Income brackets: PERCEPTIONS of low and high?

ukcarper

lostinrates wrote: »

OVJ made a reference to vet nurses earlier. Its a very female dominant industry. 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......

Yes I think that is what a lot of women do but in general they are low paid jobs and I mean low paid by any ones perceptions.

lostinrates

ukcarper wrote: »

Yes I think that is what a lot of women do but in general they are low paid jobs and I mean low paid by any ones perceptions.

Ukcarper you are making me dizzy! . (I think the correct English uses age word might actually be giddy?......does dizzy imply DH and tomterm are going to tell me off? ?

ukcarper

lostinrates wrote: »

Ukcarper you are making me dizzy! . (I think the correct English uses age word might actually be giddy?......does dizzy imply DH and tomterm are going to tell me off? ?

Perhaps we have our wires crossed you asked what we thought was a high and a low income. I'm trying to that question the answers I have given are for a single income.


If you are asking what income do you need to live in the manner you would like to live in I think that is a different question.


Perhaps you should clarify what you actually want so we can have some consistency in the answers.


Good thread by the way very revealing.

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 .

ukcarper wrote: »

Yes I think that is what a lot of women do but in general they are low paid jobs and I mean low paid by any ones perceptions.

Its these last two answers that made me 'giddy'. . No critism btw, just quite confusing as to what you actually meant by it...its the middle and the high ones, but the 'low ones by anyone's standards ' too!

ukcarper wrote: »

Perhaps we have our wires crossed you asked what we thought was a high and a low income. I'm trying to that question the answers I have given are for a single income.

[its fine to give answers for a single income, but when querying others responses just bear in mind that not everyone has done. . I'm happy for you to reasons in the way you best see fit...even that might bear something into our perspective, do you think? [/COLOR]
If you are asking what income do you need to live in the manner you would like to live in I think that is a different question.
i think its a different question too. I do think the one relates to the other in our mind and colours our perspective both ways, and our decisions both personal and potentially political etc

Perhaps you should clarify what you actually want so we can have some consistency in the answers.


well, I'd like world peace and a civilised conversation on Mse....:D

Not what you meant? .

It really IS simpler than you think. Its JUST a thought experiment, or less seriously, a 'parlour game' in to our perspective on this issue. Its not to harrangue any one with, to prove a point as some fear. We individually might choose to use it as a vehicle for personal challenge and development. I realise this is not something all will chose to do! There is no compulsion to:D.

Its would be exceptionally nice if it could be a vehicle to explore some ideas on perception like the life changing some of money, and debt, and cars, status...other little things that have cropped up and been really 'choppy' words for a thread on money and perception but its already been made clear to me in pm, in another thread and in the thread people HAVE been put off by the tone of posting. I'm not sure if the thread has legs to develop much further. I'd love a nice apolitical, way we could explore ideas like this, learning, self challenging (note the self;) and explore ideas by pulling together with our 'perceptions' to explore real facts, knowledge and experience, perhaps guided by the people here with a greater knowledge of economics and sociology ........ rather than using them as weaponry.

I personally was interested to see how it compared to the original thread which I have deliberately not re read beyond the first post though its been tempting to, particularly to get a steer how to guide the the thread a little more clearly.

Good thread by the way very revealing.

Hmm, I'm not sure yet it IS that revealing. But it is nevertheless interesting. I'm glad you are enjoying it.

ukcarper

lostinrates wrote: »

Its these last two answers that made me 'giddy'. . No critism btw, just quite confusing as to what you actually meant by it...its the middle and the high ones, but the 'low ones by anyone's standards ' too!



Hmm, I'm not sure yet it IS that revealing. But it is nevertheless interesting. I'm glad you are enjoying it.

It's quite simple really the lower paid you are the bigger proportion of pay childcare takes up I suppose the cut off point varies with the number of children you have and where you are but in extreme cases could exceed what you could earn.


What I meant by low by any ones standards is that it's below the low figure given by everybody even the lower figures.


I suppose the only conclusion one can really get is that in the majority of cases Gen's post is very accurate. But I do find it revealing how some people think it is impossible to live on twice my income and in some cases that's twice my household income .

lostinrates

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.

ukcarper wrote: »

It's quite simple really the lower paid you are the bigger proportion of pay childcare takes up I suppose the cut off point varies with the number of children you have and where you are but in extreme cases could exceed what you could earn.


What I meant by low by any ones standards is that it's below the low figure given by everybody even the lower figures.


I suppose the only conclusion one can really get is that in the majority of cases Gen's post is very accurate. But I do find it revealing how some people think it is impossible to live on twice my income and in some cases that's twice my household income .

I've been fiddling around with some figures based on the post of two workers on entitled to.


My problem is I'm not really sure about realistic (and i do mean realsitc rather than pessimistic/optimistic costs of childcare in my local area. And how they'd compare with a single higher earner taking them out of threshold for anything.


Annual salary for a fulltime supermarket employee was easy but I'd like to see (for my self). What actual income variables could be.

I want to be clear this is not a political endeavour, but to see how variable incomes v salaries can be and if this can really skew our perspective OR if our perspective than it can make significant impact is skewed.

Sadly my head is giving my some problems now and I think I'll have to stop trying that for this evening.

ukcarper

lostinrates wrote: »

I've been fiddling around with some figures based on the post of two workers on entitled to.


My problem is I'm not really sure about realistic (and i do mean realsitc rather than pessimistic/optimistic costs of childcare in my local area. And how they'd compare with a single higher earner taking them out of threshold for anything.


Annual salary for a fulltime supermarket employee was easy but I'd like to see (for my self). What actual income variables could be.

I want to be clear this is not a political endeavour, but to see how variable incomes v salaries can be and if this can really skew our perspective OR if our perspective than it can make significant impact is skewed.

Sadly my head is giving my some problems now and I think I'll have to stop trying that for this evening.

When you bring benefits into it, it gets really confusing.

pleasedelete

Benefits do confuse it. I dont know about benefits but when people post an= SOA on here with 2 children in rented accommodation they seem to have an income figure of £2800 per month. Some will be taxed income and some untaxed benefits. Whichever way you look at it it must be more than the average salary if that is £26k or close.

SingleSue

Tancred wrote: »

Interesting in confirming that the great majority of people using this forum are very well heeled, but not much else.

Hehe, I am about as far away from being well heeled as you could get!

SingleSue

lostinrates wrote: »

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.

I was a stay at home parent for a couple of years when I was married mainly due to the difficulties the boys have. I didn't need to return to work as hubby was earning enough for me not to but I was bored silly. His salary was decent but not high, however, we were very careful with our money, didn't take out finance for cars, kitchens etc, take expensive holidays etc, so our money went further than most.

I took on a part time job, working opposite hours to my husband so the need to pay out for childcare was negated...blooming good thing too as no chilcare provider would take them on anyway! Anyway, long story slightly shorter, that part time job turned into quite a well paying job, albeit still part time and still no childcare to pay.