Income brackets: PERCEPTIONS of low and high?

Generali

the_flying_pig wrote: »

the top one percent [crudely, people in the 45%+ tax band, i think that about £160k is the precise cutoff] have pulled away to such an extent that a totally different set of rules apply.

so i'll leave them completely out of this.

It's an interesting point. What proportion of the population is this? Is it the fabled 1% or even fewer?

Only about 15% of people earn £40,000 or more.

I also wonder how many people are left in the 1% if you take out sports stars, TV/film people and popsters (think Bono rather than Cowell). All those soccer players on 'only' £20,000 a week (less than half the wage offer that caused Ashley Cole to crash his car, almost, a decade ago) are making over a million.

lostinrates

Generali wrote: »

It's an interesting point. What proportion of the population is this? Is it the fabled 1% or even fewer?

Only about 15% of people earn £40,000 or more.

I also wonder how many people are left in the 1% if you take out sports stars, TV/film people and popsters (think Bono rather than Cowell). All those soccer players on 'only' £20,000 a week (less than half the wage offer that caused Ashley Cole to crash his car, almost, a decade ago) are making over a million.

Again, I think actual figures are difficult , because we only really know what's declared as income.

E.g. A very dear , dear fiend of mine in the army , there salary is not that much but the accrued benefits , the various things like the 'get you home' payments etc add up to significant amounts, Yet this is a paye job. Add on the SE, the business owners, (excluding black market because its very nature is indeterminable one presumes), But other things, the actual figures people end up with...

Can we EVER really know what true percentages are? If so, how?

Generali

lostinrates wrote: »

Again, I think actual figures are difficult , because we only really know what's declared as income.

E.g. A very dear , dear fiend of mine in the army , there salary is not that much but the accrued benefits , the various things like the 'get you home' payments etc add up to significant amounts, Yet this is a paye job. Add on the SE, the business owners, (excluding black market because its very nature is indeterminable one presumes), But other things, the actual figures people end up with...

Can we EVER really know what true percentages are? If so, how?

By definition we can never know what's in the Black Economy.

As for self-employed? Net profit minus net investment in capital goods and stock plus wages and dividends paid to owners would be the calculation I guess. Something like that.

the_flying_pig

Generali wrote: »

It's an interesting point. What proportion of the population is this? Is it the fabled 1% or even fewer?

Only about 15% of people earn £40,000 or more.

I also wonder how many people are left in the 1% if you take out sports stars, TV/film people and popsters (think Bono rather than Cowell). All those soccer players on 'only' £20,000 a week (less than half the wage offer that caused Ashley Cole to crash his car, almost, a decade ago) are making over a million.

the figures in the table below are: (a) quite old now; and (b) for the US rather than uk.

very, very crudely if you broke down the UK's top one percent [£160k p.a. plus] i reckon you'd get, relative to these figures:

(a) a much bigger share for finance [which you can see was increasing quite quickly in the US anyway], very possibly half or more IMO;
(b) a vastly smaller share for medicine [teh NHS means that nearly all UK doctors are on very good money but relatively few are on £160k+];
(c) a noticably smaller share for law [it's hard to earn £160k as a uk lawyer]; and
(d) the other categories maybe similar but all a shade lower due to the influence of the city - most obviously the 'managerial (non-finance)' would be a fair bit lower.

wegle

lostinrates wrote: »

Fwiw, I think its very unlikely average incomes are as low as that in sw. Though paye might not be. Its my region too, though no
T that part of it, and includes some of the richest land per square foot outside London! And multi multi millionaires, some thriving businesses, and farms.


Its highly likely a lot of wealth isn't visible thanks to the things we've referred to with self employment for example. .

Both my husband and I work in the SW, Devon to be precise and are PAYE earners. His parents live here too and his father is self employed. My perceptions are based purely on the evidence I have to hand, through my family, colleagues and friends who live in the area.

When husband and I first met 4 years ago I was working in a public sector job earning £16,000 and he had just left the army and got a machining job for circa £12,000. At that time (and still now) I considered his income to be low and mine to be the higher end of low.

4 years later and I still work in the public sector and earn £21,000 and husband is working for the same company but has worked his way up a bit and is earning £17,000. I would say my income is middle earning and his right on the border between low/middle.

To give a bit of context, for my job a higher education qualification is required and the role is considered that of a professional. I personally have a HNC and a degree. I therefore perceive that this role would be suitable for a graduate and therefore a middle income role. My boss who is an Incorporated Engineer with 30 years experience earns circa £37,000 and I would consider him to be a pretty well off.

Husband's father is self employed and his mother works part time in a cafe. She would definitely be considered on a low income but that is because of part time hours and the nature of the work. Father in law, whilst I don't know the figures but do see their lifestyle etc, I would consider to be middle earning. His business is at the point where he is expanding but can't quite afford to take on staff.

