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.

So it costs more. Which was precisely @Twatalert’s point.

It’s rage bait and you fell for it.

But yes you’re right, she could sacrifice her entire lifestyle and take in a stranger to live in her house - but why should she (slash anyone) work hard at a high paying job in that case?

And how is our welfare state supposed to support the record-high levels of benefits payments if high earners are taken the piss out of for wanting luxuries and deincentivized to work?

But this is mumsnet of course, where everyone is competitively broke.

That was my conclusion.
If you don't have that in the mix, dogs can be fairly cheap - ours cost us about £200 pcm the pair, excluding kennels when we go away, and the occasional vet bill.

Dogsitting - she must have doggy daycare, and it's v expensive.

First poster nailed it. Stop reading trash, you’ll feel much better about the world.

Often you get the crappiest room if you book single occupancy. I felt hotels were taking the piss many times and simply don't like to go anymore.

This! I wouldn’t wipe my arse with the Daily Mail!

The difference between 40k and 100k today is at 40 you share a house with others and at 100k you can own an apartment

So what is acceptable for a single woman? A bedsit? A single room in a shared house?

she works for herself so one room is probably her office, one her bedroom and one for guests. Hardly excessive.

Your final comment is just plain unpleasant and unnecessary

That's what those articles are for, to make your blood boil. It's like the slightly more middle class version of the story in the Sun about a single mum spending some of her benefits on beauty treatments. These people are dumb enough to sell their stories to the press simply to be ridiculed and judged. So she earned about a grand just for shaming herself to the DM. And you read the article and shared it.

Since when has Hartlepool been a desirable area? It was a shit heap the last time I was there.

I do get it can genuinely feel tight on £100k household income in expensive parts of UK if you have kids, a mortgage/rent on family-sized home and childcare, especially full time. But a single person? No, it shouldn't be that hard.

OP I don't get your issue. You have a healthy household income yourself, it's not like you are some nurse working just as hard and struggling to make ends meet. This woman is self sufficient. She bothers nobody. She does not rely on society to fund her. She doesn't spend her money to your liking, and you some here to complain. It says something about you, not her.

Maybe enjoy your high household income a bit more. Maybe live life a bit more. Maybe go crazy for six months and spend money on whatever you like. It feels good that way.

I may have sounded smug there, but it's not that hard to be sensible. There's no need to be tight or frugal on a very good income either, just enjoy life within means and make sensible choices about what to spend it on.

@valder but what's sensible is subjective. To her it probably all makes sense and that's her way of enjoying life. She enjoys it so much she thinks she could do with another 40k to max out her enjoyment.

Maybe she'll drop dead in 10 years and never gets to have her pension. She would have made all the right choices today if that was to happen.

At least with the taxes she pays, she'll be a net contributor to the UK, unlike everyone else on average incomes and below who are net takers.

I haven't read the article as the summary is more than enough 🙄. I've never earned more than £40k but, at 58, have paid off the mortgage, have no other debts, never had an inheritance, will have 3 pensions with income of approximately £30k and I have savings. And a dog and no lodger.
If you can't manage on 100k, you're burning money on something not really necessary. That's the extent of it.

Yes, of course and I agree that we should live as we wish. However, it's not something I personally would speak to a Daily Mail journo about either! Obviously the piece is designed to foment RAGE amongst others less fortunate or more sensible! And so the clicks and comments follow. All according to plan....

She can spend her income whatever way makes her happy, I have no problem with that. The problem I have with the article is her assertion that she needs up to £40000 more money to be comfortable, when she is choosing to spend herself out of financial comfort.

Maybe it's a different understand of what comfort means. Financial comfort to me is the knowledge that I don't owe a penny to anyone and can retire early with a good quality of life. Someone in her position on a £100000 salary as a single person can achieve extraordinary financial comfort according to my definition.

I'd love to be more relaxed and spend money for enjoyment but I'm too pathologically fearful to enjoy spending money I'm afraid!

The dog insurance is £250 per month. I paÿ £10 per month for critical illness cover for myself.

Not sure which of us is wide of the mark.

how in the fuck is she paying 1000 per month for "energy, water, TV, internet"

She's being mugged off somewhere

I don't think you really understand what it is like for young families out there that are just buying homes and paying childcare. You've done well on a modest wage, but its harder for those starting off now.

Assuming no student loan and no pension contribution (both big assumptions) £100k brings in £5,713 pm.

Ave. South England house price £450,000 so say a mortgage of £2,000 pm
5 Day per week childcare £1,200 pm

That leaves c, £2,500 to cover food, bills, motoring, insurances, retirement planning.

You shouldn't be poor, but crikey this doesn't make you rich. We really must have some incentive for doing well.

To illustrate how ridiculous the tax system is, if the person in the article were to earn a n additional £26,000, she would only bring in an extra £834 per month. A rate of tax at more than 60%.

Sorry but suggesting someone on £100K takes in a lodger is ridiculous. How much do you have to earn before mumsnetters stop suggesting a bloody lodger??

"Don't have dogs" is like saying "don't have children."

You can get therapy or other help for that, it sounds like you have a scarcity mindset. "Pathologically fearful" isn't a way to live. Money is one of the biggest resources on the planet and it's only increasing.