ransos - Member
You seem to have missed that £60k is more than twice the UK median full-time salary. Your comment about defining relative wealth is, I strongly suspect, one only made by people with money.
the original statement was about a family earning 50-60k total in the SE
Here's a simple test. Do you have to work? If you do, you're not rich.
So if I had 50 million pounds, spent all of it on a massive mansion, but then had to work to pay for food/bills etc, you wouldn't classify me as rich?
You seem to have missed that £60k is more than twice the UK median full-time salary
Nope I didn't miss that at all.
Your comment about defining relative wealth is, I strongly suspect, one only made by people with money.
Well you were the one who used the term "one of the richest countries on the planet" which I took to mean that you wanted to compare wealth across many countries. The point I was to making was to illustrate how pointless that was. Oh and just because some has money, doesn't make their opinions and comments worthless or wrong.
the original statement was about a family earning 50-60k total in the SE
The original statement was "you don't feel particularly rich". It doesn't mean that perception matches reality.
Well you were the one who used the term "one of the richest countries on the planet" which I took to mean that you wanted to compare wealth across many countries. The point I was to making was to illustrate how pointless that was.
Yes, I was asking for some perspective, which I suggest is sorely lacking.
Oh and just because some has money, doesn't make their opinions and comments worthless or wrong.
I don't recall suggesting otherwise.
Wealth / Richness can really only be defined by a person’s ability to either
1/ Have a windfall
2/ Live well within their means and successfully invest the rest of their income to generate wealth.
It only has a tenuous link to monthly net income, in that it provides the potential to make you rich or wealthy
For instance I know a chap who works in the city, a compulsive gambler and alcoholic, earns well over £100K a year, owns no property and has no savings. he is neither rich nor wealthy
What is everyone doing to only earn 17k out of Uni? I mostly know scientists and engineers, and all started on more than that. More likely the 22-24k mark, with some in the low 30k's.
The reality for most non-science / Engineering grads is 17k a year... My OH's sister and friends are all in the same boat leading to many of them going back to become primary school teachers... There is going to be a lot of primary school teachers about with useless sports science and pyschology degrees....
I am assuming a low 30k start for engineers is in the south again as that is well above what i have seen in this area .... (I am a degree level engineer)...
For instance I know a chap who works in the city, a compulsive gambler and alcoholic, earns well over £100K a year, owns no property and has no savings. he is neither rich nor wealthy
Yes he is, he just wastes his wealth on gambling and booze, how he spends money is a choice for him.
The reality for most non-science / Engineering grads is 17k a year... My OH's sister and friends are all in the same boat leading to many of them going back to become primary school teachers...
Starting salary for teaching is currently about £21k, minus whatever is lost through strike action.
So if I had 50 million pounds, spent all of it on a massive mansion, but then had to work to pay for food/bills etc, you wouldn't classify me as rich?
You wouldn't have to work. You could sell it, buy a 25 million hovel and no longer work. Working is a choice.
If you have the choice, you're rich.
It only has a tenuous link to monthly net income
Can I have 10% of your net salary seeing as its only tenuous?
No idea how anyone can argue that what you earn is not related to how well off you are.
Yes he is, he just wastes his wealth on gambling and booze, how he spends money is a choice for him.
Well that's the point, isn't it? I've heard people on salaries well into six figures complaining that they don't have any money. Is it just possible that's because they have a large house, private school fees, an expensive car, a cottage in the Cotswolds and two foreign holidays each year?
Well you were the one who used the term "one of the richest countries on the planet" which I took to mean that you wanted to compare wealth across many countries. The point I was to making was to illustrate how pointless that was.
I'm interested to know why you think it's 'pointless'.
Starting salary for teaching is currently about £21k, minus whatever is lost through strike action.
I imagine thats why many are doing it, safe job with a decent starting wage... not exactly low 30's though which if a graduate obtains up here in the midlands would be really going some / silver spoon / daddy plays golf with the director...
You wouldn't have to work. You could sell it, buy a 25 million hovel and no longer work. Working is a choice.
If you have the choice, you're rich.
Well everyone in this country has a 'choice' whether to work or not. If you believe the Daily Mail millions of people choose not to work.
Most people in this country could choose to massively downsize/cut expenditure and work a lot less - but they choose not to (then whine about it).
I'm interested to know why you think it's 'pointless'.
In terms of progressing this particular debate it is pointless.
No idea how anyone can argue that what you earn is not related to how well off you are.
No-one had said it's unrelated, just that there are many other factors not related to income that also affect how well off you are. Focusing on one criteria, just because it's easy to measure, doesn't mean you'll come up with a sensible answer.
You wouldn't have to work. You could sell it, buy a 25 million hovel and no longer work. Working is a choice.If you have the choice, you're rich.
We decided that my Mrs didn't need to hurry back to work after the birth of our child. I suspect my salary wouldn't be your idea of rich...
dragon,
You're bang on with that figure (and pedantry) - I'm saying not much more than 25k compared to the 60k figure, all things considered.
