child benefit..

Because it is true. an taxpayer earning £42 000 pa ie in the 40% tax band is one of the wealthiest 10%

Nope.

What is true is that a taxpayer earning £42,000pa, WHO LIVES ON THEIR OWN, will almost make it into the wealthiest 10% (9th decile, but close).

One with a partner and two kids has a lower than average (median) household income.

Those are the official IFS figures as used by da government and everything.

I suppose the question is does wealthiest 10% = wealthy. The most healthy cancer patient still isn’t very healthy.

And since ‘wealthy’ is a relative term, there’s no definition and you can’t categorically state who is and isn’t wealthy.

Because it is true. an taxpayer earning £42 000 pa ie in the 40% tax band is one of the wealthiest 10%

Ahh, that must have been a while back now, remind us again, please.

That IFS link suggest that my over the threshold salary is 48%ile. Not sure about top 10% / 90%ile…

Admittedly that is comparing individual salary to household income, but they were one and the same whilst mrs rkk01 was re-training to be a teacher – funnily enough, a “lifestyle choice” that meant incurring considerable costs for the family over a 4 year period…

No graham – their income does not alter no matter what their costs are. their income is still in the highest 10%

Rightio, here’s the email address for Institute Of Fiscal Studies:
wheredoyoufitin@ifs.org.uk

I suggest you write to them and explain why you know more about studying fiscal stuff than them 🙄

This is your source for your figures, isn’t it, TJ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom

If so, it only shows the percentile for people with income, nothing to do with household income and hence not a very good measure of your actual ‘wealth’ at least as I’d define it.

So looking at the household figure is more meaningful and that shows that £35k net puts you at 85th percentile while £30k net puts you at 77%

Therefore the £42k salary which I believe is approx £31k net puts you around 80th percentile so top 20%. Still comfortably well off across the board but not the 10% wealthy elite I think you’re trying to paint (I’d consider it top 5% anyway if you’re going to try and paint that picture)

TJ – Your crazy top 10% of earner claim may be true if the amount of wealth someone has were simply a measure of their income, but it isn’t if they have dependents (or other sources of wealth such as assets). Their income then has to be split amongst their dependents, hence why when assessing wealth you can’t use individual income, you need to use household income.

So while 42k may be a lot of money, earning it says bug all about the earners wealth. Claiming it does so is akin to saying 2 + 2 = 5

So I go back to my earlier point. Your inability to understand this must be down to an illogical emotion such as jealousy. (Or middle class guilt, dependent on whether you would class yourself as wealthy or not)

(or I’ve been trolled!)

Well said jfletch.

Guys – I am merely laughing at the people like graham that claim that £42000 is barely enough to feed your family by pointing out the fallacious nature of his argument

I find the inability of the well off middle classes to understand the reality of life for the vast majority who earn far less quite offensive.

TJ you can take it as read that everybody knows your view here. Repetition does not enhance or reinforce it

their income is still in the highest 10%

Yes. Their INDIVIDUAL income is (almost) in the top 10%.
That doesn’t put them in the 10% most wealthy, no matter how much you say it does.

The lunacy of this is easy to demonstrate with a bit of reductio ad absurdum:

Person A earns 42k, but has to feed and clothe 20 kids.

Person B earns 30k, but her partner also earns 30k and they have no kids.

So which of these families is the wealthiest and which one is going to be struggling do you think?

I find the inability of the well off public sector pensioners to understand the reality of life for the vast majority who earn far less quite offensive.

TJ for the umpteenth time this simply isn’t true!

Try the IFS test that I linked to earlier:
http://www.ifs.org.uk/wheredoyoufitin/

Normal 2 parent family with 2 young kids.
One parent earns 42k (so that’s £31,048 after tax).
Let’s say they pay a below average council tax of £1500 a year.

Hmm… oh look.. it seems they are BELOW THE MEDIAN at 47%
i.e. they have LESS money than 53% of households.

The IFS test is hardly a good indicator though. According to that a single person earning £15k and living in a band A house (about £750 council tax) is better off at 48%. That’s simply not true. If I was earning £15k that’d just about cover my rent/bills/food on a one bed house up north. £42k might not make you rich but you’ve made the wrong choices if your life isn’t pretty comfortable.

pointing out the fallacious nature of his argument

None of his arguments were fallacious as far as I can tell, not necessarily valid or true in all cases but that’s not the same thing. The same cannot however be said of your consistant conflation of the terms “income” and “wealth”.

I am merely laughing at the people like graham that claim that £42000 is barely enough to feed your family by pointing out the fallacious nature of his argument

Which bit is fallacious TJ?

I’ve pointed out to you how someone on 42k may have a household income that is below the national average and I’ve backed that up with proper figures.

I didn’t say they had “barely enough to feed their family”, simply shown that they are not necessarily “well off” just because their individual income is high.

Hence removing benefits based solely on that income is ill-thought-out and unfair.

Owning two properties makes you wealthy.

Incidentally, just to make my hand perfectly clear, the reason that this issue has me annoyed is that we are an example of a family with a two reasonably high wage earners, but neither of us is in higher rate tax bracket – so we’ll continue to get Child Benefit while others who are considerably worse off than us will lose it.

That’s grossly unfair.

