Tax in UK

[Freefaller]

Plenty of people (myself included) do all of those things on a wage much less than £100k though... if you need £100k to achieve comfort, you're doing something wrong/living beyond your means/made poor life choices/etc.

Indeed some people are bad at managing their finances and chase higher salaries to try and fix their problems.

We've all been on low salaries at some point in our lives with a mountain of debt whilst still trying to live a reasonable lifestyle.

 

[Rai200]

Regardless, I wish you all the best in getting to this feverish 100k that you seek, and hope it provides you the comfort you hope it will.

I'm not sure where you got that from? I don't want, or need £100k a year. I enjoy my job that's never going to pay that much. I pay my way and have very little in the way of debt (hence my point about living above your means and immediate debts).

There is two clear distinctions here. You are saying £100k is life changing, yet people who have commented who (perhaps) take home in this range or even more commenting are saying this is actually not the case.

Do you not think that the top 3-4% live a different lifestyle than the bottom 50%?

I'm somewhat reminded of that Question Time episode with the Northern bloke on 85K a year, who had no ****ing clue he was in the top 5% of earners. He thought everyone lived the same lifestyle as him.

I would also snatch your hand off if someone said here is 100K over a yearly salary.

Well, then you're very short sighted or earning a lot closer to £100k than the average person.

 

[Kenai]

Would those taking home £100k and saying this is not a life changing amount of money equally argue it isn't life changing if their income were to drop to £25k pa?

 

[kai]

I'm not sure where you got that from? I don't want, or need £100k a year. I enjoy my job that's never going to pay that much. I pay my way and have very little in the way of debt (hence my point about living above your means and immediate debts).



Well, then you're very short sighted or earning a lot closer to £100k than the average person.

Yet you disregard my entire first paragraph that people saying £100k fixes everything and it’s life changing. Yet higher earners have said completely the opposite.

I would personally edge my bet on taking the advice of someone who is actually in that position and not picking this magic 100k life changing figure.

 

[Freefaller]

Would those taking home £100k and saying this is not a life changing amount of money equally argue it isn't life changing if their income were to drop to £25k pa?

different situation... as you've built a life based around an increasing salary, i.e. taken out a bigger mortgage for a larger property (perhaps), or using 2 cars instead of 1... subscribed kids to sports clubs and hobbies etc...

But yes it would be life changing especially for those who don't have another property to sell to release equity... you'd have to downsize your house to release equity and get a new home etc...

However this is all based on 1 person earning 100k... As I've said before, you need to look at this as a household income, i.e. what is brought into the home as a whole, and what you're left with after all bills are paid.

Most people at or close to the 100k mark generally have families or at least partners, so we should be looking at this in a far more broad perspective.

 

[throwaway4372]

Would those taking home £100k and saying this is not a life changing amount of money equally argue it isn't life changing if their income were to drop to £25k pa?

Remember this thread is about whether it's a high enough amount to justify paying extra tax. Not about whether it makes life easier, which it obviously does.

 

[Rai200]

Yet you disregard my entire first paragraph that people saying £100k fixes everything and it’s life changing. Yet higher earners have said completely the opposite.

I would personally edge my bet on taking the advice of someone who is actually in that position and not picking this magic 100k life changing figure.

I didn't disregard it, I addressed it in an edit. Also 100k isn't a magic figure, it's just the point where the 60% tax rate (and the bitching) kicks in. £90k, £110k... same difference.

different situation... as you've built a life based around an increasing salary, i.e. taken out a bigger mortgage for a larger property (perhaps), or using 2 cars instead of 1... subscribed kids to sports clubs and hobbies etc...

So they would have to change their lifestyle to account for it? Seems pretty life changing

However this is all based on 1 person earning 100k... As I've said before, you need to look at this as a household income, i.e. what is brought into the home as a whole, and what you're left with after all bills are paid.

Which was the initial point of £5.2k a month. It assumed a single earner, two people on 50k each would be £6,330 a month. And the high tax rate wouldn't affect them, as we were never talking about household income but those hitting the 60% rate.

 

[Freefaller]

I'm not sure where you got that from? I don't want, or need £100k a year. I enjoy my job that's never going to pay that much. I pay my way and have very little in the way of debt (hence my point about living above your means and immediate debts).

Good - chasing money isn't worthwhile, a good work/life balance is far more important. As long as you're happy, content and you're not struggling that's all one can ask for, I am (I don't mean this in anything other than a genuine way) very pleased that you have that mentality towards work/life.

