Join the Labour Party and save your country!

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure. Look, the guy obviously didn't really get it, but I think the point that that blog makes is valid.

No-one's going to get any violin out for people on that wage save for the one the size of your pinky toe-nail, but to make out they're "rich" is a bit much. In relative terms maybe, but it's not what you imagine being rich is like.

I agree. The sh!t he's taking is really over the top. He genuinely didn't understand the reality, because it feels like the top 5% should be those living the life of luxury.

It has possibly highlighted to people in similar situations how difficult it is for a large number of people on half that or less to even vaguely make ends meet.

I'm still trying to work out how much of a bubble you need to be living in to think earning £80K pa puts you outside the top 50% of earners. How many doctors and solicitors does he think there are?

you would be amazed how many people are numerically illiterate

surrey_commuter

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure. Look, the guy obviously didn't really get it, but I think the point that that blog makes is valid.

No-one's going to get any violin out for people on that wage save for the one the size of your pinky toe-nail, but to make out they're "rich" is a bit much. In relative terms maybe, but it's not what you imagine being rich is like.

I agree. The sh!t he's taking is really over the top. He genuinely didn't understand the reality, because it feels like the top 5% should be those living the life of luxury.

It has possibly highlighted to people in similar situations how difficult it is for a large number of people on half that or less to even vaguely make ends meet.

people on half that are well aware what it was like to be on half that because they have done it, probably without the commitments.

You have to understand the difference between those with several million in the bank and an £80k allowance and the other 99% of people on £80kpa who are one bad meeting from being on £0pa

surrey_commuter

Does anybody know if they are going to stop the penal tax rates when you lose child benefit and personal allowance?

morstar

surrey_commuter said:

Does anybody know if they are going to stop the penal tax rates when you lose child benefit and personal allowance?

Not seen those mentioned anywhere. I am not opposed to them in principle but they should be more gradual. Until I get a nice lumpy pay rise, I have effectively got a take home pay ceiling and a healthy chunk of money going into my pension to bypass HMRC. TBH, I would like to take a bit more home and would be happy to pay a bit more tax but an effective 60% tax rate on that chunk of earnings is silly when the entirety can go into a pension with additional NI savings from my employer on top.

On a broader note, we have spent a long time (many years) where the domestic finances simply didn't add up and it is fundamentally hard on every level in a way you cannot appreciate if you haven't lived it. I am not earning £80K but appreciate how 'wealthy' I am. I earn close enough to that figure to know it isn't as much as you might imagine but have little sympathy for anyone feeling hard done by on such a salary.

Stevo_666

morstar said:

surrey_commuter said:

Does anybody know if they are going to stop the penal tax rates when you lose child benefit and personal allowance?

Not seen those mentioned anywhere. I am not opposed to them in principle but they should be more gradual. Until I get a nice lumpy pay rise, I have effectively got a take home pay ceiling and a healthy chunk of money going into my pension to bypass HMRC. TBH, I would like to take a bit more home and would be happy to pay a bit more tax but an effective 60% tax rate on that chunk of earnings is silly when the entirety can go into a pension with additional NI savings from my employer on top.

On a broader note, we have spent a long time (many years) where the domestic finances simply didn't add up and it is fundamentally hard on every level in a way you cannot appreciate if you haven't lived it. I am not earning £80K but appreciate how 'wealthy' I am. I earn close enough to that figure to know it isn't as much as you might imagine but have little sympathy for anyone feeling hard done by on such a salary.

Good to see you doing a bit of sensible tax planning morstar. Pension contributions are very effective for people paying the 40% rate and especially so for those who are at the level of getting their personal allowance withdrawn.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Only seen the clip from Question Time, but I think the guy who earns £80k and thinks he is on an average wage is quite representative. It's very difficult to think of yourself as well off when the people around you seem to be in about the same situation.

Saw that last night. Was quite surreal. I even felt slightly sorry for Richard Burgon trying to come up with a response to someone with such a tenuous grip on reality.

I think the guy lost the nuance of his point in his rage and it's always really difficult to row back from the point that got you ragey to explain the nuance.

Is the message here not that people on £80k don't feel well off? Presumably because you'l still be spending 20% of your income on childcare when on £80k, for example.

I think that's quite revealing of the state we're in. I wouldn't get in a flap about it because I have some perspective on earnings, but I would absolutely not call myself well off on £80k, especially in the south east.

Errr, what?!

