Tjagain - factor in working tax credits, loss of child benefit and no state contribution towards nursery fees for 2 kids (30 hours a week per child) and the scouser is considerably better off than the 100K Londoner who needs to set aside c£50k salary to pay out £3k a month in nursery fees when the scouser gets it for free. But I rather suspect you already know this.
You would need around 4,539.68£ in London to maintain the same standard of life that you can have with 2,600.00£ in Liverpool (assuming you rent in both cities).
from
so that is about 1 grand a month better off in London on £100k vs £40k in Liverpool using
https://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.php
so if you are wanting to buy a house I reckon that makes you worse off.
So you finally admit my premise is right.
So you finally admit my premise is right.
certainly not if you want to buy a house, or if you add in factors like childcare costs.
So what are your plans - rent for the rest of your life and then rely on welfare for your rent in retirement ?
Which will be derived from that extra tax income paid by the high earners in London and the South East - that will really stick in your craw 🙂
Whatever happened to our very rich friend Jezza? Dont forget the poor bloke. He already bring marginalised by Brexshit and we wouldn’t want him to get a complex
Did you see him in the news tonight?
*Bangs head on wall* the numbers you quote show that I am right.
actually I am in the richest 20% of the UK and own my property. I earn 32000 Pa
Are all you lefty lot thick as sh1t ?
The swear filter avoidance thread is thataway.........>
actually I am in the richest 20% of the UK and own my property.
so you're saying that everyone else should rent ?
As I said if you want to own your home then you are worse off in London than Liverpool on those salaries. You only have an extra grand to cope with the much higher mortgage you are going to need.
I don't even own my own house - nearly 4/5s of it and a tight squeeze to get the rest of it before this ageist industry spits me out.
And a 14 year old car, although that is false bleating as I enjoy driving it and I can get my mtb in the back.
IIRC the UK average salary is around £27K and two thirds of UK workers don't earn that.Many of those who don't earn that work in London too-in retail,public sector,customer services,service sector,leisure etc etc.They all live somewhere and raise their families too though I suspect their housing choices are more Dagenham than Camden and involve a lot of commuting. IANALondoner.I'm sure they'd be delighted to [s]struggle[/s] earn £100k.
No - what I am saying is very simple and your quotes proved it. £100 000 pa makes you one of the richest few ~% in our country. thats all.
No - what I am saying is very simple and your quotes proved it. £100 000 pa makes you one of the richest few ~% in our country. thats all.
but the salary in Liverpool that affords you the same standard of living doesn't...
No - what I am saying is very simple and your quotes proved it. £100 000 pa makes you one of the richest few ~% in our country. thats all.
but the salary in Liverpool that affords you the same standard of living doesn't..
No because you are comparing the country not regions
Folks it looks like the TJAgain cyber bot is having a logic failure - please can someone do a CTRL-ALT-DEL to restore the normal logical service? 😀
No logic failure here. the figures Turnerguy quoted prove my point
True but the miniature violin quartet has stopped playing for those who are feeling poor on good money. The level of detatchment from what is going on at times is startling
True but the miniature violin quartet has stopped playing for those who are feeling poor on good money. The level of detatchment from what is going on at times is startling
Agreed. I've observed that rich people look up rather than down when they're comparing their circumstances.
Is there anything more stw than a bunch of IT guys complaining that a 100k salary just doesn't make you rich enough ? 🙂
So what are your plans - rent for the rest of your life and then rely on welfare for your rent in retirement ?
A lot of people have no choice to do otherwise. Not helped by the richest taking more than their fair share from the pot.
Instead of obsessing over the tax you pay think about how much money you take in comparison to others.
I know a few people on that kind of money down in that there London. Would I class any of them as struggling? No. Whiny cockbags? Yeah, lots of them.
And their choice to live there.
Something TurnerGuy seems determined to ignore.
The level of detachment from what is going on at times is startling
well quite. some folk on here seem to be wildly out of touch with how a very large part of their countrymen and women live.
