Page 17 | Not an ordinary working person if you earn over 45k

TesChique · 2025-11-02T15:50:58+00:00

Disincentivising anyone to strive to earn over 45k a year is a bizarre strategy for growth i feel Aibu?

twistyizzy · 02/11/2025 20:36

Allisnotlost1 · 02/11/2025 20:32

I only know what youve posted, obviously. If he’s been made redundant from a 6 figure job and is highly qualified then he will have received at least statutory redundancy. If he can afford to be looking around for lower paid jobs and you’re maintaining your lifestyle then it seems fair to presume he has money to rely on. When I was made redundant earlier this year I took work anywhere I could - sounds like he doesn’t need to do that.

Edited

Show quote history

And do you know how much tax you have to pay on redundancy especially from a low (very low) 6 fig salary??? Certainly not enough to live off until he finds another job!!
He is over qualified for low level jobs, they don't think he is serious. He literally can't get an interview for a sub- 30K job. But he isn't prepared to kill himself for what he was doing just to be used as a cash cow, whilst simultaneously being hated, by the Government and people like you.

Doobedobe · 02/11/2025 20:36

So anyone that can afford to put the heating on is now a high earner.
I am so done with this government and their double standards, lies and terrible ideas.
I am not a regular labpur voter but actually had high hopes for Starmers Labour government, I thought maybe they would fuel growth and get the economy moving. All they have done is bring everything to a grinding halt.

RememberDecember · 02/11/2025 20:38

So fed up with this Lab government, and I voted for them! More fool me. I was expecting something like Blair, some vision and aspiration but all this lot seem to want to do is prop up the ballooning welfare state.

Having hoped for Lab to kick the Tories out for over a decade, I now can’t wait for them to get their arse handed to them on a plate in the next election. Except that will inevitably be to the benefit of Reform, who they will be at least partly responsible for allowing to bloom due to Labour’s ineptitude.

It used to be that if you were in the 40% tax bracket (currently over £50k) you could consider yourself doing reasonably well, but thanks to successive stealth rises through frozen thresholds, that now includes ‘ordinary’ roles such as teachers and others who lose 40% of their salary at a relatively low point.

MidnightPatrol · 02/11/2025 20:39

Strictlycomeparent · 02/11/2025 20:33

I agree it’s too low. But equally the average family of four has a household income of £40k. So if you alone earn £45k you are doing ‘better’ than many. The problem is that our overall levels of inequality have become vast. So we do need to tax those with houses worth £2million and those with incomes £200k plus. The middle isn’t the right place. But do have the grace to acknowledge so many families are getting by (or not, actually!) on much less than £45k per parent.

I think you’ll find that’s £40k of disposable income - ie after tax and benefits ie £3,300 a month. Which is about 2x minimum wage a month.

Where is this stat from however, as average household incomes are very warped by inclusion of pensioner data!

NorthXNorthWest · 02/11/2025 20:39

Jasnah · 02/11/2025 16:11

I wish we could consider household income per head instead of single incomes. As usual, single parents will be penalised the most.

I earn over 45k because it's what I need to keep myself and my kids afloat as a single parent. An increase in income tax would hit hard in what little we have outside of paying bills.

Single parents should be receiving money from the non resident parent, not tax payers.

LaserPumpkin · 02/11/2025 20:41

SpaceRaccoon · 02/11/2025 20:35

I agree it’s too low. But equally the average family of four has a household income of £40k. So if you alone earn £45k you are doing ‘better’ than many.

Not really when you factor in taxes, and the tax-free allowances.

This.

Also the median household income is actually equivalent to a PAYE salary of £46k based on a single earner - so a median household with a single earner would be outwith the description of a working person.

It’s bonkers, isn’t it?

user1476613140 · 02/11/2025 20:41

Nolletimiere · 02/11/2025 20:30

That’s quite a collection of abbreviations.

What is the sum total of those benefits please?

Show quote history

No idea as UC amount changes each month. Depends, if DH gets a bonus we get less UC. Having disabled children hardly means we have the time of our lives. We get awarded grants to help with respite too. Or is that being goady as another poster put it?

