Income brackets: PERCEPTIONS of low and high?

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

Low is less than I've earned for a full time job in the last five years.

High is more than I can reasonably expect to earn in the next five years.

If you read the thread I think you will find that there is a large element of truth in your post.

moneyistooshorttomention

lostinrates wrote: »

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


. .

Yes, in the event. Much thought/agonising about it later and I had to move because a My Home sort of house was out of my reach in my Home Area. I'm not happy about it and still wonder whether I would have stayed there if I had been able to afford My Home there.

As to how someone decides what type of house constitutes My Home to them, then in my case it boils down "One like my parents have and I'm too old to still be in a starter house". I couldn't get my head round how to live the Retirement Lifestyle I've been planning all those years if I cant garden (because of the tiny backyard my starter house had), cant rely on peace and quiet (because its not detached) etc etc.

On researching around, it did feel to me like a My Home type house "should be" very much cheaper in my Home Area (ie because it is in much of the country) and this factor did seem to be a strong contributory factor as to why Our Home type houses are too dear in my own area.

I do tend to feel a bit "guilty" about the fact I've now had to buy My Home somewhere else in order to get it, hence very conscious of choosing to "keep things local" as far as possible in regard to who I employ to work on this house etc, and regarding it as my responsibility to fit in with them.

lostinrates

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Yes, in the event. Much thought/agonising about it later and I had to move because a My Home sort of house was out of my reach in my Home Area. I'm not happy about it and still wonder whether I would have stayed there if I had been able to afford My Home there.

As to how someone decides what type of house constitutes My Home to them, then in my case it boils down "One like my parents have and I'm too old to still be in a starter house". I couldn't get my head round how to live the Retirement Lifestyle I've been planning all those years if I cant garden (because of the tiny backyard my starter house had), cant rely on peace and quiet (because its not detached) etc etc.

On researching around, it did feel to me like a My Home type house "should be" very much cheaper in my Home Area (ie because it is in much of the country) and this factor did seem to be a strong contributory factor as to why Our Home type houses are too dear in my own area.

I do tend to feel a bit "guilty" about the fact I've now had to buy My Home somewhere else in order to get it, hence very conscious of choosing to "keep things local" as far as possible in regard to who I employ to work on this house etc, and regarding it as my responsibility to fit in with them.

I think you're making the same decision a lot of the people you are cross about have made, that's all. :). I certainly do not judge you I'll for it. I believe it to be a course of action determined by your budget and position and a prudent one.

I think in the context of that thread and the question of perception of where we stand its an interesting factor. While I am very clear that I want NO ONE to feel pushed to a point of justification, you raised the point that this would be a place for people to justify what they got.....looking out wards, yet I think looking at OURSELVES, we all base our perceptions to a degree justifying our positions because we live our lives and feel the comfort us and discomforts they offer us.

Transport any one of us into another's shoes literally and this would obviously have impact on our perceptions, something that we have all on some way SAID in the thread yet not something we all seem to be able to FEEL.

It seems particularly hard to empathise with others financial positions particularly if we feel they are some way advantaged. This doesn't necessarily mean earning more, a pint chewmylegoff so clearly made, not all income or benefit is in €£$ but also in credits, time, benefits.

( this interestingly ties into something we were talking about on another thread money, comparing lives? ). While I remain convince a personal comparison leads purely to discontent we obviously at times need to have a dispassionate overview of income for fiscal purposes and political ones, for 'them' to decide on policy, and for us to decide if we like that policy.

chucknorris

For me it isn't just about the money it is also about job satisfaction, flexibility (working part time and with a degree of flexibility i.e. working from home when I can) and also access to a public sector (teachers) pension scheme. So I'm happy enough to be on about 53k (pro rata), but I really wouldn't be interested in going back to working as a quantity surveyor full time, even if I was offered over a 100k.

lostinrates

chucknorris wrote: »

For me it isn't just about the money it is also about job satisfaction, flexibility (working part time and with a degree of flexibility i.e. working from home when I can) and also access to a public sector (teachers) pension scheme. So I'm happy enough to be on about 53k (pro rata), but I really wouldn't be interested in going back to working as a quantity surveyor full time, even if I was offered over a 100k.

Would you have made the same decision early in your career if you could rewind? It would have changed the position you are in now wouldn't it?

chucknorris

lostinrates wrote: »

Would you have made the same decision early in your career if you could rewind? It would have changed the position you are in now wouldn't it?

Yes and no. Yes because most of my income comes from property which I have owned since the 90's, so my position wouldn't have changed. So I wish I had started lecturing by the late 90's (about 12 years earlier than I actually did). But I wouldn't have wanted to take the risk before then, the risk being that the bottom falls out of the property market before I gained enough equity to cover that fall. I could have built up a higher pension too, although I am doing the best I can to boost that now.

lostinrates

chucknorris wrote: »

Yes and no. Yes because most of my income comes from property which I have owned since the 90's, so my position wouldn't have changed. So I wish I had started lecturing by the late 90's (about 12 years earlier than I actually did). But I wouldn't have wanted to take the risk before then, the risk being that the bottom falls out of the property market before I gained enough equity to cover that fall. I could have built up a higher pension too, although I am doing the best I can to boost that now.

Thanks .

Presumably you needed money to buy at least the initial property?

chucknorris

lostinrates wrote: »

Thanks .

Presumably you needed money to buy at least the initial property?

Don't we all. But I was well established by 1998 which would have been an ideal time for me to switch career, but of course it is easy to be wise with the benefit of hindsight. I did actually attend an open evening at a university to find out more about lecturing at that time, but I wasn't very impressed, it all seemed too casual and laid back, I don't think that I was thinking very clearly because casual and laid back is what I should have been aiming for.

the_flying_pig

the top one percent [crudely, people in the 45%+ tax band, i think that about £160k is the precise cutoff] have pulled away to such an extent that a totally different set of rules apply.

so i'll leave them completely out of this.

my perceptions, which tally quite closely with reality based on the publised stats & whatnot, are:

less than £20k p.a. - low;
£20-something k p.a. - low middle;
£30-something k p.a. - high middle;
£40/£50 something k p.a. - somewhat high;
£60/£70k something k p.a. - high;
£80k or more k p.a. - very high.

chucknorris

the_flying_pig wrote: »

the top one percent [crudely, people in the 45%+ tax band, i think that about £160k is the precise cutoff] have pulled away to such an extent that a totally different set of rules apply.

so i'll leave them completely out of this.

my perceptions, which tally quite closely with reality based on the publised stats & whatnot, are:

less than £20k p.a. - low;
£20-something k p.a. - low middle;
£30-something k p.a. - high middle;
£40/£50 something k p.a. - somewhat high;
£60/£70k something k p.a. - high;
£80k or more k p.a. - very high.

Although as you say the 'top' band is 45%, there is an even higher marginal band of 60%. When you earn over £100k you lose £1 for every £2 earned from your personal allowance over that £100k, so it becomes a 60% tax band between £100k and £100k plus twice your personal allowance.