I think a career in high-end recruitment has given you a slightly skewed perspective.

Ok, if you have two kids under 2, and they're in nursery, that's around £30k after tax gone before you even have to feed them and put a roof over their head. Bear in mind net earnings after tax are c.£54k, so you're alrady down to £4k a month to pay the mortgage and food and everything else. £400k mortgage will roughly set you back what, between £1600 and £1800 a month. So you've got just over £400 a week left for food and sundries.

You think that's 'well off'? Not in my understanding of what 'well off' means.

My maths is off. Not right. Updated...

So you have roughly £150 a week on food, leaving you with £250 per week for everything else.

Have to admit I'm with you on this one Rick - although clearly it is subjective as to what 'well off' means and there's a massive difference between someone who's single and on £80k and someone who's supporting a family etc on the same income.

And going back to the point about £80k, this is the income level at which Labour deems someone to be rich. With £125k as the threshold for super rich.

morstar

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

surrey_commuter said:

Does anybody know if they are going to stop the penal tax rates when you lose child benefit and personal allowance?

Not seen those mentioned anywhere. I am not opposed to them in principle but they should be more gradual. Until I get a nice lumpy pay rise, I have effectively got a take home pay ceiling and a healthy chunk of money going into my pension to bypass HMRC. TBH, I would like to take a bit more home and would be happy to pay a bit more tax but an effective 60% tax rate on that chunk of earnings is silly when the entirety can go into a pension with additional NI savings from my employer on top.

On a broader note, we have spent a long time (many years) where the domestic finances simply didn't add up and it is fundamentally hard on every level in a way you cannot appreciate if you haven't lived it. I am not earning £80K but appreciate how 'wealthy' I am. I earn close enough to that figure to know it isn't as much as you might imagine but have little sympathy for anyone feeling hard done by on such a salary.

Good to see you doing a bit of sensible tax planning morstar. Pension contributions are very effective for people paying the 40% rate and especially so for those who are at the level of getting their personal allowance withdrawn.

I have to be honest, my whole tax world changed once hitting that band. I have had quite a few variables to calculate which have been spreadsheeted to death which is always good fun. It is a whole skill set I knew existed but simply didn't need to worry about before. It now really matters despite being a single job paye income recipient which you could be forgiven for thinking was straightforward.

The pension and salary sacrifice are simple tools to do it.

Stevo_666

morstar said:

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

surrey_commuter said:

Does anybody know if they are going to stop the penal tax rates when you lose child benefit and personal allowance?

Not seen those mentioned anywhere. I am not opposed to them in principle but they should be more gradual. Until I get a nice lumpy pay rise, I have effectively got a take home pay ceiling and a healthy chunk of money going into my pension to bypass HMRC. TBH, I would like to take a bit more home and would be happy to pay a bit more tax but an effective 60% tax rate on that chunk of earnings is silly when the entirety can go into a pension with additional NI savings from my employer on top.

On a broader note, we have spent a long time (many years) where the domestic finances simply didn't add up and it is fundamentally hard on every level in a way you cannot appreciate if you haven't lived it. I am not earning £80K but appreciate how 'wealthy' I am. I earn close enough to that figure to know it isn't as much as you might imagine but have little sympathy for anyone feeling hard done by on such a salary.

Good to see you doing a bit of sensible tax planning morstar. Pension contributions are very effective for people paying the 40% rate and especially so for those who are at the level of getting their personal allowance withdrawn.

I have to be honest, my whole tax world changed once hitting that band. I have had quite a few variables to calculate which have been spreadsheeted to death which is always good fun. It is a whole skill set I knew existed but simply didn't need to worry about before. It now really matters despite being a single job paye income recipient which you could be forgiven for thinking was straightforward.

The pension and salary sacrifice are simple tools to do it.

Very true, I used to do a fair bit of it myself. It was always nice getting a bit fat refund from HMRC

morstar

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

surrey_commuter said:

Does anybody know if they are going to stop the penal tax rates when you lose child benefit and personal allowance?

Not seen those mentioned anywhere. I am not opposed to them in principle but they should be more gradual. Until I get a nice lumpy pay rise, I have effectively got a take home pay ceiling and a healthy chunk of money going into my pension to bypass HMRC. TBH, I would like to take a bit more home and would be happy to pay a bit more tax but an effective 60% tax rate on that chunk of earnings is silly when the entirety can go into a pension with additional NI savings from my employer on top.

