Is this classed as a ‘high earner’?

[Earnerlesr]

65k.

And if it’s not, what figure starts to be classed as a high earner?

I have no idea why you've added that link because it doesn't say anything like that:

"Median household disposable income in the UK was £32,300 in the financial year ending (FYE) 2022, a decrease of 0.6% from FYE 2021, based on estimates from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) Household Finances Survey.

Median disposable income for the poorest fifth of the population decreased by 3.8% to £14,500 in FYE 2022; reductions were also observed in mean original income and cash benefits.

Median disposable income increased by 1.6% to £66,000 for the richest fifth of people; increases were also observed in mean original income where the effect was not offset by the increases in direct tax
es."

So the £66K is per annum, not per month (that would be ridiculous); and it isn't the median household, it's the richest fifth of people in the country. The average median is £32.3K.

@GeekyThings - I think they said the “per month” was a typo, and the part you quoted does say “the top 20% of the UK has an average disposable income” - so it is clear that there were talking about the richest fifth, just as you say.

If you’re earning £65,000 the Gov think you can afford to give your student dc - £5,327, it seems from this thread the Gov is right £65000 is plenty of money.

But the ONS figures refer to household income, not individual income?

It's still a misinterpretation of the statistics. It's the median of the top 20% of people; that means there are as many under that as there are over that, but who are still classed as higher earners. That's just the average within that top range.

It's also different to individual salaries, which I think is what people mean when they say 'high earner' - household income is the total across everyone within that household, whether they're earning anything or not.

What is your point?
I know what house prices are in different areas of London. So what? What does that have to do with the national average salary?
It simply dictates the salary required to live there. And only an absolutely miniscule minority of the population of the UK will ever be able to afford to live there.

Because to re-train as an architect or barrister when you are on a low income is quick, easy and cheap isn't especially if you have a mortgage to pay and DC to look after!
This has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've read on this forum

I class £65k as a high earner. In fact anyone in the higher tax bracket.

I am a single mum and earn just over half that and don’t qualify for any help except child benefit.

Did you read my comment? I’ll paste it here for you again.
It’s not unattainably high if you are able to retrain
Did I say everyone was able to? No. Are some people able to but unaware of their options and what other careers earn? Yes. Retraining into a better paying career is also one of the best uses of debt.

I'm in NW London and this is probably the same here. Rentals here for a standard 3 bed are 4,5k. I'm not sure why this is unbelievable. Private schools here are around 22-25k. Many of our friends here have all many dc and all in private school. My dc friend has 4 kids all private schooled and she is a Sahm. A view of High salaries will vary according to the area.

Where I am in south west that’s a high wage. Skilled professionals I know are on less than 40k…

100 k in London and it's a very low salary . I don't know why people find that hard to believe.
I think most people commenting must be quite far out of London.

Which is nothing to do with the OP. And it's not about Mumsnet, or who says what on here. Demonstrably, plenty of people earn way over £100,000 per year. And that would not put you in a "high earner" bracket in London, or much of the South East.

Retraining into something achievable yes, suggesting careers which suggest long term financial and time commitments eg Dentistry is unrealistic for the majority of low earners.
FYI I'm in the NE, qualified to post-grad level, in managerial role and still only on 33K. I still can't get my foot in the door for Civil Service jobs because they have 100s of applicants.
I haven't yet paid off original student loan and the government wouldn't fund yet another degree for me so my options to re-train are limited.
Don't assume that everyone on 30K is low skilled/low educated and don't know the options available to them.

100 k in London and it's a very low salary compared to people earning 250k+ and the general cost of property in central London, but obviously still above average .I don't know why people find that hard to believe.
I think most people commenting must be quite far out of London.

Or maybe part of the 97% of the population whose income is less than that. It’s a special kind of entitlement to think you’re on a very low salary when you’re in the top 3%.

It's very dependent on area. I run payroll for a medium sized company in the South East and many of our staff are paid more than £65k a year. Not our receptionists, admin assistants, junior staff etc but almost all middle managers are on £65k minimum and if you're in an IT role then a salary of £100k+ is not unusual. It's closer to £200k for senior executives.

There's always a lot of disbelief when people post about earnings on MN, as if nobody can believe that many people earn good salaries. I don't see any reason for people to lie on an anonymous forum and it doesn't do anything to help people strive for better wages.

I've got family who live in the south east and work everyday 'normal' jobs. They manage fine.

The most important jobs (carers, teachers, supermarket workers, cleaners etc) all kept us going throughout lockdown. Their salaries are nowhere near that.

Some of the most important jobs in society which keep the country moving are really looked down upon on this forum. Because they 'do not earn enough'

If that's a low salary in London, what do you think the people serving you in restaurants and cafes are earning?

It's not 'very low'. I'm London born and bred and have tonnes of family there on wages much lower than 65k.

A £65k wage is a decent, higher than average, wage. Plenty of folk live in London on way less. Spare their existence a thought, eh?

Yes, "London" is fairly large and includes millions of people in all sorts of employment. Even allowing for figures to be skewed because there are more higher earners in London, there is still no way that is a low salary and is ridiculous to suggest it is.

What about the supermarket workers? You go into your local Tesco in London.. what do you think the supermarket staff wages are on?

You want to have a meal out in a posh restaurant. Are they on 100k?

Your children are educated... Are their teachers on 100k?

Your pet gets sick... I'm sure the vets would be on 100k...

Your council workers who empty the bins. I'm sure their salary is like 200k plus with company benefits.

If anyone is actually interested in this from an academic perspective, this is a worthwhile read:

To grasp the extent of inequality, look at the relatively well-off | British Politics and Policy at LSE

Basically there's a lot of subjectivity in perception of wealth and there's a HUGE amount of variation incomes within the top 10% of earners.

So someone can be just within the top 10% of earners but their earnings are VASTLY outstripped by people who are in the top 5% - so although they're higher earners than 90% of the population, it might not feel that high when the incomes in that top 10% covers everything from people earning a fairly moderate salary through to billionaires.

Have you actually read the title of this thread? And the OP's first post?

Or have you replied to a completely different thread and posted it here by mistake?

Plenty of people are in everyday normal jobs and will never earn anywhere near that amount and can live very comfortably. You just need to adapt.