Handy little website courtesy of the IFS - "Where do you fit in"?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

tommy75 wrote: »

I know shell tanker drivers are on good money ie 'average wage in your book' but the rest..

Please stop being such an idiot. You are only humiliating yourself.

Article in the independant from 2005....

Currently, trained LGV drivers can expect to earn between £14,000 and £35,000 a year, although only those licensed to carry specialist loads, such as chemicals and fuel, will be paid in the higher bracket. On average, wages have gone up by around 10 per cent in recent years and Mr Bowman said the driver shortage meant they were likely to increase at a much higher rate in the future. "We have already started seeing settlements that show rising wages. It would be a logical trend and the general perception is that they will rise."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/wage-spiral-predicted-as-uk-runs-out-of-truckers-527320.html

And as it said, wages were rising from there, and that was 4 years ago.

Please stop making friends up who are on massive salarys. Do you think we are all stupid?

Not all people..... just you.

You seem to have a hard time grasping reality. More people than you think are on good money. And people tend to mix with people of a similar age and stage in life. In my case, that means people in their peak earning years.

I have friends on 25K a year, and friends on 250K a year, but the vast majority of people I know are earning between 40K and 75K.

I am aware that is not a normal income distribution. I am also aware of the dangers of confirmation bias due to personal experience. Something that is obviously beyond your reasoning capabilities.

I do not claim that all lorry drivers make 35K, just that some do. I have stated I know one that does, and have also posted a media article that confirms that some do.

My point has been proven.

tommy75

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Please stop being such an idiot. You are only humiliating yourself.

Article in the independant from 2005....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/wage-spiral-predicted-as-uk-runs-out-of-truckers-527320.html

And as it said, wages were rising from there, and that was 4 years ago.



Not all people..... just you.

You seem to have a hard time grasping reality. More people than you think are on good money. And people tend to mix with people of a similar age and stage in life. In my case, that means people in their peak earning years.

I have friends on 25K a year, and friends on 250K a year, but the vast majority of people I know are earning between 40K and 75K.

I am aware that is not a normal income distribution. I am also aware of the dangers of confirmation bias due to personal experience. Something that is obviously beyond your reasoning capabilities.

I do not claim that all lorry drivers make 35K, just that some do. I have stated I know one that does, and have also posted a media article that confirms that some do.

My point has been proven.

I find it funny that you try to mock my knowledge of the trade I've been in for over 15 years.

baileysbattlebus

Well, I just plugged in our income - OH's salary and my pension - we are allegedly 98% - with the income figure off the right hand scale. Interesting - as we know a lot of people who have bigger incomes than we do. And some who have less, obviously.

I thought - it's because the kids are grown up now - so I plugged in the same figures but with 3 children aged 14-18 and it said we were 87% - we felt quite poor when the kids were teenagers.

We hope OH will be taking early retirement towards the end of next year - so I plugged in joint pension and that said 88%.

The pension income is about half of our current income - so how does half of the money only drop you 10%.

It's a job good I took early retirement - I shudder to think what it would have said if my salary was in there too.

I suppose OH is at the peak of his earning potenial now - in a good job - in a senior position and unlikely to be promoted again. Though his salary won't go down - it may not go up much even if he wasn't to retire early.

Sapphire

tommy75 wrote: »

I bet Martin didn't know that his forum was mainly used by the top sector of earners in the UK on massive salarys. Perhaps you should introduce a stocks and shares sub forum area that you have to pay to get into for these big hitters Martin so they can waddle off and argue about which shares will make them the most k's in the same day. Maybe then us few mere mortals can moan and complain about the self certified mortgages and vast corruption of the last ten years and how generations will have to suffer for the greed of these poor excuse's for humans who have 6 holidays a year and come here to boast about it, then spout utter rubbish that Average Joe shouldn't be able to provide a roof for his/her children.

Well, I earn well under £40,000 p.a., yet I was still classified as a 'top earner'. I'm certainly not on a 'massive' salary. :cool:

carolt

michaels wrote: »

I ran the figures a second time for just me and decided that with the wife and kids under the patio I would be minted:)

Very true.

Sorry, haven't read whole thread, but just entered first whole household income and dependents, and then, to compare, just OH's salary. There's a huge - several bands ' - difference.

Whilst the figures are interesting, I'm not clear how they cost dependents - there appears to be a massive discrepancy in the 2 figures, which makes using this as a tool to relate to house prices a bit silly, as mortgage lenders certainly don't cost dependents anything like so highly (they used to, and maybe they still should, but that'a another story....).

Looking at the figures, divorce clearly makes excellent financial sense - I'd clean up on benefits, and OH would be rolling in disposable income, if these figures were true. How stupid is that?

What these figures say to me is that we clearly need to look again at a tax and benefits system that so clearly works against the interests of couples (a) working and (b) staying together.

JonnyBravo

I wonder how many have entered their salary after tax as you're meant to and how many have entered their gross salary?
Either that or we're all minted?

86% for me/us

Pobby

We came up as 61%. My wife is contracted to 30 hours a week and for me business is 65% down. One point, it may have been raised, is surely the levels of debt people have. We have none and no mortgage. So we are, in comparison, well off to say someone with a 100k mortgage and 20k of unsecured debt.

Just checked what it would have been had business not slumped. Would have put us at 87%. Oh well, for once in my life I was prudent and kept a fair amount back.

Sapphire

JonnyBravo wrote: »

I wonder how many have entered their salary after tax as you're meant to and how many have entered their gross salary?
Either that or we're all minted?

86% for me/us

Ah - I missed this, so clearly I will actually be on a lower band.

Sapphire

carolt wrote: »

What these figures say to me is that we clearly need to look again at a tax and benefits system that so clearly works against the interests of couples (a) working and (b) staying together.

If you are saying couples with children, then I disagree. I'm single and have never claimed any benefits courtesy of the taxpayer, whereas couples with children can claim large sums of money (incidentally including people from abroad who come here expressly to have children, then go back to their home countries and continue claiming from the taxpayer, but that's another story).

mbga9pgf

Easy. No benefit support for any more than 2 kids.

We need to stop benefit-induced reverse evolution whereby the most useless of our society are rewarded.