to work there when they are seemingly struggling?

I earn £38k now and count myself bloody lucky. We would be wealthy if we didn’t have debt. We could live in a better area too, but we’ve prioritised other things over the years. I’d never be so crass as to say we were poor. We’re comfortable even without having foreign holidays every year.

How I wish my son was on £38k
Not denigrating you in any way Diana
In fact any salary just below the 40 per cent tax threshold would be a dream come true for him

If you’re discussing what’s or who counts as rich you cannot look at just income.

“The divisions of wealth are far starker than differences in pay. According to the Office for National Statistics, the top 10% of households by income earn 6.8 times more than those on the lowest rung, but the wealthiest 10th of households have 290 times more in total assets than those at the bottom of the pile. Barring great luck or skilled entrepreneurship – in itself something easier to embark upon for the children of the wealthy – it’s nigh-on impossible to earn your way to riches.”

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2018/mar/04/has-the-time-come-for-a-wealth-tax-in-the-uk

Except the conversation has flowed around income, not wealth, the OP and the following discussion has centered around income.

If we want to talk wealth disparity we can start talking about the fact that the majority of it in the UK is inherited, not earned.

Here is where I get shot down.

How can it be that being on benefits can even be remotely comparable to a 75K job. There is something radically wrong if this is true.