Income brackets: PERCEPTIONS of low and high?

Tancred

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

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?

Your definition of 'middle income' is closer to 'middle class income'. The term 'middle class' refers to a very broad group of people, most of whom earn well above the average wage.
I think we need a proper definition of what middle income is.

Tancred

lostinrates wrote: »

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

Some people might not have opted for multiple births!

It is still a choice because you could adopt or go for the IVF route.

lostinrates

Tancred wrote: »

Your definition of 'middle income' is closer to 'middle class income'. The term 'middle class' refers to a very broad group of people, most of whom earn well above the average wage.
I think we need a proper definition of what middle income is.

Can we let it run a little first?


Middle can of course be open to interpretation. Which is why its such a clever word, politically. And why our perception of it is SO important.

lostinrates

Tancred wrote: »

It is still a choice because you could adopt or go for the IVF route.

For various reasons I'm not going in to ifurther again tancred t is not a realistic choice for me.

ukcarper

lostinrates wrote: »

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.

Yes but it is still possible to perceive as I do that £40k is a good if not high salary whilst at the same time appreciating that a lot of people would find it difficult to live on. Some people on here who say they are earning very good salary, say they are struggling well maybe not struggling but they could not live on less and I have no reason to disbelieve them but that doesn't change the fact they are on a very good salary. Although Gen's post might have been tongue in cheek I think it has turn out to be very accurate and that must tell us something.

Tancred

lostinrates wrote: »

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 agree with you entirely. I think the top 3-4% is where the real disposable income lies, not just the top 1%.

lostinrates wrote: »

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.

Well, your perception is one from the upper middle class end of things. What you perceive as non-discretionary expenditure would be considered a luxury by many others. The trouble is that we all look at the overall picture from the standpoint of our own experiences, not those of others. I come from a poor background and slowly clawed my way to what could be called middle-middle class status, largely through my own determination and tenacity, so I can see things from various perspectives.

lostinrates

ukcarper wrote: »

Yes but it is still possible to perceive as I do that £40k is a good if not high salary whilst at the same time appreciating that a lot of people would find it difficult to live on. Some people on here who say they are earning very good salary, say they are struggling well maybe not struggling but they could not live on less and I have no reason to disbelieve them but that doesn't change the fact they are on a very good salary. Although Gen's post might have been tongue in cheek I think it has turn out to be very accurate and that must tell us something.

I'm sorry, I am finding your post a little hard to follow.


I do agree gen's post is very key though.

I'd be surprised if any one on an above average salary could not live opn less, but they might have to make considerable sacrifices.

We could live on less. However DH could not continue to provide for him self doing the job he does and filling his requirements for that job on the average salary, for example. He could however, ditch that job, and we could croft some where. We'd have to change lifestyle considerably, but it would be possible.

Tancred

lostinrates wrote: »

Can we let it run a little first?


Middle can of course be open to interpretation. Which is why its such a clever word, politically. And why our perception of it is SO important.

Very true. It's a hugely politically loaded word. When politicians talk about 'middle England' they mean 99% of the population.

lostinrates

Tancred wrote: »

I agree with you entirely. I think the top 3-4% is where the real disposable income lies, not just the top 1%.




Well, your perception is one from the upper middle class end of things. What you perceive as non-discretionary expenditure would be considered a luxury by many others. The trouble is that we all look at the overall picture from the standpoint of our own experiences, not those of others. I come from a poor background and slowly clawed my way to what could be called middle-middle class status, largely through my own determination and tenacity, so I can see things from various perspectives.

Interesting, so you conclude that my posts are from one perspective? That's interesting.

AAMOI I do wonder what you conclude non discretional spending includes for me.....and what it doesn't:)

Tancred

lostinrates wrote: »

I'm sorry, I am finding your post a little hard to follow.


I do agree gen's post is very key though.

I'd be surprised if any one on an above average salary could not live opn less, but they might have to make considerable sacrifices.

We could live on less. However DH could not continue to provide for him self doing the job he does and filling his requirements for that job on the average salary, for example. He could however, ditch that job, and we could croft some where. We'd have to change lifestyle considerably, but it would be possible.

I cannot possibly comment without knowing what your DH does for a living and knowing where you live. However, if, for the purpose of argument, your DH is a partner in a firm of City accountants, he could always find a good accounting role in a small country practice near (or nearer) where you live, could he not? He would have to take a pay cut but he would have much less commuting and possibly also find the job less stressful and more enjoyable.