Income brackets: PERCEPTIONS of low and high?

N1AK

High income and low income are tied so closely to family size that it's very hard to put figures on it that aren't absurd in many cases.

For a couple living the in Midlands I think anything about about £60k is a very comfortable joint income but then I have quite modest needs

lostinrates

N1AK wrote: »

High income and low income are tied so closely to family size that it's very hard to put figures on it that aren't absurd in many cases.

For a couple living the in Midlands I think anything about about £60k is a very comfortable joint income but then I have quite modest needs

Hmm. I'm not sure it is absurd.


Family size is, in many cases , a choice. And is an outgoing and though in some cases will have ramifications to income in other cases will not.

moneyistooshorttomention

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.

my perceptions, which tally quite closely with reality based on the publised stats & whatnot, are:

less than £20k p.a. - low;
£20-something k p.a. - low middle;
£30-something k p.a. - high middle;
£40/£50 something k p.a. - somewhat high;
£60/£70k something k p.a. - high;
£80k or more k p.a. - very high.

Apart from adding in the "less than £10k pa = obscenely low" category, which I can relate to as someone currently in that category until revised SPA, yep I'd agree with that.

The 1% -ers don't count as quite human in my book...as if you earn that sort of money and spend the lot on yourself that doesn't make you a Human Being imo. I would tend to regard someone in that category as obviously totally lacking in empathy for anyone else and...errrm....the word "selfish" comes strongly to mind and they would be far too hard work to even try to relate to. Voice of experience time from some "belting head against brick wall" earlier on in my life. Hence I would describe someone in that income level in terms that are a LOT stronger than that...

lostinrates

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

The 1% -ers don't count as quite human in my book...as if you earn that sort of money and spend the lot on yourself that doesn't make you a Human Being. It makes you a Greedy Selfish Pig living on a different planet to the rest of us imo.

No mincing your words then?

Suppose you owned a property in one of the areas your were priced out of and had acquired this sort of wealth simply by timing but don't want to leave your area?

How much do you have to give away to be 'human' or ' on the same plant'?

Edit, re your edit...its interesting the empathy bit, because again I propose that the suggestion is THEY can't emphasis with 'the likes of average' but that perhaps the demonstration is also a failure to empathise with any of them?

mouche

7.5 years ago when we my husband and I moved to the UK, our combined income was 24K less than it is now. However, we now have a house, a child and a car. I wouldn't say we are worse off than we were then, but we aren't a great deal better off either. We still watch every penny and we save hard but still can't save as much as we used to.

As others have said on this thread, I think low/ medium/ high perceptions will depend on so many factors but most especially on expenses. However, for a family like ours, in London, I would say combined family income:

Very Low: under £30K
Low: £ £30K - £60K
Medium: £60K - £100K
High: over £100K

ukcarper

Is this discussion about what you perceive as a high income or what income people think they need. When you look a the ONS figures I think it is hard to argue that someone on £60k is on a middle income when the 75% percentile for full time work is less than £40k, now that doesn't mean that I think in parts of the country it is easy to live on that.

moneyistooshorttomention

lostinrates wrote: »

Hmm. I'm not sure it is absurd.


Family size is, in many cases , a choice. And is an outgoing and though in some cases will have ramifications to income in other cases will not.

I'd amend that to "family size is ALWAYS a choice" and therefore totally irrelevant to this discussion. One person chooses a bigger house and better car and another on the same income chooses to have a child or two.

Either way...THEIR choice..the objective fact as to whether their income is obscenely low/low/middling/high or obscenely high remains the same regardless of their personal choice of expenditure patterns.

lostinrates

Oh, I realised I haven't comment yet.

Partly its because my perceptions have changed so much in the last eight years I think.

We are really, really priviledged I think. We have far more choice in day to day decisions that we did eight years ago. And the relief that buys is tremendous.

Having had a very comfortable amount in my pocket at one time in my life I've had not much too....and built it back up again.....then spent it.


I think that I no longer really correlate wealth with income in any SOLE direct way, though really see it has to be like that fiscally and make no complaint about that.


Where my ideas have failed to progress much is the complexity of the systems we have in place are too confusing for most of us to really get our heads around, this is probably a benefit as far as social content goes, but makes making sensible judgment of party policy on 'the money stuff' pretty ridiculous for many of us. I think, maybe its just me.



I do not believe that the wealth of this country is confined to a top one percent of earners in a simple way.

I think if we look at things like property prices and transactions, prices and sales of luxury cars, however its happening there is more 'wealth' then are in the top one percent.


I don't feel that much 'richer' than we were eight years ago. What is now mortgage payments was then living costs and savings for house deposit. We travel less, and go out less, my medical bills are less, but other bills are more. Some are by 'discretionary spends' some aren't.

lostinrates

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I'd amend that to "family size is ALWAYS a choice" and therefore totally irrelevant to this discussion. One person chooses a bigger house and better car and another on the same income chooses to have a child or two.

Either way...THEIR choice..the objective fact as to whether their income is obscenely low/low/middling/high or obscenely high remains the same regardless of their personal choice of expenditure patterns.

No, its not always a choice. If it were we would have had a child.

Some people might not have opted for multiple births!

lostinrates

ukcarper wrote: »

Is this discussion about what you perceive as a high income or what income people think they need. When you look a the ONS figures I think it is hard to argue that someone on £60k is on a middle income when the 75% percentile for full time work is less than £40k, now that doesn't mean that I think in parts of the country it is easy to live on that.

Its about Perception. So what you perceive. What you think you need might come into that. Feel free to interpret it.

Its specifically not about arguing . Or arguing about facts. All opinions are welcome I just ask that people remain courteous to each other and have tolerance for others opinions.