Struggling myself to hit that £100k barrier. Been trying for years and nowhere near it. But next year, is when I'll make it big and that's why I'll be voting Tory. I'm a striver. An aspirer.
Missed all this. Probably a good thing. Quite frankly anyone earning anywhere near 100k and claiming they’re struggling needs to have a look at their life choices. A 100k income by any definition puts you in the top bracket. If that’s you, then well done and stop whingeing.
My cousin and her fella are the highest earners I know.
He is 29 and already a partner in a cyber espionage company, has a salary of 160k and last year had a bonus of 250k. Despite this they bemoan the cost of their mortgage on their 1.5m house and the cost of financing their Audi A8 and Range Rover.
Some people are so removed from the reality of the majority it makes me sad for humanity.
It true that London living is expensive, but no one is forced to buy the biggest house and drive the flashiest car.
I choose not to earn more than I need, specifically so that I've got more time for doing the things I enjoy and to avoid working just to pay the taxman. Despite that I can still afford a van, a nice bike and the ridiculous rents, but compared to some of my neighbours I am not rich. However, I'm sure relative to the lady working for minimum wage behind the till I am loaded.
And while I agree with tj in principle, his use of "richest" rather than "highest earner" loses him the internet points he do desperately craves.
It's a stupid debate, because it's arguing over what 'rich' means when it's a totally subjective term.
People in (parts of) London on £100k don't feel rich because they are surrounded by mega rich people and £5m flats and the rest of it. They look at what is around them, see they have no chance of ever affording it, and feel poor. Conversely, those in a Valleys town on £100k can buy some of the best houses in town and they feel rich. It's all about perception.
I read once an article about a remote Himalayan village, the writer had been there and found everyone happy and content, no beggars. Then they put in a big road, and then suddenly all the kids were begging from the new travellers. Because they'd started seeing what other people had, and realised they were poor. They went from rich to poor without any change in their actual income.
And while I agree with tj in principle, his use of "richest" rather than "highest earner" loses him the internet points he do desperately craves.
Succinctly and eloquently wrapped up there alpin. Now let's get back to politics.
People in (parts of) London on £100k don't feel rich because they are surrounded by mega rich people and £5m flats and the rest of it.
That comes back to my point about only looking up when assessing wealth. Even in expensive parts of London, they still allow ordinary people in: it's not a gated community of the uber rich.
It's a stupid debate, because it's arguing over what 'rich' means when it's a totally subjective term.
It's really about accumulated wealth vs net income, but... yes..
If you look at how 'rich' anyone in the UK is in global terms the poorest people here are fabulously wealthy. Same in historical terms. The poorest are far wealthier than ever before.
People in (parts of) London on £100k don't feel rich because they are surrounded by mega rich people and £5m flats and the rest of it. They look at what is around them, see they have no chance of ever affording it, and feel poor. Conversely, those in a Valleys town on £100k can buy some of the best houses in town and they feel rich. It's all about perception
Double standards Mol.
We all live in the same country.
Now let's get back to politics.
This is politics Mol.
Real politics, not the Westminster show.
It's about how people behave toward others and the kind of society they want to see.
FFS - what I said was someone earning 100k in London could be no better off than someone earning 40k in Liverpool - and looking at housing costs this could easily be true, or close to true. Maybe 50k in Liverpool is closer.
But the 100k earner in London is classed by TJ as rich, whereas a 50k earner in Liverpool is not, when there is little difference in how much money they have left over after the bills have gone out, and little difference in standard of living as well.
Is there anything more stw than a bunch of IT guys complaining that a 100k salary just doesn't make you rich enough ?
You are making stuff up again, like usual. Where are the complaints ?
This is politics Mol.
Real politics, not the Westminster show.
It's about how people behave toward others and the kind of society they want to see.