On a broader note, we have spent a long time (many years) where the domestic finances simply didn't add up and it is fundamentally hard on every level in a way you cannot appreciate if you haven't lived it. I am not earning £80K but appreciate how 'wealthy' I am. I earn close enough to that figure to know it isn't as much as you might imagine but have little sympathy for anyone feeling hard done by on such a salary.

Good to see you doing a bit of sensible tax planning morstar. Pension contributions are very effective for people paying the 40% rate and especially so for those who are at the level of getting their personal allowance withdrawn.

I have to be honest, my whole tax world changed once hitting that band. I have had quite a few variables to calculate which have been spreadsheeted to death which is always good fun. It is a whole skill set I knew existed but simply didn't need to worry about before. It now really matters despite being a single job paye income recipient which you could be forgiven for thinking was straightforward.

The pension and salary sacrifice are simple tools to do it.

Very true, I used to do a fair bit of it myself. It was always nice getting a bit fat refund from HMRC

I find I'd rather pay up front and get a rebate as you have had. However, they try to be helpful by recalculating your personal allowance to keep it all in sync. That however can get very messy.
Having changed jobs in the middle of the year and been the recipient of different employer mileage allowances + benefits and a delay in getting a P45 my paye code has been different every month for the last 4. I'm glad I have spreadsheeted it otherwise I wouldn't have had a clue what was going on.
I got refunded tax in August (Month I changed jobs)
I got taxed at emergency Scottish rate on my entire salary in September
Got refunded tax in October
From November to February I am putting even more into my pension to counter a one off taxable interest payment. This will force a recalculation of expected earnings and a new taxable allowance again to balance the money that I deferred paying them in a previous year.
And although the outcome will all add up correctly, I will read their calculation methodology and will still not understand the way they present the numbers.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Only seen the clip from Question Time, but I think the guy who earns £80k and thinks he is on an average wage is quite representative. It's very difficult to think of yourself as well off when the people around you seem to be in about the same situation.

Saw that last night. Was quite surreal. I even felt slightly sorry for Richard Burgon trying to come up with a response to someone with such a tenuous grip on reality.

I think the guy lost the nuance of his point in his rage and it's always really difficult to row back from the point that got you ragey to explain the nuance.

Is the message here not that people on £80k don't feel well off? Presumably because you'l still be spending 20% of your income on childcare when on £80k, for example.

I think that's quite revealing of the state we're in. I wouldn't get in a flap about it because I have some perspective on earnings, but I would absolutely not call myself well off on £80k, especially in the south east.

Errr, what?!

I think a career in high-end recruitment has given you a slightly skewed perspective.

Ok, if you have two kids under 2, and they're in nursery, that's around £30k after tax gone before you even have to feed them and put a roof over their head. Bear in mind net earnings after tax are c.£54k, so you're alrady down to £4k a month to pay the mortgage and food and everything else. £400k mortgage will roughly set you back what, between £1600 and £1800 a month. So you've got just over £400 a week left for food and sundries.

You think that's 'well off'? Not in my understanding of what 'well off' means.

My maths is off. Not right. Updated...

So you have roughly £150 a week on food, leaving you with £250 per week for everything else.

Have to admit I'm with you on this one Rick - although clearly it is subjective as to what 'well off' means and there's a massive difference between someone who's single and on £80k and someone who's supporting a family etc on the same income.

And going back to the point about £80k, this is the income level at which Labour deems someone to be rich. With £125k as the threshold for super rich.

Whether it's 'rich' or not it does put you into the 95th percentile. Perhaps that is an indication of just how steep the curve gets in the top 5%. The 99th percentile is double the 95th at £166,000, and I have met plenty of people who think of that as just-about-managing.

surrey_commuter

I think we need to draw a distinction between rich/wealthy and high earners.

Currently I think it is easier to argue that the wealthy are getting an easier ride than high earners. Earnings of course are much easier to tax than wealth.

And that is the thing, if there were easy revenue gains to be had then Gordon Brown would have had them already.

pblakeney

A simple distinction is that the truly rich don't work. Or, don't have to at least.

Stevo_666

pblakeney said:

A simple distinction is that the truly rich don't work. Or, don't have to at least.

Not so much simple as simplistic - or more likely wrong.