I just happened to have fallen into my line of work where the salaries are a little higher. Honestly, it's become a bit of a trap as now I don't want to earn less, but to earn more I have to take even more senior roles (already quite senior as it is) and I really don't want the responsibility. Which is why I'm more interested in the benefits packages, such as healthcare, pension contributions, working hours, holidays rather than salary alone.

 

[Freefaller]

I didn't disregard it, I addressed it in an edit. Also 100k isn't a magic figure, it's just the point where the 60% tax rate (and the bitching) kicks in. £90k, £110k... same difference.

So they would have to change their lifestyle to account for it? Seems pretty life changing


Which was the initial point of £5.2k a month. It assumed a single earner, two people on 50k each would be £6,330 a month. And the high tax rate wouldn't affect them, as we were never talking about household income but those hitting the 60% rate.

2 people on 50k bring home more money than 1 person on 100k - over £700 more. Plus you get all the child support etc... so it does make a difference, and the thread is about whether it was worth leaving the country because of tax at 100k - the answer is no, unless it's a commensurate package and the tax situation in Oz is better.

Now, if I were single, with no liabilities, I'd be 100% with you and genuinely would be living the life of riley - but with more earnings, come more responsibility, let alone professional stresses!

However that's a different topic.

As I said to you before - your perspective is valid, but it isn't unilaterally the only one that can exist.

 

[Kenai]

different situation... as you've built a life based around an increasing salary, i.e. taken out a bigger mortgage for a larger property (perhaps), or using 2 cars instead of 1... subscribed kids to sports clubs and hobbies etc...

But yes it would be life changing especially for those who don't have another property to sell to release equity... you'd have to downsize your house to release equity and get a new home etc...

However this is all based on 1 person earning 100k... As I've said before, you need to look at this as a household income, i.e. what is brought into the home as a whole, and what you're left with after all bills are paid.

Most people at or close to the 100k mark generally have families or at least partners, so we should be looking at this in a far more broad perspective.

The point was to consider that if the reverse would be considered life changing for someone already on the £100k due to everything they'd have to give up, you might be able to see why there is the perception from an average earner that such a salary is in fact life changing.

Whether you've built that life already or are someone imagining being able to build such a life, I find it hard to argue it's not life changing with a straight face.

 

[kai]

Remember this thread is about whether it's a high enough amount to justify paying extra tax. Not about whether it makes life easier, which it obviously does.

In answer to this question, no.

5 years ago potentially it would have been a yes but as inflation and salaries have increased the brackets should have altered a lot more to reflect the changes.

 

[Freefaller]

The point was to consider that if the reverse would be considered life changing for someone already on the £100k due to everything they'd have to give up, you might be able to see why there is the perception from an average earner that such a salary is in fact life changing.

Whether you've built that life already or are someone imagining being able to build such a life, I find it hard to argue it's not life changing with a straight face.

But these things take time, and because the time is often several years, you don't suddenly think "holy **** I'm rich" - because you won't be "rich", you'll be living a life where you shouldn't be worrying about bills, and possibly be able to take 1-2 holidays a year. So yes pretty decent compared to many, but similarly when I was single living in a house share in London on less than 30k a year, I still was able to clear my debts, travel, and survive and save - had I been given that salary as a young 20 something god knows what I'd have done with it.

My point is it takes time to build the life with tapering increase in income, it's not like winning the lottery. Yes dropping to 25k the frivolous spending would stop as would a lot of the luxuries...

Now if I'm talking about my personal experiences, no I don't struggle to pay the bills, I go on multiple holidays a year, and I don't have any debts other than a mortgage and a CC that gets paid off quickly. The excess I plough into my pension and into my children's accounts. However that's no different to a lot of people here who are on a breadth of salaries. It's just about perspectives and priorities. I also do extra work (NED) to give extra pocket money, and my wife has gone back to work after nearly 7 years of not working - albeit not earning a lot but it covers her bills and her hobbies. As an individual I may be a top earner, as an average 2.4 children family, my relative "wealth" is reduced as you share it across the family.

 

[Kenai]

But these things take time, and because the time is often several years, you don't suddenly think "holy **** I'm rich" - because you won't be "rich", you'll be living a life where you shouldn't be worrying about bills, and possibly be able to take 1-2 holidays a year. So yes pretty decent compared to many, but similarly when I was single living in a house share in London on less than 30k a year, I still was able to clear my debts, travel, and survive and save - had I been given that salary as a young 20 something god knows what I'd have done with it.