No. This argument is about semantics. We all agree that society is too unequal, that's not what's being debated. We seem to be bickering about the definition of the word 'rich'. Which is stupid. There are loads of other ways to make the point about societal inequality using numerical stats.
Double standards Mol.
We all live in the same country.
That's exactly my point. People feel rich or poor depending on what's around them, even if they still have the same amount of money.
Old figures but :
Differentials between London and UK ratesThe single biggest element in the extra cost of living in the capital is housing. In January 2014, Land Registry figures showed average house prices across the whole of England and Wales were £168,536, but in London the average was £409,881 (143% higher than the England/Wales rate). This house price gap has been growing ever larger, with London experiencing 10.9% growth over the last year, compared to 4.2% across England and Wales.
The same picture is apparent in the private rental sector, with the
the England rental rate runnings at £665 a month in January 2014, compared to £1,516 a month in London (128% higher than the England
rate). The differential in local authority rented property is less exaggerated but still significant, with a average rent across England
running at £79 a week in 2012/13, compared to £99 in London (25
% higher than the England average).
People feel rich or poor depending on what's around them, even if they still have the same amount of money.
It's not 'feel'. I can buy land for 3K an acre near me. How much is it in London?
Isn't mols a rich IT guy anyway - I thought he consulted so therefore 'richer' than me...
This argument is about semantics. We all agree that society is too unequal, that's not what's being debated. We seem to be bickering about the definition of the word 'rich'. Which is stupid.
+1
However, there is political point here, in that someone earning £100k is not the problem, despite what Corbyn may claim. It's the Apples, Ubers, Facebooks (and their owners) that are the problem, for avoiding tax, hording cash, and avoiding regulation, hence, reducing costs and using it to put others out of business.
It's the Apples, Ubers, Facebooks (and their owners) that are the problem, for avoiding tax
Easily solved. Get rid of corporation tax. It's just a stealth tax anyway.
in that someone earning £100k is not the problem, despite what Corbyn may claim
When has Corbyn claimed someone earning 100k is a problem? I think he's more bothered about the FTSE CEOs earning 20m and the likes of facebook paying only 1M in corporation tax.
Get rid of corporation tax
So companies shouldn't pay towards the legal and intellectual property framework which allows them to operate and the markets they have access to?
it's really all about preception and priorities.
a friend of mine was recently complaining about her neighbours having 5 holidays a year. her neighbours have no kids and an old Mercedes van that they take away for 2-3 weeks t a time.
i countered her* and said that they probably spent less on holidays than her new car cost. she came back and said that the car wasn't new, it weas second hand; they couldn't afford a new car. their not-new car[i] cost them[/i] 34,000€...
my friend has just moved in to her new 800,000€ house.
her fella** earns over 120k. she earns ~70k part time. that is almost seven times what i chose to earn.
i think my life is possibly richer than theirs. they would probably disagree as they have children and everyone knows that's what makes your life richer.
wealth is so unevenly distributed throughout society. why should the guy cleaning the hospital get paid so much less than the divvy blonde with the long eyelashes sitting at the reception desk of some multi-national? who adds more value to society?
It's the Apples, Ubers, Facebooks (and their owners) that are the problem, for avoiding tax, hording cash, and avoiding regulation, hence, reducing costs and using it to put others out of business.
i agree... just completed a big job for Google which is currently taking place in Munich. last month it was Facebook in Brussels. the amount of money splurged on these self-aggrandising events and at the same time the amount of penny pinching is sick. a little bit of me dies each time i'm involved.
*not a euphemism
** an active member of some German equivalent of "old school boy" club with fascist tendencies...
some people are so removed from the realities of life....
[img] 
?resize=1020%2C931[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
That's exactly my point. People feel rich or poor depending on what's around them, even if they still have the same amount of money.
Feelings don't pay bills.
All very interesting, but nothing to do with facts.
Yes, exactly!
