[Closed] so if your not rich earning 60k a year?

We certainly don't want anything from the government, but would resent paying anymore tax to pay for ridiculous socialist ideologies or other follies.

By ridiculous socialist ideologies I assume you're referring to free health service, free police force, free schooling for your children etc.

EDIT 'free' at point of use...

We live in a nice bit of the southeast, have two kids in childcare and various other drains on our income, so no, we don't feel rich.

Yeah... I think of my kids purely as a 'drain on our income' too. I also tire of the crazy socialist crap I see going on around me every day, and resent having to pay for it. Britain today, eh? Its bordering on communism!

Good (correct) edit footflaps!!!

What this original statement seems to be implying (albeit in a very poorly chosen set of words) is that you can be spending all your disposable income and feel poor earning £60K, especially in the southeast where housing is expensive.

As a lot of people point out feeling "rich" is completely subjective since it depends on your reference point that you are measuring yourself against. Billionaire or homeless person?

The Wiki income page states the facts quite clearly. £60K as a single income puts you in the top 10% of earners and 2x£30K as a couple puts you near average income.

Would I consider someone earning £60K a year rich. No.

I can understand that £60k is seen as a very good salary/wage, however does anyone struggle to make £25k - I don't mean through choice, but genuine situation?

Wow, Some people really do have their head stuck up their own....

How much do you think the people that work in Tesco, the high-street, cleaners, low end office workers, pretty much every cycle mechanic or shop worker if you want to get bike related, etc etc earn?? This does not mean London in isolation, lets not forget the rest of the country now 😉

Seriously... I know STW and biking in reality is very middle class but open your eyes, 25K pa is something many people will only ever dream of, some are just not capable of ever attaining this.

Wow, Some people really do have their head stuck up their own....

How much do you think the people that work in Tesco, the high-street, cleaners, low end office workers, pretty much every cycle mechanic or shop worker if you want to get bike related, etc etc earn?? This does not mean London in isolation, lets not forget the rest of the country now

Seriously... I know STW and biking in reality is very middle class but open your eyes, 25K pa is something many people will only ever dream of, some are just not capable of ever attaining this.

I know what the minimum wage is you dullard, so maybe you get your head out of your arse 😉 - it was a question aimed at the STW demographic.

I know some people have chosen jobs well below that pay grade - TJ for example. He seemed happy with what he was doing (maybe TJ & 'happy' is an oxymoron though) so good for him.

On a forum populated by 'mostly' seemingly intelligent people, with a pretty expensive hobby - and if the stereotypes are to be believed, a background in IT and an Audi on the drive (a load of balls, I know) - I seriously wanted to know how many people really struggle to get close to that wage.

I work in the Construction Industry mostly, so none of your mamby pamby 8 hr days 😉 £10per hr x 10hrs x 5 days x 50 weeks = £25k.

Maybe I did set the bar a little high - take off breaks, maybe 48 weeks, not 50 - so £20k then? General unskilled labourers can get £8 per hour, is £10 still seen as a good wage?

It sounded like you were sitting on your throne looking with the assumption that earning over 25k is an easy choice to make...

I know some people have chosen jobs well below that pay grade - TJ for example. He seemed happy with what he was doing (maybe TJ & 'happy' is an oxymoron though) so good for him.

You are still missing the point that people have 'chosen' jobs well below the pay grade - i would suggest to you that many people have jobs out of survival and existance, not choice.

Personally, even if I discarded the past 25 years I've been in work, I think I would be able to go out and earn £20-25k without too many issues. Don't think for a minute I'm assuming this is possible for everyone - I'm not that daft.

My question was really borne from davidtaylforths comments - I'm intrigued as to whether people ON HERE AND CAPABLE OF REPLYING are on low incomes, why they are on low incomes, what could be done to change that and whether it's a lifestyle choice, or circumstance that's governed that.

If someone chooses to work in an LBS for £7.50 an hour, yet could go to the local quarry and earn £10 an hour, that's a choice.

If someone has split from their partner, has children to look after and the only work available to suit them is minimum wage at Tesco, then not so much a choice.

