'I make £120,000 but I can’t recall the last time we went out for dinner’

lostinrates

Generali wrote: »

He's a reasonably senior compliance officer so he's likely to be on about a 50% bonus on top.

School fees are the killer. You can't economise on them once you start to pay them.

Do the kind of financial products that spread the cost of these not still exist? Friends whose parents income was comparable, say, GPs, and had four kids used them I remember.

In another thread a few days ago about cost of stuff some were arguing new cars were cheaper and better now and foreign travel is certainly more affordable , depending on type of holidays.

I am with mayonnaise. While I agree we cannot have it all, it does seem that a £120k salary when you consider its proportion to the average earner should be able to find a decent lifestyle including school fees and some 'beyond basic' spends.

N1AK

mayonnaise wrote: »

education of both his kids his main priority, spends bucket loads on school fees while cutting down on holidays, cars and other niceties and what do we get?

He's called a 'joker' and other 'my heart bleeds' snides.

It's hardly an unusual attitude sadly. For many, if not the majority of people, the automatic assumption is that anyone earning more than them can't possibly 'deserve' it and has no right to complain, and anyone earning less is lazy, causes their own problems, and has no right to complain.

Sure, his financial decisions might not have been optimal but there's so much we don't know that any judgements people are making simply emphasise their predilection to jump to conclusions.

His concerns about his children and Uni do seem a little odd. Surely the point of paying for their private education is so that they can reasonably expect to earn good money after uni, in which case the student loan is hardly a terrible millstone.

Generali

lostinrates wrote: »

Do the kind of financial products that spread the cost of these not still exist? Friends whose parents income was comparable, say, GPs, and had four kids used them I remember.

They do but they're a savings product really, just a kind of a mutual fund. AIUI at least.

We don't know this family's circumstances but it's quite possible that really good money has come along gradually rather than all at once.

The thing for me is:

1. This bloke is earning in about the top 3-4% of incomes and probably top 1-2% including bonus. Not so long ago that would easily afford the sort of lifestyle he wants and expects. It doesn't any more.

It used to bug the hell out of me too. I was working my bottom off and earning well but didn't have money coming out of my ears. A couple of teachers in Stoke would have had a lot more spare cash and lifestyle too.

lostinrates

the_flying_pig wrote: »

the school fees are by a distance his biggest outgoing [and, i might add, a pure 24-carat luxury item that, living in farnham is laughably unecessary] but with kids aged 16 & 17 he's got another three years' worth max to pay. after that he'll be fine.

much more importantly, only the torygraph could describe a £120k p.a. city worker [comfortably in the top 1% of earners] as part of a 'squeezed middle':rotfl:

I think it can be middle.

In our circumstance we have one high earner and not. 120k divided in two doesn't go so far as the same sum earned somewhat equally between two.

lostinrates

Generali wrote: »

They do but they're a savings product really, just a kind of a mutual fund. AIUI at least.

We don't know this family's circumstances but it's quite possible that really good money has come along gradually rather than all at once.

The thing for me is:

1. This bloke is earning in about the top 3-4% of incomes and probably top 1-2% including bonus. Not so long ago that would easily afford the sort of lifestyle he wants and expects. It doesn't any more.

It used to bug the hell out of me too. I was working my bottom off and earning well but didn't have money coming out of my ears. A couple of teachers in Stoke would have had a lot more spare cash and lifestyle too.

This I think is it. And why people who earn well feel frustrated. If there is no tangible.e reward in benefit or lifestyle....schools, holidays whatever.....and loss of lifestyle....what's the point for many?

N1AK

lostinrates wrote: »

I am with mayonnaise. While I agree we cannot have it all, it does seem that a £120k salary when you consider its proportion to the average earner should be able to find a decent lifestyle including school fees and some 'beyond basic' spends.

When one sits down to work out how much is needed to save a for a reasonable retirement income, especially if you don't want to work until you're practically in the grave, to have a nice house in a nice area and send your kids to a public school it's staggering.

Our household income is 'merely' ~£80k which frankly is a huge amount when put in the context of the vast majority of people in this country. Yet there's pretty much no way we could manage to afford all three of those things, let alone do them and afford other 'luxuries'.

I know some people see public schools as some great evil, but I really don't. I'd love for the average quality of schooling to be high enough that public school was a pointless vanity exercise but it isn't. Sure, if you can afford it then you can live somewhere near a state school that is good enough, but how is driving up prices near good schools and excluding poorer parents better for society? Our 'long term' budget covers the scenario in which we buy a ~£500k property as that should be sufficient to buy an ok house in a good catchment area.

wotsthat

Cornucopia wrote: »

All it shows is that lack of financial acumen can affect anyone across the whole of society.

He's earning £120k and his two kids go to one of the best schools in the country. Clear evidence of his lack of financial acumen.:cool:

I don't even think this chap is particularly moaning about his lot in life either - just seems to be explaining that £120k/ year doesn't go as far as it used to.

bugslet

mayonnaise wrote: »

The man makes the education of both his kids his main priority, spends bucket loads on school fees while cutting down on holidays, cars and other niceties and what do we get?

He's called a 'joker' and other 'my heart bleeds' snides.

He's having to commute to work while he could just sign on and stay in bed. Haha what a joker.
He's been paying taxes for most of his life while he could just be a career sponger. Haha what a joker.
He's trying to send his kids to the best schools, while he could just let them rave around on the nearest sink estate. Much cheaper. Haha what a joker.
He's bought his own home while he could just go on the waiting list for a council house. Haha what a joker.

He could have been my Dad, apart from our family probably being pretty poor. I went to a fee paying school, not an expensive one, and to do that, my parents had two holidays in 20 years, cars changed when they died.

So he cared about his daughter's education, worked 6 or 7 days a week as an owner driver, paid taxes all his life and bought his own home.

However if he'd been on the 70s equivalent of £120k p.a., he would have not have been moaning about the choices that he had made. Never once was I reminded of the significant sacrifices my parents made - something I selfishly didn't fully understand till afterwards.

the_flying_pig

lostinrates wrote: »

I think it can be middle.

In our circumstance we have one high earner and not. 120k divided in two doesn't go so far as the same sum earned somewhat equally between two.

middle of what, the top 1% [in fact i think it's towards the bottom of that percentile]!?!

imo a single £120k earner is much better for a family than two £60k earners.

the 2*60 family will pay about say £10k p.a. less in tax but the £120k family has an extra full time 'home maker' which means no nursery fees [for preschoolers] , breakfast clubs, childminders, etc, and also [i'm straying into nonfinancial benefits but these are arguably even more important] a homework-checker, meal-cooker, etc.

in farnham [as with this example] a standard class rail season ticket is the thick end of £4k a head regardless of how much you earn or how many other commuters in the family.

lostinrates

bugslet wrote: »

He could have been my Dad, apart from our family probably being pretty poor. I went to a fee paying school, not an expensive one, and to do that, my parents had two holidays in 20 years, cars changed when they died.

So he cared about his daughter's education, worked 6 or 7 days a week as an owner driver, paid taxes all his life and bought his own home.

However if he'd been on the 70s equivalent of £120k p.a., he would have not have been moaning about the choices that he had made. Never once was I reminded of the significant sacrifices my parents made - something I selfishly didn't fully understand till afterwards.

Perhaps that's partly because of a difference in social climate? My impression is that then people got when they earned ( or married or inherited) but those who worked hard felt a tangible benefit. In your fathers example, he got to see you go to the school he wanted and become the bugslet he knew you could be?