According to this, 60% of ultra high net worth individuals are self made; 20% inherited and built on that; the other 20% was simple inheritance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_high-net-worth_individual

Stevo_666

morstar said:

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

surrey_commuter said:

Does anybody know if they are going to stop the penal tax rates when you lose child benefit and personal allowance?

Not seen those mentioned anywhere. I am not opposed to them in principle but they should be more gradual. Until I get a nice lumpy pay rise, I have effectively got a take home pay ceiling and a healthy chunk of money going into my pension to bypass HMRC. TBH, I would like to take a bit more home and would be happy to pay a bit more tax but an effective 60% tax rate on that chunk of earnings is silly when the entirety can go into a pension with additional NI savings from my employer on top.

On a broader note, we have spent a long time (many years) where the domestic finances simply didn't add up and it is fundamentally hard on every level in a way you cannot appreciate if you haven't lived it. I am not earning £80K but appreciate how 'wealthy' I am. I earn close enough to that figure to know it isn't as much as you might imagine but have little sympathy for anyone feeling hard done by on such a salary.

Good to see you doing a bit of sensible tax planning morstar. Pension contributions are very effective for people paying the 40% rate and especially so for those who are at the level of getting their personal allowance withdrawn.

I have to be honest, my whole tax world changed once hitting that band. I have had quite a few variables to calculate which have been spreadsheeted to death which is always good fun. It is a whole skill set I knew existed but simply didn't need to worry about before. It now really matters despite being a single job paye income recipient which you could be forgiven for thinking was straightforward.

The pension and salary sacrifice are simple tools to do it.

Very true, I used to do a fair bit of it myself. It was always nice getting a bit fat refund from HMRC

I find I'd rather pay up front and get a rebate as you have had. However, they try to be helpful by recalculating your personal allowance to keep it all in sync. That however can get very messy.
Having changed jobs in the middle of the year and been the recipient of different employer mileage allowances + benefits and a delay in getting a P45 my paye code has been different every month for the last 4. I'm glad I have spreadsheeted it otherwise I wouldn't have had a clue what was going on.
I got refunded tax in August (Month I changed jobs)
I got taxed at emergency Scottish rate on my entire salary in September
Got refunded tax in October
From November to February I am putting even more into my pension to counter a one off taxable interest payment. This will force a recalculation of expected earnings and a new taxable allowance again to balance the money that I deferred paying them in a previous year.
And although the outcome will all add up correctly, I will read their calculation methodology and will still not understand the way they present the numbers.

It's complicated. One year I had lots of fun (not) trying to work out my unused prior years capacity to carry forward to a year where I'd accidentally overshot the annual limit.

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

I think we need to draw a distinction between rich/wealthy and high earners.

Currently I think it is easier to argue that the wealthy are getting an easier ride than high earners. Earnings of course are much easier to tax than wealth.

And that is the thing, if there were easy revenue gains to be had then Gordon Brown would have had them already.

You can tax wealth but in large enough amounts/certain forms it can be quite mobile.

However I think the main point here is that to get to a position of wealth, someone has generated income which has generally been taxed. So taxing the resulting wealth (i.e. capital values) is double taxation. Although income generated from wealth falls back into the income category, clearly.

Jeremy.89

surrey_commuter said:

I think we need to draw a distinction between rich/wealthy and high earners.

Currently I think it is easier to argue that the wealthy are getting an easier ride than high earners. Earnings of course are much easier to tax than wealth.

And that is the thing, if there were easy revenue gains to be had then Gordon Brown would have had them already.

Shouldn't high earners feel wealthy though?

Tbh, I can't see how (living outside of the SE) you would feel hard done by on 80k in a family. Rick's sums are pretty generous, 400k is a pretty nice house in the vast majority of the country, and what on earth is a one salary household doing spending so much on childcare.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Only seen the clip from Question Time, but I think the guy who earns £80k and thinks he is on an average wage is quite representative. It's very difficult to think of yourself as well off when the people around you seem to be in about the same situation.

Saw that last night. Was quite surreal. I even felt slightly sorry for Richard Burgon trying to come up with a response to someone with such a tenuous grip on reality.

I think the guy lost the nuance of his point in his rage and it's always really difficult to row back from the point that got you ragey to explain the nuance.

Is the message here not that people on £80k don't feel well off? Presumably because you'l still be spending 20% of your income on childcare when on £80k, for example.

I think that's quite revealing of the state we're in. I wouldn't get in a flap about it because I have some perspective on earnings, but I would absolutely not call myself well off on £80k, especially in the south east.