The girls are in the humanities pit unfortunately, one is seeking a training contract but it's a battle. I agree with your numbers for Science / Engineering graduate starting salaries: Most of the big defence boys are offering around 25k - 30k for graduate schemes, without much variation with location: You can get this in Glasgow.
I think all the last 6 pages have proved is that "rich" is a perjorative term and that whoever used it to start this debate has been very successfull at achiving the publicity they were after.
That and that it is a relative term and different people have different view on what it means.
This whole six pages has been a debate of semantics. I hope everyone feels good about that!
One of the reasons I never did the move-to-London thing after uni was that even though salaries are higher, they do not compensate for the higher living costs in the capital.
However, I think there probably are better career opportunities in London/SE, if you're willing to go down there as a new grad and put up with the hardship or have parents who can help while you're on a grad scheme salary and paying at least half your wage in rent. Grad salaries in London can, in certain specialisms (IT, engineering, finance) start at £25-28k. But in London, that doesn't actually go very far, especially when you're also paying off student loans and possibly a student overdraft as well, unless you work somewhere like where I do, that offers grads interest free grad loans and the option to buy a yearly travel pass interest free. If you happen to be from London or the SE, and are willing/able to live at home for the first couple of years, then obviously, you're much better off. I would rather have eaten my brains with a spoon than lived back with either of my parents - again, a choice I made meaning I was less well off than my friends who did that and saved money to buy their own place whilst living rent free and earning a London salary.
There's also a lot of competition for those grad schemes - it's fierce. Many of them will only take students with degrees of 2:1 or higher, and only from particular disciplines. I had a humanities/languages degree, and nobody wanted to hire me, because I wasn't considered to be skilled/experienced for the modern workplace. Hence, like many graduates, I ended up doing fairly low skilled work for the first 2-3 years after graduating, and needed to gain vocational/professional qualifications in order to progress in the workplace.
Money wasn't so much a motivation for me as getting away from the drudgery of a lot of that type of work. Being tied to a phone and at the whim of a stroppy customer or jumped up middle manager whose computer wasn't working didn't do much for my self esteem. Going to work and it feeling like groundhog day, same problems over and over again. In low paid/low skill jobs, you tend to have little autonomy, and there's not much flexiblity. As I've gone towards the managerial roles, I find that I'm treated like an adult, trusted to manage my own time and workload, and that I'm allowed to give short shrift to anyone who behaves rudely or inappropriately towards me. And incidentally, I do not allow anyone in my team to be rude to helpdesk staff, IT support staff or admins - I remember all too well what it was like being dumped on myself.
There's also a lot of competition for those grad schemes - it's fierce. Many of them will only take students with degrees of 2:1 or higher,
Most of the big defence boys are offering around 25k - 30k for graduate schemes, without much variation with location: You can get this in Glasgow.
There is the point; you can get them, but there will be another 250 applicants for the same position taking only the best / most well connected on. This the truth for many of the better graduate schemes.
With what seems like every 18yo going to uni now it was always going to be impossible to find high-ranking jobs for them all. That starts another argument, that not everybody should be going to uni in the first place...
I'm interested to know why you think it's 'pointless'.
In terms of progressing this particular debate it is pointless.
Not really. The crux of the issue is defining the term 'rich'. I fail to see how introducing a little perspective is pointless. It's something a lot of people could do with a lot more of IMO.
Most of us in this country are incredibly lucky to have been born where we were, and yet I hear so much whining.
Most of us in this country are incredibly lucky to have been born where we were, and yet I hear so much whining.
and yet somehow I doubt this thread will change any of that.....
No idea how anyone can argue that what you earn is not related to how well off you are.
Well it's sort of related - depends how much you've earnt in total over what period of time really.
If I'm rich it's because of my assets not my income - the income helped but asset appreciation was the biggest part; if I'd never bought a property I wouldn't feel well off.
Most of us in this country are incredibly lucky to have been born where we were, and yet I hear so much whining.
The number in poverty dropped after the crash in Ireland. Not because the poorer had become better off, but because the rich had become poorer.
Funny business "poverty".
The number in poverty dropped after the crash in Ireland. Not because the poorer had become better off, but because the rich had become poorer.
Funny business "poverty".
Income inequality is the big issue, and one where this country is particularly bad.
No idea how anyone can argue that what you earn is not related to how well off you are.
Of course it is, but it's only one factor. I'm sure even the most stubborn of us can see that.
If you inherited your house from your parents you're going to be better off than someone who earns a bit more than you, but has to pay a mortgage.
No idea how anyone can argue that what you earn is not related to how well off you are.
I didn't, perhaps you didn't mean me, but you quoted me! It is linked but not directly
If my buddy is sacked tomorrow he has nothing, not a pot to piss in, by anyones definition surely that is not rich or wealthy, he squandered the potential to become rich and wealthy, whereas other people have become relativley wealthy by earning a modest to good salary and being prudent with the balance not needed to live on.
Income inequality is the big issue, and one where this country is particularly bad.
