100k/year is a GREAT DEAL OF MONEY. I have lived all my life in the South East, I have never lived in a household that had anywhere near that much money coming in (net or gross). I have never lacked for food, clothing, housing (NICE housing even), my parents even drive a Mercedes... yeah, I never had a pony or a house in Monaco but come on! just because you can expand your expenses to match your income doesn't mean that you NEED to, just that you WANT to.
And yes, it is a zero-sum game. Because there is a finite amount of space in the UK, the larger your house is the less space is left for me to have a house; because there is a finite amount of food being grown, the more you eat (or throw away) the less that is on my plate. The bigger the difference between the well-off and the poor the harder it is to be poor.
Try it now. With house prices etc. as they are. You could get a 1 bed flat for 30k in Guildford about 10-15 years ago that'd cost you 160 now. 4 bed house in Redhill in 1995 - £60k, 2008 £450k (that'd be a bit less now, but still...) 2 bed flat in Norwich £55k 8 years ago £110 last year. (these are real figures from real houses in places I happen to know about).
I didn't grow up with money at all. I grew up on a council estate. I'd agree totally that you do not need lots of money to have a nice life. I did try to put that across in my post, but I seem to have failed somehow.
I am trying to speak as possibly the only person on this list who is actually in the 100k+ bracket - and to point out that it's not some sybaritic trouble-free, money-worry-free paradise. It's not in any really significant way any different.
I suppose the biggest difference is that I can manage probably 2 years without any income without having to receive any government benefits (and in fact, I believe as a company director I am not entitled to any until something like a year after the company shuts down), that's about the size of it. After that, I'd be stuffed. Ok, so others couldn't manage that - but then they'd be entitled to help straightaway (and that's only right!). In my biz (software development), if I have that amount of time out I'm back to maybe being able to get a job earning 30-40k - if I can get a job at all...
I have no mortgage, but I live in a 1 bed flat which I didn't buy until 2007 (i.e. not when it was cheap, cos I didn't have the money then!). I still have to pay for heating/food/council tax etc like the rest of you. I have a 12 year old motorbike. The only 'luxury' item is a half share in a small sailing boat - worth about 20k. But I have no kids, and I can imagine I'd have spent more than that on them over the past 10 years :-).
I am personally pretty damned frugal (always have been) - others on my path may well have saved far far less....
I don't see financial success as a zero-sum game. If I climb the corporate ranks/ start my own business / invest shrewdly / whatever (at these low-middling levels), then it in no way hampers you or anyone else from doing the same (or indeed whatever moneymaking scheme you come up with - assuming that's the sort of thing you are interested in.)
There is no inherent 'sin' in having money - it seems there's a flavour of that floating around (though in a kinda atheistic way). I can't put my finger on it, but it feels a bit like that.
I don't object to taxes, even to high taxes - the Scandinavians seem to do OK, right? (I have spent a bit of time over there this year). I object to the reflexive dislike/reactions to what are really quite modest levels of income. The 'line' is being drawn too low (IMO) - if indeed a line can be drawn at all. I am just trying to illustrate that.
I also don't object to some people making sh*tloads of money - so long as entry into those jobs is not barred by anything other than personal talents/abilities/experience! (I appreciate that this is not quite true - and that IS a problem - but that's not a majority, not that I see....). Not everybody can do everything and sorry, but not everything is equally valued in monetary reward by society at large. I don't much care whether a particular profession 'ought' to carry that wage - I am not making moral judgements here. We can all look at payscales and see which professions/occupations (I include entepreneurship but dunno how to classify it) pay well - and if we so desire we can get ourselves on the path to one of them. Whichever suits us best. There's ways into nearly everything - some are a little longer or harder than others, and if you are less clever/well connected/well educated/ have less cash behind you then you'll have to try harder. But I don't (and have never) see any outrageously difficult barriers in the UK to so doing.
Suppose (at least some of) the 'rich' spend some (or even a lot) of their excess cash on other people less fortunate? If there are no people to do that then where are we? Do you trust the govt to do it?
I don't think "rich" means "OMG I have so much money I don't know what to do with it", I think it means having more money than most people. And 100k/year is certainly a lot more than most people!