Choosing to learn a trade is a choice - being born on a rough council estate in the North East, with industry closing down and no apprenticeships available removes that choice somewhat.

I'm lucky to a certain extent as to where I live - I've still made choices that have determined where I am today. I'm currently out of work for up to 3 months due to injury (self-employed). Have I sat round getting into debt? No, I've adapted to survive.

Whilst there are millions who don't have so much choice, there will still be plenty who bemoan the situation they are in, without having the gumption to even try and do something about it.

There's a certain company that gets mentioned quite a bit on here - I can see how that was started with a little bit of get-up and go, not necessarily a lot of money and by my reckoning should be making reasonable profits (impossible to know how much obviously).

There's a lot of talk here about how people resent those earning more. I don't - but I do resent people who earn plenty and endlessly moan on about how skint they are, and how they pay too much tax, and how they're only going to be able to afford 3 foreign holidays this year.

The guy I know who earns the most money is happy to contribute and never whinges about tax or lack of cash - his wife does though!

There's a lot of really vitally important jobs out there that require a lot of ability and commitment to do well, that don't pay much over minimum wage. Eg being a carer for people with special needs. Lots of people make a choice to do work like that because it's important and it needs doing. Should they all aspire to do something else so try get paid more?

but I do resent people who earn plenty ad endlessly moan on about how skint they are

I work with a single mum who earns somewhere between £90k - £110k. No childcare costs thanks to nice parents who live next to her kid's school.

She moans constantly about how hard it is financially to be own your own and how hard it is to bring up a kid on one salary. She's absolutely deluded. Worst of it is, she has long "we're all in the same boat" conversations with a couple of other single parents in the office, both of whom earn less than £15k.

She said to one of the other mums that she really hoped she got bonus this year otherwise she'd be struggling for xmas. Her bonus is more than that woman earns in a year!

Boils my piss.

I can understand that £60k is seen as a very good salary/wage, however does anyone struggle to make £25k - I don't mean through choice, but genuine situation?

I'm on 17,000. My wife has just managed to get a pay rise to the heady heights of 14,500. Both of us work full time and are constantly applying for new jobs. There just isn't much around. I have a couple of friends who earn around 100k but I seem to be on one of the higher wages out of people I know (less than my sister who's a teacher though!)

I'm 29, university graduate, working in an office. Living the dream.

it was a question aimed at the STW demographic.

Take a look at unemployment figures. Take a look at the swathes of young people coming out of university who have been sold the dream of 'get a degree get a job'. A lot of them are likely better educated than you. A chap I know gave his two daughters the best middle class upbringing imaginable. They were both educated by top universities and exceeded the average throughout the entirety of their academic lives. They do not make 25k between them.

Consider a Post-doc working now to cure Diabetes at a top 10 university, with a First Class degree and PhD from Oxford. Not much more than 25k.

Sure, they're all under 30. And hey, this is anecdotal evidence, but that's the kind you wanted.

It took me 6 years after graduation to earn £25k.

Why? Combination of factors. I went travelling after uni (my choice) for a year. When it came to getting a job, I found that my degree really didn't count for anything, and that I was still expected to start at the bottom. After a while temping, my first "proper job" out of uni earned me just over £13k, and was customer service in a callcentre.

I trained to go on the technical helpdesk, since that seemed to pay a bit more, and made it to the dizzy heights of £17k once I got a full time job in IT support, which rose to £20k with an on-call allowance. I was, however, bored out of my mind, and I retrained as a youth worker (again, my choice). I earned about the same doing yoof work as I had in IT support, but there was no job security. I landed a contract managing a youth employment project, and as a manager, my salary went up a bit, but only by a couple of grand. After that contract ended, I went to be a project manager back in the IT world, due to lack of jobs because the Tories cut all the yoof services apart from forced-labour-in-pound-shop programmes. Only then did I break the £25k barrier, 2 years ago.

Some of it was my choice, admittedly, like travel and retraining, which meant I spent time out of the workforce, so my salary is probably 2 years behind those who graduated when I did and have worked ever since.

