Meet the Henry- High Earner not rich yet

[Ontobetterthings]

This was a very interesting read about a man who earns 100k but struggling financially working in London. After doubling his wage to 100k with inflation costs he is only 6k better off a year.

https://www.cityam.com/100k-isnt-a-big-salary-and-we-need-to-talk-about-it/

I can believe 100k salary in London is a struggle. Aibu?

But after tax Henry now gets £5800 a month.

Even with rent at £2k he has masses left over and could easily save £2k a month.

He is spending more in Aldi on food for 1 person than I am spending in Waitrose online for 3 adults.

Article is ridiculous.

The £625 a month is groceries, beer money and eating out.

YY to needing to go through austerity at times in life( which this isn’t).

We have had really shit times but are now near to paying of our mortgage.

Also who needs to be rich? Seriously. All a human needs is safety, clean air, food, preferably a garden and access things like green spaces, libraries etc. that is rich enough and what I’d be focusing on as need for all not the Henry’s of this world who want to be flying round the world adding to global warming.

It should have been broken down more to be useful. This would be my guess:

• Bills will be £750 of that (council tax, waste, water, gas, electric phone, broadband, streaming).
• Travel £250
• Toiletries, cleaning products, new shoes/ clothes for work, barber visits etc say another £500
• only £300 was on groceries, so chances are he's getting lunch out at the office at an extra £250/ month
• Expensive discretionary stuff - new tech, holidays etc £500/ month
• Weddings mentioned, plus there will be birthdays, drinks out with his girlfriend, family Christmas gifts etc say £500/ month.

If he was really trying to save then no holidays even within UK, no drinks out etc. That isn't really the point of the article though, this isn't someone asking for advice they are stating that today's £100k lifestyle is only a £6k improvement on the £50k lifestyle of 6 years ago.

That's got all the hallmarks of a rage bait AI written article, just there to farm engagement and clicks.

I wonder if the photo of him is AI too

What is your definition of "normal" pay? And, perhaps more importantly, what is your definition of a "normal" lifestyle??
If it's someone on a teacher's entry level salary who is hoping to live in Kensington in their own home by themselves then clearly that's not going to happen. But that's also unlikely to happen even if they earn a Magic Circle entry level solicitor salary.

It's nothing new for people to have housemates/flat mates for many years. What has changed is that people these days do seem more inclined to think that they are "entitled" somehow to live either by themselves or with a partner in a lovely non-shared home in a lovely inner city building on an entry level salary. Sadly this is being stoked by the dreaded influencers who live fake lives.

Most of the single (non-parents) in their 20s/early thirties I know of who live in the nicer parts of London who and have decent jobs ALSO have housemates. Not only does it save a heck of a lot of money, but it's also much more fun.

As for people who are living with a significant other: often times in London they will also still have a house mate or get income from a room via AirBnB depending on the situation. This isn't unique to London - I can think of plenty of friends in other similar cities who have this sort of set up.

I think people need to stop feeling so entitled or hard done by because they can't afford to live by themselves in the higher end areas of London. That's nothing new. And the situation shouldn't be a surprise to someone who has done their research prior to choosing a career or a profession. Moroever, someone who doesn't like that situation can live in a cheaper part of the country (there are many) and can - certainly at a young age - alter their career path. Heck, lots of people in middle/later age alter their career paths: there were a number of people in my law school class who had different professions before deciding to become a lawyer: one woman was in her sixties and had previously worked as research chemist. The opportunities for further education have never been more varied and easy to access. Point being: if you want to be able to afford to live in London then having rich parents or a trust fund etc certainly isn't a pre-requisite.

Even the minimum workplace pension contributions take him under £100k, so he definitely would be. He wouldn’t need to ‘up’ them.

I'm questioning the point of the article.
London is unaffordable on £100k because of Henry's lifestyle. As others have pointed out, many manage on much less, so Henry does have options to improve his financial position. The article is one-sided because it doesn't even attempt to look at solutions.

It is simply comparing him having had the exact same lifestyle 6 years ago, with today. To illustrate that he has not had a gain in lifestyle from doubling income due to inflation and tax. He could have saved money 6 years ago too, yes. That wasn't the point of the article.

Surely bills for a flat aren't that much? How many streaming services do you need?!

Nor does anyone need £500 worth of new clothes and shoes, even including barber visits (cleaning products and toiletries are not that expensive either).

"Expensive discretionary stuff" er it's discretionary so stop spending it! The occasional new laptop or phone is all you need. And that's not even needed once a year! Holidays don't need to be that expensive either, even going abroad.

If he was a real person, he should be forced to live somewhere else and survive on minimum wage for a bit to get some perspective! It's basically "man who throws money around wants even more".

Am I the only one who took an instant dislike to Henry?