My post was to illustrate many of us just make the best of what we have and don't get up in arms about it. You make do with what's thrown your way. I didn't ask for disabled DC and chronic health issues where one income was all we can rely upon. Shit happens.

Waitfortheguinness · 02/11/2025 20:41

shuggles · 02/11/2025 20:09

I work in the private sector and my starting salary looked nothing like that.

The graduate schemes you're talking about are likely to be very competitive and places will be limited. Of course, the successful candidate isn't the student that studies that hardest; it's the student who spouts the most nonsense in the interview and who has the brownest nose.

Show quote history

Or the ones who’s dads are members of the same golf club 🙄

TightOnes · 02/11/2025 20:41

user1476613140 · 02/11/2025 20:19

DH earns no where near £45k, but we do receive various benefits including UC, CA, CB, CDPx2, SCP and my eldest gets ADP. We manage fine🤷‍♀️

You're welcome (as we funded all this)

Plantatreetoday · 02/11/2025 20:41

Allisnotlost1 · 02/11/2025 20:36

I think the economy is in an awful position, but to think the government is going to gobble up the disposable income of every single person because they are likely to increase tax on higher earners is… catastrophising.

Show quote history

They’ll be gobbling up savings and money people don’t even have if they increase the council tax bands.

Gwenhwyfar · 02/11/2025 20:42

MookieCat · 02/11/2025 16:28

I have never in my entire life earned anywhere near £45 k. My highest salary was £32,000. And I have three postgrad degrees and work in a professional role.

But I think this Government is fucking nuts. And is going out of its way to penalise and demonise the very people who have played by all the rules, tried to build a life and who have some aspiration. It's sick-making.

I'm not as educated as you, although I have two degrees and a post-graduate diploma but no masters. I left the UK five years ago and never reached what is now the minimum wage there.

MidnightColours · 02/11/2025 20:44

What's for sure, though, is that MPs and ministers will continue getting inflation-busting pay rises... (MPs £93,904 minimum, plus costs and expenses, golden goodbyes etc). And I'm sure I could find quotes from some of people in Government currently that the compensation is too low/not fit for purposes/nothing compared to what they could earn in the private sector etc...

Ahfiddlesticks · 02/11/2025 20:44

NorthXNorthWest · 02/11/2025 20:39

Single parents should be receiving money from the non resident parent, not tax payers.

Show quote history

Not all single parents have a non-resident parent. In fact, 80% of the single parents I know don't (single adopters and widows). And even when they do, it doesn't bring above the poverty line unless the nrp is earning very well.

MidnightPatrol · 02/11/2025 20:44

Gwenhwyfar · 02/11/2025 20:42

I'm not as educated as you, although I have two degrees and a post-graduate diploma but no masters. I left the UK five years ago and never reached what is now the minimum wage there.

Show quote history

What were you working in?

user1476613140 · 02/11/2025 20:44

Jamesblonde2 · 02/11/2025 20:25

I’m sure you do, spending other people’s money.

Show quote history

You're so right. Disabled children should suffer if parents can't get a really well paid job. What a blight they are on society claiming various benefits 👏 🙄

lalalapland · 02/11/2025 20:44

MookieCat · 02/11/2025 20:20

You are right @twistyizzy . People change their behaviour. This government forgets that people have agency - and are mobile. Parents I know who were both working hard to afford private school fees? VAT comes in, they feel pressured and despised by the Government and have withdrawn their DCs. Great! Now all of a sudden they don't HAVE to have two well-paying jobs as they are saving roughly approx £30 k per child after tax. So, one parent quits entirely. Or both parents scale back. So the government has lost income tax. And the VAT that they said would never be lost because there would not be an attrition rate to the state sector. (Let's not mention the 25,000 private school students who have left the system since January, shall we? Bridget Philippson doesn't like that being pointed out). And they have lost good will from people who were previously net contributors. Well done Labour!

Or 'the rich' who are being hammered every which way. Look at the wealthy, and the moderately wealthy deciding that their future is no longer in the UK? The exodus is very real. Labour seem to forget that people have choices and when they are hammered repeatedly (and told they are just rich bastards anyway) they say 'fuck it'.

Then you get short termist hard of thinking numpties saying 'well, don't let the door hit you on the way out' failing to realise that this country actually NEEDS the proactive and mobile to stay here. With their money.

