Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

£100000 a year but too poor to be able to afford a third child

276 replies

emkana · 25/09/2005 12:22

I might be mad to get into this again, after that money thread I started the other week, but I just feel like I'm on a completely different planet again, after reading this article. It raises some good points comparing Britain and France, but the first example used is just ludicrous IMO.

article here

OP posts:
munz · 26/09/2005 11:17

700 on a pension - that's most of my wages (I earn £800 p/m and DH has just had a raise so hopefully he'll be having £850 on a good month if we're lucky, less on a bad month when theyr'e less days)

Caligula · 26/09/2005 11:17

Toothache, true - but what if you "choose" to live in a three bed semi, when you could save money by living in a 2 bed flat, and being uncomfortable?

Choices, choices...

NomDePlume · 26/09/2005 11:18

Techincally he does, as he wants to retire at 50/55, so he does 'only' have about 15 years left to contribute. People are living longer, 30+ years with no income, just pension is a longgggggggg time. Even his high pension contributions won't leave us rolling in cash in retirement.

Gobbledigook · 26/09/2005 11:18

Quite right Toothache - which is why I don't complain about not being able to go on holiday this year. We could have stayed in our old house and had plenty of 'disposable' income for shopping sprees, holidays and new cars but instead we have a much bigger house which means we've chosen to spend money on a mortgage rather than on those things.

NDP - I think it's just because he is quite a bit older than you isn't he? He's certainly not old though (well, pushing a bit close to 40 though isn't he? )

aloha · 26/09/2005 11:19

Retiring at 50 on a big pension is the very height of luxury IMO. I think if you can do it, it's very wise, but it is a huge and enviable luxury.

Toothache · 26/09/2005 11:19

Caligula - I'm not talking about living somewhere that makes you uncomfortable! I live in a 2bed semi..... I've got a ds and dd that share a room. I need a 3 bed house, but I'm looking for a 4 bed house just because I can afford one. Thats my choice to get tied into a much higher mortgage.... therefore we will have to keep out income up around what it is at the moment once we have committed. But I wouldn't plead poverty and complain that I had not alot of disposable income left!

Caligula · 26/09/2005 11:20

zippi - it's not a choice. Housing costs have to be paid. Unless you choose to opt out and inherit something outright, or if you chose your ancestors carelessly, go and live on the street, where there is no rent payable. Otherwise for normal people, housing costs are not a choice. Obviously, there is some choice about the level of them.

NomDePlume · 26/09/2005 11:20

He is 13 years older than me, we're hardly Anna Nicole Smith and J Howard Marshall

Toothache · 26/09/2005 11:21

NDP - I will be paying £75 per month to my pension (whenever I get one). That'll do me nicely.

Gobbledigook · 26/09/2005 11:22

No not at all NDP!!

hee hee! my parents are retired in early 50's - we're certainly hoping to have paid off our mortgage before 55. Oooh, it seems such a long way off doesn't it?! It's over 20 years till I'm 55 - plenty of time to save

NomDePlume · 26/09/2005 11:23

Absolutely, when I was working a crappy min wage job for the NHS I paid in £30 a month. Saving for the future (if you can afford to) is a good habit to get into.

flamebat · 26/09/2005 11:24

I'd like to have a mortgage by the time I'm 55....

Earlybird · 26/09/2005 11:24

frogs - thanks for the suggestions. I'm in SW1, but didn't even attempt St. Peter's Eaton Square because I'm not a churchy person. Maybe I missed an opportunity that I should have pursured more rigourously. I do know a few parents with children there, but the odds of getting in seems to be roughly equivalent to the odds of winning the lottery!

DD has just begun reception class at a central London private school, and it is a huge financial commitment for me - especially as a single mum. As far as I can see, there are only a few "normal" mummies there - the rest seem like the couple in the article, or are probably in the £500k per year income range. My "normal" friend has 2 children at the same school currently, and I felt queasy when I saw her bulletin board "note to self" to get the school a cheque for £7200 for the fall term school fees.

Yes, it is about choices, but it is also relative. £100k per annum sounds alot, but when a two bed flat (no garden) costs in the region of £400k, it's conceivable to grasp how quickly the money goes. Personally, I would like to move out of the centre of London, but it's all I have ever known of life in England. I wouldn't know where to begin to look and it would be the equivalent of closing my eyes and pointing at the map. So, for now, I am staying put where I know my "neighbourhood". But, I am questioning that choice.

frogs · 26/09/2005 11:24

Aloha, living virtually next-door to la Millard for a good few years (before her recent move upmarket) gave me a new appreciation for the yawning gap between journalistic-article-reality and reality-reality. Call it exaggeration, creativity, embroidery... What you will.

zippitippitoes · 26/09/2005 11:29

The Government definition of disposable income is before housing costs are accounted for..

although poverty action groups argue for it being after housing costs

NomDePlume · 26/09/2005 11:31

Of course it should be after housing costs ! How can 'housing' possibly be described as 'disposable

Caligula · 26/09/2005 11:32

It's one of those murky areas isn't it? Because housing is a basic need. But a house with a swimming pool, 6 garages and 50 acres, it can be argued, is not a basic need.

Unless you're trapped in a psychology that says it's a basic need, of course!

NomDePlume · 26/09/2005 11:33

I guess, but surely those living in extravagant circumstances are in the minority

zippitippitoes · 26/09/2005 11:34

It's discretionary use of income in the sense that assuming you are not in poverty or close to it you have choice, hence the alternative definitions

aloha · 26/09/2005 11:36

Earlybird - MOVE! 400K will buy you a four bedroomed house with nice garden in East Dulwich where I live. Excellent primaries too!

zippitippitoes · 26/09/2005 11:37

Well there are many people with homes bigger in size than required to be comfortable and in a more expensive location(and more than one property)

which is why house prices go up

and those on lower incomes have their choice commensurately withdrawn

Earlybird · 26/09/2005 11:38

aloha - tempting idea....and I'm not kidding! Must confess to avidly watching the "where's a good place to live" threads!

flamebat · 26/09/2005 11:39

I have no idea what "commensurately" means - but great word!!!

zippitippitoes · 26/09/2005 11:42

correspondingly maybe

as choice increases for those on higher incomes those on lower incomes have correspondingly less choice

frogs · 26/09/2005 11:45

Earlybird, as someone facing secondary transfer right now (eeek), you have several years in hand if you don't want to be shelling out until your child is 18.

Time to dust down the GSG, hit the Ofsted website, and work out which secondary school you want your child to go to. Then work out what you need to do to get there, and move house accordingly. The choice is bigger if you're churchy, but there are also good options for the non-churchy. Also worth mentioning that the big crunch for primary places is at Reception. If you're prepared to move schools after that, places do often come up even at the most over-subscribed schools -- and I'm sure there are good non-church schools in SW1. My cousin's child was offered a place at St George's Hanover Square, and they live in Notting Hill.

But agree it is harder if you're not a native Londoner (or even English) as you can't decode the game so easily.