Get rid of corporation taxSo companies shouldn't pay towards the legal and intellectual property framework which allows them to operate and the markets they have access to?
i have to pay corporation tax if my profits are over 24,500€. it is punitive. if i go over that threshold by 500€ i'm paying 750€ more in tax than if i had earnt 24,499€. i don't need any intellectual property framework. the likes of BMW do, yet strangley they have some cushy set up in which they don't have to pay their fair share of corporation tax.
nice.
I'll just point out again I did not use "rich" I said "richest couple of % of the population"
The first is a value judgement / relative measure. the second is a fact.
Alpine, really appreciating your contributions here but one thing:
the amount of money splurged on these self-aggrandising events and at the same time the amount of penny pinching is sick.
Their waste of money is your income. So is it really a waste if it goes from their pocket into the wider economy? Genuine economics question not an attack.
Of course, the obvious answer is that they should be paying you to erect a hospital not built an event stand, but could they?
A Google subsidised hospital would a better as for the company than a trade show though, wouldn't it?
But don't these events pay for themselves out of the marketing budget? And their aim is marketing and publicity.
Their waste of money is your income. So is it really a waste if it goes from their pocket into the wider economy? Genuine economics question not an attack.
I fully understand the irony of my predicament...
If they were an upfront company playing by the rules I have to adhere to them maybe I wouldn't feel so jaded.
PMQ's coming up. Given the weeks' monumentally incompetent events, do we think Jeremy will actually mention the rolling Brexit cluster**** at all this time around? Or stick to the usual 'there be dragons' approach to the subject, and bang on about anything else but, instead?
He doesn't want to mention it too much as he doesn't want much scrutiny of his actual position, which would be pretty much exactly the same.
If he were in we would still be exiting and we would still have the problems of the NI border, EU citizen rights, and trade deals, because we wouldn't even be staying in the EEA.
Do people really think he would have better ideas - he would just be rolling over to EU demands even more and we would be getting the Greek treatment.
i don't need any intellectual property framework
You need a legal system to prevent your clients not paying you and protect you in the case of dispute, you need access to the market which is regulated and invested in by the state, you need the skills and education of employees of yourself and your suppliers, you need the research conducted by universities and the industrial and technological base that the state invests in, you need the infrastructure that enables a modern industrial society to function. Need I go on or should we do a whole 'what have the romans ever done for us' debate?
Need I go on or should we do a whole 'what have the romans ever done for us' debate?
the debate please...
You need a legal system to prevent your clients not paying you and protect you in the case of dispute, you need access to the market which is regulated and invested in by the state, you need the skills and education of employees of yourself and your suppliers, you need the research conducted by universities and the industrial and technological base that the state invests in, you need the infrastructure that enables a modern industrial society to function. Need I go on or should we do a whole 'what have the romans ever done for us' debate?
OK, we/I need all of those things to a varying degree. But I'd argue that big business needs it more than little old me, a one man band, yet they seem to be able to opt out of such trivialities like tax.
the debate please...
Well I've offered my view. Ball is in your court I think?
But I'd argue that big business needs it more than little old me, a one man band, yet they seem to be able to opt out of such trivialities like tax.
I don't disagree. This isn't about whether corporation tax is necessary (it is, clearly), but whether it's implementation is fair. In your case I'd say not, and clearly big business shouldn't be able to dodge it through expensive and spurious legal and accounting practices.
Do people really think he would have better ideas
He would be handling it differently/more reasonably (along with Kier, Hilary etc,.)
He would be handling it differently/more reasonably (along with Kier, Hilary etc,.)
rolling over then.
PM within a year? I wouldn't bet against it.
Unlikely I think.
As much as there's a hard right element to the Tories, there's an equally hard left element to Labour. Both are equally off-putting to a lot of folks.
If it were a possibility how come Labour & JC aren't doing better when the competition is the shower of shite that is the current Gov?
If it were a possibility how come Labour and JC aren't doing better when the competition is the shower of shite that is the current Gov?
