Income brackets: PERCEPTIONS of low and high?

grizzly1911

lostinrates wrote: »

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 financial status. (But by no means could swear to it) most I have no idea. Very few do I have a closer understanding.

The "high roller" doesn't have a cunning plan other than hopeful HPI on a heavily mortgaged property.

The latter has always made the point of tying up part of income to stop them spending it frivolously. Whilst travelling overseas extensively on business with foreign corporations the husband has been happy to be domiciled here and cough up the tax. His view being we pay for "it" one way or another and we prefer it here.

Horses for courses and there is no accounting for the banana skins however we transit through our time here.

moneyistooshorttomention

Tancred wrote: »

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.

Ahem...now racking brains as to the figures I have found recently (?Rowntree Foundation?) that came down to a single person needed £200 per week to have the same standard of living as a coupled-up person on £120 per week.

Please don't get me started. It just makes me so angry that coupled-up people usually don't seem to appreciate JUST how much money they save on basic living expenses compared to single people.

Goes off to give myself a virtual "talking to" about "At least I am a sight more realistic/less self-deluded than many coupled-up people....and that must mean I am much better able to see (and therefore cope with) the way things Actually Are"....

moneyistooshorttomention

Tancred wrote: »

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.

Yeh...right...if you say so:cool:.

Sits back and makes mental note of "Must have a looksee in years to come and see what viewpoint changes there have been down to a perception of 'If I don't make a deliberate effort to have a social life...then I wonder JUST how many people I would interact with in a typical day...":cool:".

Must admit that if anyone expected me to watch tv all day then they would probably be "wearing it" (ie the TV) round their neck by the end of many days of that...

I DO tend personally to regard tv-watching (except for certain carefully chosen programmes that appeal to personal interests) as being "bread and circuses" and filling time for the sake of it.

lostinrates

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Ahem...now racking brains as to the figures I have found recently (?Rowntree Foundation?) that came down to a single person needed £200 per week to have the same standard of living as a coupled-up person on £120 per week.

Please don't get me started. It just makes me so angry that coupled-up people usually don't seem to appreciate JUST how much money they save on basic living expenses compared to single people.

Goes off to give myself a virtual "talking to" about "At least I am a sight more realistic/less self-deluded than many coupled-up people....and that must mean I am much better able to see (and therefore cope with) the way things Actually Are"....

Single person or single earner?


I think its long accepted that single people with no children are the least well ' provisioned for' . But I think this study also only looked at typical set ups? Not considering LATS for example? An increasing situation for couples.

lostinrates

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Yeh...right...if you say so:cool:.

Sits back and makes mental note of "Must have a looksee in years to come and see what viewpoint changes there have been down to a perception of 'If I don't make a deliberate effort to have a social life...then I wonder JUST how many people I would interact with in a typical day...":cool:".

Must admit that if anyone expected me to watch tv all day then they would probably be "wearing it" (ie the TV) round their neck by the end of many days of that...

Fwiw this can also be my situation, not retired, or the situation of sahp of you g children who crave adult contact.

AndyGuil

Tancred wrote: »

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.

The tax allowance and the dependents on the higher earner in this example make a big difference. The two single earners with no dependents can share costs, have less out goings from housing etc. and less tax.

ash28

I think that perception is usually based on your own experience.....we took early retirement in 2010 (can't believe it was that long ago) and before retirement if you had asked me I would have said we were middle earners - between us we earned almost £100k (not bonus or overtime reliant), we lived in the south east, still had a mortgage, had a nice house, nice cars, nice holidays, and although we could pretty much do what we wanted when we wanted, by no stretch of the imagination did I consider us well off.....we were alright, we were comfortable.

Today we have a gross income of less than half of that, but we each pay 20% tax, make no pension contributions and don't pay NI, we have no work related expenses, no commute.....we have no mortgage, we still have a nice house, nice cars, nice holidays, can pretty much do what we want when we want, in fact we are still comfortable. If you had asked me 3 years ago if I though our current income was a decent income I would have said no. However, here we are and in our circumstances it is a decent income.

So it's all relative really.

Still, what do I think of as a high earner - probably anyone over £150k and a low earner anyone under about £30k.

Linda_D_2

I'd class as anything over £20k as a high earner.

lostinrates

grizzly1911 wrote: »

The "high roller" doesn't have a cunning plan other than hopeful HPI on a heavily mortgaged property.

The latter has always made the point of tying up part of income to stop them spending it frivolously. Whilst travelling overseas extensively on business with foreign corporations the husband has been happy to be domiciled here and cough up the tax. His view being we pay for "it" one way or another and we prefer it here.

Horses for courses and there is no accounting for the banana skins however we transit through our time here.

I lost track of who is who but thanks any way


There is indeed no accounting for banana skins. . Sadly they caught my father over pensions not once but twice. .

ukcarper

I think that your own perception is directly related to your income and the incomes of the people you know. People often say it is impossible to live on less that £50k in London yet 75% of people working full time in London earn less than that. I would consider £60k a very good salary and less than £20k low, high I find harder but say £75k.