Graham – it was rikk that made the claim about barely being able to feed a family. – apologies

Its just comical tho that you seem to think £42 000 is not better off that the vast majority of the population when it so clearly is

Its just comical tho that you seem to think £42 000 is not better off that the vast majority of the population when it so clearly is

TJ as I’m sure you know, most people live as some sort of family unit and have responsibilities toward it
I may well earn 42K but I can only do so if my wife stays at home, so [in effect] some of that income is hers

Its just comical tho that you seem to think £42 000 is not better off that the vast majority of the population when it so clearly is

Not according to the government figures.

Use your head TJ, how is a household with one income of £42k better off than one with two (below average) incomes of £20k? Answer: they are not.

I’ve clearly demonstrated how the “vast majority of the population” can be better off than a household with a single 42k income. All you’ve done is refute that without evidence.

I may well earn 42K but I can only do so if my wife stays at home, so [in effect] some of that income is hers

Lifestyle choice 🙄

Lifestyle choice

no, she’s disabled

Why the rolling eyes?

EDIT: my youngest daughter is, not my wife

Graham- you use your head – I have given you the figures.

an income of £42 000 pa is amongst the top 10% of earners. FACT! 90% of the working population earn less. FACT!

Although what TJ is saying is an interesting take on things i’m not sure how suggesting parents work alternative shifts (even if possible) sits well with the work life balance ethos he was so readily promoting on a thread a few weeks ago.

Graham- you use your head – I have given you the figures.

an income of £42 000 pa is amongst the top 10% of earners. FACT! 90% of the working population earn less. FACT!

Now that you’ve restated this fact, would you like to address the point that Graham actually made which is to do with household rather than individual income?

Jota – my bad – commented without knowing the facts. Was mentioned earlier in the thread about giving up work/opposite shifts to partners and all that.

And I’m rubbish at smilies

Jota – my bad – commented without knowing the facts. Was mentioned earlier in the thread about giving up work/opposite shifts to partners and all that.

And I’m rubbish at smilies

No – I’m not offended in any way, just trying to make the point that TJs black and white world does not exist

Groundhog Thread……not only is it going round and round with you know who, we’ve all heard the same arguments what 5-10 times before?

Graham – it was rikk that made the claim about barely being able to feed a family. – apologies

Yep – was refering to my BiL who moved to the US.
That was a specific example – a family who moved with work to SE England.

The issue that has got people excited is the conflation of the terms “wealth” and “high earners”. Quite simply, they are different things.

clubber’s

suppose the question is does wealthiest 10% = wealthy

should be

suppose the question is does wealthiest the highest earning 10% = wealthy

High earners may very well be wealthy, as might be pensioners with no income at all. Equally, a “high earner” may not be at all wealthy, for example, because they have come from a modest background with no capital.

From my own perspective, my individual salary might be top 10-15% (BBC suggests 15%), but using the wiki link provided by clubber my “wealth” would be substantially below the lowest quoted 50%ile

when mrs rkk01 was re-training we did not feel at all “wealthy” as a family. Now mrs rkk01 has full time employment we are in a position to straighten things up.

an income of £42 000 pa is amongst the top 10% of earners. FACT! 90% of the working population earn less. FACT!

Yep. I agree with both those FACTs
(well actually it is slightly below 90% and not quite in 10%, but close enough).

But, as said repeatedly, individual income does not equal household income; and income does not equal wealth.

In the majority of two adult households, both adults will work. And two average jobs will easily bring home more than a household with one 42k earner.

we did not feel at all “wealthy” as a family.

Just became you do not “feel” wealthy does not mean you are not.

Nobody ever thinks they are well off as they always compare to people with more not people with less – as this thread amply demonstrates.

In the majority of two adult households, both adults will work.

really? figures?

And the single earner family does not have the high childacare costs you want to be taken into account while the dual earner one probably will.

So by your standards if I earned £50 000 pa but had a £4000 a month mortgage I would not be well off?

So by your standards if I earned £50 000 pa but had a £4000 a month mortgage I would not be well off?

Well you’d need another source of income for a start as at £50k your net pay would be £4167 and I don’t think anyone would be able to survive on £167 per month.

Well you’d need another source of income for a start as at £50k

Don’t forget that TJ has other properties 😉

Ah but that’s where the lack of definition for ‘well off’ comes in.

People will mostly feel that mortgage costs like that are a choice.

Childcare costs would be less clear cut

Costs for care of say disability or other supporting actities even less so (even if there are some benefits available)

really? figures?

Looking.

Here’s the US version, not found the UK definitive figure yet.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/24/us/now-a-majority-families-with-2-parents-who-work.html

And the single earner family does not have the high childacare costs you want to be taken into account while the dual earner one probably will.

High childcare costs were mentioned earlier. Yes.

The single earner may well still have them (could be a lone parent, or perhaps the other parent unable to look after the kids) and the dual earners may not: I understand some people advocate working opposite shifts to avoid childcare costs.

Don’t forget that TJ has other properties

TJ doesn’t claim he’s not well off

TJ doesn’t claim he’s not well off

No, I know – just trying to square the numbers for gf 🙂

Well I assume that he has included all income in that £50k and that there isn’t any tax relief being claimed on say interest on a buy to let mortgage as that sort of thing is only available to those who have multiple properties and it would be disingenuous to include that sort thing in these sort of calculations as it would significantly skew the results.

Fair enough, he must have got that Mortgage from Northern Rock pre 2007