How do you know how well they are doing, or what the result of an election would be? (don't say polls)
How do you know how well they are doing, or what the result of an election would be? (don't say polls)
Quite. The last election showed us that labour did considerably better than had been predicted.
A few random thoughts:
- When you think you're going to lose by a country mile, you can offer a giveaway manifesto safe in the knowledge you won't have to deliver. If you think it's close, less so.
- May is unlikely to lead the Tory party in the next election which is probably a point against Labour.
- ...but will the new leader be even less popular with voters?
- Historically Oppositions don't win elections, Governing parties lose them which is probably a point for Labour.
- A deeply unpopular administration, 10 years in, and Labour still didn't win in June which is probably a point against Labour.
- The sudden friendliness on behalf of the EU this month that seemed to me all about bolstering May at a difficult moment made me suspect that the last thing they want is career Brexiteers in No10/No11. I think the EU will be allies of the Tories in any future election. Not sure if that matters.
- Did the lead May had in the polls mean people didn't bother turning out for her? (Conventional wisdom is 'yes', but I strongly suspect being way ahead cost Hilary Clinton & May votes.) maybe a point against Labour.
Self preservation will mean the Tories won’t risk another election anytime soon, even with all the Brexit arguments they are not going to self destruct. The lesson of calling an election when seemingly well ahead is not lost on them.
Despite all the Brexit pressures and negative fall out for May from the snap election Labour have not pulled ahead. It’s been an open goal but they can’t score.
How do you know how well they are doing, or what the result of an election would be? (don't say polls)
Give me a good reason why I can't.
Quite. The last election showed us that labour did considerably better than had been predicted.
Yet still lost to one of the worst GE campaigns ever..
Conventional wisdom is 'yes'
Correction: I meant 'no'.
Our shop was in a lib dem area that turned Tory by a small majority.
At the last election one of our staff voted Tory. She is pro eu and agreed with all the lib dem policies but voted instead to keep Corbyn out. Quite how that works I don't know.
The only thing keeping May in power is Corbyn. The DUP are terrified of him as he's a passionate republican. The main question is whether the brexiters or the remainers in the tory party will collapse the govt. The remainers are in the ascendancy now so it's unlikely they'll be put in a country vs party position. The brexiters might just be crazy enough to cut their nose off to spite their face but I doubt it. It'll go to 2021/22. That's probably no bad thing for Corbyn. Gives him time to bring back some of the moderates into the shad-cab and plenty of opportunity for the tories to further damage themselves. I still wouldn't be surprised if he steps aside for someone else by then.
At the last election one of our staff voted Tory. She is pro eu and agreed with all the lib dem policies but voted instead to keep Corbyn out. Quite how that works I don't know.
Reaminer votes to stop long term hardcore brexiteers? Doesn't seem hard to figure out to me. (Although I am astonished the libs didn't clear up last election.)
Yet still lost to one of the worst GE campaigns ever..
The election campaign was called solely because labour was about 25 points behind. The narrative was that Corbyn would be annihilated and replaced as leader, not that he would achieve their best share of the vote since 2001.
Even Corbyn's most myopic opponents should concede that he ran a decent campaign.
I still wouldn't be surprised if he steps aside for someone else by then.
Nor me. He's acheived what he was elected to do. It really doesn't matter who carries the momentum flag now. The moderates have lost. There's no way he could have gone before they changed the nomination rules, now it doesn't matter.
Yet still lost to one of the worst GE campaigns ever..
This. Any Labour front bench of the last 20 years would have thrashed May. (Except they wouldn't, because May wouldn't have dared to take on a decent Labour front bench in June 2017). Losing to May by 60 seats isn't something to be proud of, it's a disaster. However, that doens't matter, cos he wasn't elected to beat May. He was elected to change the nomination rules to permanantly hand the Labour party to his own wing of the party. In that sense it's a triumph.
