175k salary and all gone

[175allgone]

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.

Where do you think my taxes are going? What do you think they are paying for?

This sounds about right. In London a salary of £175k is hardly extravagant and no, won't get you a luxurious lifestyle.

Do you have your own children who are fully intending and signed up to wipe your bottom when you're too frail to do so yourself, or are you intending to rely on other people's children to do this for you?

@Grinchinlaws Where do you think my taxes are going? What do you think they are paying for?

If you didn't have your salary, then people on normal salaries could benefit from an increased salary.

£175k income. Thoughts and prayers.

I seriously doubt anyone else's children are going to wipe my arse. Have you asked yours, and what did they say?

How ironic 🤣 you are demanding consideration while showing zero consideration and even disdain towards people who subsidise you and others on ‘normal salaries’ so they can lead normal lives. Show some consideration yourself

Are you on crack 🤣

Now, people who suck freakish levels of wealth from the system are "benefitting" me in some way.

We have truly reached peak clown planet.

Can you say more on this

Who and how?

I find the assumption that everyone on MN is being subsidised by high earners quite obnoxious although in some ways quite funny. I wonder if the posters saying this think they are achieving.

yes, because- newsflash - all public services are paid from tax revenue, and majority of tax revenue comes from small number of high earners, so please learn to be grateful to those who pay for police, prisons, civil service, NHS, schools, roads etc

@shuggles of course you are benefiting if you earn less than @Grinchinlaws . Do you understand how the tax system works?!

@shuggles nobody is ‘sucking’ wealth.

Its called working for it?

@shuggles I'm sorry but you seem quite ignorant of basic economics and how tax is taken from those earning the most and distributed to those earning less, either as benefits, NHS care, state schooling, etc etc.

Without the tax from high earners, the Treasury would be stuffed.

I don't understand 'sucking freakish levels of wealth from the system'.

Does this mean they are high earners? Is that what you're saying?

It's called 'work' if you didn't know.

@GogAndMagog I think this is somewhat unfair. It's not unreasonable for someone on such a high income to have 2 children, the ever spiralling costs of childcare and col isn't ops fault. And people need to be able to live within a reasonable commuting distance of their job. A few years ago people would have been able to easily have bigger families and still afford what they needed to. This is the fault of the gov, greedy landlords, people who own multiple homes not ops fault.

"Aside from that, speaking personally, last year I paid over £100kin tax. I also paid my nanny’s salary, including taxes, out of mypost taxincome.

Yes, when you buy stuff, you do so using your post tax income because income tax is paid first. That's how tax works. "

@shuggles that is not how tax usually works when employing someone. When a business employs someone, that is a cost and (in general terms) business taxes are assessed on profits, ie revenue minus costs, including employment costs. Nanny employers are usual in having to pay a salary out of already taxed income.

I'm staggered that for many people, 1k DI a month isn't a lot. Absolutely mind blown. That's less than I live on a month. How do we manage? No holidays, no new clothes (secondhand), lots of walking and public transport, batch cooking, and so on. This kind of post ruffles feathers because of the "Ooh, how do people cope?" schtick when the answer to that is, by not doing 90% of the enjoyable life enhancing things you do. Holidays, new clothing regularly, buying ingredients every week for whatever meal you fancy rather than strict meal planning, hair cuts, other beauty treatments, etc. It doesn't take a lot of thinking.

If those on high salaries decide they don't want to get promoted and earn more, I am sure some of those on lower salaries will be happy to take the job instead.

What is a bit of an eye opener here considering there's an election coming is how some posters don't even understand the tax system and basic economics.

It's become clear that some posters prefer to insult people who are high earners rather than asking themselves why they are NOT a high earner (because they are clearly envious of those who are.)

Education? Ambition? Don't like hard work?

Only if they are capable.

You don't get promoted just by wanting it.

It often takes years of study, long hours and dedication.

YABU

yout kids won’t be in childcare forever so that’ll free up a chunk. Unless you then stick them in a private school of course.

Actually at £8500 take home a month you're numbers aren't adding up. You said "we" which I'm assuming you have 2 take home pays and since you have a childcare bill of £4k I'm assuming you both work full time. I would have thought your take home is closer to £10k or £11k a month?

If you say so, dear. People who are rich all worked for it, and the rest of us are just lazy (even though there was a high earner who claimed to be "shattered" after working only 50 hours a week).

Given the volume of outrageous replies there have been to this thread. I will be reporting this to clown planet.

Would they if it meant they don’t see any net income increase?