You seem to have to move jobs quite often in order to get higher pay - I have worked in a few places where I was promoted, i.e. given extra responsibility and higher expectations, but didn't get a salary hike, or if I did, it was minimal, and I was paid less than what someone from outside the company would have got, i.e. less than what they advertised the job externally for. My last two job moves have been for that reason, because I don't see why I should take on more responsibility and receive little or no reward. Salaries are not rising in line with inflation, I'm not going to say that Mr Panda and I are poor; we are not, with a combined income of around £54k, but we're in a rent trap and have little spare to save. Still, we aren't struggling to pay our bills though, so we are grateful for the fact that we don't have to make any really hard choices, like between food and heating our home. We grumble at times when we can't afford things we want, but it's useful to remind ourselves we are much better off than many people who don't have the skills and experience that we do, in order to earn the kind of wages that allow us to live in relative comfort, and not worry about the next electricity bill or whatever.

We are also in the fairly fortunate position of not wanting children, so we don't have to worry about how we would finance a family.

however does anyone struggle to make £25k - I don't mean through choice, but genuine situation?

Out of maybe 50 people of my (uni) course, all who graduated, a small handful of those even got a job within a few months of graduating.

Of those who got a job, about 5 of those would be on £20k+ if i'm being optimistic.

I started at 20 when I graduated, 2 years later on 22.5. Could probably justify 25 if I changed job but my job is safe and enjoyable so until the new year here I remain.

My Mrs started on £17k. She is now on 19. Desperately looking for a new job but it's very hard being at the bottom of all the ladders.

Currently right now, for everyone I know my age bar 1 person, a 60k job looks securely like a dream.

Luckily, I'm only 23 years old.

Interesting years ahead, and interesting hearing the opinions of the job market from people who are older than myself.

Currently right now, for everyone I know my age bar 1 person, a 60k job looks securely like a dream.

Don't take this the wrong way but it has pretty much always been like this. Unless you did a vocational degree and decided to work in a highly paid industry then this won't change.

They were both educated by top universities and exceeded the average throughout the entirety of their academic lives. They do not make 25k between them.

How long are they out of Uni and what area? Sounds low if experienced, but if new out of Uni then on a par with what I'd expect.

Consider a Post-doc working now to cure Diabetes at a top 10 university, with a First Class degree and PhD from Oxford. Not much more than 25k.

Seems unlikely, I'd expect something around the 29k. (Pedant note: You don't get a PhD for Oxford.)

What is everyone doing to only earn 17k out of Uni? I mostly know scientists and engineers, and all started on more than that. More likely the 22-24k mark, with some in the low 30k's.

More than twice the average UK salary in one of the richest countries on the planet. If that's not rich, the word has no meaning.

More than twice the average UK salary in one of the richest countries on the planet. If that's not rich, the word has no meaning.

Well if you are going to compare it to the rest of the world then you are quite right. Of course by that comparison everyone in the UK is rich.

As has been said many times, income is a poor way to define relative wealth.

Here's a simple test. Do you have to work? If you do, you're not rich.

Well if you are going to compare it to the rest of the world then you are quite right. Of course by that comparison everyone in the UK is rich.

As has been said many times, income is a poor way to define relative wealth.

You seem to have missed that £60k is more than twice the UK median full-time salary. Your comment about defining relative wealth is, I strongly suspect, one only made by people with money.

ransos - Member
You seem to have missed that £60k is more than twice the UK median full-time salary. Your comment about defining relative wealth is, I strongly suspect, one only made by people with money.

the original statement was about a family earning 50-60k total in the SE

Here's a simple test. Do you have to work? If you do, you're not rich.

So if I had 50 million pounds, spent all of it on a massive mansion, but then had to work to pay for food/bills etc, you wouldn't classify me as rich?

You seem to have missed that £60k is more than twice the UK median full-time salary

Nope I didn't miss that at all.

Your comment about defining relative wealth is, I strongly suspect, one only made by people with money.

