You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
at what level would you be? is a grand a week not enough, do you need 1500 or even more? if your spending 2k a week .. what on?
I heard this, this morning on the radio, made me chuckle, guy phones up how hard up he is earning 110k a week, complaining about his large mortgage, yep must be terrible paying for a six bedroom detached house, and pcp payments on a 5 series bmw (the last two are only guesses on his expenditure), either way 60k is over double the average national wage.
It's not "rich" but certainly very comfortable.
I think rich is when you dont bother looking at the price of things.
Benji - think it was £110k per year but your basic point still valid.
I think about 10% of people pay higher rate of tax so by most folks standard £60k is wealthy.
TJ will be turning in his virtual stw grave!
Depends if that is for 2, or where you live etc. considering that they will pay 20% on most of what they spend as VAT why is it so bad??
FWIW it ends up as £800 a week after tax.
I'd rather stop all the people skipping the VAT by getting their bike stuff from Germany 🙂
I'm with mackem, I wouldn't define that as rich, but comfortable enough.
Ps I don't know where you live, but 60k wouldn't get you a 6 bed detached and a pcp on a 5 series around here!
Edit no, but 110k would! Doh!
haven't we been here before?
[quote=b r ]haven't we been here before?
probably, is the 60k what you can get in benefits.....
not sure it makes you "feel" wealthy as your points of reference change and what you can't afford just increases. that said it's hard to sympathize with anyone moaning at that wage level.
6 bed house on 60k a year? Only if the bank of mummy and daddy bought it for you.
...and yes, it's comfortable, but not rich, which is a sad indictment of how we measure ourselves.
FWIW it ends up as £800 a week after tax.
no it doesn't, more like 1300.
http://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.php
[quote=TurnerGuy ]FWIW it ends up as £800 a week after tax.
no it doesn't, more like 1300.
> http://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.php
br />
Using your link it says 803?
60,000/52 = 1153 so take some tax off.
If you can make 1300 * 52 = 60000 then welcome to the bank of **** up
As usual the problem is with inexact terminology. My rich may be my friend's comfortable and your poor. There is no precise definition.
But relatively speaking £60k is a decent whack to most people; try and support a family in a decent part of Surrey on that though and you will certainly not [u]feel[/u] rich. And whilst you may feel well off that will almost certainly not be the case if you lose your job and have no savings to fall back on.
A lot if the higher earners live in/near big cities though where house prices can be bordering on the ridiculous, by choice yes, but a young family early in their career may have little choice if they want to progress. Some of the most relatively hard up people I've met are those who've bought a £400k house in 2007 have a couple of kids and whose joint income is over £75k.
If you can make 1300 * 52 = 60000 then welcome to the bank of **** up
ah, I was thinking of that bloke on 110k !
sorry, it is so long since I was on the paltry sum of 60k that I forgot how little it was ...
Plus house prices in London are getting ridiculous, so who knows what his mortgage.
I remember hearing a high-up manager on the phone to his bank to set up a new DD for his mortgage of 4600 a month.
I'd rather stop all the people skipping the VAT by getting their bike stuff from Germany
They don't skip VAT - EU innit.
Are you planning on emigrating back now the dimwits are in charge down here?
Listening to all the carbon this, Kashima that on here I thought everyone was on £60k +
If you taxed people on 60k more, would that keep a lid on london house prices?
They don't skip VAT - EU innit.
Are you planning on emigrating back now the dimwits are in charge down here?
They pay it to the Germans instead though.
Not heading back just fun to watch inept British politicians.
In the rarefied world of politicians, 60k is what the oiks earn....
I know couples earning twice that who aren't rich. Eating out a lot seems to be a common way of disposing of money with no obvious benefit.
Why does it matter what Rachel Reeves or anyone else thinks is "rich"?
If labour are planning to tax the crap out of the rich you may want to know what they think rich is.
If you taxed people on 60k more, would that keep a lid on london house prices?
not doing that stupid 'help to buy' scheme would have helped keep some of the prices down...