So I believe for people that live full time, work full time in the SW the following:

Low <18K
Middle 18K - 40K
High >40K

Halle71

I've been thinking about this a lot recently upon return to work after maternity leave (is it worth the stress and screaming at the kids and my partner every morning? ). But, even with one child in full time nursery and another in breakfast/after school clubs, my salary covers all our basic outgoings. That is, everything that automatically goes out of our bank account every month plus food bill and the cleaner. Leaving my partner's higher salary for the extras - savings, meals out, holidays, clothes, house maintenance.

I feel that I have a reasonable salary for London and my partner has a high salary but in the lower end of that bracket. We are fortunate but not rich.

My brother on the other hand, in in the police and earns my salary give or take a couple of grand but lives in the West Midlands. They also have two kids but his wife doesn't work (out of choice - she was an accountant for PWC) and they get by. But they struggle with some of the things we take for granted.

My scale is London centric and I think there is a need for a 'medium' bracket:

Low <25 Edit: <35
Average 25-70 Edit: 35-70
High 70+

TheFactory

bugslet wrote: »

Ah bad luck on the growing up in Runcorn bit:rotfl:, I guess you left, I keep trying!

Don't forget the 'posh' bits by the golf course, a couple of those houses have been marketed in the half a million bracket ( what they went for I'm not sure), but would indicate there are people making that money.

Oh yes there are many houses up in that bracket! I left at 18, joined the military and never moved back. I grew up on Halton Brook, niiiiiiccceeee. Seriously though I love visiting but its easy to see how much the area has nose dived since I left, the recession has not been kind.

Generali

Halle71 wrote: »

I've been thinking about this a lot recently upon return to work after maternity leave (is it worth the stress and screaming at the kids and my partner every morning? ). But, even with one child in full time nursery and another in breakfast/after school clubs, my salary covers all our basic outgoings. That is, everything that automatically goes out of our bank account every month plus food bill and the cleaner. Leaving my partner's higher salary for the extras - savings, meals out, holidays, clothes, house maintenance.

I feel that I have a reasonable salary for London and my partner has a high salary but in the lower end of that bracket. We are fortunate but not rich.

My brother on the other hand, in in the police and earns my salary give or take a couple of grand but lives in the West Midlands. They also have two kids but his wife doesn't work (out of choice - she was an accountant for PWC) and they get by. But they struggle with some of the things we take for granted.

My scale is London centric and I think there is a need for a 'medium' bracket:

Low <25
Average 25-70
High 70+

That's a huge range for 'average'. I guess what's average in Cable Street and The Barbican is very different despite them being 2 miles apart.

Halle71

Generali wrote: »

That's a huge range for 'average'. I guess what's average in Cable Street and The Barbican is very different despite them being 2 miles apart.

As other people have pointed out it's hard because, now we have kids, our needs are massively different from, say, the grads I work with who can live comfortably on their entry level salary of about £25k - shared house, work canteen..... And as a second salary it's average - I have lots of mum friends for example who work part time in the public sector and would earn this.

Point taken though, and maybe I should have put £35k. It's probably my own belief when I was at uni that a salary of circa £30k would be weekly facials and hanging out in cocktail bars :rotfl:

Out,_Vile_Jelly

I have a bad habit of comparing myself to my friends, who I "know" (assume) earn more than me because they're in the media/City/"marketing" (whatever that is) whereas I'm an administrator in Higher Education. I have noticed that those who earn more spend more eg huge mortgages, two cars, top brand groceries, high end holidays, full Sky package etc and seem physically unable to cut their spending in any way. I seem to be much better at saving (no debts, bought house without assistance from Bank of Mum & Dad, can always pay for holidays upfront) despite earning less. Your budgeting skills clearly influence how rich you feel, and how you evaluate your finances against those around you. IMO there is an awful lot of fur coat/no knickers in this country.

It's especially interesting comparing salaries and spending in London, where you get such a ridiculous range of incomes and lifestyles. Ten years ago I earned just under £16k, which was low for a graduate even then. However I funded an OU degree and saved up for a trip to Australia and NZ by living frugally. Only a year or so after that I was earning ~£10k more and felt like a millionnaire in comparison; lived in a lovely SW19 flat with my best mate, had a great social life, bought clothes if I liked them, saved AND had a couple of hundred quid left in my account at the end of each month. Although I earn more now, I don't feel as financially "free" as I did at that time of my life.

I would say London incomes are "low" when you have Oyster pre-pay rather than a season ticket, use buses more (because they're cheaper and property near the Tube is more expensive), Tube strikes directly affect your pay as you don't have the type of job where you can work from home, and you are acutely aware of the date of each Pay Day and how much you expect in your account.

Middle income is being able to afford renting on your own and not being so bothered about when Pay Day is.

High income I can only imagine; having your own accountant to minimise taxation perhaps? Regularly getting black cabs everywhere?