Is this classed as a ‘high earner’?

[Earnerlesr]

65k.

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

@Indigotree well I’m south London borders of Surrey and £65k isn’t a high earner here, it’s a middle earner

@Vinty I work for one of the big 4 consultancy firms in Mergers and Acquisitions. Hubby is a sales director in the tech sector or Machine Learning and AI. Neither of us have relevant degrees in either space because they don't really exist or didnt at the time. our careers have evolved a lot. We both work from home for the most part. Our network are professionals in high demand jobs like tech, finance, corporate advisory that sort of thing. All are University educated.

Salaries for high earning folks is one part of the equation. Stock options, pension contributions, bonuses , medical, life insurance etc can bring in anywhere between 30 to 50% extra value on top. One year I made more in bonus and commissions than my entire annual salary so really you need to look at the whole package not just salary.

"middle earner"? What do you mean?

Do you honestly think there are as many full time workers in the Surrey/London borders area who earn more than £65k as earn less than £65k? Because I don't!

And if the majority of full time workers earn less than £65k how can you call it a middle earner?

I'm not denying that high earners live there. I'm pointing out that the majority of people who live there earn much less than £65k

Isn’t it pretty clear that she meant it’s a salary that’s not low but isn’t surprisingly high either?

It's that attitude of "it's not surprisingly high" that is so arrogantly offensive.
It demonstrates precisely what I said way up thread about how invisible lower earners are to so many posters on this thread.
£65k is not a figure relating to the middle earnings of the general population including the general population of the area in which she herself lives.

The ONS publish income percentiles by place of residence.

In 2022, the 80th percentile of gross pay for full-time workers in Surrey was £62,996. Based on this, it's not unreasonable to assume that the 2023 figure will be close to £65k

So $65k is someone in the top 20% for Surrey. I'd say that objectively speaking that is a high-earner for around there, but not an unusually high one.

It isn’t surprisingly high though…. I wish I earned a wage like that, but I don’t. I’m far from being arrogantly offensive. But it’s definitely not a high income and I’m not saying that majority don’t earn less either.

But as less than 20% of full time workers earn £65K it is objectively a high earning figure. It's factual. Not based on surprise or feelings etc. It's simply a fact.

I agree. Top 20% is not really "middle".

It is isn't particularly high either, but that's beside the point.

Thank you. So £100k per year gets £1,290 take home and £633 in tax and national insurance each week.
It took me a very long time to earn at that level, my £1,000+ per week in income tax is the price of being a member of society and would be paid less grudgingly if the public services that I'm allegedly paying for were better.

I don't think it's a defined term. It's all relative.

It could mean high rate taxpayer in which case £65K would be or it could mean "high"
salary which I would think of as about £80-100K but again that's relative.

I earn about £65K and don't consider myself a high earner but I might have considered that "high" when I earned £30K...

Literally everyone is aware that minimum wage jobs exist and that some jobs are very badly paid. That is completely unconnected to the fact that almost one in five people earn at least £65k, so really not that unusual - that’s a lot of people, and that it’s a salary that isn’t going to get you a mansion or fancy lifestyle.

But it's not "nearly 1 in 5" of the whole adult population. Its nearly 1 in 5 people who are full time workers. There are millions of part time workers,pensioners, benefit recipient's, sahp etc. So more likely to be something like 1 in 10 people.

Literally no one has said £65k gets you a luxury lifestyle or a mansion.

And of course everyone knows there are people earning much less than £65k . My point is that I'm frustrated that so many people are so determined to ignore the factual, relative comparison in numbers.

If we normalise the idea that £65k is a middle income it skews the political and economic landscape.

In 2021 65k made you 92nd centile for income as an adult. But 88th percentile was 52k. So the figures massively decrease and quickly from that point. 75th centile was 39k.

So to at least 80% of the population 65k is a much higher income than theirs.

well I’m south London borders of Surrey and £65k isn’t a high earner here, it’s a middle earner

Not on your local council estate it isn’t.

And let’s not forget these figures don’t just include work. At lower levels they include benefits/ uc. At higher levels they include share schemes and bonuses.

Yeah the top 20% stat applied only to Surrey, didn't it? In other words, one of the richest parts of the UK, and even there it is in the top quintile.

I'm curious as to why some posters are so invested in insisting that £65k isn't a high income when the numbers clearly demonstrate that it is.

I think people think high income should equal wealthy and it quite clearly doesn’t.

Yeah I think that's what it is.

Well, it's £40k more than I've ever earned despite being a graduate and having been in the workforce for over 30 years. HTH.

It’s all relative though - in London £65k was a starting grad salary for certain smaller law firms 15 years ago. Clearly those lawyers work themselves up the ladder to get multiples of that

in London 65k wouldn’t be enough to get you an average house or even an average flat

and a person on 65k would quickly find their wage depleted after childcare

so no it’s not a high salary in london

no point comparing apples to pears- london salaries are different to the rest of the uk because London IS a bubble with foreign investment and the city

and yes of course there are people that earn 200k plus - just google average salaries for a number of banks, law firms partners etc

I don’t understand why people think that 200k salaries (or more) are unicorns

Over £50k high earner. But whether it feels it, depends on where you live and how many dependents and other committments you have.

Because outside London and outside specific industries they are.

I don’t understand why people think that 200k salaries (or more) are unicorns

They aren’t unicorns and no one is saying they don’t exist. But in the figures for centiles I was looking at 185k puts you in the top 1%. This is including shares/ investments it is overall income.

So rather than non existent it’s unusual to earn that much. That there are pockets of very high paid people is the answer, so some people mistakenly think very high incomes are normal. Conversely are also pockets of low paid people who have literally never met any of the 1%.

Remember, this is Mumsnet...