I'd like to see a worldwide figure. I bet the income gap between the poor in poor countries compared to the poor here has widened more than the local gap.
The number in poverty dropped after the crash in Ireland. Not because the poorer had become better off, but because the rich had become poorer.
Funny business "poverty".
There's good evidence showing that having a society with a smaller gap between rich and poor is good for everyone, including the rich.
Not really sure how your statement is a response to my post though. Are you suggesting people are right to be whiny and lacking in perspective?
Not really sure how your statement is a response to my post though. Are you suggesting people are right to be whiny and lacking in perspective?
I guess because it's a psychological thing, which appeared to be your implication. People don't realise how well off they are in real terms. Hence all the whining.
Perspective is insanely hard to come by. I earn comfortably over £60k, but I work in an industry servicing people who regard that as small change. I have to constantly remind myself that a good workable definition of wealth is "wouldn't be a catastrophe if I lost my job tomorrow" and "owns a private jet instead of leasing one" is so far removed from the concerns of almost every human who has ever lived that it is borderline surreal. 🙂
owns a private jet instead of leasing one
You mean you lease?
Tsk Tsk, should have worked harder at school.....
That awful feeling when the stewardess calls you "sir" because she also works for other people...
Perspective is insanely hard to come by.
Indeed. I'm reading this thread after coming out of a meeting with 3 people, all of whom will earn a good 7 digits in salary alone, got back to my desk to find someone clearing my bin who is probably earning minimum wage. Same company, same office, all people i'd have a drink with. Quite a disparity though.
The cleaner will probably think i'm rich, but the guys I was just with would wonder how I get by at all.
I had a [s]humanities/[/s]languages degree
The languages bit may not help you get on the ladder at the bottom but it sure as hell makes the climb to the top a lot more speedy in a lot of companies.
To work here as above a certain grade (above about 40k-50k) you have to speak a second language, no matter what the role.
The humanities bit is rightly useless!
A £60k per year salary is a reasonable one but I would say it is not one that qualifies you as rich. I say that in the context of the country we live in rather than in a global context. The other parts to the context are your location and dependents. As has been said several times, one person earning £60k sounds amazing to many people but if that is the only income in a family then it's not that amazing. Two people earning around £26k each will almost certainly make the family better off than a single £60k earner.
Then you factor in what you decide to spend your money on. While I cannot back it up with hard facts the distinct impression I get is that a lot of people either live up to their means or live beyond them. That's a choice. Not one that I would personally commend as a good one but we do at least live in a country where we can make that choice. The net result of that is what makes you feel well off or skint. Personally I find it difficult to have much sympathy for people that earn a good salary yet spend it all trying to keep up with the latest piece of German engineering in the driveway and big ass television, expensive foreign holidays etc etc while complaining about having no money.
Back to the original topic though - I would agree. A £60k salary is not something that makes you rich.
Two people earning around £26k each will almost certainly make the family better off than a single £60k earner.
Not sure how ?
Firstly they would earn less.
Secondly, if they had kids, they would have to pay for child care on top of the already smaller take home pay.
Because they will pay less tax
Agree that childcare could take a chunk out of that though
One person on 60k takes home more than 2 people on 26k (not much more, but more)
...Not sure how ?
Because they will pay less tax
I think you missed a couple of the points I made.
Firstly they would earn less..........the already smaller take home pay.
Perspective is insanely hard to come by. I earn comfortably over £60k, but I work in an industry servicing people who regard that as small change.
My dreams are shattered, all along I thought you'd be a bleeding edge engineer, only to discover you're a fluffer 😥
Not sure how ?Firstly they would earn less
As mentioned they are likely to pay less tax and that tax will only be at basic rate. A £60k earner will be paying a slice of higher rate tax.
Secondly, if they had kids, they would have to pay for child care on top of the already smaller take home pay.
Er, but wouldn't that also apply to the £60k earners? If we are keeping all things equal. Also, the two £26k earners are still likely to qualify for some child benefit (assuming kids) which the £60k earner will not be entitled to.
2 earners on £28k is about the point where a single £60k makes you worse off tax wise
Isn't being rich to do with disposable income? If so then headline salary is a red herring. A family of 4 or more will not feel too rich on £60k a year, and would probably feel quite squeezed in the SE, whereas a young person living on their own outside of the UK will be living it up like a king on £30k a year and would effectively be richer than the family with £60k.
There is definitely a window where you just drop into the higher tax bracket where you definitely lose out in terms of take home pay.
Also outside of the SE £60k a year jobs are senior management jobs within organisations, so not many about, so it is more likely you've got a joint income equaling £60k, which means child care costs come into the mix which completely and utterly decimates your disposable income. And dropping one job is definately not an option for many.
Its definitely squeezed middle territory where you're, in theory, a high earner, and constantly being told by others that you're a high earner, but not living like a high earner or reaping the benefits you think you should be as a high earner.
As mentioned they are likely to pay less tax and that tax will only be at basic rate. A £60k earner will be paying a slice of higher rate tax.
The take home pay of 2 x £26k is less than 1 x £60k
Simple.