Errr, what?!

I think a career in high-end recruitment has given you a slightly skewed perspective.

Ok, if you have two kids under 2, and they're in nursery, that's around £30k after tax gone before you even have to feed them and put a roof over their head. Bear in mind net earnings after tax are c.£54k, so you're alrady down to £4k a month to pay the mortgage and food and everything else. £400k mortgage will roughly set you back what, between £1600 and £1800 a month. So you've got just over £400 a week left for food and sundries.

You think that's 'well off'? Not in my understanding of what 'well off' means.

My maths is off. Not right. Updated...

So you have roughly £150 a week on food, leaving you with £250 per week for everything else.

Have to admit I'm with you on this one Rick - although clearly it is subjective as to what 'well off' means and there's a massive difference between someone who's single and on £80k and someone who's supporting a family etc on the same income.

And going back to the point about £80k, this is the income level at which Labour deems someone to be rich. With £125k as the threshold for super rich.

Whether it's 'rich' or not it does put you into the 95th percentile. Perhaps that is an indication of just how steep the curve gets in the top 5%. The 99th percentile is double the 95th at £166,000, and I have met plenty of people who think of that as just-about-managing.

£166k is £100k post tax. Three kids in private schools and a decent mortgage would eat up a lot of that. (Mortgage free with no school fees and you would live a very good life on that amount. )

The above with with a non-working spouse with a taste for expensive things leads to some people believing £200k is the minimum they can survive on.

These people fear Corbyn a lot.

pblakeney

Stevo_666 said:

pblakeney said:

A simple distinction is that the truly rich don't work. Or, don't have to at least.

Not so much simple as simplistic - or more likely wrong.

According to this, 60% of ultra high net worth individuals are self made; 20% inherited and built on that; the other 20% was simple inheritance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_high-net-worth_individual

Nice try. You are explaining how the rich get rich, not how they act once rich.
If you have to work then you are not truly rich.

Stevo_666

pblakeney said:

Stevo_666 said:

pblakeney said:

A simple distinction is that the truly rich don't work. Or, don't have to at least.

Not so much simple as simplistic - or more likely wrong.

According to this, 60% of ultra high net worth individuals are self made; 20% inherited and built on that; the other 20% was simple inheritance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_high-net-worth_individual

Nice try. You are explaining how the rich get rich, not how they act once rich.
If you have to work then you are not truly rich.

That's not what you said first time. You said that the truly rich don't work. The stats say otherwise.

rjsterry

TheBlueBean said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Only seen the clip from Question Time, but I think the guy who earns £80k and thinks he is on an average wage is quite representative. It's very difficult to think of yourself as well off when the people around you seem to be in about the same situation.

Saw that last night. Was quite surreal. I even felt slightly sorry for Richard Burgon trying to come up with a response to someone with such a tenuous grip on reality.

I think the guy lost the nuance of his point in his rage and it's always really difficult to row back from the point that got you ragey to explain the nuance.

Is the message here not that people on £80k don't feel well off? Presumably because you'l still be spending 20% of your income on childcare when on £80k, for example.

I think that's quite revealing of the state we're in. I wouldn't get in a flap about it because I have some perspective on earnings, but I would absolutely not call myself well off on £80k, especially in the south east.

Errr, what?!

I think a career in high-end recruitment has given you a slightly skewed perspective.

Ok, if you have two kids under 2, and they're in nursery, that's around £30k after tax gone before you even have to feed them and put a roof over their head. Bear in mind net earnings after tax are c.£54k, so you're alrady down to £4k a month to pay the mortgage and food and everything else. £400k mortgage will roughly set you back what, between £1600 and £1800 a month. So you've got just over £400 a week left for food and sundries.

You think that's 'well off'? Not in my understanding of what 'well off' means.

My maths is off. Not right. Updated...

So you have roughly £150 a week on food, leaving you with £250 per week for everything else.

Have to admit I'm with you on this one Rick - although clearly it is subjective as to what 'well off' means and there's a massive difference between someone who's single and on £80k and someone who's supporting a family etc on the same income.

And going back to the point about £80k, this is the income level at which Labour deems someone to be rich. With £125k as the threshold for super rich.

Whether it's 'rich' or not it does put you into the 95th percentile. Perhaps that is an indication of just how steep the curve gets in the top 5%. The 99th percentile is double the 95th at £166,000, and I have met plenty of people who think of that as just-about-managing.

