Where is your household income?

[RoyGBivisacolorfulman]

https://ifs.org.uk/toolsanddresources/wheredooyoufitt_in#tool-results-section

AIBU to think this doesn't reflect society as a whole as there is a lot of wealth especially in business that may not get classed as income?

People I know are in the top 5 percent.

The illustratous 85k that has been talked about on here is

With a household after tax income of £84954 per week, you have a higher income than around 99% of the population - equivalent to about 65.3 million individuals.

Guess people are property and inheritance rich too.

My aunts and uncles are way richer than me but my income looks better on paper. They are retired with lots of property.

Where do you feature on the scale? Clearly nobody has to answer.

It's not the whole picture far from it I think?

We are at 96% will drop when adult child moves out in about two years. We have paid our mortgage off as well.

Nowhere near that no, our net combined is slightly over 150k. More than a third of that goes on the children's education's. Then include mortgages, 4 cars to buy and run, a couple of decent holidays a year and everyone's hobbies to pay for. Suddenly I don't feel we are particularly wealthy. Comfortable and fortunate - yes. Certainly not in the top 1% though. Like I said it's a rubbish calculation.

I couldn't agree more.

People on lower wages pay childcare too, to maintain their employment. Also, the assumption that everyone on 20-30k income claims UC and lives off your money... 🙄

People with a household income of £20-30k and renting abdolutely will be receiving subsidy through UC for their rent from other paxpayers and the huge childcare cost subsidies through UC that go up to 85%.

I don't know why people get like this over facts. My comments have been about making accurate economic comparisons. If you gross up those tax free UC and other benefit contributions and calculate the salary you'd need to earn pre-tax for those people to fund all of that themselves with no support, you'd find that the people earning what many consider very high salaries are not rich at all.

The calculator itself also seems to be fundamentally flawed in that I've also jist tried putting the exact same income into it for a single adult household with two dependants, and then a two adult household with two dependants (same ages), and it says the one adult household is richer than the two adult one. 😵‍💫🤣 Despite the obvious fact the lone parent would have far higher childcare costs, obviously.

Whoever designed this "tool" has made a hash of it.

@DrySherry I didn't realise your dc were older which much impact the %. Still with pension deductions your gross can't be far off 300k. I do get the concept of money doesn't go far but you doing pretty well if you can run 4 cars, holidays, hobbies & education.

According to this we have a higher household income than 99% of the population. Rubbish I say!

Interesting, we sit at 80% but are mortgaged to our eyeballs with non existent savings and most extra income going on nursery fees

Ah it was rubbish - it's greater than 93% of the population not 99%!

I don't agree on your logic with this. Why would it assume that childcare costs are higher? Kids may be school age...

If there is an one less person to clothe and feed then of course he household would be better off financially.

4 adults in this house as my children are in their 20s. Household income isn't the same as my and my husband's income though. We don't spend our sons' money!

Absolutely

this is the main flaw with these types of threads and comparisons. People just don’t think that what they get in their pockets (from whatever source) equates to a much higher salary that people then pay tax on.

@Nepmarthiturn

Or, less patronisingly, people are aware how taxation works, still have similar outgoings and don't get help from UC or with childcare so are fully aware how much further higher wages go

I agree this is a relatively crude tool but in terms of managing people’s expectations about their relative income it serves its purpose. For many it is eye opening to learn they earn more than average.

The median salary is c£33k which means 50% of the working population earn this or less.

A lot of peoples perception about their income level is skewed by their outgoings, but many are either short term or investment. Child care is expensive but relatively short term, university is 3 years etc. A mortgage is investing in an asset (rent is not), pension is investing in future income etc. The c20-25 years having and raising children are usually the most expensive but also when you are investing for the future. Long term an above average salary should lead to comfortable later life and retirement.

A factor it is also the level of debt people are willing to accrue vs savings. When the COL goes up as sharply as it has, regardless of income, some people feel the squeeze much harder than others because of the lifestyle choices they have made in the past.

An income higher than 99% of the population

.... but that can't be right. We're skint!

We pay far more in taxes than most of you, for starters. Then add into that thousands in school fees; two Range Rovers to run (we live rurally so need them); the housekeeper (we have serious jobs with long hours so this is a need, not a want); paying into investments and pensions; mortgage on our £900k house; smaller mortgage on our very modest holiday cottage in Cornwall (again, a need not a want - we need downtime from our very stressful jobs); the piano, tennis and skiing lessons; and livery for the pony - and there's hardly anything left.

By the end of the month we're honestly struggling to pay for the Ocado orders.

😀

higher income than around 99% of the population - equivalent to about 65.3 million individuals

😂😂😂

You have to pay livery? Gosh, you don’t have land and stabling at home? You really are skint.

I don't agree on your logic with this. Why would it assume that childcare costs are higher? Kids may be school age...

It was calculated based on young dependents. Even if they are at school, a single adult providing for them financially is likely to need to be working more than school hours in term time and therefore have very large childcare costs whereas two parents can juggle this between them and use fewer hours of childcare. For a start they will have a minimum of 8 weeks of annual leave to cover school holidays, not 4. With some foresight and planning two adults can arrange their working lives so that one drops off at school and one picks up for example, while both still working full time hours. This is not an option for a single parent with a full time job. Does this really need explaining, the single parents would have higher costs, while also trying to do everything in half the time?

I agree this is a relatively crude tool but in terms of managing people’s expectations about their relative income it serves its purpose. For many it is eye opening to learn they earn more than average.

Is the calculator based on all income or just PAYE? I think wealth is about far more than just income.

It is interesting that so many replying here are at the higher end of the spectrum, I guess it's the demographic of MN. My household is top 5%. We do know we are lucky and feel comfortable but I think for that kind of % you would expect to feel wealthy....I guess that's where the incredulity comes in. What each of us on this thread would need to earn to feel wealthy is probably unreasonable!

I despair at the level of understanding of basic economics and tax on these kind of threads. They are useful for that at least: a regular reminder of why we are in the state we're in and why there isn't sufficient public pressure for politicians to implement evidence-based, sensible policies that would improve things for everyone.

It says so include all income. Whether people have done I do not know. But it takes no account of wealth as you say, or essential outgoings, or variations in cost of living across the country, so it is utterly meaningless anyway.

@Nepmarthiturn

I despair at the level of privilege blindness and wealth inequality