Where does his statement mention london?
By the time you add in other "taxes" - such as National Insurance, VAT, duty on fuel and alcohol, council tax - I'd guess that almost everyone pays much more than 40% of what they earn straight back to the Government (or its appointed representatives).
It depends where you live. 20k doesn't go far in that there London.
Agree. 20K would need to be doubled to exist comfortably in the home counties / London. You wouldn't be buying much of a house with that either.
sorry ewan i missed where buying a house was a necessity
you just have to live to your means.
Agree. 20K would need to be doubled to exist comfortably in the home counties / London. You wouldn't be buying much of a house with that either.
Define comfortably. I know plenty of people who live in/around London on much less than that and have perfectly happy lives. It shows an amazing lack of awareness of how many (most?) people live to come out with stuff like this. I guess for some people 'comfortable' means having a big house, driving an expensive car, having the latest fashions and tech, luxury holidays etc.
When I was in Romania apparently a doctors salary was around €3000. The cost of living was cheaper but not that much cheaper. Some people really have no idea how lucky they are (or at least how lucky they could be if they weren't so materialistic/competitive).
Some people really have no idea how lucky they are (or at least how lucky they could be if they weren't so materialistic/competitive).
This +1
jonny rocky mountain - Member
One benefit of 40% tax rate is if you have a private pension you get 40% tax relief on what you put in.
Not automatically. As i found out, it only happens if you phone HMRC and inform them. I was surprised how many people don't know this.
Kryton - been wondering about doing this for some time. Did you have to fill in a tax return (something I absolutely dread)?
[i]For one person 20K per year is more than enough and you can save some.
[/i]
if you still live with your Mum...
ononeorange - Member
Kryton - been wondering about doing this for some time. Did you have to fill in a tax return (something I absolutely dread)?
Nope. I phoned up HRMC pensions, reeled off the list of my pensions and contributions per month and the lady on the phone adjusted it there and then.
Also, you can claim backwards for six (IIRC) years - but for this you need write a simple letter noting the request to recongnise you pension contributions and again list 2006 = £x, 2007 = £y etc. The same lady as above gave me the details and address to write to.
10 mins work and I'm a whole £600 lump sum and £26 approx a month better off....
For one person 20K per year is more than enough and you can save some.
You won't be able to afford to own a home. You'd be pushed to run a car, and food would be from the value range. Nothing wrong with any of that but it is the reality.
That globalrichlist tells us next to nothing. To compare our income with that of a Masai warrior is a bit daft really. Someone on £50/week benefits is in the top 15% in the world, should they feel truly blessed?
For one person 20K per year is more than enough and you can save some.
I would say it depends on your circumstances - if you want to live independently with a reasonable quality of life you would struggle on 20k. After deductions and including a 10% pension contribution you would be left with a take home wage of about £1200 per month.
Say (conservatively) £500 in rent, £100 in council tax, £200 food, £100 utilities including mobile/landline/broadband, travel costs, there wouldn't be much left for saving or anything else.
Of course you could live in shared accommodation and survive on porridge if you wanted to
It's reading this kind of thread that makes me miss TJ. He used to love commenting on these issues. RIP. 😥
Say (conservatively) £500 in rent, £100 in council tax, £200 food, £100 utilities including mobile/landline/broadband, travel costs, there wouldn't be much left for saving or anything else.
HA HA HA HA! If only....
200quid on food ....
dining on caviar and quails eggs are we ?
if not eating ready meals and shop in the right places then there is no need for 200 quid a month on food.....
we eat well with homecooked meals , lots of fresh meat, fruit and veg for a couple and rarely spend more than 30 quid a week including the odd bottle of wine.
but we do shop in aldi when ever possible.
but your rent is low and your utilitys are probably low as well ...
if your single and under 25 government expects you to live in shared accomodation.
i dont really see the issue with that if your single and its fairly standard issue in alot of other developed countries.
and and FWIW when i was a bike mechanic and we moved to aberdeen i was on 7.50 an hour and taking home 1200 before tax with the mrs being a post grad student. running a car and renting a 1 bed flat in not a great area of town. it wasnt the best but we still live similar life now we just choose to spend the difference in other ways
You won't be able to afford to own a home. You'd be pushed to run a car, and food would be from the value range. Nothing wrong with any of that but it is the reality.