Well you were the one who used the term "one of the richest countries on the planet" which I took to mean that you wanted to compare wealth across many countries. The point I was to making was to illustrate how pointless that was. Oh and just because some has money, doesn't make their opinions and comments worthless or wrong.

the original statement was about a family earning 50-60k total in the SE

The original statement was "you don't feel particularly rich". It doesn't mean that perception matches reality.

Well you were the one who used the term "one of the richest countries on the planet" which I took to mean that you wanted to compare wealth across many countries. The point I was to making was to illustrate how pointless that was.

Oh and just because some has money, doesn't make their opinions and comments worthless or wrong.

Wealth / Richness can really only be defined by a person’s ability to either

1/ Have a windfall
2/ Live well within their means and successfully invest the rest of their income to generate wealth.

It only has a tenuous link to monthly net income, in that it provides the potential to make you rich or wealthy

For instance I know a chap who works in the city, a compulsive gambler and alcoholic, earns well over £100K a year, owns no property and has no savings. he is neither rich nor wealthy

What is everyone doing to only earn 17k out of Uni? I mostly know scientists and engineers, and all started on more than that. More likely the 22-24k mark, with some in the low 30k's.

The reality for most non-science / Engineering grads is 17k a year... My OH's sister and friends are all in the same boat leading to many of them going back to become primary school teachers... There is going to be a lot of primary school teachers about with useless sports science and pyschology degrees....

I am assuming a low 30k start for engineers is in the south again as that is well above what i have seen in this area .... (I am a degree level engineer)...

For instance I know a chap who works in the city, a compulsive gambler and alcoholic, earns well over £100K a year, owns no property and has no savings. he is neither rich nor wealthy

Yes he is, he just wastes his wealth on gambling and booze, how he spends money is a choice for him.

The reality for most non-science / Engineering grads is 17k a year... My OH's sister and friends are all in the same boat leading to many of them going back to become primary school teachers...

Starting salary for teaching is currently about £21k, minus whatever is lost through strike action.

So if I had 50 million pounds, spent all of it on a massive mansion, but then had to work to pay for food/bills etc, you wouldn't classify me as rich?

You wouldn't have to work. You could sell it, buy a 25 million hovel and no longer work. Working is a choice.

If you have the choice, you're rich.

It only has a tenuous link to monthly net income

No idea how anyone can argue that what you earn is not related to how well off you are.

Yes he is, he just wastes his wealth on gambling and booze, how he spends money is a choice for him.

Well that's the point, isn't it? I've heard people on salaries well into six figures complaining that they don't have any money. Is it just possible that's because they have a large house, private school fees, an expensive car, a cottage in the Cotswolds and two foreign holidays each year?

Well you were the one who used the term "one of the richest countries on the planet" which I took to mean that you wanted to compare wealth across many countries. The point I was to making was to illustrate how pointless that was.

I'm interested to know why you think it's 'pointless'.

Starting salary for teaching is currently about £21k, minus whatever is lost through strike action.

I imagine thats why many are doing it, safe job with a decent starting wage... not exactly low 30's though which if a graduate obtains up here in the midlands would be really going some / silver spoon / daddy plays golf with the director...

You wouldn't have to work. You could sell it, buy a 25 million hovel and no longer work. Working is a choice.
If you have the choice, you're rich.

Well everyone in this country has a 'choice' whether to work or not. If you believe the Daily Mail millions of people choose not to work.

Most people in this country could choose to massively downsize/cut expenditure and work a lot less - but they choose not to (then whine about it).

I'm interested to know why you think it's 'pointless'.

In terms of progressing this particular debate it is pointless.

No idea how anyone can argue that what you earn is not related to how well off you are.

No-one had said it's unrelated, just that there are many other factors not related to income that also affect how well off you are. Focusing on one criteria, just because it's easy to measure, doesn't mean you'll come up with a sensible answer.

You wouldn't have to work. You could sell it, buy a 25 million hovel and no longer work. Working is a choice.

If you have the choice, you're rich.