The point isn’t the solutions – of course there are solutions. The point is that this salary should see someone able to comfortably (not luxuriously) live in our capital and it doesn’t.

CityAM is a morning rag produced for those that work in the City. It’s audience are people like Henry commuting on the tube and wondering why they are climbing the greasy pole but don’t feel any better off than they did five years ago.

whilst the numbers are different, many of the issues are the same that hundreds of other posters on MN have complained about over the past few years: we’re working hard, doing well, getting promotions etc but we don’t have any more money in our pockets than we did. Of course “Henry” could make economies but like all of us as you get promoted and get older you feel like you should be able to enjoy a better standard of living; you’ve “earned” it you might say. Someone with a great degree from a good university, working long hours and weekends in the city in their early 30s with no dependents, you’d expect them to be able to afford to go out for a beer on a Friday or afford Itsu for lunch.

Well quite @HasTheBinManBeen

He seems to have the same attitude to money as many Mumsnetters. 'I have loads more than just about everyone but I don't think I'm well off because I spend my money on the most expensive version of everything yet seem surprised that it doesn't go very far'.

You’ll get all the diamond shoes comments but sadly this is the case for a lot of people who work really hard and get a great salary, but are then taxed to death. There is starting to be no point in promotion or bettering yourself as you get bashed by tax after the higher rate threshold is too low. This is why anyone rich or skilled is leaving the UK

Someone with a great degree from a good university, working long hours and weekends in the city in their early 30s with no dependents, you’d expect them to be able to afford to go out for a beer on a Friday or afford Itsu for lunch

But he can. He just can't afford to do that at the same time as living in an expensive flat on his own rather than a house share or further out as well as spending loads on tech, holidays etc and save for a mortgage deposit.

Oh come on, they're getting a take home of nearly £70,000. This is more than most households are bringing in with two people.

So yes the sympathy is low.

The other question is 'are people really arguing against progressive taxation' ie take away money from people who can't even put food on the table and give it to high earners so they can feel sufficiently rich?

Well he IS living comfortably on that salary...he's not borrowing money to pay the gas bill is he...?

He's obviously not poor but it's about expectations and whether his expectations can be better met elsewhere or if not now, when? He's a single man doing okay for himself and living an expensive life. I have earned double his salary for about three decades now and I am fairly well off now but for a very long time I did not live as expensively as he does, I lived very carefully indeed, no drinking. no going out, and didn't expect any different so didn't feel poor. He feels poor and that's the weird thing.

Top up benefits?

This is the concerning part of the article and why it's a problem

"According to The Economist, they account for five per cent of taxpayers but nearly half of all income tax receipts. And they represent a conversation we don’t want to have in Britain and which our politics (understandably) isn’t geared towards. After all, plenty of people are worse off than Henry".

Taxes for essential public services are being increasingly focused on a small group within the population. We can look at the article and make judgments on Henry but they are holding up a significant amount of the tax take; and are unlikely to feel that they get good value from public sevices. They are probably in high levels of debt from university; and AI may be coming for their jobs in the next 5-10 years. The Jon market is tricky at the moment so it may feel too risky to move out of London and seek work elsewhere. If you buy outside of London and commute in part of the week the costs are high.

This group may end up struggling to feel stable enough in thier lives (mortgage; savings etc) to be able to have children (if they choose to)

It's a big; growing problem

I agree on ‘expensive discretionary stuff’ but bills for a flat in London will absolutely cost you that much. My bills in 2015 in my (tiny 400sq ft) London flat were £550. Dread to think how much they’ve gone up now.

I think a lot of people here are missing the point – irrespective of whether someone is moaning or not, the point is what that salary SHOULD afford, and how drastically its worth has been slashed due to the economic challenges. It has more clout to demonstrate it at this salary because a) it’s not news to anyone that it’s a struggle to live on minimum wage and b) the higher you go the more disproportionately affected you become.

Yes, the backlash of probably a few who benefit from the tax he pays. It is clear that people in this country need to be incentivised to work and create wealth. It is the opposite.

We lived in London on a joint salary of about £170k. We lived in a house share (together in our room) until we had our first DC where upon we got a one bed flat for a year before we left London 10 years ago. Even then we compromised and our DC didn't have it's own nursery but was in with us.

We both worked in law / city.

I agree that young professionals now feel like they "deserve" their own flats and have an insane entitlement.

Living in a house share meant we saved an absolute fortune (even with ridiculous city gym membership and a decent work hard play hard lifestyle) and moved out of London with 40% house deposit to leafy Cheshire. Had we moved elsewhere in the country we could have been mortgage free.

The difference in cost for us was £600 for a shared room (it was 10 years ago) as against £2000 for a flat.

I don't think £100k is a lot in London but Dude needs to live in a Zone 3 houseshare---- for a bit.