£166k is £100k post tax. Three kids in private schools and a decent mortgage would eat up a lot of that. (Mortgage free with no school fees and you would live a very good life on that amount. )

The above with with a non-working spouse with a taste for expensive things leads to some people believing £200k is the minimum they can survive on.

These people fear Corbyn a lot.

I've had this exact thing 'explained' to me a few times. Once after the person in question had just got back from their second family skiing holiday that year. Keeping a straight face requires some effort.

pblakeney

Stevo_666 said:

pblakeney said:

Stevo_666 said:

pblakeney said:

A simple distinction is that the truly rich don't work. Or, don't have to at least.

Not so much simple as simplistic - or more likely wrong.

According to this, 60% of ultra high net worth individuals are self made; 20% inherited and built on that; the other 20% was simple inheritance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_high-net-worth_individual

Nice try. You are explaining how the rich get rich, not how they act once rich.
If you have to work then you are not truly rich.

That's not what you said first time. You said that the truly rich don't work. The stats say otherwise.

That is what I said. "A simple distinction is that the truly rich don't work. Or, don't have to at least."
They are rich once they are rich, not before they are rich. To explain the obvious.

Stevo_666

pblakeney said:

Stevo_666 said:

pblakeney said:

Stevo_666 said:

pblakeney said:

A simple distinction is that the truly rich don't work. Or, don't have to at least.

Not so much simple as simplistic - or more likely wrong.

According to this, 60% of ultra high net worth individuals are self made; 20% inherited and built on that; the other 20% was simple inheritance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_high-net-worth_individual

Nice try. You are explaining how the rich get rich, not how they act once rich.
If you have to work then you are not truly rich.

That's not what you said first time. You said that the truly rich don't work. The stats say otherwise.

That is what I said. "A simple distinction is that the truly rich don't work. Or, don't have to at least."
They are rich once they are rich, not before they are rich. To explain the obvious.

Well no sh!t Sherlock - the truly rich don't have to work. Wonder what other new revelation you'll come up with next?

pblakeney

Simple. The reverse of this, and as what was being discussed is that if you have to work then you are not rich.
As an extension, you may have noticed that I have not mentioned figures. Someone winning a lottery that nets them £30k/annum may consider that enough for them to retire and in their world would consider themselves rich. #differentrealities

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBlueBean said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Only seen the clip from Question Time, but I think the guy who earns £80k and thinks he is on an average wage is quite representative. It's very difficult to think of yourself as well off when the people around you seem to be in about the same situation.

Saw that last night. Was quite surreal. I even felt slightly sorry for Richard Burgon trying to come up with a response to someone with such a tenuous grip on reality.

I think the guy lost the nuance of his point in his rage and it's always really difficult to row back from the point that got you ragey to explain the nuance.

Is the message here not that people on £80k don't feel well off? Presumably because you'l still be spending 20% of your income on childcare when on £80k, for example.

I think that's quite revealing of the state we're in. I wouldn't get in a flap about it because I have some perspective on earnings, but I would absolutely not call myself well off on £80k, especially in the south east.

Errr, what?!

I think a career in high-end recruitment has given you a slightly skewed perspective.

Ok, if you have two kids under 2, and they're in nursery, that's around £30k after tax gone before you even have to feed them and put a roof over their head. Bear in mind net earnings after tax are c.£54k, so you're alrady down to £4k a month to pay the mortgage and food and everything else. £400k mortgage will roughly set you back what, between £1600 and £1800 a month. So you've got just over £400 a week left for food and sundries.

You think that's 'well off'? Not in my understanding of what 'well off' means.

My maths is off. Not right. Updated...

So you have roughly £150 a week on food, leaving you with £250 per week for everything else.

Have to admit I'm with you on this one Rick - although clearly it is subjective as to what 'well off' means and there's a massive difference between someone who's single and on £80k and someone who's supporting a family etc on the same income.

And going back to the point about £80k, this is the income level at which Labour deems someone to be rich. With £125k as the threshold for super rich.

Whether it's 'rich' or not it does put you into the 95th percentile. Perhaps that is an indication of just how steep the curve gets in the top 5%. The 99th percentile is double the 95th at £166,000, and I have met plenty of people who think of that as just-about-managing.

£166k is £100k post tax. Three kids in private schools and a decent mortgage would eat up a lot of that. (Mortgage free with no school fees and you would live a very good life on that amount. )

The above with with a non-working spouse with a taste for expensive things leads to some people believing £200k is the minimum they can survive on.

