2.5 Million Families on £100k/year Don't Feel Rich

PasturesNew

I looked up my car on that NCAP thingy - it's a 2001 car - it got 4 stars, no idea what that means, except 4 stars out of 5 didn't feel too shabby to me.

mitchaa

PasturesNew wrote: »

I looked up my car on that NCAP thingy - it's a 2001 car - it got 4 stars, no idea what that means, except 4 stars out of 5 didn't feel too shabby to me.

4 star is good yes.

2001 is only 8yrs and it probably will have multiple airbags, ABS, seat belt pretensioners, good crumple zones etc.

This Corsa has a 5*


This corsa has a 2*



http://www.euroncap.com/tests/opel_vauxhall_corsa_1997/12.aspx

Illustrates my point about how safety has moved on. The corsa is a little shopping trolley and 10yrs ago they didn't fare well in crashes but yet today it's 1 of the safest cars you have with a 5*

Purposely i've used an R reg car and compared it with todays standards.

Pobby

It`s funny what 10 years will do. For my 50th I bought a mad sports import. Totally insane Japanese motor. Didn`t keep it long.

Some years back I spoke to a bloke I knew who sold motors saying that I wanted a car that was big and comfortable.

He almost pleaded with me to buy a couple of year old Omega 2.2 he had in stock that nobody wanted. " look, here`s the invoice, that`s what I paid for it. You can have it at the same price " He said. Deal done.

I still have it and it`s one of the best cars I have had. It`like driving a sofa.

Couple of years back I met my Chicago buddy, Max for the afternoon. We walked together to the car park. Hey, he said, didn`t know you owned a Cadillac!

I was amazed as when I was a kid I always wanted one. Lol.

silvercar

When my son was buying his first car I insisted that it had to be at least 4* NCAP rating.

kabayiri

mitchaa wrote: »

Illustrates my point about how safety has moved on. The corsa is a little shopping trolley and 10yrs ago they didn't fare well in crashes but yet today it's 1 of the safest cars you have with a 5*

Very true.

And yet, strangely, it seems like claims for compensation due to automotive accidents have swelled in recent years?

Of course, this could not be down to people taking the proverbial, milking the system, courtesy of no-win no-fee.

I prefer to think it's due to a lack of automatic neck support airbags, which automatically cocoon you in an oversized jiffy bag, to prevent whiplash.

PasturesNew

kabayiri wrote: »

cocoon you in an oversized jiffy bag

There's probably a fetish club for that you can join.

chewmylegoff

Alan_Cross wrote: »

The OP shows why it is so hard to get people to pay taxes.

With people living on amounts like that and not acknowledging that they are modestly wealthy, it's little surprise.

What you do wonder about is, if they really do consider themselves to be 'middle earners', how do they regard a household of, say, 2 x £15k. Presumably their logic would dictate that it must be regarded as a poverty situation.

Now then, on that basis would they agree to more tax being levied to support such households...?

Would they, hell. Most of them are paid-up members of the tax-anyone-but-me brigade.

to be fair, the income tax and NI payments of those 2.5 million familiers are going to be in the region of £70 billion per annum, or more than 10% of the total tax take of the UK. the total income tax + NI take is approx £250 billion including employers NI.

therefore if you add on the £30 billion eer's NI paid in respect of their salaries, those 2.5 million households (about 10% of all households) are contributing 100/250 = 40% of all of the income tax and NI raised. even if you strip out the eer's NI, you are talking about nearly 30%.

obviously, with a higher disposable income they will also be paying more indirect taxes as well.

the conclusion can only be that the 2.5 million households that you want to tax more are already paying extra tax to fund those who earn less.

kabayiri

chewmylegoff wrote: »

obviously, with a higher disposable income they will also be paying more indirect taxes as well.

the conclusion can only be that the 2.5 million households that you want to tax more are already paying extra tax to fund those who earn less.

Also, sending little Tarquin and Camilla to a fee paying school is putting money back into the local community, and it frees up a spot in a normal school which they are still contributing towards.

Same goes for private medicine.

They also will often pay more in council tax too. Yet I suspect emptying the bin for any type of home would cost similar to the council.

That 100K they earn is only there because they have to work, often full time. Extended periods of sick would dent their earnings, so they have an incentive to keep fit, usually at David Lloyds.

It may not make a good soundbite, but anyone earning 40K,50K plus a year PAYE is paying a solid chunk of tax already.

People will accept paying more tax, but they will do it more readily if they believe those spending that tax are some way competent in the way they spend those taxes.
(which sort of rules out the current shower at the helm)

uzubairu

mitchaa wrote: »

With a £60-65k income and able to overpay your mortgage in a 'cheaper' area of the UK, you are surely not average? Average household income is £35k.

You are nearly at double this and do not have child associated costs. I would say you were undeniably in the comfortable category.

£20K of our nett income has gone on mortgage payments this year (£12K above scheduled which would probably have been spent on child costs if we had any). Hopefully we can be done with the mortgage in the next 4 years (touch wood).

We are relatively comfortable, but based on the definitions put forward, I thought about the fact that I drive a Mini Cooper (Chili) and not the Mini JCW I would prefer because the running/insurance costs based on our postcode are very high.
OH isn't into cars and winced when I bought the Mini and wouldn't even let me consider a Cooper S. :mad:

The day when I can choose the car I really want will be the day I feel really comfortable, but I can't really complain either.

Cleaver

lostinrates wrote: »

Cleaver sent me a book which opens with discussion on seatbelts, and the stats showing that when seatbelt wearing became compulsory accidents went up! (US figures). Anyway, I think there is a happy medium to be stuck in risk: taking sensible precaution is of course valid, but risk cannot be eliminated, and perhaps some risk is in some ways good.

That was a good chapter.

The author also suggested that if you wanted to bring deaths on the road right down then you would, logically, remove all seatbelts from cars and fit a giant, sharp spike to the middle of each steering wheel which pointed right at the driver's chest. The theory is then that everyone would drive very, very slowly and carefully so as to not get impaled on the spike and die. He was making an interesting point - the more saftely devices you have in a car, the more wreckless a driver you often become, because you subconsciously rely on them. Obviously he wasn't serious about the policy of the spikes, but he was very serious about his assumption that this would reduce deaths on the road.