Utter nonsense. We eat well and run a car on less than 20k a year and still afford foreign holidays, have a couple of decent bikes each etc
if you want to live independently
Since when did that become a fundamental human right? I share a house with my GF who earns similar and our quality of life is great thanks.
That globalrichlist tells us next to nothing. To compare our income with that of a Masai warrior is a bit daft really.
If you choose to completely ignore everything about it and pick the most extreme examples of living cost differences then yes it does. See my example re Romania though - at a guess living costs were a third to half what they are here, yet salaries were probably less than a tenth.
Utter nonsense. We eat well and run a car on less than 20k a year and still afford foreign holidays, have a couple of decent bikes each etc
£20k between you?
If you choose to completely ignore everything about it and pick the most extreme examples of living cost differences then yes it does.
It's an average. "Low wage" places like africa and asia have billions of people. The whole thing is skewed nonsense. You didn't want to comment on the welfare income then?
Since when did that become a fundamental human right? I share a house with my GF who earns similar and our quality of life is great thanks.
Yes that's two incomes and you can share rent, bills etc?
£20k between you?
No.
The whole thing is skewed nonsense.
It's designed to make you think, not as a comprehensive study. Obviously it didn't work for some people.
You didn't want to comment on the welfare income then?
Compared to many people in the world, someone on benefits here is lucky, yes.
Yes that's two incomes and you can share rent, bills etc?
Yes - but lots of people are in a relationship, and it's something which you can also do if you share a house with friends, colleagues etc.
I can see how that would be difficult to manage for someone who considers anything less than XTR beneath them though.
That's a bit different then Grum, and I appreciate your candor. Your household income as a couple is quite different from;
For one person 20K per year is more than enough and you can save some.
Or at least how I read it.
I am trying hard to pay tax in the uk, just need a few more days here this year . Irrespective of Government and irrational rants its a better deal than alotof europe.
Most people on this forum wouldn't be able to survive on 25 grand a year in the UK (including me)
Are benefits rate set at £25 k a year or pensions? Do we have mass starvation amongst these groups because they cannot "survive"
Its fairly obvious this is no and your point is a poor one. It may not aford a standard of living that you expect/want/wish but you dont die if you earn less than 25 k
I earn less than this and have a car and have bought a house on my own. I am poorer the Grum and not only in financial terms 😉
About 22 k ish - dont work FT mind
http://www.givingwhatwecan.org/why-give/how-rich-you-are
this adjusts the figure based on "purchasing power" so it is not simply income based
Even assuming an income of £3,500 in the UK you are s till in the top 19 % globally
13.500= top 4.5%
25 k 1.1 %
Your perception of poverty and the reality of poverty are some way apart
Also here
http://www.leastof.org/worldwealthcalculator
I own the whole of Buckinghamshire, several large international companies and a hedge fund. This year for tax reasons I'm only taking £100 of income. Apparently despite my multi-billion pounds worth of assets this makes me the 5,770,080,000 richest person in the world. Either I'm doing something wrong or judging wealth solely by income is a stupid idea.
[i]"You are in the wealthiest 0.2% of people in the world. There are 6,584,870,214 (more than 6.5 billion) people less wealthy than you. You are 150 times wealthier than a billion people. [/i]
Why don't I feel rich, only averagely well off then?
so why exactly should someone who earns more actually pay a higher rate of tax?
(i dont earn enough to pay 40% by the way)
just beacuse you EARN it why does it mean you have to GIVE even more away when more you earn you will stillpay more tax anyway and when you buy your massive house your pay even more council charge and stamp duty etc etc.
i await the views
Why don't I feel rich, only averagely well off then?
Your feelings are based on other's lifestyles around you, somewhere else on the same money you'd feel richer, other places poorer
Either I'm doing something wrong or judging wealth solely by income is a stupid idea.