These people fear Corbyn a lot.

I've had this exact thing 'explained' to me a few times. Once after the person in question had just got back from their second family skiing holiday that year. Keeping a straight face requires some effort.

Do you have any sympathy for the loss of their pension contributions?

rjsterry

TheBlueBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBlueBean said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Only seen the clip from Question Time, but I think the guy who earns £80k and thinks he is on an average wage is quite representative. It's very difficult to think of yourself as well off when the people around you seem to be in about the same situation.

Saw that last night. Was quite surreal. I even felt slightly sorry for Richard Burgon trying to come up with a response to someone with such a tenuous grip on reality.

I think the guy lost the nuance of his point in his rage and it's always really difficult to row back from the point that got you ragey to explain the nuance.

Is the message here not that people on £80k don't feel well off? Presumably because you'l still be spending 20% of your income on childcare when on £80k, for example.

I think that's quite revealing of the state we're in. I wouldn't get in a flap about it because I have some perspective on earnings, but I would absolutely not call myself well off on £80k, especially in the south east.

Errr, what?!

I think a career in high-end recruitment has given you a slightly skewed perspective.

Ok, if you have two kids under 2, and they're in nursery, that's around £30k after tax gone before you even have to feed them and put a roof over their head. Bear in mind net earnings after tax are c.£54k, so you're alrady down to £4k a month to pay the mortgage and food and everything else. £400k mortgage will roughly set you back what, between £1600 and £1800 a month. So you've got just over £400 a week left for food and sundries.

You think that's 'well off'? Not in my understanding of what 'well off' means.

My maths is off. Not right. Updated...

So you have roughly £150 a week on food, leaving you with £250 per week for everything else.

Have to admit I'm with you on this one Rick - although clearly it is subjective as to what 'well off' means and there's a massive difference between someone who's single and on £80k and someone who's supporting a family etc on the same income.

And going back to the point about £80k, this is the income level at which Labour deems someone to be rich. With £125k as the threshold for super rich.

Whether it's 'rich' or not it does put you into the 95th percentile. Perhaps that is an indication of just how steep the curve gets in the top 5%. The 99th percentile is double the 95th at £166,000, and I have met plenty of people who think of that as just-about-managing.

£166k is £100k post tax. Three kids in private schools and a decent mortgage would eat up a lot of that. (Mortgage free with no school fees and you would live a very good life on that amount. )

The above with with a non-working spouse with a taste for expensive things leads to some people believing £200k is the minimum they can survive on.

These people fear Corbyn a lot.

I've had this exact thing 'explained' to me a few times. Once after the person in question had just got back from their second family skiing holiday that year. Keeping a straight face requires some effort.

Do you have any sympathy for the loss of their pension contributions?

Loss of tax relief on pension contributions above £40K? Not something I've given a lot of thought TBH. I think moaning about it if you are lucky enough for it to be an issue shows a certain lack of class.

Dorset_Boy

Do you have any sympathy for the loss of their pension contributions?

Loss of tax relief on pension contributions above £40K? Not something I've given a lot of thought TBH. I think moaning about it if you are lucky enough for it to be an issue shows a certain lack of class.

They'd have a £10k pa pension contribution allowance, not £40k.

Stevo_666

Dorset_Boy said:

They'd have a £10k pa pension contribution allowance, not £40k.

Correct, above £210k pa of income the tax deductible limit is £10k.

They should be encouraging everyone to save into their pension pots IMO, not just those below the top rate tax bracket.

rjsterry

Fair point, I had forgotten what salary we were talking about now that only the last quote is shown. Agree that everyone should be encouraged to save into their pensions but I see more pressing problems to solve.

surrey_commuter

The logic of incentivising people to save into their pensions is so that they are nor dependent upon the state, I think £1m is enough to achieve this. The other rules are unnecessarily complicated.

Foregone tax on contributions is about £20bn a year so well worth chipping away at.

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

The logic of incentivising people to save into their pensions is so that they are nor dependent upon the state, I think £1m is enough to achieve this. The other rules are unnecessarily complicated.

Foregone tax on contributions is about £20bn a year so well worth chipping away at.

Already been chipped at quite a bit.

There are two limits: one is the overall value of the pot and the other is how much you can get a tax deduction for each year. Both have been restricted.