Is £40,000 really a liveable income for families in the UK?

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Got to admit, the green eyed monster is making an appearance. Think timing helped you immensley. Buying a house in 2001 (not sure how you got the 10-11x mortgage, but there we go) and seeing that increase 300%, choosing whether to work more hours or not, having your other half as a stay at home mother, while recieving taxpayer support while not even ill.

Therefore, as that monster is making an appearance, I think it's best I shut up! I don't want to offend you, though I'm sure you are aware how offensive your situation could come across. Just found it incredible considering I have the same sort of income, but now know the reasons.

He didn't get an 11x mortgage. As he says he was working full time and earning more and in 2001 the house probably only cost about 50% of its current market value, maybe less depending on the nature of the extensions he's built.

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

He didn't get an 11x mortgage. As he says he was working full time and earning more and in 2001 the house probably only cost about 50% of its current market value, maybe less depending on the nature of the extensions he's built.

House cost 250k, we know that.

House value now is approx 750k.

I did ask how it was done, directly to michaels himself. I didn't just assume.

LydiaJ

chewmylegoff wrote: »

He didn't get an 11x mortgage. As he says he was working full time and earning more and in 2001 the house probably only cost about 50% of its current market value, maybe less depending on the nature of the extensions he's built.

And he didn't just choose to drop to 2 days a week because he felt like it. His employer was making redundancies, and he ended up with reduced hours, at which point he and his wife became eligible for more TCs. It's true that he now feels it's not worth going back to full time until after April 5th, but that's hardly in the same category as choosing to live on benefits for a permanent lifestyle, is it?

Likewise, his mortgage hasn't been IO for the whole time he's had it. AIUI they paid lots off when they were both working, and switched to IO when the kids came along so his wife could stay at home with them. He's already said that once they're all in school, his wife will go back to work and they'll start paying off the capital of their mortgage again. Sounds quite sensible to me. Believe me, if she was working 16 hours and paying for childcare, their entitlement to TCs would shoot up by more than his wife would be paying in tax, unless she's an incredibly high earner.

pinkteapot

macaque wrote: »

I don't know what percentage of families have two working adults but it is not 100%.

From The Economist this week:

In America in the early 1970s more than half of all families with children consisted of a breadwinner husband, a stay-at-home wife and two or more kids; now only a fifth do. Instead there are lots of single-parent households, and even if couples do live together they no longer necessarily marry. If they do, the wives are likely to go out to work, whether or not they have dependent children, and take only a short break for maternity. Life is too expensive for most families to be able to manage on one pay cheque. In most rich countries, the dominant model now is the two-earner family, with both parents working full-time.

From their special report this week on "Women and Work".

The question "Is £40k enough for a family to live on?" is far too simplistic. Some households may have received an inheritance or other large sum from outside sources. Some may have had higher earners who saved up lots and now do less hours or lower paid jobs. As others have said, cost of living also varies across country.

Graham_Devon

LydiaJ wrote: »

And he didn't just choose to drop to 2 days a week because he felt like it. His employer was making redundancies, and he ended up with reduced hours, at which point he and his wife became eligible for more TCs. It's true that he now feels it's not worth going back to full time until after April 5th, but that's hardly in the same category as choosing to live on benefits for a permanent lifestyle, is it?

Likewise, his mortgage hasn't been IO for the whole time he's had it. AIUI they paid lots off when they were both working, and switched to IO when the kids came along so his wife could stay at home with them. He's already said that once they're all in school, his wife will go back to work and they'll start paying off the capital of their mortgage again. Sounds quite sensible to me. Believe me, if she was working 16 hours and paying for childcare, their entitlement to TCs would shoot up by more than his wife would be paying in tax, unless she's an incredibly high earner.

Which is all fine.

I have no problem with michaels.

Just i cannot agree with choosing to take benefits rather than work, just because you have paid in, and then choosing to utilise your pension so that you recieve more benefits.

It's just not on....in my opinion.

There are many people having a go at public sector workers for just having a pension, yet this sort of thing is completely acceptable. It's not michaels thats at fault, how many if we had the choice would choose the same?! It's the system. It's insanity beyond belief that the system can allow you to have nearly a million pounds worth of assets and allow you to burrow any extra money into pensions, so you can keep claiming tax payer support as you choose not to work any extra.

RenovationMan

Wow, 5 pages of people discussing what they earn and no outraged remark from DervProf, stating that we shouldn't discuss our finances on this board!

Frankly I'm shocked! :eek:

Phil3822

I live in East Anglia. Earn 29K pa. Wife stays at home to look after children. One 8 the other 2. Have a mortgage etc and cope ok ish. We get the child benefit but no other benefits. I have about 4K worth of unsecured debt and little savings. Working to clear my debt and live more sensibly. I think 40K pa is a reasonable amount to live on if you set you sights right in terms of housing and transport. Of course inside of London is very different.

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Which is all fine.

I have no problem with michaels.

Just i cannot agree with choosing to take benefits rather than work, just because you have paid in, and then choosing to utilise your pension so that you recieve more benefits.

It's just not on....in my opinion.

There are many people having a go at public sector workers for just having a pension, yet this sort of thing is completely acceptable. It's not michaels thats at fault, how many if we had the choice would choose the same?! It's the system. It's insanity beyond belief that the system can allow you to have nearly a million pounds worth of assets and allow you to burrow any extra money into pensions, so you can keep claiming tax payer support as you choose not to work any extra.

Just out of interest. If you are not happy about michaels continuing to work 2 days per week and receiving increased WTC CTC because of it, how many working hours per week do you feel is acceptable?

Graham_Devon

RenovationMan wrote: »

Just out of interest. If you are not happy about michaels continuing to work 2 days per week and receiving increased WTC CTC because of it, how many working hours per week do you feel is acceptable?

It's not how many hours or days that's the issue. Makes not a jot of difference.

abaxas

40k and you'll be secure and happy in the NE.

40k in London and you might as well go on the dole.