To be so annoyed at this woman's financial incompetence

[LovingLimePeer]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/mailplus/article-14476595/six-figure-salary-rich-comfortable-heres-why.html?ico=mol_mobile_home&login&signinStatus=registered&signinMethod=google&dataCaptured=true&flowVariant=social_registration_nosubscribe#

For 1 person:
£500 on food
£750 on car expenses
£650 on cost of dog ownership
'a few holidays per year'
£250 cleaner

£200 pension (not enough!)

I'm just so fed up of all these well-paid financially illiterate people writing sob stories for the telegraph/daily mail about how they can't survive on their salaries.

This woman complaining about her £100000 salary not being enough could save £2100 per month if she bought a sensible car, didn't have dogs/a cleaner and took in a lodger.

With £2100 she could pay off her 23 year mortgage in just over 5 years OR
Retire at 68 with a pension pot in today's money of ~£1460000 (i.e. retirement income of £58000 per year in today's money). Not including money already saved in a pension.

If I assume she has saved £200/month into a pension for her whole career, she would have ~£427000 at retirement, enough for £17000 a year private pension, which given her extremely high expenditure.is simply not enough.

She thinks earning £20000-£40000 more would be enough but this is an expenditure, rather than income issue.

I'm just fed up of these people complaining. I suspect they'll end up poor in retirement, having never learned to live within their means with the rest of us paying for their stupidity.

Stop reading the daily mail and the telegraph - problem solved!

People can have really disordered relationships with money for varied reasons. Be glad you don't and stop seeking out aggravation.

It’s just ragebait.

Next week's headline - 'mumsnet trolls made my life hell says financially illiterate high earner'

Problem is someone on £100000 with a sensible car, mortgage & food bill makes for a boring article. I am wondering how a dog can cost £650 a month though?

Well, firstly this is clickbait

This woman complaining about her £100000 salary not being enough could save £2100 per month if she bought a sensible car, didn't have dogs/a cleaner and took in a lodger.

I think the others are fair - how is she spending £650 a month on dogs?! - but saying that someone on £100k a year needs to take in a lodger to live comfortably seems to me to prove her point?

The article is mainly about the fact it is more expensive living as a single person than with another adult - which is true. However, someone who is on £100,000 is very privileged with their income. This lady does have a lot of places she could cut down (eg food, the accomodation she chose, car, holidays) which a lot of people don't have. I think her main thing is that she was used to a two income household before her divorce and needs to recut her cloth now.

It's two dogs. But they do add up especially if you're needing dog walkers or kennels or they have medical issues. I currently have my first dog and I'm amazed at how much he costs.

This. I somehow manage not to, and my life is none the worst for it!

Someone earning £100k salary should have a high standard of living and should not need to take in a lodger. The lady in the article does spend excessively on some things e.g. food, but it shouldn't be a race to the bottom. When I was a kid 20 years ago, a £80k salary would buy you a 6 bed house in my parent's village and still have holidays/cars etc. Now with £100k salary it's a 4 bed house provided someone has died and left you a £200k inheritance.

A sensible car would save her quite a lot. And we all love a bit of downtime, but managing her garden and her domestic stuff too could see here save a fair wad.

Mind you, if you can get over the indignant rage, she's got a point. £100K is the new £40k in terms of the lifestyle it brings. If she threw childcare costs in the mix with all that there'd be nout left.

Plenty of people would love to earn £100k but with housing costs and childcare, £100k isn't the promised land people think it is. And if you earn more you start to lose your personal allowance, falling into the 60% tax trap, and have the childcare cliff edge. Progressive taxation and the freezing of thresholds has really clobbered the middle - high earners.

It’s obviously a wind up article like all those Dm ‘Femail’ type ones. Like the Samantha Brick one from years ago, the interfering MIL-all decided to trigger people! Feel sorry for her that she’s reduced to selling herself for click bait.

You are reading, reacting to and sharing an article that is literally written to make you ready, react to and share it for traffic.

But she has got a nice life...house, car, dogs, holidays. I thought that's what earning a salary is for?

Shes having to pay for daycare. When you have a dog as part of a single person household the care costs can be crippling. If I need to go into the office for a day it costs me £30. Three days a week of meetings would slaughter me.

That's a good point. I have inadvertently fed the beast.

Not the point of the thread but I absolutely cannot stand when people say 'take in a lodger'

That is not an option for everybody!!!!!

Maybe you have the room, most likely people dont have a spare room but even if I did, I have kids and absolutely would not let a stranger come and lodge in my child's home.

I think you are very unreasonable - what is the point of earning 6 figures if you cannot enjoy life and that includes (nice car, nice house, cleaner etc).

• why should she have a lodger? she earns enough to enjoy her house on her own.

And how are you paying for her stupidity? she is paying lots of taxes on this salary She may not be spending her money wisely according to you, but that doesn't make her stupid or illiterate. The only thing that makes her look stupid is moaning about it in the daily mail!

If you actually read the article, in amongst all the waffle she makes reasonable points around paying more tax than two people earning the same and how it’s harder for people living on their own.

Yes some of her expenditure is on the ‘nice to haves’ but shouldn’t she have those things on that salary?

Nail on the head. Someone with the qualifications, skills, experience etc to earn £100k SHOULD have a much better lifestyle than someone less qualified, less experienced, less skilled, etc., earning half or a quarter of that.

Of course she shouldn't be expected to take in a lodger, run a bottom of the range cheap car, shop only at Aldi and never go on holiday.

As you say, we really shouldn't be in a race to the bottom. There needs to be incentives for people to work harder/more, to get qualifications, to learn new skills, to take more responsibility, etc. If you're not going to have a significantly better standard of living, then why bother and why not just go and work in Tesco and claim top-up "in work" benefits.

Spending £750 a month on a car means she’s not the sharpest tool in the box.

That particular comment was not based on the present time. My point is that she is saving nowhere near enough to afford what she would class as comfortable for her retirement.

We'll get another article in 20 years about her living in pension poverty because she has not put enough aside for her future despite having the means to do so now.

My comment on her financial illiteracy is based on her stating that she requires £20000-£40000 more to even be comfortable, nevermind rich. In my view, she has more than enough to be very comfortable. She has no income issue. Any perceived issues she has about her ability to afford a comfortable life are related to what she chooses to spend her money on.

I'm in the same boat as that woman. Except I budgeted wisely and now have loadsa dough and a very handsome pension. 😉

I read this and thought the same thing !
she is incompetent clearly.

Why does it? I had a sensible family car that cost me:

£400 on lease (had no car to px for deposit)
£80 on insurance
£15 road tax
£50 budgeted for repairs/tyres

That was just a standard large family car, not like an Audi or bmw etc

Because paying a monthly lease on a depreciating asset is for mugs.