We decided that my Mrs didn't need to hurry back to work after the birth of our child. I suspect my salary wouldn't be your idea of rich...

dragon,
You're bang on with that figure (and pedantry) - I'm saying not much more than 25k compared to the 60k figure, all things considered.
The girls are in the humanities pit unfortunately, one is seeking a training contract but it's a battle. I agree with your numbers for Science / Engineering graduate starting salaries: Most of the big defence boys are offering around 25k - 30k for graduate schemes, without much variation with location: You can get this in Glasgow.

I think all the last 6 pages have proved is that "rich" is a perjorative term and that whoever used it to start this debate has been very successfull at achiving the publicity they were after.

That and that it is a relative term and different people have different view on what it means.

This whole six pages has been a debate of semantics. I hope everyone feels good about that!

One of the reasons I never did the move-to-London thing after uni was that even though salaries are higher, they do not compensate for the higher living costs in the capital.

However, I think there probably are better career opportunities in London/SE, if you're willing to go down there as a new grad and put up with the hardship or have parents who can help while you're on a grad scheme salary and paying at least half your wage in rent. Grad salaries in London can, in certain specialisms (IT, engineering, finance) start at £25-28k. But in London, that doesn't actually go very far, especially when you're also paying off student loans and possibly a student overdraft as well, unless you work somewhere like where I do, that offers grads interest free grad loans and the option to buy a yearly travel pass interest free. If you happen to be from London or the SE, and are willing/able to live at home for the first couple of years, then obviously, you're much better off. I would rather have eaten my brains with a spoon than lived back with either of my parents - again, a choice I made meaning I was less well off than my friends who did that and saved money to buy their own place whilst living rent free and earning a London salary.

There's also a lot of competition for those grad schemes - it's fierce. Many of them will only take students with degrees of 2:1 or higher, and only from particular disciplines. I had a humanities/languages degree, and nobody wanted to hire me, because I wasn't considered to be skilled/experienced for the modern workplace. Hence, like many graduates, I ended up doing fairly low skilled work for the first 2-3 years after graduating, and needed to gain vocational/professional qualifications in order to progress in the workplace.

Money wasn't so much a motivation for me as getting away from the drudgery of a lot of that type of work. Being tied to a phone and at the whim of a stroppy customer or jumped up middle manager whose computer wasn't working didn't do much for my self esteem. Going to work and it feeling like groundhog day, same problems over and over again. In low paid/low skill jobs, you tend to have little autonomy, and there's not much flexiblity. As I've gone towards the managerial roles, I find that I'm treated like an adult, trusted to manage my own time and workload, and that I'm allowed to give short shrift to anyone who behaves rudely or inappropriately towards me. And incidentally, I do not allow anyone in my team to be rude to helpdesk staff, IT support staff or admins - I remember all too well what it was like being dumped on myself.

There's also a lot of competition for those grad schemes - it's fierce. Many of them will only take students with degrees of 2:1 or higher,

Most of the big defence boys are offering around 25k - 30k for graduate schemes, without much variation with location: You can get this in Glasgow.

There is the point; you can get them, but there will be another 250 applicants for the same position taking only the best / most well connected on. This the truth for many of the better graduate schemes.

With what seems like every 18yo going to uni now it was always going to be impossible to find high-ranking jobs for them all. That starts another argument, that not everybody should be going to uni in the first place...

I'm interested to know why you think it's 'pointless'.
In terms of progressing this particular debate it is pointless.

Not really. The crux of the issue is defining the term 'rich'. I fail to see how introducing a little perspective is pointless. It's something a lot of people could do with a lot more of IMO.

Most of us in this country are incredibly lucky to have been born where we were, and yet I hear so much whining.

Most of us in this country are incredibly lucky to have been born where we were, and yet I hear so much whining.

and yet somehow I doubt this thread will change any of that.....

No idea how anyone can argue that what you earn is not related to how well off you are.

Well it's sort of related - depends how much you've earnt in total over what period of time really.

If I'm rich it's because of my assets not my income - the income helped but asset appreciation was the biggest part; if I'd never bought a property I wouldn't feel well off.