If labour are planning to tax the crap out of the rich you may want to know what they think rich is
it might be more worthwhile to figure out how to effectively tax all those companies that manage to operate in this country at a loss, but make big global profits and not pay much tax here.
It really does depend, you may be earning that but have 2 people to support. If you wanted to live in the centre of Cambridge though you would likely need both parties in the relationship to be earning that amount I order t meet mortgage payments and still be able to afford to eat.
I spend a lot of time looking round at the cars on the road, the luxury purchases people are making, the cost of houses and wonder if they are largely self employed and lying about their earnings, if they all had large inheritances at some point, or if they are all just living in a lot more debt than I am.
For reference I think the average wage in my house in house is about £38k, so above average, but i don't feel rich, I also don't have any real money troubles and have just got back from a trip to NYC, so I am by no means complaining. I would also say I not as good at managing my money as some of my friends!
So the headline should be, Labour may propose a new threshold for those earning over 150k. Debating whether anyone is rich doesn't achieve anything as it will always be a subjective measure.
it might be more worthwhile to figure out how to effectively tax all those companies that manage to operate in this country at a loss, but make big global profits and not pay much tax here.
The only result is that they will make less return so will have to reduce staff costs and increase prices. It may well be good for smaller competitors but the end result is the employee earns less and the consumer pays more.
Be careful what you wish for.
frankly 60k a year is a lot of money. average earned income in the uk is 26k pre tax.
what you choose to do with it is what makes you 'rich'
to paraphrase..rich is the man who earns a quid and spends 90p skint is the man who earns a quid and spends £1.05
Be careful wishing big global companies pay a fair amount of tax here? I'm lost for words.
not doing that stupid 'help to buy' scheme would have helped keep some of the prices down...
True. I'm looking at the moment and H2B basically says to you as a buyer "Are you prepared to give up 20% of the future value of your house in order to live in a better house for that time"
It's quite a clever short term plan though - keep a lid on mortgage sizes whilst fuelling a housing boom, and ensuring that the government gets a cut of the boom. Long term, when the plan is removed prices will slump and everyone loses 🙁
On £60k, your take home is £3480 a month.
On £40k, your take home is £2502 a month.
Looking at rentals for instance:
In greater London, the average is £1316. Leaves you with £2164 or £1186, at £40k it's 52% of your wage.
In the North East, the average is £525. Leaves you with £2995 or £1977, at £40k it's 21% of your wage.
When looking at the most significant expenditure, you'd have to earn around 25% more in Greater London than the North East to maintain the same income once housing is accounted for.
Always a chuckle in these threads, the idea that you have to have a massive mortgage in order to live somewhere in order to make enough to pay a massive mortgage...
A lot if the higher earners live in/near big cities though where house prices can be bordering on the ridiculous, by choice yes, but a young family early in their career may have little choice if they want to progress. Some of the most relatively hard up people I've met are those who've bought a £400k house in 2007 have a couple of kids and whose joint income is over £75k.
Some of the most hard up people, not relatively, but actually, are people who live in rented accommodation and have 2 or 3 jobs which don't pay enough for them to have anything other than a telly...
And don't forget, if you earn 60k and your partner doesn't earn anything, it's like having two slightly above average earners.
I like the architect Buckminsterfuller's definition.
If you stopped working tomorrow and your unearned income covers your monthly expenditure then you are wealthy.
If your unearned income more than covers your monthly expenditure then you are rich- and that by the way is why the rich just keep getting richer as the spare income is invested.
I rather like this definition as it depends on how much you spend so in theory you could be rich on quite a modest income.
but the end result is the employee earns less and the consumer pays more.
😀 Could Starbucks charge anymore for their coffee ? !
Companies such as Starbucks charge for their products what they think they can get away with, and pay as little wages as they think they can get away with, it has nothing to do with whether they pay their taxes or not, the idea is to maximize profit.
If their customers were prepared to pay more, they will increase their prices, and if their customers aren't prepared to pay more, they won't increase their prices - they do after all want to stay in business. They just don't want to pay their taxes. No one does, which is why they have to forced to - even if it upsets them !
