Income brackets: PERCEPTIONS of low and high?

ash28

Tancred wrote: »

Yes to all of this, but these people form a small percentage of the population. What exactly are you trying to prove? That we are swimming in wealth? House prices are skewed by very high demand and little supply. If 20 people chase one property, the price will be set at a level that only the richest of these 20 will be able to afford.

What you define as 'low pay' is instead the average pay. You appear to live in a cocoon of wealth, so that your perception is doiminated only by what you experience. This has always been the problem in Britain, where class differences are so sharp. Go to somewhere like Australia and it's not like that. In Australia virtually everyone, other than the Abos, is middle class. The poor are a small percentage, and the genuinely rich also. In Britain you find the rich concentrated in London and the south-east, where they form a substantial portion of the population, and live not far from sink council estates full of poverty and deprivation.

I was brought up on a council estate, with 3 siblings, a mother who worked part time when she could and a father who suffered from motor neuron disease - so not a lot of money there I can assure you. Usually no where near enough. This was in the North East.

OH was brought up in similar circumstances, older parents and father first of all had an accident and then a stroke....died when he was 17.....no money there either. Rented all their lives. South Yorkshire.

We were determined we wouldn't be poor and worked to that end, we wanted more for ourselves and any family we might have. It's surprising what drives people and often it isn't greed, it's poverty.

I ended up in engineering and OH in air traffic control. He earned a lot more than I did. I did put the figure of our joint salaries in an earlier post and the fact that we took early retirement on less than half of our salaries.

We lived in the south east near Reading - where our children still live. OH worked in the control tower at Heathrow and has worked for what became Nats since his early to mid 20s. I worked for a famous confectionary company based in Slough (although not in the Slough factory), then a mobile phone manufacturer based near Thatcham who upped sticks and moved to Eastern Europe, then a pharma company based in Abingdon and Witney in Oxfordshire.....not hard to find out who they were/are.

I imagine quite a few people on here know my background I've been posting off and on for a few years.

We don't live in the south east now - we couldn't wait to leave it, every time we go back (which is fairly often), the reasons we wanted to leave are reinforced.

I think your perceptions are coloured by your own experience and I still think £30k is quite a low income, I wouldn't want to try and bring a family up on it today. But I have never forgotten the poverty of childhood and never will as that is what shaped our adult lives.

When I go back to the north east and see some of the people I used to go to school with or my sisters tell me about people I knew when I lived there...I often think, thank God I got out - that could have been me.

lostinrates

ukcarper wrote: »

When you compare the majority of post with the actual ONS figures it show how shielded a lot of posters are from the reality facing many people. The median full time figure for London is about £32.5k so if people think £80k is low they are out of touch with the majority of people living in London. I accept that to live in some of the better parts of London you would need to be earning in excess of £80k but that doesn't make £80k a low salary. I worked in London for most of my working life, I commuted and my salary was not much higher than the ONS median but I have had what I consider a reasonable life.

Ukcarper, consider that some people are talking about single wage and some household income.

Its a distinction we must be careful of before suggesting people don't understand reality. A family with Two £32.5 k salaries and the income that equates two for example compared to a household with a single earner of £80k as you quote.....might have several different income comparisons with the various things the single earner is no longer entitled to .....and change in tax band.

115K

I think when you are talking about wages or incomes (in London and the South East especially) it would make a big difference if you are comparing people who bought before the house prices rose and those who bought after.

Daniel54

lostinrates wrote: »

I don't know about anyone else but I think income of all natures, life changing lump sums etc ...tax might be too much. Another thread on perceptions of tax thresholds and fairness might be fun one day.....I think it would be better to try and get one smooth running thread that's a little less contentious.

The questions posed in your OP can be answered apolitically and I would leave well be or start another thread if you wish to

lostinrates

Daniel54 wrote: »

The questions posed in your OP can be answered apolitically and I would leave well be or start another thread if you wish to

I absolutely agree with you Daniel.

I really feel it would be good to try and have a thread that's as smooth running and least contentious as possible.

I'm not to bothered to start another thread just yet either. Maybe next week? :rotfl:

ukcarper

lostinrates wrote: »

Ukcarper, consider that some people are talking about single wage and some household income.

Its a distinction we must be careful of before suggesting people don't understand reality. A family with Two £32.5 k salaries and the income that equates two for example compared to a household with a single earner of £80k as you quote.....might have several different income comparisons with the various things the single earner is no longer entitled to .....and change in tax band.

That assumes that in the majority of cases both parties earn similar amounts which in my experience is not normally the case. If you asked me what salary I though you needed to live and work in London and have a reasonable standard of living I would give you a lot higher figure than I would for what I would for a middle salary.I think that is because I have earned and mixed mainly with people who have earned around the £32.5k median salary.

lostinrates

ukcarper wrote: »

That assumes that in the majority of cases both parties earn similar amounts which in my experience is not normally the case. If you asked me what salary I though you needed to live and work in London and have a reasonable standard of living I would give you a lot higher figure than I would for what I would for a middle salary.I think that is because I have earned and mixed mainly with people who have earned around the £32.5k median salary.

Its not talking about a majority at all. Its a theoretical comparison of two incomes and how they could break down. L am not trying to relate it in ANY WAY to a percentage of the population, I openly admit its both beyond the theoretical nature of this thought experiment (I think) and certainly beyond my ability!

I would say the pattern of work has shifted to two incomes being norm, percentage of sahp now? No idea? But no one 'expects' in the same way one parent to stay at home.

Of course, we are going to keep bringing this back to our perceptions, that's the point:).

ukcarper

lostinrates wrote: »

Its not talking about a majority at all. Its a theoretical comparison of two incomes and how they could break down. L am not trying to relate it in ANY WAY to a percentage of the population, I openly admit its both beyond the theoretical nature of this thought experiment (I think) and certainly beyond my ability!

I would say the pattern of work has shifted to two incomes being norm, percentage of sahp now? No idea? But no one 'expects' in the same way one parent to stay at home.

Of course, we are going to keep bringing this back to our perceptions, that's the point:).

I think this another thing that applies more to middle to higher earners, with the cost of childcare it can often be better for one partner to go part time in low income families .

chucknorris

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

But you could avoid any tax by putting the whole lot in your pension. :rotfl:

Only up to £50k (and £40k from April), although you can transfer unused allowance from the previous 3 years but that of course is a limited option.

lostinrates

ukcarper wrote: »

I think this another thing that applies more to middle to higher earners, with the cost of childcare it can often be better for one partner to go part time in low income families .

OVJ made a reference to vet nurses earlier. Its a very female dominant role . I've worked in a few low income situations which were popular with female workers, night staff on warehouses picking (child care could be shared with a day time working partner or grandparent) and also thinking of supermarket checkouts, where the person I am chatting to about my shopping often mentions their child/children. That's with not much thought to the situation......
equally, one could of course argue with house prices a sahp is a luxury of the high income earner family. Particularly after the child/children are electable for their free nursery hours /school.