I earn roughly the national median wage; I can't afford to buy a whole house, but I could afford to buy a 50% share in a 1-bed flat, or if I was willing to move out of our tiny city I could probably buy a whole 1-bed flat all to myself. As it is I rent my partner's spare room, he owns a 3-bed terraced house; he earns more than me... but not 100k/year levels.
I think that unequal distribution of wealth is something that is in general bad. I'm not sure a totally flat distribution of wealth would be best (it probably wouldn't) but a flatter distribution than the one we have would be better (Sweden are doing better than us for instance). What you get from flattening your wealth distribution is greater happiness at all levels of society.
Whilst many (certainly not all - some are too ill for instance) individuals could work to earn money, if they all DID then they'd all be back where they started. Such is the way of the world - when everyone's a millionaire everything will cost millions of pounds.
In fact I do trust the taxation system (flawed though it is) to redistribute wealth more efficiently than private charity, which is not to say that private charity isn't good.
I think this comment show the kind of difference in thinking that it takes to say that £100k isn't all that much, really. You say that you don't have a mortgage as though it isn't that big a deal, but for most people that's about a third to a half of their net income. You put inverted commas around a luxury which is worth more than a year's median net salary.
I don't have a negative reaction to high earnings in themselves, but the assertion that people on 100k have it nearly as hard as people on a quarter of that is pretty much guaranteed to put people's backs up.
no subject
pete stevens (from livejournal.com)2010-10-15 04:40 pm (UTC)(link)
There's a fair point that £100k is actually about three times the income of £25k once tax/NI is accounted for (£60k versus about £20k). It's also true that to earn £100k you probably are having to put in considerably more hours and have to live somewhere considerably more expensive which means you may not be anywhere near as well off as people assume you are.
£10k isn't that expensive for a luxury. It compares fairly well with smoking, driving or drinking for example, it's just they're consumables so they're not conspicuous. Certainly people think my piano is an expensive luxury (£5k + £100/year in tuning) whereas running is a cheap hobby (£400/year in trainers, £500/year in event entry fees and travel, £500/year in post running beer).
However, anyone who doesn't have a mortgage pretty much meets my definition of well off - certainly my target is to be in a position that I could not have a mortgage even if it's cheaper for tax reasons to have one.
no subject
pete stevens (from livejournal.com)2010-10-15 04:42 pm (UTC)(link)
Actually, I should probably add £600/year in BUPA to the running tally - I picked the ridiculous level of cover option in order that it covered physio too, and the only reason I have cover is because when I had a running induced stress fracture in my foot it took the NHS longer to diagnose it than it took to heal.
At no point did I say that that people on 100k have it nearly as hard as people on a quarter of that. I thought I was really quite careful all along to clearly indicate that I do *not* think this. I find it interesting that someone has somehow managed to read that rather stereotypical statement into what I actually wrote. Such a statement would indeed get people's backs up - but I never said it! I'll say again, I do NOT think that. I *DO* think that the quality of life change that many people imagine for such an income level does not exist in any real way. I couldn't see that/didn't know that before I got there. I'm just trying to show/tell how it is, what it feels like, from a point of view of the actual experience, not some distant one.
I don't think not having a mortgage is nothing. It just makes surprisingly little difference to my daily life as compared to when I did have. *I* was surprised (and to be totally honest, somewhat disappointed) how little. I have generally always saved (or invested) about half my income, no matter what that was, maybe that's why. People on housing benefit don't have a mortgage either... not saying their situation is *in general* anything like mine, but in that specific respect, it's identical.
My parents, who have never earned any significant amount, have twice paid out a mortgage in full, well before term, less than 10 years (can't recall exactly). Once on their ex-council house and once, later, on the house they now live in. It's not the preserve of the well-off. My mum has never worked full time, was a part-time cleaner or factory worker. Dad works in engineering, probably makes about median wage but I can't be sure.
