Hunt out of touch?

[BluebellsBluebell]

£100k is 'not a huge salary'. Fair comment. Yanbu

Does this show Hunt and the tories are out of touch. Yabu

I think the issue is £100k gross is 2.5x average in his constituency = huge.

However, after high taxes, basic pension contributions & the student loans you likely have to be earning £100k, you might be taking home about £4,500/ month.

If you're raising a family on that in Surrey (as a 1 income household), it really isn't a "huge amount". Typical mortgage on a family home likely to be £2,000+

Still perfectly comfortable, but I think Hunt is making the point that £100k isn't huge house, private schools, multiple flashy holidays every year. It's a comfortable, quiet, life

@Skippythebutterfly lots of people slog their guts out for far less than 100k per year and live in titchy tiny houses.
Of course people should have aspirations but I'm not going to a) agree that 100k isn't that much or b) feel sorry for someone earning that.

For five years I was a Headteacher. I worked 60+ hours per week and had huge responsibilities. Because it was 'only' a small infant school, my salary was nowhere near 100k. I slogged for those 5 years.

I think we're on the same page! I'm saying even in London and Surrey the average salary is nothing like 100k, despite what a lot of MN think.

There was a thread a while ago where a few posters were amazed anyone in London earned less than 30k! It's like all the retail and hospitality staff, public sector, cleaners, station staff, bus drivers etc etc were all invisible!

It is a huge salary in comparison to average
However I think it is a fair salary for the job.
There are many on 100K without the same levels of pressure and constant scrutiny.
I couldn't do it. So unless you have done the job then I don't think you get to decide what you deem a fair wage.

Of course he is out of touch, but so are a lot of people on this thread.

If the average salary for his constituency is £40k, that means that there will be an awful lot of people living in that area who are earning much less than that. They still need to live. How does he think they feel when he claims that a £100k salary isn't much...it is to those in his constituency who are struggling!!

It was a crass and insensitive thing to say. I'm all in favour of fairer rules around free childcare/child benefit etc for single parents - they should not be discriminated against. However, regardless of family structure, £100k is a very good salary wherever you live, and it's a lot more than many, many people have to scrape by on.

And yes, of course, we all know that house prices in the South East are insane and that £100k would give you much more bang for your buck in Sunderland than it would in Surrey, but frankly that's irrelevant because it's still a salary that is much higher than average for that area.

Some people seem to be so stuck in their middle class, affluent bubbles that they have no awareness of their own privilege or of how many people in this country have to live.

Calling people like me jealous little socialists , you know nothing about my lifestyle .

He’s right tbf. Have you seen Surrey? 100k will get you not very far.

Why else would any sane thinking person be against this policy??? It raises more in taxes than it costs!

Nope. As a single borrower you could borrow upto about £500k, plus your deposit of £50k or so. There aren't many places you can't buy a family home for half a million quid.

So - I think is poorly worded to say £100k is not a large salary.

However... it doesn't go as far as you might think paying childcare, meaning the sudden loss of childcare support at £100k is massive.

Example. My nursery costs £2,000 per month. So for two children, £4,000 a month.

The take home pay on £100k is about £5k a month. So 80% of your income.

So... not much left over.

In Hunt's constituency you will also find people are paying £2-3k a month on housing costs too.

So they potentially are spending £7k of post-tax income on childcare and the mortgage on a three bed semi. See the issue?

Thing is, the country is fucked if even the top % of earners feel skint.

With two preschoolers, 80% of your income on a £100k salary could go on nursery in the South East.

That those people are then excluded from any childcare support is a bit grating - you would think their lifestyle would be rather better than it is.

The issue isn't people being out of touch IMO, it's tax threshold and benefit-removal thresholds being frozen for so long. Something like 3% of earners were affected by the 40% tax rate when it was introduced - by the end of this parliament it will be 15%. Ditto the removal of personal allowance and loss of childcare support at £100k which have been in place for more than a decade.

"So how do public sector and minimum wage workers live in London or Surrey then?"

They house-share or even room-share in HMOs. Or they live outside of Central London and commute in. Or they live with parents/siblings/relatives. Or they live-in (in hospitality and care). Or employers have to pay more than minimum wage (but nowhere near £100k) to be able to attract workers.

How do we know that? We’ve never tried it.

Economists! Researchers! They do know this. It’s their job to know this.

This. I live not for from Hunt's constituency and for that area, it's probably not huge. I don't know if it was one or two salaries but when I retired a few years ago I was earning about half that and we never felt well off at all. Daughter was eligible for none-repayable grants for uni so I thought that indicated I wasn't a specially high earner.

Quite often economists differ in their view. However much modelling you do it’s impossible to accurately predict human behaviour and its consequences. The fact is that we just don’t know. And I’d bet my house that nursery fees would suddenly increase exponentially if this happened.

"Economists! Researchers! They do know this. It’s their job to know this."

If this is correct why hasn't the Conservative government introduced it?

Also there are unsuspected areas of poverty in places that seem quite middle class, areas of Godalming etc.

Honestly that's like saying £1 million isn't a large salary if you've got a huge mortgage and luxury cars and always travel first class and have 10 children in private school.

No shit.

'Everything is relative' goes only so far. Basic and comfortable housing are all we need. Anything more luxurious is a choice and of course will cost more.

But when even the 'cheapest' housing eats up half a monthly salary, yes of course that's a lot of money.

Oh, I agree that the whole system is fucked and that there needs to be better tapering of support so that there aren't these sudden cliff edges. However, I think that's a separate issue. It is still ridiculously out of touch and insensitive for a politician like Hunt to suggest that £100k is anything but a very good salary... even in Surrey.

And yes, lots of people do struggle in those early years with the cost of childcare/mat leave etc. That's why many people choose to space their kids out more or plan ahead with savings etc to carry them through. At least on an income of £100k you'll have had an opportunity to build up some savings before having kids, which a lot of people wouldn't have had the chance to do.

I'm a higher earner myself fwiw, so this isn't the politics of envy. I just think a lot of people have no idea at all about how others live!

Because their core vote (boomer pensioners) would be against it, with their endless ‘in my day the mum stayed home and took care of the kids, and the kids were much better behaved’ and ‘why should we have to pay for your offspring’. I hate the word offspring!

It’s a huge salary to a nurse.

Pensioners are moving away from the Tories now. Only a third of them intend voting Conservative now.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1379439/uk-election-polls-by-age/

Ah but you see... it isn't. We have increasing tax levels, student loans, child benefit, childcare support etc.

So your £35k earner technically might get:

£27,320 basic salary

• £2,074 child benefit
• £2,000 tax free childcare
• £7,200 free hours child 1 (30 hours)
• £3,600 free hours child 2 (15 hours)

so... looks a but more like £42,194 or £3.5k a month take home.

Your £100k earner might get:
£59,014 base salary

• £0 child benefit
• £0 tax free childcare
• £3,600 free hours child 1 (15 hours)
• £0 free hours child 2

So in total £5.2k take home a month.

So while on the surface it looks like they earn 3x as much, it's more like 1.5x as much.

This isn't to say the lower earner shouldn't be supported (they should), but highlights why those on higher incomes are a bit 'WTF' about being excluded from various childcare initiatives.

Exactly!

Care assistants, nurses etc. The vast majority of the essential workers from Covid days. But some posters seem to have forgotten that those were the people deemed essential. Bankers and the like were not