Income brackets: PERCEPTIONS of low and high?

lostinrates

Tancred wrote: »

There is a difference between gross income and income after necessary pension contributions and mortgage repayments. This is what is making me feel poorer than I should be. If I had children I would feel even poorer. However, I emphasize that this is a very subjective impression.

That's great its meant to be a very subjective perception. Thanks for getting into the spirit of things.

AndyGuil

Tancred wrote: »

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

It demonstrates that the idea that there is a clear high and low salary is not true. It depends highly on other factors. Even a household income of 50k between two.earners (50/50) would be significantly better off than a single earner on 50k. You will find that my previous comparison if I increase the "high earner" to 180k per year they are still worse off than the two 30k earners.

lostinrates

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

A thread like this is so likely to lead to self-justification by those on higher than "reasonable income" level, ie "I deserve more because I have children" v. "Well...I deserve more because I live in London", etc, etc that its virtually impossible to get even a reasonable level of consensus on this imo...but good luck on you if you DO manage to get round the "personal excuses for more syndrome".:rotfl:

Money, its not about self justification.

I'm sorry that I have not made that clear.

Noone should feel the need here to justify their income, or lack of it, or circumstances, nor to state it at all.


Its simply a perception of what is comfortable in uk now. What isn't , what is rich.


The first thread was Born out of the constant reference of the use 'middle earners' or high earners' and also at the time 'hard working families' things like that. We were using them here as well as their use in the media yet reading people's posts it was clear to me that say, michaels middle was not necessarily my middle or generali's middle and so on.

It seemed to me clear that this was a very clear way politicians could keep us all happy while the majority of peoe felt middle or poor firstly, but more interestingly to me, it felt that the people I was learning from here were suffering a communication barrier.

As someone interesting in communication for a personal reason this was particularly interesting to me and that's why I originally asked the question. What was born from it was that it provoked a lot of thought from others at the time.

The board is less busy now, and I think we all think more about it personally, I am not expecting it to be quite so interesting, but I might be surprised.

AndyGuil

Tancred wrote: »

I think that for retired people the level of income is a completely different issue altogether. As a pensioner you would normally not have a mortgage or need to spend money on commuting. You would also not have children to maintain. £16k a year is a normal income for a pensioner; infact quite a good one if your outgoings are low.

Especially as many retired don't have rent or mortgage to pay.

moneyistooshorttomention

Tancred wrote: »

I think that for retired people the level of income is a completely different issue altogether. As a pensioner you would normally not have a mortgage or need to spend money on commuting. You would also not have children to maintain. £16k a year is a normal income for a pensioner; infact quite a good one if your outgoings are low.

In that sense ...personal expenditure levels are totally irrelevant imo. Many pensioners in fact do still have to find money for mortgage/rent on the one hand and/or debt on the other hand.

Reasonable income level is reasonable income level regardless of pensioner status or no.

After all, pensioners have additional expenses that working age people don't have, eg:

- extra heating costs
- extra water costs (assuming a water meter)
- extra leisuretime costs (many pensioners are choosing to regard money spent on grandchildren as their personal "leisuretime costs". Ones like myself that don't have grandchildren certainly have extra leisuretime costs quite directly, because of all that extra leisuretime).

To quote off a personal case of those extra "leisuretime costs". I've just handed over £40 for a day of leisuretime activities I have booked myself onto (that I probably wouldn't have found the time for whilst working) AND around £10 for a ticket for an event I certainly wouldn't have found time to go to if still working AND am about to spend £15 for a brief leisuretime course I certainly wouldn't have gone to if still working AND have recently paid £38 for a series of leisuretime events I wouldn't have gone if still working. Now, if I didn't go to those "leisuretime activities" personally then I'd often be sitting here "stewing in my own little home" and not meeting people. That's around £100 gone in pretty quick succession on "leisuretime activities" I wouldn't have done personally if I had still been in work.

As regards basic bills...I've not yet established how much extra my fuel bills will come to because I am home more now that I am retired. As far as I can work out so far...then I think my fuel bills will probably be around 150% of what they were when I was working age/still in work.

That's before I start going into people of retirement age are (by definition) in an agegroup that tends to have more health problems and therefore needs more money to deal with that one way or another (be it for medical care or for a taxi to take them somewhere they would once have been well enough to walk etc etc).

Personally...whenever people say "Oh you won't have all those work expenses any more once you retire" then I take that with a huge pinch of salt and think "You just wait until Old Age starts coming up with its own particular expenses...".

grizzly1911

Tancred wrote: »

There is a difference between gross income and income after necessary pension contributions and mortgage repayments. This is what is making me feel poorer than I should be. If I had children I would feel even poorer. However, I emphasize that this is a very subjective impression.

If you had children arguably your life would be enriched beyond monetary wealth.

Whilst saving for a pension is necessary that needs to be balanced against enjoying the here and now. Many never get to use that pension.

grizzly1911

lostinrates wrote: »

Absolutely agree, though would expand what you say about higher incomes to different incomes. I also think experience and perception changes our expectations. If we see how things work in more than one place for example we extrapolate and see there is not only one way to do things.

I agree that all income levels have wants. To some they are pipe dreams to others they are more hard wired wants for a variety of reasons or just that from a higher income/wealth background wants start four or five rungs up a the ladder.

I agree that life experiences and age do alter the way you see things and the different values attributed to items whether that be monetary or life.

Looking back on life it is also interesting how a couple of high income people I know have striven to outwardly show off their income with attendant high spending and borrowing whilst others have plugged away and amassed wealth. Entering their 50s their positions in life are very different and will require significant readjustment at some point.

lostinrates

grizzly1911 wrote: »

. Entering their 50s their positions in life are very different and will require significant readjustment at some point.

Unless of course they have very good investment vehicles or some such.


There are some friends I feel confident I have an idea of their finacial status. (But by no means could swear to it) most I have no idea. Very few do I have a closer understanding.

Tancred

AndyGuil wrote: »

It demonstrates that the idea that there is a clear high and low salary is not true. It depends highly on other factors. Even a household income of 50k between two.earners (50/50) would be significantly better off than a single earner on 50k. You will find that my previous comparison if I increase the "high earner" to 180k per year they are still worse off than the two 30k earners.

The only reason two earners can be better off is because of the two tax allowances. I don't understand why you say that a £180k earner is worse off than two £30k ones - it doesn't make sense.

Tancred

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Reasonable income level is reasonable income level regardless of pensioner status or no.

After all, pensioners have additional expenses that working age people don't have, eg:

- extra heating costs
- extra water costs (assuming a water meter)
- extra leisuretime costs (many pensioners are choosing to regard money spent on grandchildren as their personal "leisuretime costs". Ones like myself that don't have grandchildren certainly have extra leisuretime costs quite directly, because of all that extra leisuretime).

I disagree. These are all discretionary costs. Working people also have lesiure time costs, eg. cinema, holidays, eating out, entertaining guests etc. Many pensioners just sit at home and watch TV all day except for a daily constitutional and a weekly shop.