I could be genetically and environmentally ill-disposed to paying interest :-) [none of my family have loans of any type for anything so far as I know]. To me, "no debt" is an intensely desirable state and on to which I have/will go to much effort and heavily prioritise. It is the 'normal' and certainly the desired state of affairs. I have never run an overdraft, didn't have a student loan (I was lucky in that we didn't have to pay tuition back then), never had any credit card debt, took one 4 year loan back in 1994 just to get a credit rating, and resisted buying property so long because I hated the thought of a mortgage. When I decided to buy a flat I used my savings to make a big deposit and went into overdrive to pay it off, going for the highest paying contracts and spending as little as I could get in order to pay it off as soon as possible. I suspect most people are not like that? I am always looking at ways to spend less! For me, if my spending 'has' to increase, I'll find ways of earning/making more. It drives me that way. Which means the govt benefits in the increased tax revenue. Which, hopefully, they then use some of to help balance things out for people in trouble. Yeah it is LOTS better than private charity, have to agree.
On the boat front, I'll reiterate the comparison I made at the time - how much money have people with children spent on them over, say, 10 years? Just feeding/clothing etc, nothing fancy or extra. More or less? Would you be taking me to task over that spending in the same way? Kids and boats are both pricey - but optional :-).
I am not boasting or flaunting or defending my financial situation, Nor am I downplaying it. I am trying to give an insight into the life and mind of ordinary person without any advantageous background who has ended up north of a much touted imaginary earnings line.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2010-10-15 12:01 pm
no subject
And yes, it is a zero-sum game. Because there is a finite amount of space in the UK, the larger your house is the less space is left for me to have a house; because there is a finite amount of food being grown, the more you eat (or throw away) the less that is on my plate. The bigger the difference between the well-off and the poor the harder it is to be poor.
no subject
I didn't grow up with money at all. I grew up on a council estate. I'd agree totally that you do not need lots of money to have a nice life. I did try to put that across in my post, but I seem to have failed somehow.
I am trying to speak as possibly the only person on this list who is actually in the 100k+ bracket - and to point out that it's not some sybaritic trouble-free, money-worry-free paradise. It's not in any really significant way any different.
I suppose the biggest difference is that I can manage probably 2 years without any income without having to receive any government benefits (and in fact, I believe as a company director I am not entitled to any until something like a year after the company shuts down), that's about the size of it. After that, I'd be stuffed. Ok, so others couldn't manage that - but then they'd be entitled to help straightaway (and that's only right!). In my biz (software development), if I have that amount of time out I'm back to maybe being able to get a job earning 30-40k - if I can get a job at all...
I have no mortgage, but I live in a 1 bed flat which I didn't buy until 2007 (i.e. not when it was cheap, cos I didn't have the money then!). I still have to pay for heating/food/council tax etc like the rest of you. I have a 12 year old motorbike. The only 'luxury' item is a half share in a small sailing boat - worth about 20k. But I have no kids, and I can imagine I'd have spent more than that on them over the past 10 years :-).
I am personally pretty damned frugal (always have been) - others on my path may well have saved far far less....
I don't see financial success as a zero-sum game. If I climb the corporate ranks/ start my own business / invest shrewdly / whatever (at these low-middling levels), then it in no way hampers you or anyone else from doing the same (or indeed whatever moneymaking scheme you come up with - assuming that's the sort of thing you are interested in.)
There is no inherent 'sin' in having money - it seems there's a flavour of that floating around (though in a kinda atheistic way). I can't put my finger on it, but it feels a bit like that.
I don't object to taxes, even to high taxes - the Scandinavians seem to do OK, right? (I have spent a bit of time over there this year). I object to the reflexive dislike/reactions to what are really quite modest levels of income. The 'line' is being drawn too low (IMO) - if indeed a line can be drawn at all. I am just trying to illustrate that.
I also don't object to some people making sh*tloads of money - so long as entry into those jobs is not barred by anything other than personal talents/abilities/experience! (I appreciate that this is not quite true - and that IS a problem - but that's not a majority, not that I see....). Not everybody can do everything and sorry, but not everything is equally valued in monetary reward by society at large. I don't much care whether a particular profession 'ought' to carry that wage - I am not making moral judgements here. We can all look at payscales and see which professions/occupations (I include entepreneurship but dunno how to classify it) pay well - and if we so desire we can get ourselves on the path to one of them. Whichever suits us best. There's ways into nearly everything - some are a little longer or harder than others, and if you are less clever/well connected/well educated/ have less cash behind you then you'll have to try harder. But I don't (and have never) see any outrageously difficult barriers in the UK to so doing.
