Income brackets: PERCEPTIONS of low and high?

Tancred

lostinrates wrote: »

A staggering 8 years ago I started a thread I found quite interesting about perceptions of income brackets.


This interestingly tied in with the announcement on the 'new' higher rate tax bracket of 50% at 150k.

With the new announcement and discussion here, and some time between there I'm interested to see how PERCEPTION of what people see as high and low is now.

I'm not interested in the figures we know or can google. I'm interested about how we feel and if how we feel has changed in the eight :eek: years. (Also whether my typing has significantly improved:rotfl:)


My op then ran a little like this:


Often I read, and refer myself, to low, middle or high earners. I wonder what other posters mean when posting the same phrase, because I often think we have very different perceptions from each other as a group

I used to feel that the tax guidelines were woefully inadaquate (with high earners starting at 40kish) which in parts of the country is not a lot.

I'd be intersting in comparing this with other posters' perception and finding out what you all class as low/medium/high (super-rich -high?) and if your perception changes when talking about couples rather than individuals (as that often comes up in debate too.) Is high different to super rich-making four categories or inclusive of it?

as a point of discussion does the new high tax ban lead to the definition of the 40k-150k 'middle rate tax payers' as middle earners' ?

The median average full time UK salary is £26,500, with the mean average around £31,000.
On this basis, someone who is 'middle income' would be earning around the £27-35k range or thereabouts. That might seem strangely low for a white collar worker living and working in London/South-East, but this is what the statistics reflect. It could be argued that in the London/commuter belt area the 40% tax rate affects a very broad range of people, but that is in itself not sufficient to define it as a tax on middle incomes. London salaries are skewed to a great extent by the high number of professionals, the City of London and the need to pay more due to higher cost of living.

Tancred

bugslet wrote: »

Here in the North West, I would say anything over 60k is high. Under 20 low, but I know a lot of people that earn less than that. What credits etc they may or may not get, I don't know.

I also work in a low wage industry, so that possibly colours my perception. Van drivers aren't going to earn much over 20k, most less. Truck drivers can make around mid-30s, but it's long hours to do so, and a lot are on £7.50 - £8.50 an hour.

I would say that in the North West anything over £40k is a (relatively) high income. Over £60k is very high, in relative terms.

Tancred

AndyGuil wrote: »

I've update my post.

I think once there are kids and other dependents it can cause these figures to.rise drammatically. A "high earner" on 150k with 4 kids and a partner to support will be worse off than a couple earning 30k each with no dependents.

A fair comparison is like with like - this is not a fair comparison.

lostinrates

Thank you tancred.

The op specifically asks that we don't talk about actual figures but rather our perceptions.

The whole point is not to refer to the figures which we all either know or can google but to let out perceptions stretch a little.

I know its strange an alien to some but it was really enjoyable last time.

bugslet

Tancred wrote: »

I would say that in the North West anything over £40k is a (relatively) high income. Over £60k is very high, in relative terms.

I did hesitate a bit before settling for 60k. I move between knowing a lot of blue collar workers and a lot of professional people who earn over 60k.

I live in Runcorn, which is cheap, yet if I look around my old home town of Stockport, there are some very well-heeled areas, so it's trying to get a blance between the two.

As lir posted, it's the perception and that's a personal decision.

Tancred

theEnd wrote: »

For me (and this is London).

Low < 40k
High > 90k

No idea how anyone (even single) can live on < 30k in London.

Too high, even for London. Lots of people in London earn less than £30k - waiters, parcel couriers, traffic wardens, etc. Many people live in flat or house shares or bedsits, and there are still plenty of people in social housing.

lostinrates

Tancred wrote: »

I would say that in the North West anything over £40k is a (relatively) high income. Over £60k is very high, in relative terms.

Tancred wrote: »

A fair comparison is like with like - this is not a fair comparison.

Oh tancred. Please don't spoilt things.

We're discussing nicely here. You are very welcome , but I'd much prefer the dropping of the double standard logic.

I do understand the game of perception is a little off the wall but their is no compulsion to join in should you not want to. I would ask that you do not try and derail it though.

Thank you.

Tancred

bugslet wrote: »

I did hesitate a bit before settling for 60k. I move between knowing a lot of blue collar workers and a lot of professional people who earn over 60k.

I live in Runcorn, which is cheap, yet if I look around my old home town of Stockport, there are some very well-heeled areas, so it's trying to get a blance between the two.

As lir, it's the perception and that's a personal decision.

Cheshire is the Surrey of the north. I think Manchester would be a better benchmark.

lostinrates

bugslet wrote: »

I did hesitate a bit before settling for 60k. I move between knowing a lot of blue collar workers and a lot of professional people who earn over 60k.

I live in Runcorn, which is cheap, yet if I look around my old home town of Stockport, there are some very well-heeled areas, so it's trying to get a blance between the two.

As lir, it's the perception and that's a personal decision.

Its Important that it is your perception bugs. You can change your mind of course, but I'd rather it was because something in debate over time and cause for reflexion was the cause of it, not knee jerk

michaels

Tancred wrote: »

Cheshire is the Surrey of the north. I think Manchester would be a better benchmark.

I know it is a perceptions thread but I think the context behind the perceptions that people have been giving is important and I don't think it does any harm for a few bits of data to be included to as personally I find putting the perceptions into context is helpful.