Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

175k salary and all gone

1000 replies

175allgone · 26/05/2024 02:02

This will ruffle some feathers, but after tax, mortgage , childcare, living expenses….there doesn’t seem much left. SE London, commuting, wrap around care. Whilst I appreciate I’m not having to watch my bills I’m hardly living an extravagant lifestyle.

OP posts:
thebestinterest · 26/05/2024 15:16

Are you a single parent op?

WomanMumLoverDaughterStepmumFriend · 26/05/2024 15:23

Your mortgage is to high . Your childcare is way too high unless you have 5 children ?

Paulettamcgee · 26/05/2024 15:24

JerkintheMerkin · 26/05/2024 03:38

I'm genuinely shocked that £175k is only £8500pm. I assumed at those figures you'd get more bang for your buck. My yearly wage is less than what you pay in tax for the year.

Yep, this is important. I think if salaries on Mumsnet were quoted in net figures there would be less shock. The take home on someone's £70k salary is not double your £35k salary.

And when gross is quoted it should include all benefits received.

dreaaamm · 26/05/2024 15:25

@175allgone

So I should move to a cheaper less desirable area and cause gentrification?

Well yes if you want to reduce your outgoings you should move to a cheaper area.

I'm sure that you alone are such an affluent influencer that just by your mere presence you will gentrify not just the street, but the neighbourhood and the entire area. Get a life! Gentrification! FFS.

AStepAtaTime · 26/05/2024 15:29

@dreaaamm

I think @175allgone is having you on

Seriously this thread should be deleted

Xmasbaby11 · 26/05/2024 15:34

It does appear that you should have enough but probably more like you expect a better lifestyle for that salary.

Your childcare is the issue here but presumably this will fall dramatically - when?

If your bills are likely to be just as high once both kids are in school, I would look to move.

TheBestFriend · 26/05/2024 15:34

How old are your kids? And what are you getting for your money in terms of the childcare?
If your kids are pre-school age, surely you could just hire a nanny and spend less than 4K a month on that, getting more for your money at the same time.
Live-in au-pair?

DrJonesIpresume · 26/05/2024 15:35

175allgone · 26/05/2024 03:00

I’m just honestly curious as to how people manage when supposedly I’m on such a great salary

Ever heard of that old saying? Cut your coat according to your cloth. That's how people manage. You still have £1k to play with after bills so I'm struggling to see the issue.

penjil · 26/05/2024 15:38

175allgone · 26/05/2024 02:10

Take home after tax and pension ~8500. Mortgage 2.5k, childcare £4K, bills and commuting ~£1k

When your childcare is almost doubled your mortgage, you've got problems.

Although the cost of childcare in this country is horrendous, so it is a national problem.

NonPlayerCharacter · 26/05/2024 15:43

AStepAtaTime · 26/05/2024 15:29

@dreaaamm

I think @175allgone is having you on

Seriously this thread should be deleted

No, I can absolutely believe that someone in that situation isn't living the life you'd expect on 175k. London is another country. It's absolutely insane.

There are certainly things she could do to reduce her outgoings, but an Islington mortgage with two sets of nursery fees and family expenses...yes. It's madness but it's true.

Bcmbc · 26/05/2024 15:45

Could move and live very comfortably. If you don't want to move, well, suck it up.

shuggles · 26/05/2024 15:46

@Paulettamcgee Yep, this is important. I think if salaries on Mumsnet were quoted in net figures there would be less shock. The take home on someone's £70k salary is not double your £35k salary.

It would still be shocking. There are clearly a lot of immensely privileged people on mumsnet.

shuggles · 26/05/2024 15:47

penjil · 26/05/2024 15:38

When your childcare is almost doubled your mortgage, you've got problems.

Although the cost of childcare in this country is horrendous, so it is a national problem.

No, it's a "you" problem. Childcare is not, and should not, be an issue for people who do not have children.

parttimeweddingplanner · 26/05/2024 15:50

Robinni · 26/05/2024 11:32

@parttimeweddingplanner

As much as I wasn’t a fan of Bojo, I did approve of the policy discussed before he was ousted that spoke of not punishing people for saving for a home and allowing housing benefit to go on mortgage costs.

As stands anyone on low income who saves more than 6k is punished for doing so by withdrawal of benefits. Housing benefit largely increases the long term wealth of landlords and does nothing to pull low income people towards long term security.

I was appalled recently to discover that we would be entitled to a ludicrous amount of UC if we were renting rather than mortgaged.

If they are going to spend that amount of money surely it should go to getting low income/disabled people security so they and their descendants aren’t dependent on the benefits system to house them for a lifetime… rather than increasing the wealth of landlords - those who do it for a living and those who become casual landlords due to excess income who are already secure.

I don’t think increasing social housing is the answer because it compartmentalises society and does nothing to level the playing field long term.

Social housing was never meant to be only for people wjho are massively struggling, though. It was meant to be for a wide section of society originally. It's about supply and demand - the supply has been slashed so there is so little left, it's only for those in extreme need, but that's not how it has to be.

I totally agree that we shouldn't be paying so much to private landlords, but the solution isn't simply to pay off people's mortgages, without any other changes.