My point is it takes time to build the life with tapering increase in income, it's not like winning the lottery. Yes dropping to 25k the frivolous spending would stop as would a lot of the luxuries...

Now if I'm talking about my personal experiences, no I don't struggle to pay the bills, I go on multiple holidays a year, and I don't have any debts other than a credit card. The excess I plough into my pension and into my children's accounts. However that's no different to a lot of people here who are on a breadth of salaries. It's just about perspectives and priorities. I also do extra work (NED) to give extra pocket money, and my wife has gone back to work after nearly 7 years of not working - albeit not earning a lot but it covers her bills and her hobbies. As an individual I may be a top earner, as an average 2.4 children family, my relative "wealth" is reduced as you share it across the family.

Just because it happens slowly enough that you didn't notice the change, doesn't mean the amount isn't life changing imo. By that logic, no salary is life changing if you reach it incrementally, only a gigantic lottery win style increase would count.

I do wonder if some of the view that it's not life changing comes from that length of time you talk about and the decreasing visibility of just how much better you have things than the average earner.

 

[Rai200]

Now if I'm talking about my personal experiences, no I don't struggle to pay the bills, I go on multiple holidays a year, and I don't have any debts other than a mortgage and a CC that gets paid off quickly.

The thing is, that makes you rich in the eyes of a large amount of people. And I imagine it's because you've reached this point over a long time, small, incremental changes that you don't really notice.

But, ask someone on an average wage down here and owning a home is life changing, having multiple holidays per year is life changing, not having to choose between which bill you pay is life changing, being able to afford to have kids is life changing, having excess at the end of the month for savings, pension etc? Life changing.

Your life has changed as you've earned more, and £100k would be life changing for a whole lot of people. I'm sure you can understand people saying £100k isn't rich, isn't that much etc. is insulting to the 88% of people that earn less than half of that?

 

[Freefaller]

It's just life though right? You pick and choose your battles until you know how to fight them all... it's over 2 dozen years in the making! Even if on half the salary I'd be in a similar position but it may have just taken a bit longer.

 

[aspiring]

Yet you disregard my entire first paragraph that people saying £100k fixes everything and it’s life changing. Yet higher earners have said completely the opposite.

I would personally edge my bet on taking the advice of someone who is actually in that position and not picking this magic 100k life changing figure.

So what is a good salary in the UK then?

 

[aspiring]

The thing is, that makes you rich in the eyes of a large amount of people. And I imagine it's because you've reached this point over a long time, small, incremental changes that you don't really notice.

But, ask someone on an average wage down here and owning a home is life changing, having multiple holidays per year is life changing, not having to choose between which bill you pay is life changing, being able to afford to have kids is life changing, having excess at the end of the month for savings, pension etc? Life changing.

Your life has changed as you've earned more, and £100k would be life changing for a whole lot of people. I'm sure you can understand people saying £100k isn't rich, isn't that much etc. is insulting to the 88% of people that earn less than half of that?

To those who are saying 100k isn't that great, why is half of the population on strike?

Rail drivers get 60k and say not enough
Teaches and nurses on 30-50k and say not enough.

Highly qualified individuals would crave 100k

 

[Freefaller]

So what is a good salary in the UK then?

Anything that offers you the quality of life that aligns with your values / requirements, not an arbitrary number that just sounds impressive.

 

[EvilRob]

To those who are saying 100k isn't that great, why is half of the population on strike?

Rail drivers get 60k and say not enough
Teaches and nurses on 30-50k and say not enough.

Lol not sure if serious? If someone thinks 100k isn't that great then they would certainly say 60k isn't great too and maybe even support the strikes. What a dumb question.

 

[Freefaller]

To those who are saying 100k isn't that great, why is half of the population on strike?

Rail drivers get 60k and say not enough
Teaches and nurses on 30-50k and say not enough.

Highly qualified individuals would crave 100k

Many highly qualified individuals are on way more than 100k, many are on more than 50k. It's a sliding scale, not just a random number plucked out of the salary range.

Just because 5% of the population are on it doesn't mean that it's elite. There's over 1/3rd on more than 45k.

It's also geographical and situational. There's a bias for London based roles unfortunately but also the cost of living in London diminishes the earning power.

Earning 100k in a small village in the middle of nowhere further north is going to be absolutely a different story to someone earning 100k in the middle of London or home counties, as they invariably need to commute TO London so it artificially bumps up the price of everything in the home counties.

That's why a lot of people are happy to live in the countryside and suck up the 1.5+ hour commute so they can live a better quality of life other than the commute, and afford more.