Income brackets: what is prception of low/middle high

lostinrates

skintchick wrote: »

We didn;t just throw all money into one pot though you see, as I wanted it to be fair.

LOL, I think this should be applied to pregnancy: you carry th baby for six months, he can carry you both for the final three (valuing each month as 1 per person).

Later, the baby can carry you both in old age, where carring prices will hav risen so much he or she will owe you being carried throughout your retirement.:D

skintchick

lostinrates wrote: »

skintchick wrote: »

In general yes but for me personally I only pay £215 a month for my house and certainly we couldn;t afford to live in this town had my parents not basically given me most of my property (they helped me buy it then gave me that half and simply ask for the 215 a month until it is sold). This to me has a huge relevance to how you have answered and suggests on your income which you class as medium ther is an issue that you cannot afford to live in a whole TOWN without help! Thus I would disput, on your evidence that your earning is medium for your area! Especially paying such small housing costs in relation to your area. This, for me, puts your original answers in very differnt prspective. In my perception you receive an income extra to the salary, in the form of th 'benefit' of the other half of the house, which could work out as a significant extra amount a year!

I think also where we live and what we consider reasonable disposable income affects how we answer the original question., IMO, without doubt I concur.

My Oh would probably answer differently to me as he thinks having £700 a month as spare cash quite normal whereas I've never had that amount of money as disposable income. Does spare include saving/income protection/insurances etc etc or just spending money?

He doesn;t think he earns a very good wage at all, but I think he does.As we keep returning to, its a question about perception.[/quote]

ETA: just also popped onto another thread which further suggests you feel less than medium in terms other than numerical? although I could well have misinterpreted that. which makes me wonder is it the 'figure' we get caught up in somtimes or the 'spending power' that figure brings? Or is it all so wholly distorted by debt-spend that its impossible to easily separate? For me I find that it often is the latter.





(sorry for quote rather than link, which would have been neater but I don't know how to do neat links to a particular post )

Spare is after savings etc.

The other quote refers to a time when I earned 13k a year. Not relevant now hence not mentioned on this thread. But thanks for dragging it in here.

I personally couldn;t afford this house at the prices when I bought it (1998, when I was earning the aforementioned 13k). OH could now, and before I gave up my career for him and was earning 39k so could I. We only married in June and did not live together before then so finances were separate.

Not sure why you want to have a go at me, but as you do, could you please put it on PM instead of the thread?

And ... the whole question is about perception isn;t it?

skintchick

lostinrates wrote: »

LOL, I think this should be applied to pregnancy: you carry th baby for six months, he can carry you both for the final three (valuing each month as 1 per person).

Later, the baby can carry you both in old age, where carring prices will hav risen so much he or she will owe you being carried throughout your retirement.:D

I'm not in the final three! I'm 8 weeks. I would still be earning and contributing had I not been made redundant.

lostinrates

skintchick wrote: »

Spare is after savings etc.

The other quote refers to a time when I earned 13k a year. Not relevant now hence not mentioned on this thread. But thanks for dragging it in here.

I personally couldn;t afford this house at the prices when I bought it (1998, when I was earning the aforementioned 13k). OH could now, and before I gave up my career for him and was earning 39k so could I. We only married in June and did not live together before then so finances were separate.

Not sure why you want to have a go at me, but as you do, could you please put it on PM instead of the thread?

And ... the whole question is about perception isn;t it?

I'm sorry. It was not my intent to have a go at you. I would not have a go at somone on a forum, nor in a PM. It was merely I clicked onto that thread after here and it followed on from the percption thread entirely. I'm sorry you feel attacked, not my intention at all. My intention in quoting here was to provide a joined up thinking approach to the perception. I was making no statement, nor commenting on the current status, just that it strunk m that when the question was posed in another way, by the government handouts, a repsonce could be different (albeit posed obliquely)

In repsonce your other points we, after tax, rent/savings, insurances etc have less than 700 to spend from the 4k more a year, so you ar certanly doing something mor right than us!:)

And yes, its all about perception...and possibly phrasing?

lostinrates

skintchick wrote: »

I'm not in the final three! I'm 8 weeks. I would still be earning and contributing had I not been made redundant.

Undoubtedly getting a job is complicated. Horrid timing. Have you thought of temping?

Strapped

SandC wrote: »

£2k is still comfortable - remember if you have that kind of salary but 4/5 kids you will get tax credits. Single people with kids don't struggle if they are employed.

Oooo, yeah, the £545 per year child tax credit! :rolleyes:


Gotta dash off on the school run now but this makes interesting reading, having (by choice) slid down the salary scale in recent years and moved from the SE back to the SW where things are certainly a bit different.

SandC

There's also working tax credit.

Point is that taking home a salary of £2k per month you should never really be struggling, hence if you are not entitled to working tax credit payments then it is considered that the income is sufficient.

SandC

Just done a theoretical check on tax credits of a single person on £30k with 4 children, all in school bar one younger than school age with £100 per week childcare costs and they would still receive £2640 tax credits per year - £220 per month.

lostinrates

SandC wrote: »

There's also working tax credit.

Point is that taking home a salary of £2k per month you should never really be struggling, hence if you are not entitled to working tax credit payments then it is considered that the income is sufficient.

Leaving aside the point I asked before about geography I think that they say to check for entitlement if you ar a household (with children?) earning less than 60K is that right?

If some sort of hand back from the government is indicatory would that make an individual of 30 or a household with 60K entering middle income?

Or with the new mortgage scheme is the 'wealth' in the house negligable?

Is someone under, say, 30 earning 30K as 'well off' as someone of 60 earning 30 k but with more money in their home and savings?

(points of debate not views BTW)

lostinrates

SandC wrote: »

Just done a theoretical check on tax credits of a single person on £30k with 4 children, all in school bar one younger than school age with £100 per week childcare costs and they would still receive £2640 tax credits per year - £220 per month.

Making income overall, what?.£31,540?

I think its also worth pointing out that children are a choice. (albeit I imagine a very good choice) -though I do not dispute their rights and needs