This government is really quite something in it's incompetence. It's inability to see through to the logical consequences of the cobbled together shite they pretend are fiscal policies. It's breath-taking.

Have you read Daylight Robbery by Dominic Frisby? It gives a history of taxation over time, and how people change behaviours following tax changes. Eg. 'Window tax'

Gwenhwyfar · 02/11/2025 20:44

Sillysoggyspaniel · 02/11/2025 16:33

No it's not. Our bus company currently has adverts on the back of the buses saying the starting salary for a new driver is £28k.

Show quote history

How does the salary of a bus driver being 28k mean 30 something k is not a good salary for a young-ish professional? Bus driving is known as being highly paid in relation to the time it takes to train up for it.

Allisnotlost1 · 02/11/2025 20:45

twistyizzy · 02/11/2025 20:36

And do you know how much tax you have to pay on redundancy especially from a low (very low) 6 fig salary??? Certainly not enough to live off until he finds another job!!
He is over qualified for low level jobs, they don't think he is serious. He literally can't get an interview for a sub- 30K job. But he isn't prepared to kill himself for what he was doing just to be used as a cash cow, whilst simultaneously being hated, by the Government and people like you.

Show quote history

Why do you think I hate your husband? What a weird assertion. I know all about being overqualified so I sympathise with him, it’s hard out there.

You keep emphasising the ‘very low’ part of the six figure salary, but the reality is that’s in the top 5% of earners and if he got a redundancy he’ll still have more in the bank than the majority of people. You can’t live on that and savings for a while? That sounds like you’ve been living beyond your means. No wonder you’re angry, but do what most people have to do and cut your cloth.

11811B · 02/11/2025 20:45

Jasnah · 02/11/2025 16:11

I wish we could consider household income per head instead of single incomes. As usual, single parents will be penalised the most.

I earn over 45k because it's what I need to keep myself and my kids afloat as a single parent. An increase in income tax would hit hard in what little we have outside of paying bills.

I agree. We have the same issue with children benefit. I have a decent salary of £65k but no real option to get more unless I move out of public sector. DH has a small income so between us it really doesn't feel like we are high earners. We are comfy don't get me wrong, £45k though would be really hard to manage on as a household income so the level just doesn't feel right.

twistyizzy · 02/11/2025 20:48

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Gwenhwyfar · 02/11/2025 20:49

TightOnes · 02/11/2025 19:43

Only when early careers right? Like that's an early career salary?

Show quote history

Not everyone has a career.

Nolletimiere · 02/11/2025 20:50

RememberDecember · 02/11/2025 20:38

So fed up with this Lab government, and I voted for them! More fool me. I was expecting something like Blair, some vision and aspiration but all this lot seem to want to do is prop up the ballooning welfare state.

Having hoped for Lab to kick the Tories out for over a decade, I now can’t wait for them to get their arse handed to them on a plate in the next election. Except that will inevitably be to the benefit of Reform, who they will be at least partly responsible for allowing to bloom due to Labour’s ineptitude.

It used to be that if you were in the 40% tax bracket (currently over £50k) you could consider yourself doing reasonably well, but thanks to successive stealth rises through frozen thresholds, that now includes ‘ordinary’ roles such as teachers and others who lose 40% of their salary at a relatively low point.

Genuine thanks for your honesty.

There are evidently a number of Labour supporters who refuse to accept the reality - stark as it is.

lalalapland · 02/11/2025 20:50

Gwenhwyfar · 02/11/2025 20:49

Not everyone has a career.

Show quote history

No, not everyone has a career. So therefore they earn less than those with career progression

ChardonnaysBeastlyCat · 02/11/2025 20:53

Rexinasaurus · 02/11/2025 20:18

Get ready to apprehend any amazingly witty fella who asks you “How much then luv?”

Show quote history

45k?

Penguinsandcoffee · 02/11/2025 20:53

But what is a “working person” anyway? On a complete aside from what Rachel Reeves has planned for her budget, the phrase itself is an utterly bad choice and in my opinion causes a lot of the issues around Labour’s fiscal policies. Why is it the case that Labour consider that high earners are not to be considered “working”? I am sure they don’t just sit around hanging out when they go to work everyday.