Are you a top revenue earner?

[HangTime]

Yes, but it’s also silly to live somewhere that affords a poor quality of life if you can otherwise afford to live somewhere that affords a good quality of life.

Even with cheaper homes, most young people still couldn’t afford to outright own them before the age of 40.

I guess my point is, given your statement about it being silly to live somewhere that gives a worse quality of life if you can afford better, that it should be expected that most people in employment (and hence able to get mortgages) don't own their own homes outright.
For reference, less than 10% of 45-54 year olds own their homes outright. For 55-64 year olds it's less than a quarter.

Of course, I don't dispute that for some people it's simply not feasible even to buy a cheaper home outright, but it's kinda unrealistic to have a world where everyone owns their home outright especially if they are low income and/or young, the bottom rungs won't be able to afford it and I consider that kinda 'normal'.

 

[randomshenans]

I don't think top revenue earner = best quality of life.

That is so subjective it's not possible to even match.

 

[Efour]

I don't think top revenue earner = best quality of life.

That is so subjective it's not possible to even match.

Factually and provably incorrect. I learnt on OCUK this week that revenue earning = Potential Meat consumption/Length of Gucci belt = eternal life and health.

 

[HangTime]

For starters revenue nowadays isn't actually something tangible you can physically made use of (unlike say, bags of grain or precious metals). It only has any impact on quality of life when you use it for something. Doubling your earnings does absolutely nothing by itself, it's just numbers on a computer screen until you use it on goods and services (directly or indirectly). Complete tangent, but the converse of this is also true and one reason why I think online gambling can be a problem - when you lose money it's just another number changing on a computer screen, there is no immediate pain from it and you don't even see a stack of physical chips disappear from in front of you.

 

[shadow_boxer]

...Doubling your earnings does absolutely nothing by itself, it's just numbers on a computer screen until you use it on goods and services (directly or indirectly)...

So true. When I became an outsider IR35 day contractor a few years ago my pay almost trebled. As a director I just didn't see any point taking dividends about the basic rate and paying more tax so ended up plowing most of it into investments and pensions. My lifestyle hasn't changed, if anything I feel worse off now as expenses have increased (2 young children and a wife working part time) as well as losing time to do hobbies (hardly taken any AL).

 

[slinxy]

Just looked at our outgoings over the weekend, we're currently paying £1825 a month on debts. No mortgage, just loans and credit cards.

No interest apart from the loans, one is 3.5% and the other 4%.

I’ve been there.. thankfully it was way back in my student days when I was drowning in debt, the amount seems laughable now but it was tears of shame and guilt at the time.

It was a good lesson for me to learn early on in life and now I manage my finances like mad. It pains me to even see the smallest amount of un-required charges now. For me to get to the next stage, I will need to get militant and account for every wasted penny.. I don’t think I have the commitment but if I tried.. I may get to my goal sooner.

 

[aspiring]

You can absolutely. You have enough to pay rent/mortgage, buy food, save money, and go on holiday. How is that not a good lifestyle?

But people say rent would swallow up majority of that

 

[Freefaller]

But people say rent would swallow up majority of that

I rented in London and managed to save and I was earning under £50k. Albeit that was 15-20 years ago. But regardless 95k in London even with £1500-1700 will get you a reasonable 2 bedroom flat. If you're happy for a 1 bed you can get some reasonable ones for £1200 or so. If you go further out of London then it becomes even more affordable.

 

[bigmike20vt]

I don't think top revenue earner = best quality of life.

That is so subjective it's not possible to even match.

This sounds dangerously close to the mantra that money doesnt buy you happiness.

I mean it may be true on some level, but what it does do is give you options, and removes many of the barriers that lead to unhappiness.

if nothing else, if you have a high paid job but decide it isnt for you, it is far easier to do something about that than the other way round (crap paid job and you cant pay your bills, most people cant just go "oh well i will go get a 100k job then)

 

[dlockers]

This sounds dangerously close to the mantra that money doesnt buy you happiness.

I mean it may be true on some level, but what it does do is give you options, and removes many of the barriers that lead to unhappiness.

Na; "wealth" gives you options. Being a top revenue earner is the same as a middle revenue earner, you are still governed by your mortgage. It just means your mortgage may be "bigger" because you could afford more, but relatively speaking its the same.

Edit: in fact I'd argue it gives you fewer options. Everything gets astronomically more expensive at that level of lifestyle. I can't even afford to downsize, lol.

if nothing else, if you have a high paid job but decide it isnt for you, it is far easier to do something about that than the other way round (crap paid job and you cant pay your bills, most people cant just go "oh well i will go get a 100k job then)

Only if the horse hasn't bolted yet. There are very few 100k overnight success stories; most built up to that figure by working hard and rewarding themselves. That means by the time they want to throw the towel in, they are already balls deep in a mortgage relative to their pay, kids in the local school etc etc. It is a lot harder to get a job paying £100k than below £100k.

 

[adam cool dude]

Na; "wealth" gives you options. Being a top revenue earner is the same as a middle revenue earner, you are still governed by your mortgage. It just means your mortgage may be "bigger" because you could afford more, but relatively speaking its the same.

Edit: in fact I'd argue it gives you fewer options. Everything gets astronomically more expensive at that level of lifestyle. I can't even afford to downsize, lol.

Only if the horse hasn't bolted yet. There are very few 100k overnight success stories; most built up to that figure by working hard and rewarding themselves. That means by the time they want to throw the towel in, they are already balls deep in a mortgage relative to their pay, kids in the local school etc etc. It is a lot harder to get a job paying £100k than below £100k.

