Not an ordinary working person if you earn over 45k

[TesChique]

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

Aibu?

Says who? Sky news?

But do you consider those 17% to be 'working people'? That's where the issue lies; Labour is changing the ordinary meaning of words to wriggle out of their promise not to tax working people!

I think she meant working hard at university to get decent grades.

I'm quite surprised to have finally found someone on this website with a functional brain.

By who? Maybe at your age...

considered a good salary by whom?
Everyone's idea of what's a good/normal salary is based on their own (very limited) peer group, which for many people is very homogenous.

Based on actual stats, full time minimum wage (40hrs a week) would be a yearly salary of £25,396. Therefore it's hard to argue logically that barely £5k more than that is a "good salary for a professional." Particularly if you're paying back uni debt, which will take you down to only 2 or 3 grand more.

It might be a decent salary for someone in their early 20s just out of uni without responsibilities but most people aren't in that bracket.

It's not elitist to say that jobs that have incurred a high degree of cost , time and effort to qualify for, and have significant responsibility should be paid more than minimum wage. It doesn't mean you're automatically cleverer than someone doing the minimum wage job, it doesn't mean your job is harder, more important or more essential (often the opposite, as Covid showed), or that you're a better or more worthy person.

Yes... she knows... that's what she meant... plenty of people work hard at university, earn good grades, and it doesn't translate into being a high earner.

I thought this should be self-evident for anyone who has a job. Obviously, employers don't look at academic grades when selecting candidates. It may be true in some countries in the far east which place a lot of emphasis on academic success, but it certainly is not true in the UK where other traits are more valued.

Context is everything. They could be living in inner London paying massive rent or mortgage.

Fine by me!!!

I retired after working hard for decades at which point my salary was £26k. As was all my colleagues. Being in a higher tax bracket has never been a possibility.

I feel lucky to have a house, sans mortgage, due to being made redundant a year before I might have retired and thus getting a large payout - tax free. I also feel incredibly lucky compare to some I've met when giving debt advice who are trying to find a way to pay all their bills on just state pension of less than £13k.

To them and to me £45k is rich.

That’s not the point. This whole thread is about people earning over £45k. I’ve not seen a government announcement of any new definition or taxes or measures aimed at that figure.

Only Sky News say it’s a new definition. Until the budget that’s pure speculation. Unless you believe if it’s in the press then it MUST be true, because they don’t just make stuff up.

Normal people in the real world.

Not in mumsnet world, where the financially incompetent have difficulties on £60k+ salaries.

Yes, you’ve missed the fact that many don’t earn over 45K.

It's the entire point of this thread. So, do you consider them to be working people or not?

ETA: you're living under a rock if you haven't noticed the government floating every single taxation idea by leaking it to the press!

Yes but you are asset rich - you have a house, and were lucky enough to get on the ladder when housing was very cheap relative to wages. These days, someone with a new mortgage will struggle to cover it on 45k.

FFS so depressing!

They are (mostly) working people, but they are the top 1/6th of the population by income, so are hardly "ordinary"

Labour's definition didn't include 'ordinary' when first mooted:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgqy8v7ze0ko?app-referrer=deep-link

Exactly, they are changing the words according to which best fits the narrative.

In fairness mumsnet has some skewed salaries (reflecting the demographics of posters)
I mean all the men reportedly earn six figure and are top of the game. C suite and all that.

• ONS Stats Median gross annual earnings for full-time employees were £39,039 in April 2025, compared with £37,439 in April 2024, which is an increase of 4.3%.

The government are setting our expectations of what’s coming in the budget. A slow drip feed so we can pinpoint who’s going to take the fall for the shortfall in their books. And it’s becoming clear very quickly that the middle earners are going to have to take one for the team it seems.

Median salary of full-time workers, as of April, was approximately £39k. So most full-timers earn less than £45k.

www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/annualsurveyofhoursandearnings/2025

I don't think i know anyone earning less than that, other than part time staff maybe.

Because you didn’t think multiple children would be…..expensive?

I know loads, but i work in education.

Yanbu it’s utter madness