The only result is that they will make less return so will have to reduce staff costs and increase prices. It may well be good for smaller competitors but the end result is the employee earns less and the consumer pays more.Be careful what you wish for.
Or accept less return. If taxing companies is all bad why tax UK companies? Making international companies pay UK tax on the profits earned in the UK seems fair to me.
I think if many companies were able to reduce staff costs easily they would do it no matter what their tax situation was.
Some of the most hard up people, not relatively, but actually, are people who live in rented accommodation and have 2 or 3 jobs which don't pay enough for them to have anything other than a telly...
Was going to edit to say "don't pay enough to get sky 3D on their 42" LCD", but...
While I don't disagree, you'll be hard pushed to find someone with 50k negative equity and 2 kids on a salary circa 60k where they don't receive any benefits to agree with that statement.
I think you are confusing a 'lack of disposable income commensurate with owning an expensive house' with 'poverty'.
A lot of rich people don't consider themselves rich, let alone people earning £60k before tax.
Companies such as Starbucks charge for their products what they think they can get away with, and pay as little wages as they think they can get away with, it has nothing to do with whether they pay their taxes or not, the idea is to maximize profit.
+1
60k is a lot of money...
I earn less than a third of that and still survive paying for 2 kids and the missus doesn't work.
just because you earn 60k doesn't mean you have to get a massive house and mortgage but people choose to do so then moan they don't have enough money because 60% of it goes on the mortgage, i live on less than the 40% they would have left in total including my rent so have no sympathy
Aye, but families who have £50k negative equity do not own an expensive house, their banks do.
Negative equity of 50k rarely happens and i doubt it accounts for many people these days.
Its strange that many well off people dont realise how well of they are but the statistics dont lie re median wages and SD above the norm.
I am not rich as after I have paid the payments on the yacht, the chateaux in France , the roller, the house and the staff I have barely any money left over for me.
I think house prices skew what is well off [ a syou may have a small disposable income] but one day you will own a very expensive house that you could sell and move somewhere else and be very well off in your old age. Someone poor will still be poor in 25 years but you will not
£60k household income puts you in the top 15% in the UK. The median is down in the low £20's - in other words half the households live on less.
£60 / year is RICH. If you choose to spend it on mortgages, that's your choice, but don't whinge.
£60 / year is RICH. If you choose to spend it on mortgages, that's your choice, but don't whinge.
I haven't seen anyone whinging. Not sure what prompted the OP, but as another poster pointed out - most people earning £60k a year won't be "rich" for long if they lose their job.
Which is why I feel Londoners are daft. (Edit - following Moses comment)
I earn a reasonable amount as does my wife and in the outskirts of York can afford a reasonable house.
I'd want 50% more cash before I even considered moving to the wasteland that is the southeast.
No-one ever thinks they're rich, you just find more expensive stuff to spend money on.
60k is plenty. Our household income is less than half that at the mo and we live pretty comfortably. Not in the SE though, and we don't have kids.
I do get slightly sick of some people moaning about how skint they are as they sit in their massive house discussing plans for their next expensive foreign holiday.
wiggles - Member60k is a lot of money...
I earn less than a third of that and still survive paying for 2 kids and the missus doesn't work.just because you earn 60k doesn't mean you have to get a massive house and mortgage but people choose to do so then moan they don't have enough money because 60% of it goes on the mortgage, i live on less than the 40% they would have left in total including my rent so have no sympathy
To be honest, you sound quite bitter about it
Lots of envy politics on STW as ever. £60k when you're on your own is enough for a very affluent lifestyle.
£60k when you're supporting a family of 4 is altogether another matter.
To be honest, you sound quite bitter about it
I don't think he comes across bitter just to the point.
It's all relative at the end of the day, me and my wife may make that a year between us but having no kids means we are better off than my mate who earns that and a little more yet has three kids.
Either way think of the all the shiny bike stuff you could buy 🙂
Why do people keep making out that people on £60k are "moaning about it"
They aren't.