This is a valid point. I live quite stress free in that regard as our mortgage is only £500 a month and even that only has 50k left on it. If push come to shove I could just sell both my cars to raise capital to pay it off if for example something happened and life insurance didn't cover it. We could easily push for a bigger house as mortgage is finished mid 40's but 3 bed detached is more than enough especially when the kids all leave.

I have seen people at more senior levels earning 100k+ and really stretching themselves house wise ending up getting repo'ed because they couldn't find a job after losing theirs and it spiraling out of control. There are plenty of well paid jobs that are dead man's shoes but if you end up in the unfortunate position of say a redundancy it can be really hard to get back to a position that might have taken decades to get to.

 

[Koalaboy]

Depending on age, what you already have in savings/pension, etc. the 'amount' can have less meaning.

I'm in the 100-200 bracket, but only for a few years. Mortgage is only around 50K remaining, but that's on a lot of bad decisions for a house that started around 100K and now is only about 200K, after 20 years. Cost of living is cheap, well outside London, but at the same time if I was to lose this (remote) job, finding similar could be difficult.

It sounds good, and probably is compared to many, but after seeing a financial plan from an advisor, I'm still going to have to work until I'm 60 (another 5+ years), putting as much into my pension as I can, or I will have shortfalls in my living before the state pension kicks in. Unless you are younger and have been saving/investing/pension at a high rate for a decent time, you're still not retiring early.

It's easy to look at 'high pay' and think "those folks are so lucky", and perhaps they are in some ways, but they're still looking at a lousy retirement unless they started in their 30s. It's definitely better to earn loads when you're young, and burnout (but with compounding interest) than to slowly grow your career and only reach high figures when you're no longer 'useful' to society (unless you're a consultant doctor) and then realise you should have been saving far more all those years.

Yes, I'm still much better off than many, but at the same time I am absolutely not wealthy and worry that I will just have state pension to live off when I'm older, like anyone who hasn't worked above minimum wage... it's crazy.

tl;dr - start saving as early as you can, as life just likes to keep taking more from you as you age.

 

[bigmike20vt]

tl;dr - start saving as early as you can, as life just likes to keep taking more from you as you age.

This is absolutely true. When i started work as a graduate on under £12k in middle of 1998 (yes money was worth more back then but living in cambridge it was still a crap salary) even then, i still saved every penny I could, even if it meant only going out to the pub with friends once a month (and for many years i never went to the pub without having a hipflask in my pocket )

luckily most of my friends were in the same boat so we were all happy to buy beer from the off licence, or brew our own and sit out by the river in summer rather than actually spending lots of money.

my old housemate (i mentioned i rented out a room for a few years after my divorce so i could afford to keep my house), we got on really well but i never understood him. He ultimately ended up bankrupt but was never without designer clothes and happily spent £2k on a plasma TV (on the drip as well so would have cost him more than that) because the 28inch CRT which i supplied was not good enough for him.

where as i am the opposite. These days I can affford designer clothes if i want, but they all come from asda, tescos, or sainsburys. Sometimes Jacamo or such like.

I sometimes (ok its my wife not me ) watch those programs where people are struggling for money so people help show how they can save by making small changes. Obviously not everyone is like that but it boggles me how much money some people waste whilst claiming they cant afford to live!.

(bugger me i sound like 30p Lee, and i really dont mean to! on that tho, he wasnt *entirely* wrong imo)

 

[413x]

This is a valid point. I live quite stress free in that regard as our mortgage is only £500 a month and even that only has 50k left on it. If push come to shove I could just sell both my cars to raise capital to pay it off if for example something happened and life insurance didn't cover it. We could easily push for a bigger house as mortgage is finished mid 40's but 3 bed detached is more than enough especially when the kids all leave.

I have seen people at more senior levels earning 100k+ and really stretching themselves house wise ending up getting repo'ed because they couldn't find a job after losing theirs and it spiraling out of control. There are plenty of well paid jobs that are dead man's shoes but if you end up in the unfortunate position of say a redundancy it can be really hard to get back to a position that might have taken decades to get to.

I wonder how many people chase a bigger/more expensive house due to the expectation of capital gains.

By that I mean.. Would people be much more inclined to get what they need vs go for the maximum?

I wonder how much difference no capital gains would make

 

[Stu999]

where as i am the opposite. These days I can affford designer clothes if i want, but they all come from asda, tescos, or sainsburys. Sometimes Jacamo or such like.

I used to like designer gear when I was younger (and wasn't paying ). I think back then it was appreciably better quality but nowadays everything has coalesced in the middle (or lower). I normally just get Next stuff (used to be Debenhams). Sometimes splash out for Tommy Hilfiger but I don't always like the style of their stuff.

 

[413x]

I used to like designer gear when I was younger (and wasn't paying ). I think back then it was appreciably better quality but nowadays everything has coalesced in the middle (or lower). I normally just get Next stuff (used to be Debenhams). Sometimes splash out for Tommy Hilfiger but I don't always like the style of their stuff.

My outdoor wardrobe is order of magnitude larger than my indoors clothes!

 

[bigmike20vt]

My outdoor wardrobe is order of magnitude larger than my indoors clothes!

i think the single most expensive clothing item i have ever bought was a barbour coat.............. and that wasnt even for me, it was for my dads birthday present!.

 

[413x]

i think the single most expensive clothing item i have ever bought was a barbour coat.............. and that wasnt even for me, it was for my dads birthday present!.

I spend more time in my outdoor stuff than anything regarding "going out".

Especially rain jackets.

 

[Stu999]

My outdoor wardrobe is order of magnitude larger than my indoors clothes!

Outdoor stuff can be mega expensive depending on what it is.

 

[413x]

Outdoor stuff can be mega expensive depending on what it is.

Yeah just a good reason jacket is 200-600.depending on your definition of good and where it crosses into brand premium