Income brackets: what is prception of low/middle high

skintchick

lostinrates wrote: »

We do however have expensive hobbies..totally choice, no one forces us to keep animals.

.

You said it, not me. I never even mentioned horses, although I guessed that was what you meant. I'm unsure why you think I'm doing you a disservice.

As for the friend who keeps horses on JSA - as that is only about £60 a week for people not in receipt of other benefits, they must either have a partner's income or savings, or other state benefits (housing benefit, income support, etc.) helping to fund that or they wouldn't be able to live!

lostinrates

skintchick wrote: »

You said it, not me. I never even mentioned horses, although I guessed that was what you meant. I'm unsure why you think I'm doing you a disservice.

As for the friend who keeps horses on JSA - as that is only about £60 a week for people not in receipt of other benefits, they must either have a partner's income or savings, or other state benefits (housing benefit, income support, etc.) helping to fund that or they wouldn't be able to live!

I'm not a prickly poster generally, so I'm not going to get prickly now either, so I'll just say I felt like I was having words put in my mouth . People's posting style is always individual howver, so I tnd not to take offence. (perhaps this too is perception and not reality)

I explained my hobby was horses because it seemed relevent. As you say, the people doing it on JSA maywell me in receipt of other benefits. I only know about the jobseekers.


Yes, I said it, and I stand by it, its choice(as I go on to say to another horse keeper)....but its a choice pople across the earning spectrum make. I imagine I make the choice mor easily however. I consider my hobby expensive, although ven that might be perception. I'm certainly at the lowest end of the spectrum of spending in the horse world! What I was saying is that in making this choice its not a 'high income choice' if people on low incom ar also succefully making it.

skintchick

lostinrates wrote: »

Yes, I said it, and I stand by it, its choice(as I go on to say to another horse keeper)....but its a choice pople across the earning spectrum make. I imagine I make the choice mor easily however. I consider my hobby expensive, although ven that might be perception. I'm certainly at the lowest end of the spectrum of spending in the horse world! What I was saying is that in making this choice its not a 'high income choice' if people on low incom ar also succefully making it.

And what I'm saying is that it must be being subsidised by something else (savings? benefits?) for those people on benefits, and that it IS a high income choice as a general rule to choose, and I quote, "expensive hobbies", which is what you said.

My comments were purely on expensive hobbies, rather than specifically about horses. (Although most people, rightly or wrongly, would consider horses to be expensive).

EDITED TO ADD A SMILE

StevieJ

zarazara wrote: »

I have 4 horses, well ctually 2 ponies and2 horses. our earnings are £18,000 gross per year. we manage because we dont have a mortgage or rent to pay, and have no loans. we own our own field too and make our own hay. they horses actually cost us about £20 per week ie £5 each. we dont go on holidays or eat outfor meals and are very frugal regarding cloths etc. we have the horses because they are our pets and we love them. we also have 2 cats.
I will not ever sell them, i would [ and have in the past] gone hungry first. you dont have to be rich to have horses.

If the Doomies on this board are correct, you will be eating them (I know you will try to hold out) :eek:

skintchick

StevieJ wrote: »

If the Doomies on this board are correct, you will be eating them (I know you will try to hold out) :eek:

Horse is quite tough though. I didn;t like it when I had it. (In France, years ago.)

lostinrates

skintchick wrote: »

And what I'm saying is that it must be being subsidised by something else (savings? benefits?) for those people on benefits, and that it IS a high income choice as a general rule to choose, and I quote, "expensive hobbies", which is what you said. Fair enough, I don't know having not seen the bank balance of anyone to whom I know is in this situation. A guess would be other state support, but hopefully savings, and certainly not in some cases partners.

My comments were purely on expensive hobbies, rather than specifically about horses. (Although most people, rightly or wrongly, would consider horses to be expensive).Again, fair enough, as I agreed and again confirmed in a reply to another poster Personally I would feel hard pushed to make the same spending decision if I wer on a low income or reliant on incom other then min or DH's and/or had children on this salary. I'm sure its doable for many but the choices all become differnt then, and I might well make differnt ones.[/quote]

Of course, choices aren't just hobbies for many. For example, we make the choice, currently, to live in UK where DH's employment oppertunities are only in London. He could choose another job which would allow him to live in a cheaper area or he could do the same job in a differnt country, again opening up a new set of choices. Or we could ditch the pets and the need for accomodation for them and live in a lovely and commutable area like yours.

I would submit that this could apply to lots of expensive SE areas, not unlike Henley, so in a not disimilar way its entirly possible we are all of us not dependant on help are making similar choices over our priorities within our spending power -whatever that maybe?

The other option of course is that accrued wealth as well as earnings are more relevent than my simplistic original question poses or its responces can ever answer. (which is I think of course true). Which poses a huge relevance to the current question of mortgag support etc, certainly, but also the background against which the siz of earnings is rlevant as 'wealth'.

lostinrates

skintchick wrote: »

Horse is quite tough though. I didn;t like it when I had it. (In France, years ago.)

It crtainly is if its a retired working horse! Young horse would be more succulent as veal is to beef.:D

Sadly, if we hit troubles our horses have had drugs not safe to enter the food chain. :eek:

nickmason

There are so many ways of looking at this:
1) gross income from work
2) net income from work
3) net income from work, and/or any credits/tax allowances,
4) net income from work, and/or any credits/tax allowances, plus savings income
5) ... minus cost of earning that income? For instance travel costs?
6) ... if savings income is included, then shouldn't debt repayments?
7) ... but would that exclude mortgage debt, to balance vs rent payers?
oh hang on, i've forgotten all those non-salary bits of income as well...

As some have mentioned, income (in any of the above forms) doesn't distribute normally, so it makes sense to break the groupings assymetrically; anything that's three times average salary must be considered high, but I totally understand that it is different from a 6 or 7 figure annual sum.

Frankly, I think we are exposed to such extreme levels of money - Hello! etc - that a couple of exceptional levels would help, even if they are very small in number. Because £200K still doesn't compare at all with the life of the hedgies etc
(I once had a girlfriend who thought we would need £400K to be comfortable. It didn't last).

Then there's the fact that we don't "see" other people's income, we see their expenditure (strictly the trappings, or proceeds of the expenditure). Hence much of the disconnect between the two, through cc's etc.

Finally, there's wealth - very different from income!!

Really2

lostinrates wrote: »

It crtainly is if its a retired working horse! Young horse would be more succulent as veal is to beef.:D

Sadly, if we hit troubles our horses have had drugs not safe to enter the food chain. :eek:

Looks like Amy Winehouse is off the menu too (thank god)

SandC

A friend of mine has horses. They are almost entirely funded by her parents, who bought a property with land and built stables. I suspect most who have lower incomes and have this type of expensive hobby are being assisted in similar ways.