Suppose (at least some of) the 'rich' spend some (or even a lot) of their excess cash on other people less fortunate? If there are no people to do that then where are we? Do you trust the govt to do it?
no subject
I earn roughly the national median wage; I can't afford to buy a whole house, but I could afford to buy a 50% share in a 1-bed flat, or if I was willing to move out of our tiny city I could probably buy a whole 1-bed flat all to myself. As it is I rent my partner's spare room, he owns a 3-bed terraced house; he earns more than me... but not 100k/year levels.
I think that unequal distribution of wealth is something that is in general bad. I'm not sure a totally flat distribution of wealth would be best (it probably wouldn't) but a flatter distribution than the one we have would be better (Sweden are doing better than us for instance). What you get from flattening your wealth distribution is greater happiness at all levels of society.
Whilst many (certainly not all - some are too ill for instance) individuals could work to earn money, if they all DID then they'd all be back where they started. Such is the way of the world - when everyone's a millionaire everything will cost millions of pounds.
In fact I do trust the taxation system (flawed though it is) to redistribute wealth more efficiently than private charity, which is not to say that private charity isn't good.
no subject
I don't have a negative reaction to high earnings in themselves, but the assertion that people on 100k have it nearly as hard as people on a quarter of that is pretty much guaranteed to put people's backs up.
no subject
£10k isn't that expensive for a luxury. It compares fairly well with smoking, driving or drinking for example, it's just they're consumables so they're not conspicuous. Certainly people think my piano is an expensive luxury (£5k + £100/year in tuning) whereas running is a cheap hobby (£400/year in trainers, £500/year in event entry fees and travel, £500/year in post running beer).
However, anyone who doesn't have a mortgage pretty much meets my definition of well off - certainly my target is to be in a position that I could not have a mortgage even if it's cheaper for tax reasons to have one.
no subject
no subject
I don't think not having a mortgage is nothing. It just makes surprisingly little difference to my daily life as compared to when I did have. *I* was surprised (and to be totally honest, somewhat disappointed) how little. I have generally always saved (or invested) about half my income, no matter what that was, maybe that's why. People on housing benefit don't have a mortgage either... not saying their situation is *in general* anything like mine, but in that specific respect, it's identical.
My parents, who have never earned any significant amount, have twice paid out a mortgage in full, well before term, less than 10 years (can't recall exactly). Once on their ex-council house and once, later, on the house they now live in. It's not the preserve of the well-off. My mum has never worked full time, was a part-time cleaner or factory worker. Dad works in engineering, probably makes about median wage but I can't be sure.
I could be genetically and environmentally ill-disposed to paying interest :-) [none of my family have loans of any type for anything so far as I know]. To me, "no debt" is an intensely desirable state and on to which I have/will go to much effort and heavily prioritise. It is the 'normal' and certainly the desired state of affairs. I have never run an overdraft, didn't have a student loan (I was lucky in that we didn't have to pay tuition back then), never had any credit card debt, took one 4 year loan back in 1994 just to get a credit rating, and resisted buying property so long because I hated the thought of a mortgage. When I decided to buy a flat I used my savings to make a big deposit and went into overdrive to pay it off, going for the highest paying contracts and spending as little as I could get in order to pay it off as soon as possible. I suspect most people are not like that? I am always looking at ways to spend less! For me, if my spending 'has' to increase, I'll find ways of earning/making more. It drives me that way. Which means the govt benefits in the increased tax revenue. Which, hopefully, they then use some of to help balance things out for people in trouble. Yeah it is LOTS better than private charity, have to agree.
On the boat front, I'll reiterate the comparison I made at the time - how much money have people with children spent on them over, say, 10 years? Just feeding/clothing etc, nothing fancy or extra. More or less? Would you be taking me to task over that spending in the same way? Kids and boats are both pricey - but optional :-).
I am not boasting or flaunting or defending my financial situation, Nor am I downplaying it. I am trying to give an insight into the life and mind of ordinary person without any advantageous background who has ended up north of a much touted imaginary earnings line.