It’s really not that “niche” if you actually look at the data. Especially with inflation in recent years. 7.2% of employees who work full time earn over £100k per year (I’ve excluded part-time employees from the figure because obviously that skews the like-for-like comparison as there’s no national data showing pro-rated FTE equivalent salaries for these people, and pensioners with incomes over this level, of whom there are 50,000- 60,000). Interestingly, when you add the self-employed, the figure remains the same because the number who earn this amount (or declare it…) is low (150,000-200,000) but they are a far smaller proportion of the population as well (2.9m self employed people in comparison to 25.5 million full-time employees).
Don’t forget that there are many people deliberately reducing earnings, cutting hours or retiring early to avoid the 60% to sometimes over 100% tax trap at £100k, so this percentage of people with an income of over £100k would doubtless be significantly higher if we had a functional tax system.
This isn’t a small number of people: over two million people in the UK are earning this amount. More than 2 out of every 30 random people you select who are working full time per the data, which isn’t what I’d really call “niche”. Obviously primarily they won’t be people who never bothered with education/ setting up a business, and primarily they’ll be people who aren’t in their early 20s and have built up their success and careers/ businesses over time, and primarily they’re unlikely to remain in the most deprived areas because most of the opportunities to earn these amounts will mean moving to less deprived areas where there are opportunities. But the data exists and is easily accessible and shows categorically that this isn’t a rare level of income, and certainly doesn’t make anyone “rich” these days: two earners with minimum wage full time incomes are £25,396 each which is £1,817.21 each after tax, so £3,634.42 for a couple. A single earner with £100,000 salary will receive £5,176.94 after tax and a Plan 2 student loan, for example. They will not receive tax free childcare, or child benefit, or universal credit, or subsidised rent, or free hours at nursery. One nursery place can easily cost £2k per month which would mean they’re worse off than the couple on minimum wage. Have two children and their net earnings would be £1,176.94 per month to pay their mortgage, bills, commuting and all living expenses.
It isn’t the riches that people seem to think it is because of the UK tax system and them not realising just how much is deducted from higher earners before they even see their salary. This system particularly discriminates against single parents. A lone parent has to earn a salary of over £150k to provide the same lifestyle for their children as a couple each earning the average salary of £37,500, i.e. the lone parent must earn almost twice as much, in half the time and most likely has to pay for far more childcare as well because they can’t be in two places at once. They will get no help with funding this making the gap even wider, not to mention the fact that - as you noted - to earn that kind of salary generally people have to live in expensive areas with much higher commuting costs and much higher mortgages/ rent. I think headline salaries can be quite misleading in terms of the net income a household actually receives after tax and that’s the only sensible basis upon which you can make a meaningful comparison.