Who is buying all these £3-5k bikes?

not me that’s for sure
mine started out as a £500 Trigger’s broom 6 or 7 years ago and has morphed over the years into a road sweeper 🙂

never had the funds for more than a few hundred at a time

tj “Its still irrelevant – £42000 earnings put you in the richest 10% of the population therefore very well off”

no it doesn’t put you in the richest 10% – i earn close to that but am nowhere near the richest 10% in the country.

I live in a 3 bed semi in cannock, married, Mrs Gixer due a nipper in June, mortgage, credit card, loans to pay off. I am not poor, but i have worked damned hard to get where i am today – used to work on concrete gangs, construction labouring, kitchen porter, farm labourer etc.
I pay a lot in tax and national insurance every month, with very little benefits coming back to us. Pay for dental, prescriptions etc, Occassional long weekend away with Mrs.
Neighbours across the road and to our left went on 4 overseas holidays last year, drink every night, taxis to the pub and back every Friday and Saturday, smoke like effin chimneys – do they work – do the bollocks – makes me wonder why i don’t get a wee tax break every now and again – maybe like when Gixer Jnr is born……. but oh no i’m effin rich according to some eejits.

I like the idea of a univeral benefit regardless of income – a state recognition if you will for bringing up the next generation who will look after TJ in his old age. 😉

When you look to claim statutory redundancy you have to declare savings, friend end
ed up getting nowt as he had money stashed. They means test some benfits and not others. Needs standardisation to make it fair for all. If that costs money to implement, hey we have plenty of unemployed who need jobs, I,d rather they did that than claim the dole.

And i,ll say it again good income does not mean you are wealthy. I have a colleague who’s house was paid for outright by inheritance, they have £1k per month less outgoings than me, live in a bigger house and have nice cars. I earn slightly more, they qualify for benefits, we don’t. Yes it is tough sh!t but it sucks.

Off to polish my Rolex in my merc and get jeeves to bring me some cavier

It would seem £42000 is a good wage as long as you make “lifestyle” choices commensurate with your location.

Some on the forum bemoan the jobless having extra children and expecting the state to pick up the tab, this argument is just at the other end of the earning scale.

Gixer.John illustrates this perfectly (I make no judgement on his choices they are his and do not affect my lifestyle).

i earn close to that but am nowhere near the richest 10% in the country.

You don’t really understand how this works, do you? 😛

TJ your argument falls down though because you’re only considering a single income position. Of course its hard raising a family on 25k but a lot easier on 2 x25k especially if you work opposing shifts so save on childcare. Even if you don’t 2 x 25k means two sets of childcare vouchers and a more tax efficient overall income. So who’s better off financially the sole earner 40% payer or the split income. Of course if you have a higher rate earner and a second earner the balance can change again. In short its not black and white.

My point simply stands.

If you pay higher rate tax you are amongst the highest earning 10% in the country and thus are well off in comparison to the 90% who earn less than you.

simple facts.

Some of you need a reality check so badly

😆

Aarrgh!

If you pay higher rate tax you are amongst the highest earning 10% in the country and thus are well off in comparison to the 90% who earn less than you.

simple facts.

Except several people have pointed out that this “simple fact” IS NOT TRUE!

And you’re completely ignoring my (and several others) point that a household with two incomes of £25k (below the national average) is several grand better off than a household with one 50k earner – yet somehow they are not in your theoretical top 10% and are still entitled to child benefit.

That is reality.

Aren’t those figures TJ is listing for employees? Do they include sole traders, businessmen, investments etc?

I bet there is a big difference between being in the top 10% wage earners and the top 10% for annual income.

🙄

How can you be in the top 10% of earners and not be well off – its ridiculous to suggest otherwise

If a household has a single earner, earning just enough to sneak into the 40% tax bracket, what % does that put them at if we look at household income?

It must be the reverse of the Chinese Water Torture!!! But at least TJ is now moving the argument to relatively better off (“in comparison with”) rather than the absolute protestations of earlier.

{damn, x-post, I take it back! Its absolute again – aaarrrggh!]

You mean all these protestations that you are living in poverty with an income over £42000 a year yes they are absurd aren’t they

some of you guys just live in a parallel universe It really is laughable how out of touch with reality you are.

completely ridiculous

Give up. Either dumb or trolling now. I,m out.

How can you be in the top 10% of earners and not be well off

A Higher Rate taxpayer IS NOT IN THE TOP 10% of earners. We established that some time ago. With tables and everything. You need to be clearing ~£40k AFTER TAX to be in the top 10%.

Furthermore, as repeated many times, what matters is Household Income (and outgoings), NOT individual earnings.

Just laughing at all the folk who think £42000 a year is not well off.

Hello – this is reality calling

If a household has a single earner, earning just enough to sneak into the 40% tax bracket, what % does that put them at if we look at household income?

Yeah I’d like to know this too.

I wouldn’t be surprised if something like the top 40% or so of Household Incomes are houses with two or more incomes coming in, since that is considerably more tax efficient.

Just laughing at all the folk who think £42000 a year is not well off.

Forget it. You’re clearly not in the mood for a coherent argument based on actual numbers, rather than misdirected political propaganda.

G’night.

Tj i think you need to separate the idea of anything more than poverty being well off.

You can play with the words but there is, i would suggest, a scale of wealthiness in my words

destitute – poverty – poor – coping – comfy – doing ok – well off – wealthy – stinking rich

With housing costs, rising food and fuel costs, childcare costs i think you’d be surprised how many really fall into the coping bracket at the lower end of the 40% bracket especially in London and the South. Since I also work with those with financial problems I see first hand just how tight things can be for people.

You need significant assets as well as income to be well off but that’s obvious right TJ?

