Income brackets: PERCEPTIONS of low and high?

lostinrates

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I would say that's totally irrelevant personally.

The only people to be taken into account income-wise in a low-paid part of the country (ie the south-west in this case) are those who actually live there...ie REALLY live there. Meaning have their primary and ONLY home there and have to earn their primary and ONLY income there.

Second Home-Owners don't count in this equation...because they don't actually "belong" there iyswim.

If someone isn't "taking the rough with the smooth" then they aren't a "local" imo and I don't understand why anyone would think they might "come into the equation" personally.

I have been on the receiving end personally of people from "higher income areas" moving into a low wage area and upping the "cost of living" for locals as a result. It's a distinctly sore spot...

They skew the income average. Money, haven't you done similar, move into an area where your pot went further on property?


I certainly don't expect to be able to buy where either DH or my parents could live when , due to rising house prices, so we've moved out.

House prices rise, people move out.

The second home argument is complicated and probably best for another thread, we used to have LOTS of threads about that too. . Plenty of second home owners 'belong there' but work somewhere else. I'd say if we owned where DH lives that's the situation we would be in, for example.

But it does skew figures.

Fwiw, I think its very unlikely average incomes are as low as that in sw. Though paye might not be. Its my region too, though no
T that part of it, and includes some of the richest land per square foot outside London! And multi multi millionaires, some thriving businesses, and farms.


Its highly likely a lot of wealth isn't visible thanks to the things we've referred to with self employment for example. .

AndyGuil

ukcarper wrote: »

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.

It is reasonable in for lower earners London when costs are shared.

ash28

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

That's also a VERY relevant point...ie that some people get their own personal choices subsidised by the State (ie the rest of us) in the form of things like "family credits"/other forms of "payment for having children"/etc.

A totally objective viewpoint says "Just why should some people get subsidised for THEIR personal financial choices, whilst others don't?" but I've often "banged my head against that particular financial wall" and got more than a little fed-up with the self-justification that comes back from those benefitting from having THEIR own "personal financial choices" subsidised whilst others don't:(

Hence...a realistic take on income imo includes ALL income (both earned income and whatever-the-State-dishes-out to subsidise "OWN personal financial choices").

As someone who has never received benefits and will never receive benefits (I don't class the state pension as a benefit, not that we get that), and having lived in the Thames Valley for over 25 years, I don't have anything against people getting help through tax credits or housing benefit.

Areas like the Thames Valley need low waged people, not everyone can earn a lot of money, they still need the shop assistants, the call centre workers, the health care assistants, the teaching assistants, the hospital porters........there would be no Thames Valley without them.

It isn't always peoples' financial choices, some people don't have the capability to do some jobs, not everyone is the same.

I know I'll probably be in a minority on here as most people seem to think the low paid shouldn't get any help, I know we give the money to the employee but what we are really doing is subsidising the company employing them.

I don't disagree with the low paid getting help with cost of children.....at some point in the future those children will be the ones paying your pension and mine.

michaels

ukcarper wrote: »

I agree that all income should be taken into account but many people would not be able to live and work in London without the benefits they receive and without these people the city would grind to a halt. The choice as I see it is pay these people a living wage or keep paying benefits you will pay either way unless the companies employing them are prepared to take a cut in their profits.

OT (sorry LIR) but I think you have it the wrong way around, companies pay what they have to to attract employees, without the govt subsidies employers would have to pay more and prices would rise so that profits were maintained. If cleaners received no top ups and so couldn't afford to work in London for say £20 per hour rather than £10 plus topups would the offices all be dirty? I don't think so and the cleaning contract companies wouldn't go out of business either, they would just charge their customers more because no one would be able to offer the lower prices. Of course employment would be slightly lower as a few things would no longer be worth doing (in this example some companies would set up elsewhere as costs in London would be too high)

TheFactory

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

I grew up in Runcorn, my family still live there. If you are earning 20k in runcorn you are doing alright! If your earning 60k, you don't live in Runcorn anymore.