Well one is called wealth and one is called rich but yeah folk often confuse the two like debt and defecit.
FWIW - we have done this thread before - wealth is even less fairly distributed - a quick google will give you a similar search method for actual wealth
so why exactly should someone who earns more actually pay a higher rate of tax?
(i dont earn enough to pay 40% by the way)just beacuse you EARN it why does it mean you have to GIVE even more away when more you earn you will stillpay more tax anyway and when you buy your massive house your pay even more council charge and stamp duty etc etc.
i await the views
Council tax is less progressive than Income tax so actually penalises the poor - ie their house may be 10X the value of mine but their council tax bill is not so i am "supporting" the rich.
What I have never understood is why someone poor like you thinks its ok for someone much richer than you to not contribute according to their means - how many Yachts do they need? We have peole in the UK relying on food banks due to some of the cuts in services.
If you are one of lifes big winners you should contribute to society according to your ability - your ability to pay is huge. As far as I know every country uses taxes to redistribute weath/income to some degree and TBH i dont believe you dont know the answer you just dont accept/like the answer
A second reason, however, was that I am indebted to the British welfare state; the very one that Mr Cameron would like to replace with charity handouts. When my life hit rock bottom, that safety net, threadbare though it had become under John Major’s Government, was there to break the fall. I cannot help feeling, therefore, that it would have been contemptible to scarper for the West Indies at the first sniff of a seven-figure royalty cheque. This, if you like, is my notion of patriotism. On the available evidence, I suspect that it is Lord Ashcroft’s idea of being a mug.
JK Rowling
You aregument os WORK and EARN in capitals is to assume they all work hard for the money - Wayne rooney works hard to be a football player but he was also born very lucky on that he had a the talenmt - it was not , and it never is, just hard work that got them where they are today. It also requires luck. Plenty of folk work hjard on the mimnimum wage for 60 + hours a week just to feed their family but you know all that you simply dont GAS
Wayne rooney works hard to be a football player
really does he???????
one is called wealth and one is called rich but yeah folk often confuse the two like debt and defecit
[url= http://thesaurus.com/browse/wealthy ]Wealthy Definition: rich; having a lot of money[/url]
So not a bit like debt and deficit really.
[img] 
[/img]
relative poverty is just that, you will hear sloanes moaning about their allowances, the hard up farmer, the head of security at a bank who thought she should have been paid more--so took it instead, those of us on fixed incomes are rolling in it ...........
I am not really sure what your point is seeing as I agreed with you - do you just want an argument? If you put debt into that little link of yours would you believe Deficit is one of the words
Wayne rooney works hard to be a football playerreally does he???????
Well I took earns to mean definition 2 in your post
earn 1 (ûrn)
tr.v. earned, earn·ing, earns
1. To gain especially for the performance of service, labor, or work: earned money by mowing lawns.
2. To acquire or deserve as a result of effort or action: She earned a reputation as a hard worker.
3. To yield as return or profit:
So yuo think the rich Ronney does not work hardfor his money either but we should let him keep it
Both of you if you have a substantive point could you make it as it appears you want to just argue/troll/pin dance
Why don't I feel rich, only averagely well off then?
I've heard this from people earning very high salaries. By the time you've taken off money to pay for an expensive new car, large mortgage, private school fees, two foreign holidays, etc, there's not always a lot left, even if you earn six figures.
Most people tend to spend what they earn. Only poorly-paid people actually [i]need[/i] to spend what they earn.
"Rio
I own the whole of Buckinghamshire..."
You don't own my garden - so not quite the whole.
do you just want an argument?
What, you think I'd come on here just for an argument? 🙂 It's the use of "rich" as a synonym of "income" in that calculator that's causing me problems, and I suspect you'd agree they're not the same things; you can be rich with no income and poor with a "relatively" high income. Maybe I shouldn't have confused things by introducing the word "wealth"!
Edit:
You don't own my garden - so not quite the whole.
Right, I'll set my estate managers to look into this oversight at once. 8)
It's the use of "rich" as a synonym of "income" in that calculator that's causing me problems, and I suspect you'd agree they're not the same things; you can be rich with no income and poor with a "relatively" high income.