Most of us in this country are incredibly lucky to have been born where we were, and yet I hear so much whining.

Funny business "poverty".

The number in poverty dropped after the crash in Ireland. Not because the poorer had become better off, but because the rich had become poorer.
Funny business "poverty".

Income inequality is the big issue, and one where this country is particularly bad.

No idea how anyone can argue that what you earn is not related to how well off you are.

Of course it is, but it's only one factor. I'm sure even the most stubborn of us can see that.
If you inherited your house from your parents you're going to be better off than someone who earns a bit more than you, but has to pay a mortgage.

No idea how anyone can argue that what you earn is not related to how well off you are.

I didn't, perhaps you didn't mean me, but you quoted me! It is linked but not directly

If my buddy is sacked tomorrow he has nothing, not a pot to piss in, by anyones definition surely that is not rich or wealthy, he squandered the potential to become rich and wealthy, whereas other people have become relativley wealthy by earning a modest to good salary and being prudent with the balance not needed to live on.

Income inequality is the big issue, and one where this country is particularly bad.

The number in poverty dropped after the crash in Ireland. Not because the poorer had become better off, but because the rich had become poorer.
Funny business "poverty".

There's good evidence showing that having a society with a smaller gap between rich and poor is good for everyone, including the rich.

Not really sure how your statement is a response to my post though. Are you suggesting people are right to be whiny and lacking in perspective?

Not really sure how your statement is a response to my post though. Are you suggesting people are right to be whiny and lacking in perspective?

Perspective is insanely hard to come by. I earn comfortably over £60k, but I work in an industry servicing people who regard that as small change. I have to constantly remind myself that a good workable definition of wealth is "wouldn't be a catastrophe if I lost my job tomorrow" and "owns a private jet instead of leasing one" is so far removed from the concerns of almost every human who has ever lived that it is borderline surreal. 🙂

owns a private jet instead of leasing one

You mean you lease?

Tsk Tsk, should have worked harder at school.....

That awful feeling when the stewardess calls you "sir" because she also works for other people...

Perspective is insanely hard to come by.

Indeed. I'm reading this thread after coming out of a meeting with 3 people, all of whom will earn a good 7 digits in salary alone, got back to my desk to find someone clearing my bin who is probably earning minimum wage. Same company, same office, all people i'd have a drink with. Quite a disparity though.

The cleaner will probably think i'm rich, but the guys I was just with would wonder how I get by at all.

I had a [s]humanities/[/s]languages degree

The languages bit may not help you get on the ladder at the bottom but it sure as hell makes the climb to the top a lot more speedy in a lot of companies.

To work here as above a certain grade (above about 40k-50k) you have to speak a second language, no matter what the role.

The humanities bit is rightly useless!

A £60k per year salary is a reasonable one but I would say it is not one that qualifies you as rich. I say that in the context of the country we live in rather than in a global context. The other parts to the context are your location and dependents. As has been said several times, one person earning £60k sounds amazing to many people but if that is the only income in a family then it's not that amazing. Two people earning around £26k each will almost certainly make the family better off than a single £60k earner.
Then you factor in what you decide to spend your money on. While I cannot back it up with hard facts the distinct impression I get is that a lot of people either live up to their means or live beyond them. That's a choice. Not one that I would personally commend as a good one but we do at least live in a country where we can make that choice. The net result of that is what makes you feel well off or skint. Personally I find it difficult to have much sympathy for people that earn a good salary yet spend it all trying to keep up with the latest piece of German engineering in the driveway and big ass television, expensive foreign holidays etc etc while complaining about having no money.

Back to the original topic though - I would agree. A £60k salary is not something that makes you rich.

Two people earning around £26k each will almost certainly make the family better off than a single £60k earner.

Not sure how ?

Firstly they would earn less.

Secondly, if they had kids, they would have to pay for child care on top of the already smaller take home pay.

Because they will pay less tax

Agree that childcare could take a chunk out of that though

One person on 60k takes home more than 2 people on 26k (not much more, but more)

...Not sure how ?

Because they will pay less tax

I think you missed a couple of the points I made.

