Household income. Where are you?

[chonka901]

https://ifs.org.uk/toolsanddresources/wheredooyoufitt_in

Using this link and putting in everything joint net income ,including child benefit and maintenance which I think it takes into account. It has us at 73 percent. Not a stealth boast before any states that. Genuinely surprised.

I certainly don't feel like this but appreciate people survive on less. It doesn't take into account mortgages, rent, generational wealth, inheritance, childcare etc so is a guide.

It is eye opening though.

I feel poor compared to my friends though. We definitely are not the London elite. Just public sector workers in the North. I guess the maintenance helps. My friends must be in the top 20 percent.

Well, we are in the lowest 13% but we own a house worth over half a million - despite rubbish income form one pension and my pathetic NHS salary, so I wouldn't consider us that bad! Interesting way to assess wealth

20% without housing costs,
28% with housing costs

Which feels about right. And explains why I am panicking at the imminent prospect of needing to buy a new car.

Does it? We don’t have sky, car loans etc.

That’s just living. It could be less, granted. You absolutely live within your means. If I take annual costs into account, it’s probably more like 5k.

running 2 cars, 2 children in extra curriculars, and then general household bills (mortgage, gas, electricity, water, CT, food yada yada), gym memberships, personal hobbies (golf), that’s the outgoings.

it could be less like I said, if we had to we’d give up the gym and golf, children wouldn’t be able to do extra curriculars, go down to one car etc.

I was just really trying to explain why those in the 90% range don’t actually feel rich.

98% on both pre and post house cost.

We obviously know we are very fortunate. I wouldn’t expect my DC to be anywhere near this when they are independent (although obviously would be very happy if they were), nor were our parents before us anywhere close.

But my point wasn't about complaining and whether it's ok to complain - it's questioning the validity of the conclusion that you are in X percentile of any meaningful measurable.

This neither measures your real, unavoidable costs, nor your assets, nor your actual spending..... so what is it actually trying to say? It's basically saying "here's your percentile placement based on a rather random 60% selection of relevant data needed to tell you something meaningful".... which is why so many people are confused by their results and the fact that it doesn't correlate to their experience.

81%. About where I expected it to be.

95%. 2 adults and kids all left home

@financialcareerstuff But my point wasn't about complaining and whether it's ok to complain - it's questioning the validity of the conclusion that you are in X percentile of any meaningful measurable. This neither measures your real, unavoidable costs, nor your assets, nor your actual spending..... so what is it actually trying to say? It's basically saying "here's your percentile placement based on a rather random 60% selection of relevant data needed to tell you something meaningful"....

The point I am making is that personal spending choices have absolutely no bearing on how well off you are, because that's a personal and conscious decision made as to how to use your own expendable income.

The unavoidable costs that you mention do have a bearing on how well off people are, of course.

which is why so many people are confused by their results and the fact that it doesn't correlate to their experience.

Some people are just being outright daft. I already provided the analogy of someone who says he has no food because there is no food left after he consumed multiple takeaways that day.

86% without housing, 66% with. Once you factor in nursery fees and the fact the house is a fixer-upper so mentally, you’re surrounded by phantom “ooh, this’ll cost ya” reminders you can’t hide from, it makes sense that despite DP’s relatively high earnings and equity in the house we spend a lot of time scratching round down the back of the sofa trying to afford life.

We drive an inherited banger, don’t have holidays or gym membership or takeaways, no bells and whistles. We could also scrimp and plan better but it does feel a bit like we’re in the wack-a-mole years of small children when there’s always bloody something. It was reassuring to here from brighter minds than mine on this thread that the calculator ain’t all that, because 66% made me panic – why don’t we feel OK?!

The global rating questionnaire posted earlier may be quite thought-provoking for people, in terms of reflecting on how fortunate many people are and how much of a difference could be made by charitable giving from people with incomes in the higher percentages.

56... I feel like I earn quite good money, think it averages out because I'm the sole breadwinner. If there were two of me and we were a couple we would be at 97 😆

Edited to say I didn't realise it was net income, in which case I am waaaay lower

But if you had an average income, your outgoings would be much lower.
You can only afford to spend £5k a month because you're richer than most people.

I was just really trying to explain why those in the 90% range don’t actually feel rich.

It’s lifestyle creep though, if you didn’t have the income you wouldn’t be paying for gym membership, or golf, or extra curricular activities. You’d run a small, cheap car - or not at all - you’d have a smaller house etc. You choose to do all of that because your income has risen and, for most people, their spending increases according. You’re richer than people who can’t make those choices, because the money simply isn’t there.

46% DP and i earn roughly the same and we have a 6mth old DS. I still feel very fortunate because we never struggle to pay our bills and aren't lacking anything, thank God.

It's not assessing wealth, it's an income calculator.

We're at the lower end of the top third, but I misread the instructions first time round and used gross figures. Which gave an impressive, but completely incorrect, result.

The richest 1 percent have more wealth than the bottom 95 percent of the world’s population put together. So the scale is quite skewed - the top 1%, are richer than the average person could imagine.

22%. Which is about right. By Mumsnet financial standards, we are simultaneously living an deeply unenviable ife (no car, no babysitters, not much in the way of travel, very cheap somewhat ramshackle house on a council estate) and also living in unfathomable luxury (mortgage paid off, DH took early retirement, my job is fun and fulfilling, catchment area of excellent state schools, home a short walk from city centre of highly desirable city, relatives in delightful holiday locations, easy access to cultural amenities).

95%, but this doesn’t take into account school fee so we certainly don’t feel it.

The amount of tax is madness! No one should be paying that much tax, it's just wrong.

People on higher incomes give plenty…it’s called tax.

Oh, ooops, I did this too! Ha ha. I must be lower down though which makes more sense.

🤦‍♀️

83% - highish income, but high housing costs

Just think what 10% of the wealth of people like Musk, Bezos, et al could do for global inequality, though...