They're not the same but there's often a fairly large correlation between the two. And as above, I'm fairly sure these things are meant as a general indicator to make you think, not an exhaustive study. Shame some people have to ignore that and focus only on a fairly irrelevant criticism.
Do you really not think most people in this country are very well-off, on a global scale, taking into account living costs?
I suspect you'd agree they're not the same things;
Wealth and income are not identical but they are not unrelated
you can be rich with no income and poor with a "relatively" high income.
I think you mean you can be wealthy without much income. I dont think you can be "poor" with a high income. I accpe that many stately home dwellers are wealthy [rich]rather than [income]rich but they are some way from poor.
I am not sure how you can be poor with a high income tbh.
I would use wealth and income - rich is relative and no one will agree what it means.Maybe I shouldn't have confused things by introducing the word "wealth"!
"I am not sure how you can be poor with a high income tbh."
high debt to service.
Define comfortably. I know plenty of people who live in/around London on much less than that and have perfectly happy lives. It shows an amazing lack of awareness of how many (most?) people live to come out with stuff like this. I guess for some people 'comfortable' means having a big house, driving an expensive car, having the latest fashions and tech, luxury holidays etc.
Do you live in the south east? Take woking for example - if I was renting my old one bed flat it would cost minimum of 800 per month in a not great part of town, plus 1100 a year council tax, plus bills. Thats 12 grand ish gone straight away. Then add on to that 3 grand for commuting to london and that 20k is starting to look pretty unrealistic.
Comfortable for me is running a old cheap car (5 year old bottom of the range mondeo estate), having a 3 bedroom house, buying clothes once in a blue moon, and having a couple of holidays a year to somewhere nice (but fairly cheap). That takes a load more than 20k. I'm not asking for any sympathy whatsosever - I just work fairly hard to ensure that I can do all the above - i'm just pointing out that London and the home counties is pretty different to the north of england.
"I am not sure how you can be poor with a high income tbh."high debt to service.
So it could happen, i suppose, if you went mental on credit cards but had no assets to show for it. Ok it is theoretically possible but very very uncommon
ta for the example
i'm just pointing out that London and the home counties is pretty different to the north of england.
Thankfully you are right 😛
i only know of it because i know someone whom i worked with who had an income of 45k plus bonuses which for me would be "well off/pretty close to being rich without excess"
but was poorer than a gnats fart due to a massive interest only mortgage on a house that he couldnt shift for anywhere near what he owed. (as there was an excess of houses due to the RAF base closing in the town) and a bunch of debt for flash cars etc that he no longer had.
So it could happen, i suppose, if you went mental on credit cards but had no assets to show for it. Ok it is theoretically possible but very very uncommon
Just like UK PLC?
Do you live in the south east? Take woking for example - if I was renting my old one bed flat it would cost minimum of 800 per month in a not great part of town, plus 1100 a year council tax, plus bills. Thats 12 grand ish gone straight away.
Living on your own is massively expensive though. I see no reason why living comfortably can't include a house-share.
Comfortable for me is running a old cheap car (5 year old bottom of the range mondeo estate), having a 3 bedroom house, buying clothes once in a blue moon, and having a couple of holidays a year to somewhere nice (but fairly cheap).
That broadly fits my definition too, but does one person need a three bedroomed house? We are a couple with three bedrooms and it's not really necessary TBH.
That takes a load more than 20k.
Not if you share rent/bills with other people IMO, even in London. Just googled houses in Woking - looks like you could rent a reasonably nice looking 4 bedroom house for £1500. That takes your rent down to £375 a month if you're sharing, plus you save loads on bills too.
It's also just about choices you make in life. If it's so much easier to live and have disposable income up north what's stopping you? Much better mountain biking too. 🙂
wrecker i like it !
Living on your own is massively expensive though. I see no reason why living comfortably can't include a house-share.
Ok get your coat you pulled. Whereabouts in that there London shall we live?
Three bedrooms = rooms for your bikes - everyone does this surely
**** the kids they can share