This discussion is about a politician who said earning £60k doesn't make you rich.
This is the 1st time a labour mp has got anything right, I'm staggered!
60k is not rich, its comfortable.
60k is a lot of money...
I earn less than a third of that and still survive paying for 2 kids and the missus doesn't work.
On your salary, the average rent in Greater London would be 96% of your income. In the NE it would be 38%.
just because you earn 60k doesn't mean you have to get a massive house and mortgage but people choose to do so then moan they don't have enough money because 60% of it goes on the mortgage, i live on less than the 40% they would have left in total including my rent so have no sympathy
In plenty of places, a £1500 monthly mortgage wouldn't get you a 3 bed house. Equally, in other places a £750 mortgage would get you a castle.
£60k when you're supporting a family of 4 is altogether another matter.
Then don't have a family you can't afford or send your wife to work. As me and my missus are both good with maths, we'll be laughing when we're both on 60k.
On your salary, the average rent in Greater London would be 96% of your income. In the NE it would be 38%.
It's from my understanding that most reputable companies also take the cost of living in London into account, hence higher wages in London for similar roles further up North.
Full time nursery for 3 kids would probably consume a £60k salary!
Well as we are the 7 th richest country in the world and you are in the top 15% of them I think you would need to have a pretty poor grasp of stats to think it is not rich.
Problem is it is a value loaded term that gets emotive reactions and on that point can we leave the bitter and politics of envy weak slurs to one side perhaps?
Full time nursery for 3 kids would probably consume a £60k salary!
Send the wife to work then or use contraception. Catholic?
Better yet, move your rents next door if they aren't dead and go old school by having an extended family.
The people who get rich, really really old several generations rich are the ones who live within their means and slowly accumulate it.
I think rich is when you dont bother looking at the price of things.
I'd better tell my girlfriend that she's 'rich', then. 😆
My boss is a millionaire. His boss is a billionaire.
No-one on 60k will ever feel rich compared with them...!
My brother in law earns 130k a year. His new girlfriend earns around the same (she does the same job for a different office overseas). The way he whines and moans you'd think he was scraping by on Jobseeker's Allowance.
I am jealous and I do hate him.
£60k + £20k here and we are far from 'rich' - 1 child, modest house, little bit of money mis-management in the past, but all catered for now, not a lot in the way of material possessions. Don't have to worry about anything, but on the other hand, not particularly thrifty either.
fervoured - have you told your sister about the new girlfriend...
60k? That'd almost pay for one of George Osbourne's skiing holidays! 😉
It's from my understanding that most reputable companies also take the cost of living in London into account, hence higher wages in London for similar roles further up North.
Quite correct. But the premise of the thread seems to be that if you earn £60k you are rich, regardless of circumstances. By that token, you could maybe earn £45k in the NE and be similarly rich due to base housing costs. Therefore, if you earn £60k in the NE you'd be richer than someone on the same salary in Greater London, all other things being equal.
Please note that I'm not arguing against higher taxes, just pointing out that it is all relative.
I'm sure there are no £60k households living on the poverty line, but you're certainly not going to get rich on this, especially if you live in the SE. Maybe if you're single living with your parents, yes. But a typically family of 4 will just be making ends meet on this salary. Of course they're going to be living in a bigger house than someone on half the salary, but it certainly wont be a beachside mansion or a big country pile. It'll most likely be a typical house on a typical housing estate.
You've got the top 1% of wage earners contributing to over a third of the tax bill, with the bottom 10% only contributing to 0.6% but consuming the vast majority. The squeezed middle contributing to almost two thirds of the tax bill. Not exactly a balanced and fair society.
If you're a family of 4 with a household income of £60k a year, you'll have a mortgage, child care costs that will be as much as your mortgage and nothing in return from the government. This doesn't leave a huge amount of disposable income out of the monthly salary - and its not going on a huge savings and investment portfolio. This doesn't feel like my definition of rich, not by monetary standards at least.
The squeezed middle don't want anything from the government, they would just like more of their own cash for themselves. And no-one should apologise to any spiteful, jealous socialist for that.