Firstly they would earn less.....

.....the already smaller take home pay.

Perspective is insanely hard to come by. I earn comfortably over £60k, but I work in an industry servicing people who regard that as small change.

My dreams are shattered, all along I thought you'd be a bleeding edge engineer, only to discover you're a fluffer 😥

Not sure how ?

Firstly they would earn less

As mentioned they are likely to pay less tax and that tax will only be at basic rate. A £60k earner will be paying a slice of higher rate tax.

Secondly, if they had kids, they would have to pay for child care on top of the already smaller take home pay.

Er, but wouldn't that also apply to the £60k earners? If we are keeping all things equal. Also, the two £26k earners are still likely to qualify for some child benefit (assuming kids) which the £60k earner will not be entitled to.

2 earners on £28k is about the point where a single £60k makes you worse off tax wise

Isn't being rich to do with disposable income? If so then headline salary is a red herring. A family of 4 or more will not feel too rich on £60k a year, and would probably feel quite squeezed in the SE, whereas a young person living on their own outside of the UK will be living it up like a king on £30k a year and would effectively be richer than the family with £60k.

There is definitely a window where you just drop into the higher tax bracket where you definitely lose out in terms of take home pay.

Also outside of the SE £60k a year jobs are senior management jobs within organisations, so not many about, so it is more likely you've got a joint income equaling £60k, which means child care costs come into the mix which completely and utterly decimates your disposable income. And dropping one job is definately not an option for many.

Its definitely squeezed middle territory where you're, in theory, a high earner, and constantly being told by others that you're a high earner, but not living like a high earner or reaping the benefits you think you should be as a high earner.

As mentioned they are likely to pay less tax and that tax will only be at basic rate. A £60k earner will be paying a slice of higher rate tax.

The take home pay of 2 x £26k is less than 1 x £60k

Simple.

young person living on their own

Single home occupier is quite an expensive lifestyle. Generally married couples without kids would be the most cash rich group.

In terms of just PAYE:

£26k has £9,440 tax free, £2,790 @ 10%, (26000-9440-2790)= £13,770 @20%

So pays tax of £279 + £2754 = £3033 PAYE

So two earners on £26k have a take home of £45,934

£60k has £9,440 tax free, £2,790 @ 10%, £32,010 @ 20%, (60000-9440-2790-32010) = £15716 @ 40%

So pays tax of £279 + £6402 + £6286.4 = £12966 PAYE

So a single £60k earner has a take home of £47,034

So nearly the same....

...So nearly the same....

Or, to put it another way....

Two people on £26k each earn less than one person on £60k ?

😉

Cant believe no one's posted this yet

Two people on £26k each earn less than one person on £60k ?

What's £80/month between rich people....

The tax calculations are not subject to debate.

www.listentotaxman.com

I made this point a few pages back. About £80/mo difference iirc.

...So nearly the same....
Or, to put it another way....

Two people on £26k each earn less than one person on £60k ?

But the two earners on £26k can claim Child Benefit if they have children, that the single earner on £60k cannot, thus making them better off. Assuming they have children, but that was the original thrust of this thread.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Only here could people possibly spend all this time bitching about this shit.

****er s

Only here could people possibly spend all this time bitching about this shit.

Can you let me know the list of approved topics please.

I might have missed the memo.

[img] [/img]

A couple both on £40k are £2k p.a. better off than my wife and I before you even take Child Benefit into account?

No, I don't expect any sympathy and don't feel sorry for myself either - but the system is skewed regardless. We are comfortable, but a couple of hundred quid a month is still a decent chunk of cash to be deprived of due to a flawed system.

And just for the record - no, I don't think a couple on £40k each should have Child Benefit, just as we shouldn't be entitled to it either. I don't resent paying my taxes either - it should be based on household income though.

Wouldn't it be massively more complicated to administer a household income tax though?

Yes, because household members come and go, quite frequently in some cases.

Was gonna wave my willy here, but before I do, what was the original point of this thread? Am out of country so what was the original ridiculousness which spawned six pages of stw ridiculousness?