Discuss your salary

michaels

PN doesn't do links unless they are affiliate

breadlinebetty wrote: »

How about a link?;) Don't go pinching anyone's either!;)

michaels

I haven't seen many with a high disposable income posting. Once you have a family then just housing and clothing them (in the SE at any rate) takes a moderate salary - don't forget that once you reach the higher rate threshold you lose any housing benefit, tax credits and soon child benefit and my wife would not earn nearly enough to cover child care for your 3 kids at local prices. We definitely have to watch every penny and can't afford for the kids to do the after school ballet etc that many of the others with parents on benefits do seem to be able to pay for.

Kirri wrote: »

I am just happy to be offered a job at all after being made redundant before - it's a fraction, a tiny proportion, of what everyone else seems to earn but I'm really happy to have the opportunity. I now have a long slog ahead to pay off the debt accumulated whilst on JSA.

I am surprised so many mega high earners use this site, I probably wouldn't were I not so skint!

Kirri

michaels wrote: »

I haven't seen many with a high disposable income posting. Once you have a family then just housing and clothing them (in the SE at any rate) takes a moderate salary - don't forget that once you reach the higher rate threshold you lose any housing benefit, tax credits and soon child benefit and my wife would not earn nearly enough to cover child care for your 3 kids at local prices. We definitely have to watch every penny and can't afford for the kids to do the after school ballet etc that many of the others with parents on benefits do seem to be able to pay for.

Yep agree on the SE side, though I have family members also living in London with children and a mortgage earning very average (probably considered low) wages for London and still having to try and cope, so for me, without kids, or them with kids, anything from 30-40k would be great, and 50-100k as a lot have posted, seems enormous, guess it's all relative though but certainly none of us would consider it to be 'struggling' if we were higher rate tax payers.

michaels

I quite agree there is a difference between struggling and watching every penny but I suspect with a family I would be in the former category if I didn't do the latter. We could live a lot more cheaply if we didn't want to live in the catchment area for a good school and have a garden so I guess those are choices I have made but we certainly couldn't afford a new car nor even private nursery let alone private school or private health insurance.

movilogo

Those who are quoting contract incomes, please note that it is not guaranteed income! A contractor may be working only 8-9 months a year. So daily rate multiplied by 20 (working days) and then multiply by 12 does not really equate to early income for contractors always.

silvercar

movilogo wrote: »

Those who are quoting contract incomes, please note that it is not guaranteed income! A contractor may be working only 8-9 months a year. So daily rate multiplied by 20 (working days) and then multiply by 12 does not really equate to early income for contractors always.

I agree, in fact the difference in some cases between being a contractor and being unemployed can be marginal.

Johnny_Doe

I really hate this thread too many high earners...

neverdespairgirl

Kirri wrote: »

so for me, without kids, or them with kids, anything from 30-40k would be great, and 50-100k as a lot have posted, seems enormous, guess it's all relative though but certainly none of us would consider it to be 'struggling' if we were higher rate tax payers.

As I posted today on a different thread, my family would get £779 a week in benefits, if OH and I were both unemployed. So theoretically, a couple like us on benefits are rolling in it - they are on the same income as higher rate tax payers.

silvercar

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

As I posted today on a different thread, my family would get £779 a week in benefits, if OH and I were both unemployed. So theoretically, a couple like us on benefits are rolling in it - they are on the same income as higher rate tax payers.

I'm guessing that includes LHA, which will be dropping shortly. So if you were really living on benefits you would have to move somewhere cheaper.

mcc100

Johnny_Doe wrote: »

I really hate this thread too many high earners...

Too many bulls******s.

If I could have one wish granted it would be for every poster on this forum to be placed in one room and to attempt to identify each person by their username.

Surprises galore.