If social housing was plentiful, it would bring rent prices down overall, for everyone, even those in private rented, and the money for rent would be paid to the state. Any housing benefit would be going in a circle, effectively - paid out by the state and then back again in rent. And if the housing stock was plentiful, then you'd have a much broader cross-section of society living in social housing, as is the norm in some other countries.

Properly adninistered, it has ther potential to save the state (i.e. all of us) loads of money that's currently being siphoned off to private landlords instead of reinvested.

Win-win.

ShambalaAnna · 26/05/2024 15:52

parttimeweddingplanner · 26/05/2024 15:50

Social housing was never meant to be only for people wjho are massively struggling, though. It was meant to be for a wide section of society originally. It's about supply and demand - the supply has been slashed so there is so little left, it's only for those in extreme need, but that's not how it has to be.

I totally agree that we shouldn't be paying so much to private landlords, but the solution isn't simply to pay off people's mortgages, without any other changes.

If social housing was plentiful, it would bring rent prices down overall, for everyone, even those in private rented, and the money for rent would be paid to the state. Any housing benefit would be going in a circle, effectively - paid out by the state and then back again in rent. And if the housing stock was plentiful, then you'd have a much broader cross-section of society living in social housing, as is the norm in some other countries.

Properly adninistered, it has ther potential to save the state (i.e. all of us) loads of money that's currently being siphoned off to private landlords instead of reinvested.

Win-win.

Hear, hear. My dad, despite voting Tory, has never gotten over Thatcher selling off social housing at the time he’s bought his house and his colleagues got their arguably better council houses for a song.

Grinchinlaws · 26/05/2024 15:57

shuggles · 26/05/2024 15:47

No, it's a "you" problem. Childcare is not, and should not, be an issue for people who do not have children.

Absolute rubbish.

Childcare enables parents to work and pay taxes to fund the public services used by everyone. Children now are going to grow up and their taxes will be used to fund your state pension. As a society we all need children.

LivelyBlake · 26/05/2024 15:57

Paulettamcgee · 26/05/2024 15:24

Yep, this is important. I think if salaries on Mumsnet were quoted in net figures there would be less shock. The take home on someone's £70k salary is not double your £35k salary.

And when gross is quoted it should include all benefits received.

OP could also be paying lots into her pension

BirthdayRainbow · 26/05/2024 16:00

Are your two kinds in nursery? You'd be better off with a nanny.

Happyher · 26/05/2024 16:02

175allgone · 26/05/2024 03:08

So I should move to a cheaper less desirable area and cause gentrification?

Yes if you want more disposable income. That’s your choice to make. I wouldn’t criticise you either way as we all have to work out what our priorities are.

coldcallerbaiter · 26/05/2024 16:05

You are doing quite well if all your bills and commute is only 1k.

DodoTired · 26/05/2024 16:06

angela1952 · 26/05/2024 14:11

Can you not read? Absolutely nowhere have I said that the OP's childcare bill is extravagant. It's actually pretty normal if she isn't getting free hours.

If the OP wants to go out to work full-time she will have to pay at least this. And I certainly don't care if high earners don't get subsidised child care. Why should other tax payers on lower incomes subsidise high earners? Free hours often enable mothers on lower incomes to return to work so that they are more self-sufficient and contribute to the economy. Surely that is what we need?

lol low earners don’t subsidise anyone. They don’t even cover the cost of what they take out
so its not low earners subsidising high earners, that’s ridiculous; it would be high earners subsidising themselves AND low earners. What’s wrong with that?

Whiskeymalavodkaade · 26/05/2024 16:07

OP what did you want from this post? No question asked, and snarky comments towards everyone pointing out the bleeding obvious.

Slow Sunday is it, so making up some bs to have a battle? 😅

CuttingMeOpenthenHealingMeFine · 26/05/2024 16:08

shuggles · 26/05/2024 15:47

No, it's a "you" problem. Childcare is not, and should not, be an issue for people who do not have children.

Ffs here we go. Pretty sure she means it’s a problem across the nation, not one single person wants you paying for our kids so off you fuck.

TheAlchemistElixa · 26/05/2024 16:08

Dibblydoodahdah · 26/05/2024 09:23

What do you suggest she does about childcare given that she’s paying the going rate for London?

Well I would suggest she is less incredulous about the life she’s living I suppose.

you think most Londoners are paying £4k a month for childcare? Or £2.5k a month on a mortgage? Most aren’t even EARNING that.

so can we please stop pretending that these are entirely normal and necessary costs? They may be entirely normal and necessary for someone earning £175k a year and wanting to live in a big house in a nice bit of London, and wanting to work lots of hours, and wanting multiple children under a certain age close together, and wanting to still have more than £1k “leftover” each month after all costs are paid for.

but then it becomes entirely lifestyle choices, doesn’t it?

so the question is either silly, or disingenuous. Or both.

DrRichardWebber · 26/05/2024 16:08

Yes we are similar. £220k-ish joint income here in zone 4 London but £3,000 mortgage plus £2,000 a month childcare is a real killer. And I know we are lucky to have that joint income. But there isn’t much left at the end of the month. We have 1 week in Center Parcs holiday a year, nothing else.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.