And we're not really the 7th richest nation in the world. Not when you bake into it our national debt to GDP ratio, which is worse than any of the PIGS nations. Its only our ability to keep on leveraging cheap debt that is keeping this country afloat. As soon as that is cut off or restricted then we're in for a collapse that will make Greece look like a minor crisis.
Send the wife to work then or use contraception. Catholic?
My wife will never earn 60k. And she's catholic 🙁 Double ****ed 🙁
Better yet, move your rents next door if they aren't dead and go old school by having an extended family.
My FIL has been living with us for 6 months. MIL was here for about 8 months before that. Not easy with a small child in a 2 bed flat.
Any other suggestions?
We're a family of four hitting around 24k per annum between us.. We consider ourselves comfortable.. S'all relative innit
You've got the top 1% of wage earners contributing to over a third of the tax bill, with the bottom 10% only contributing to 0.6% but consuming the vast majority. The squeezed middle contributing to almost two thirds of the tax bill. Not exactly a balanced and fair society.
Another way to look at it is that the top 1% contribute a third of the tax bill, and earn a third of total income. At least it was a similar profile last time I looked. That top 1% [i]need[/i] the labour of everyone else to generate the income they have. Don't they ultimately benefit the most from having a healthy, well-educated and happy workforce?
the average rent in Greater London would be 96% of your income
So who cleans the toilets?
Who works in the newsagents?
Who sweeps the streets?
Who empties the bins?
Who does all the jobs that earn way less than 60K?
...and where do they live?
It's probably the same person, living in an HMO with 15 other people.
The folks who compare it in line with geographical location are banging the nail on the head. Where we temporarily live a 2 bed flat is £500k minimum. £60k won't get you into that. Where we normally live £500k gets you a 5 bed detached house. It's all relative.
the average rent in Greater London would be 96% of your income
So who cleans the toilets?
Who works in the newsagents?
Who sweeps the streets?
Who empties the bins?
Who does all the jobs that earn way less than 60K?...and where do they live?
They travel in from a long long way away.
So who cleans the toilets?...
I imagine that to any of these groups 60k is properly rich. It probably all depends on your constituents
They travel in from a long long way away.
What?
All of them?
All travelling in from outside Greater London?
Every day?
Either that particular part of the country is even more knackered than we all assume, or that's not actually the case.
uponthedowns - MemberI like the architect Buckminsterfuller's definition.
If you stopped working tomorrow and your unearned income covers your monthly expenditure then you are wealthy.
If your unearned income more than covers your monthly expenditure then you are rich- and that by the way is why the rich just keep getting richer as the spare income is invested.
I rather like this definition as it depends on how much you spend so in theory you could be rich on quite a modest income.
I think the above about sums it up. Anyone who has a mortgage or only owns one property isn't rich in my eyes. It's hilarious reading some of the replies on here...typical STW, lots of folk commenting on things they know nothing about. It's the same with some of mates who judge peoples wealth on what car they drive! 😀
Thats a terrible basis to decide
Firstly the term unearned income has a various meanings and if we took the Labour Theory of Value version someone retired or on benefits could be wealthy yet someone earning millions could be poor as they former can live on unearned income and the later has to work for their millions.
Any method must , at the bare minimum, take into account what you actually get in deciding if you are rich.
Its an interesting debate as to the range of values associated that folk give
FWIW IMHO every single person in this country is wealthy as , despite the current govts best efforts, its almost impossible to die from illness/ disease or malnutrition/poverty.
Go see the third world if you wish to see real poverty and then , hopefully, reconsider your position on whether 60 k , a nice house, car etc is "not rich"
Some her efind the rich in a rich country as not rich.
Income is a very poor measure for defining "rich".
its almost impossible to die from illness/ disease
Er....
I know you like a 'robust debate' Junkyard, but I may have to question the above comment, because we pretty much all die from an illness or a disease apart from traumatic injuries and severe old age.
We are more fotunate than most in that we have a fairly well respected publicly funded healthcare system, but we still die of stuff.