There is a lot of spin/manipulation going on behind Corbyn it seems - James O'Brien on LBC said his interview with JC was pulled in favour of someone less aggressive, apparently GQ magazine said that their interview with him was one of the wierdest they had done as he was so 'protected', and there is a lot of use of social media to make statements without the possibility of being challenged by an interviewer.
He made a lot of those gains in the last election with talk of gettinng rid of student loans and cancelling old loans, and from callers on LBC it seems a lot of people have seen through him and don't trust him. And then the brexit situation where he has let himself been seen as a remainer (although I don't believe that and note his reluctance to ever say anything actually commital), which is going to lead a lot of traditional labour supporters to also not trust him.
Plus there is no getting away from the Marxist leanings of McDonnell, which puts a lot of people off.
I was going to wade in but can’t be bothered. I’ll just say some of you tories/right wingers have a strange grasp on recent history and seem determined to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.
I was going to wade in but can’t be bothered. I’ll just say some of you tories/right wingers have a strange grasp on recent history and seem determined to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.
I think it shows their desperation. I'm not convinced by Corbyn's leadership skills but there's no doubt in my mind that Labour ran a smart, disciplined campaign.
I think what a lot of Corbynistas are unwilling to admit is just how bad the Tory campaign was.
(Bringing back fox hunting FFS? How out of touch do you have to be to think that's a vote winner???)
As admitting so, would actually be an admittance of defeat.
Yes, Labours campaign was ok, but bloody hell, it wasn't up against much!
I think what a lot of Corbynistas are unwilling to admit is just how bad the Tory campaign was.
On the contrary, I think most Corbyn sympathizers would be only too happy to acknowledge the complete car crash of the tory campaign. That being so, it still doesn't detract from what was a very well run labour campaign.
I think what a lot of Corbynistas are unwilling to admit is just how bad the Tory campaign was.
The obvious answer is that it was both, but positions are far to entrenched and polarized for that to be admitted.
What I'm seeing in this thread is a consistent refusal to concede that he got something right. You'd expect that from tories but it's disappointing that anti-Corbyn labour voters are still throwing their toys out of the pram.
I think what a lot of Corbynistas are unwilling to admit is just how bad the Tory campaign was.
What are you basing that on? I would say that pretty much all Corbyn supporters would freely admit that the tory campaign was a shambles.
positions are far to entrenched and polarized for that to be admitted.
I don't think that's remotely true. "The campaign was dreadful" is an obvious excuse for Tory members so they're not going to be shy about saying so. (That goes for May too, far better to blame her own campaign that amdit she's an all round duffer.) If anyone has a motive to big up the Tory campaign it's Labour/Corbynistas/Momentum and I've not noticed them being shy about slagging off May's campaign either. Pundits also agree it was dire.
Seems to be across the board acceptance that May's campaign was a disaster.
Dreadful Tory campaign
Load of momentum for Labour...yet...
...Who won and did they increase their vote despite being crap. What does that say for those who came first loser?
The clearout of Labour is progressing very effectively and beyond the radar screen. They now how to cull better than fox hunters!!!
What does that say for those who came first loser?
Much as I hate to agree with THM..
Saying how well you've done when you've come second is a bit like EVERYONE getting a medal on sports day.
The impression I get of those Corbynistas who think they did well is you must have had exceedingly low expectations.....
The Tories were easy pickings yet.....
FYI I'm a Liberal.
Saying how well you've done when you've come second is a bit like EVERYONE getting a medal on sports day.
Well no, cos there's a sports day every five years, sometimes less. So when you gain a huge amount of support, that's significant, even when you didn't win.
Plus there were multiple battles going on at the same time.
Labour should be 20 pts clear, right now, as for the fag end of the Major govt...
The impression I get of those Corbynistas who think they did well is you must have had exceedingly low expectations.....
Well yes, and I'm not sure why you think that's a criticism. Again, the election was called because the tories expected to wipe Labour out. For labour to post its best result since 2001 was far better than anyone predicted, Corbyn supporter or otherwise.