Do you think £100,000 a year household income is a lot of money?

[SleepDreamThinkHuge]

I think it is a lot of money even in London where I live. When I hear people say things like "£100,000 is not enough to live on even in London" I think to myself what are they talking about. I have a family of four and we can only dream of earning that amount. The maximum I can see us earning is about £60k if we are lucky. Currently on over £40k combined income with still a relatively high rent and everything does go on bills and other necessities. But sometimes we are lucky and manage to save some money a year. Luckily no debt. I just think to myself £100,000 would be life changing even in London.

What are your thoughts? What do you consider to be average and above average in London and the city you are from?

100k is a lot more income than most people. Up north especially puts you in the top 1% earners. So yes, pretty good.

I think it depends on a lot of things.
If you grew up with private school, a few holidays abroad every year a nice big house and car and really enjoyed that lifestyle often you want to continue the life you know and what you are more accustomed to (and it's often the case you don't have any clue how to live a different lifestyle for example no one I know has been camping)

but what was once easy for a generation or two before is now very difficult to achieve on that income.
Mortgages are expensive and saving for a deposit takes ages even on that salary. The money can easily disappear and as you get older bigger chunks often go towards pensions /insurances etc. you don't get any benefits at all so you have to save too as it's quite difficult to get benefits immediately from that circumstance if it all goes wrong.
If you are used to living on a lot lower even that doesn't mean you wouldn't end up living to your means if you were able to. It does quickly disappear !

@PartyPlan
though that £2k nursery for a ten hour day including breakfast lunch and dinner. They're basically raising your child for you so it’s actually pretty reasonable!

You'd need to be on a lot more than £100k household income for private school and a nice holiday a year these days for many who didn't buy property when it was a lot more affordable.

Our household income is at £160k a year and I live a similar lifestyle to when I lived at home with parents earning £40k combined

Biggest outlay be on housing. If you have dependents that 100k - taxes ain't so pretty.

I'm a single mum, in London on 55k. I've lived previously on £80 a week so 55k makes me feel very comfortable. That said I no longer have children of school age and my mortgage is low (£550).

I'd love to have a partner earning the same as me, I would feel rich !!

It is a lot of money. Less so than it was in the past, but still quite a lot.
How far that money goes depends on what you need to do with it.

Right now, if you want a 3 bedroom semi in our area and have a 10% deposit, the mortgage repayments on a 25-year mortgage are £2,088. That'd eat up a big chunk of £100k.

As I said, I lived in a 2 bed flat for years, and DDs shared a room. No garden. We moved when I could afford it.

So, having a room per child and house with garden isn't a basic human right. If you can afford it, go for it.

Don't whinge if you can't on far more than I will ever earn. Make your choices.

I have lots of sympathy for those who will never be able to provide their children with a stable home and separate bedrooms for the adults and children of different sexes

Ours is around 100k and we have one in private school, take at least two foreign holidays a year a week skiing and 10 days in Europe) and have the maximum mortgage we could on our salaries which was 4.5 times our income.

Thanks, my work allows me to have a breather...

And my choices involve living somewhere with good public transport. I could buy somewhere cheaper without public transport. But am lucky enough to be able to CHOOSE somewhere cheaper with public transport

As I said, at £100,000 per year you have lot of choice

@3WildOnes am impressed that you can afford all that. With a mortgage of 2k and London day schools at around 2k per month - there is no chance of us affording private schooling on 100k household income.

Yes indeed, using a nursery that offers wrap around care hours is the only way that families who are working long hours can manage, unless they have a nanny or a very willing grandparent. This is why so many people are priced out of going back to work. If you’re earning a low wage. you won’t be able to afford nursery at those prices.

These threads make very little sense. Yes, of course, statistically it puts you in the top few percentiles of earnings. However, it is very easy to spend much more without trying very hard.

The main differentiators are going to be mortgage costs and (where applicable) school fees. We spend £4.8k a month on school fees, in the south east, but have no mortgage. You can work out easily what change that would give you a month on £100k, whether single or double income. But that’s just a choice and by no means essential. You could easily spend 50% of your income on a mortgage on that income in my area and be living in a very modest house. All these things are relative and also dependent on what your priorities are to spend your income on.

We lived in a 'cheaper property ' for years. DDs shared a bedroom. We didn't have a garden. They survived.

Yes.

And proved that same sex children sharing a room, and no garden isn't a deprivation of basic human rights?

The trouble with adding nursery fees into costs is that they're temporary.
Of course even a very high income will be squeezed if you have to pay for full time care of a baby, but it's only eye-wateringly high for, what, 2-3 years once you count out parental leave and starting school nursery/15 free hours the term after 3rd birthday.
Once they're in school, childcare costs dramatically reduce and your income is still very high.
It's a luxury to be able to have much disposable income at all while paying for year-round, full-time childcare.
Also, the massive London mortgages that are taking large chunks of the big income are going towards paying for a huge and appreciating asset. In 25(ish) years, you'll have no childcare costs, a multi-million pound fully paid off house, an income that's risen in line with inflation and a huge pension to look forward to.
Those "lucky" Northern renters who had lifestyles nearly as good as yours back when the kids were young (because their childcare was funded and UC topped up their income and subsidised the rent), are still paying rent, have much reduced benefits once the kids reach 18, and have only the state pension to look forward to.
You might not be feeling your privilege on £100k right now, but in a few decades you'll notice how good you have it.

In 25(ish) years, you'll have no childcare costs, a multi-million pound fully paid off house, an income that's risen in line with inflation and a huge pension to look forward to

Why will people have huge pensions? I also think the days of huge equity growth are gone.

And whose incomes are rising in line with inflation these days?

true dat!

Jeeze the denial is strong on this, eh.

Its very odd

Which nobody had argued in the first place, so the most significant conclusion to be drawn from your conclusion was about the massive change in housing costs and accessibility over a couple of decades.

If you've been paying say 5% of your £100k pre-tax income (matched by your employer) into a pension for 40 years you'll have a sizeable pension pot even without the inevitable growth in investment value and compounding over time. Even if you never get a pay rise somehow (though how you could land a 6-figure job without any scope for a pay rise over decades is beyond me), you'd have saved £400,000. That's a massive pension pot compared to your "northern renter" counterpart who has nothing but state pension.

Full-time fees for an under 2 year old at our nursery (in London) are £2,350 per month. It is a fabulous (and recently
inspected Ofsted outstanding) nursery, and we love it. But these costs are definitely not a myth!

@Runnerbeansflower You're missing the point. Earlier you were claiming having a garden is a privilege. It is not. The overwhelming majority of people in the UK have a garden - I believe over 85%. You made a choice not to live somewhere with one. You seem to have ignored the fact that there are a vast array of 'nice to have' things beyond basic necessity that make life a little more enjoyable, without it being 'privileged'. Having a garden and separate rooms for kids are neither a basic human right nor a privilege. I had a cup of tea this morning instead of tap water - is that a privilege?

Of course earning more gives you more choices, no one has said it doesn't. Many posters are just pointing out it doesn't give you anywhere near the lifestyle choices others have assumed.

You are currently living a lifestyle that some people earning £100k would not be able to afford. You seem to target their perceived privilege without consideration for the great many other factors or situations that affect this, including your own. I imagine in your situation if you were earning £100k you would feel incredibly wealthy, but surely you can see that in some situations a family on £100k might be no more 'wealthy' than you are now?

@alphapie yes I didn't make it clear I was trying to say it doesn't feel like that much when that's your household income!