If you are only “coping” on £42000+ pa you really need to have a darn good look at your outgoings.

I am sorry – It is completely ridiculous to believe that people earning so much more than the average and amongst wealthiest earners in our country are not well off.

Graham – its nothing to do with misdirected political propaganda – its all about actually having some understanding of the reality of the situation. Some of you really have no idea of reality at all on this

😆

What is the minimum lifestyle should one lead to be considered well off?

Live in a 3 bed semi?
Drive a medium size car less than 3 years old?
Eat once a week at a slow food restaurant?
Holiday in a nearby European location?
Buy new clothes for their family?
Eat properly cooked meals?

How much income needed for that?

Sometimes I wish there were webcams on STW just to see people’s face when the they read and write things!

If you are only “coping” on £42000+ pa you really need to have a darn good look at your outgoings.

Well your man up there ^ seems to me to have the ‘same’ if not lesser lifestyle than his neighbours (which I assume live in the same area being neighbours) who do not work and claim benefits.

Therefore something is wrong.

Ultimately irrespective of what is classed as the ‘top 10%’ the simple fact is the ‘normal’ people in ‘normal’ jobs earning ‘normal’ money struggle the same as people who do not earn. Maybe they value the earned money more. Insinuating that you should live in a bin to have a better lifestyle on your 42K is insulting.

NZ col – that was utter bulshine tho – it simply is impossible to afford 4 foreign holidays a year living on benefits without massive embezzlement.

Insuniation that £42 000 pa is barely enough to live on is grossly offensive to the vast majority of folk who live on far far less

Insuniation that £42 000 pa is barely enough to live on is grossly offensive to the vast majority of folk who live on far far less

I’m loving the fact that above 42k is well off and anything below is poverty, my current income is somewhat less than 42k and I’m not in the least offended.
Keep up the good work TJ, this is hilarious.
You are aware, of course, TJ that a salary of 42k is likely come with a different set of costs that your average poverty stricken employee. No turning up to work on your bicycle and Oxfam clothes, having a Pot Noodle for lunch. 🙄

NZ col – that was utter bulshine tho – it simply is impossible to afford 4 foreign holidays a year living on benefits without massive embezzlement.

Insuniation that £42 000 pa is barely enough to live on is grossly offensive to the vast majority of folk who live on far far less

But that is what they are doing so either he is a liar or they are.
I take my hat off to everybody that gets out their bed and does an honest days wor, raises a family and contributes to the fabric of society. to the dossing bastards that don’t or won’t I own you with bombers. And in the former category i also include all those that would LIKE to but due to market conditions can’t.

I’m with TJ, some of you need a serious reality check. You have no idea how financially hard life can be for some people. You might not have a lot of disposable income but that is not the same as having no money. If I earned anywhere near £40k a year it would be like winning the lottery.

Stupidly checked back in while having a poo (webcams would be a bad idea!) so I’ll leave you with this FACT from the very Wiki article that you linked to earlier TJ:

“[In 2011] average net household income (after tax) stood at £38,547”

So your supposedly “well off” “top 10%” “amongst wealthiest earners in our country” individual on £42k, actually has an after-tax household income that is well below the national average.

Reality enough for you?

you are comparing individuals to a households do I really need to point out why that is a poor measure.
what % of those households have a higher rate tax payer?

Those on the higher rate are still individually the top 10% irrespective of what others in their household earn

+1 GrahamS again!

Child benefit is as the name so clearly states for the benefit of the child and is one of the cornerstones of the welfare state. Children are part of households and so it is self evident (but clearly not to some -TJ!)that the total household income is of greater relevance than the personal income of one individual within that household. And £42k gross,£36k net amongst a household of 5 is far less FOR THE CHILDREN than a couple both earning £40k each with one child.But who will still get the CHB?

nick – irrelevant – both housholds have plenty of money

Graham – dunno where you pulled that from Edit spotted it – also has median at £26 000 which is rather more realistic as the higher figure is distorted by the really very very rich

Annual Net Household income Percentile point
£5,000 3%
£10,000 10%
£15,000 31%
£20,000 50%
£25,000 66%
£30,000 77%
£35,000 85%
£40,000 90%
£45,000 93%
£50,000 95%
£60,000 97%
£75,000 99%

i work in a number of homes where the families are benifit dependent and some do have multiple overseas holidays I recently had to wait 3 months for acess to one council home as the tenant was in australia. another of the homes we work in has a mid fifties guy on benifits and he has a holiday home in bulgaria. many many tenants have static caravans at or near the coast.
child benefit is not needed by many recipients nor is the winter fuel allowance. does my aunt need it for logs in her colarado cabin or to keep the pool warm in majorca or for her centrally heating her modest 6 bed home in Harrogate

and tonite i watch newsnight and see some tory toady bleating on behalf of widows in homes valued 2.5m who cant afford to eat.. its Brazil for me Ronnie Biggs was nt wrong 50 years ago.

also has median at £26 000 which is rather more realistic as the higher figure is distorted by the really very very rich

Okay. So our 42k income is taking home 31k after tax.

So they have £416 per month more than the median.
(not really my idea of super wealthy).

Throw in a few hefty outgoings (children, nursery fees, mortgage, car, professional expenses) and you can see how they might not have much disposable left each month, despite their apparently outrageous income.

Annual Net Household income Percentile point…

Got anything more recent? Those figures are from six years ago, pre-recession and don’t reflect the median you are talking about.

Assuming that money does not buy happiness ( indeed true wealth is having the things that money can’t buy), and that it is perfectly possible to have a fulfilled and comfortable lifestyle according to TJ on salaries below the threshold under discussion, why all the angst about it? It should be irrelevant if people think the opposite, as they obviously don’t get it.

Twohundred!