Spirit_2

My perception living in a high cost area is:

Low earning: <£25k - single person earning this would be hard pressed to live in sole occupancy of a flat/property in our county town.

Middle earning:<£50K

High as in a level where a higher tax rate could set in: >£120K

ukcarper

michaels wrote: »

OT (sorry LIR) but I think you have it the wrong way around, companies pay what they have to to attract employees, without the govt subsidies employers would have to pay more and prices would rise so that profits were maintained. If cleaners received no top ups and so couldn't afford to work in London for say £20 per hour rather than £10 plus topups would the offices all be dirty? I don't think so and the cleaning contract companies wouldn't go out of business either, they would just charge their customers more because no one would be able to offer the lower prices. Of course employment would be slightly lower as a few things would no longer be worth doing (in this example some companies would set up elsewhere as costs in London would be too high)

I'm not sure if you are referring to my post but that what I said you would pay prices would have to increase also council tax would have to increase and probably taxes.

ash28

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.

I'm retired (no where near state pension age yet though) and could imagine nothing worse than sitting in front of the tv all day, having a daily walk and a weekly shop.

I know a couple of pensioners who do exactly what you say but they are in their 80s, however as someone who retired in their 50s that would be my idea of hell.....might as well get a ticket to Dignitas now.

I have gym membership that costs £30 a month and for that I do 3 or 4 classes a week, swim a couple of times a week and use the gym itself about 3 times a week - and I can go during the day when it's quieter.

I help in the local school listening to the kids read a couple of days a week - I love being called "Miss", I think I missed my vocation.

I go out for coffee or lunch once a week - have become one of the "ladies that lunch".

I was going to sign up for a cake decorating class and it turns out one of my neighbours did cake making and decorating for a living and she's going to teach me.....

Have started an OU course - classical history.

Not everything I do costs money, and I get great value out my £30 a month for the gym, and have made new friends into the bargain.

The gym is to keep physically fit and the OU to exercise what bit of grey matter I have left.

They are discretionary costs, but IMHO money well spent and if I couldn't afford it I wouldn't do it. I'd find something else to stop me vegetating...like getting a job for instance.

chewmylegoff

The thing is it's difficult to know what the measure of "income" should be.

On a basic level, let's call my pay 1,000 widgets. I also receive a bonus of about 200 widgets a year and a pension contribution of 120 widgets a year. I get medical insurance and other flexible benefits worth a further 100 widgets and I also get about 5 days more holiday than most people. Furthermore I can work at home whenever I want and I can work flexible hours these don't have a cash value but they do have an obvious value.

My remuneration package is therefore a lot higher than someone who earns 1,100 widgets with a 22 widget pension contribution, but the way most people refer to income they focus entirely on the basic salary.

Furthermore, gross salary from employment ignores any benefits and investment income a person may be earning and the rate of tax that person pays.

Really what you need to know is total remuneration after taxes including all non cash benefits and all welfare receipts but no-one ever tells you what that is they just say "I earn £30k".

lostinrates

chewmylegoff wrote: »

The thing is it's difficult to know what the measure of "income" should be.

On a basic level, let's call my pay 1,000 widgets. I also receive a bonus of about 200 widgets a year and a pension contribution of 120 widgets a year. I get medical insurance and other flexible benefits worth a further 100 widgets and I also get about 5 days more holiday than most people. Furthermore I can work at home whenever I want and I can work flexible hours these don't have a cash value but they do have an obvious value.

My remuneration package is therefore a lot higher than someone who earns 1,100 widgets with a 22 widget pension contribution, but the way most people refer to income they focus entirely on the basic salary.

Furthermore, gross salary from employment ignores any benefits and investment income a person may be earning and the rate of tax that person pays.

Really what you need to know is total remuneration after taxes including all non cash benefits and all welfare receipts but no-one ever tells you what that is they just say "I earn £30k".

I love this answer.


But that's probably because you and gen and michaels among others have been my teachers! :rotfl: