Tax in UK

danlightbulb said:
Easy.

www.gov.uk

Table 3.1a Percentile points from 1 to 99 for total income before and after tax

This table shows the percentile points of the income distribution, estimated from the Survey of Personal Incomes each year.
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk

£100k a year is in the top 3% of all working people.

So clearly 'high', relative to all working people.
Click to expand...
Does that say £100k is a high wage or does that say 5% of people receive that wage (ie it compares a range or unit with in the range of the distribution), it does not mean it is a high wage.
 
Last edited:
Mrwong said:
Does that say £100k is a high wage or does that say 5% of people receive that wage (ie it compares a range or unit), it does not mean it is a high wage.
Click to expand...
Well high is a relative term isn't it, clearly. So it is high, relative to other earners. You can infer that quite safely, and to argue that it isn't high is quite stupid.
 
Last edited:
Murf said:
What data do you have that says it is not a high wage? And what metric are you applying to that data?
Click to expand...
It's not just about data it's about your situation. If you compare to others it's not really fair as everyone has different perspectives. So on paper and compared to the average wage it is high but personal circumstances don't necessarily mean you're well off.
 
Freefaller said:
It's not just about data it's about your situation. If you compare to others it's not really fair as everyone has different perspectives. So on paper and compared to the average wage it is high but personal circumstances don't necessarily mean you're well off.
Click to expand...
Ah that is a completely different question though isn't it.

If someone is earning £100k a year and isn't very well off, then something has likely happened to them in the past to make it that way. Maybe their fault, maybe not.

I would imagine there is quite a strong correlation between earning £100k and being fairly well off, so you would be quite an outlier if that were not the case.
 
Last edited:
danlightbulb said:
Well high is a relative term isn't it, clearly. So it is high, relative to other earners. You can infer that quite safely, and to argue that it isn't high is quite stupid.
Click to expand...
It compares metrics within a range it, as people have quite rightly pointed out 100k is not a high wage when you take into account living costs. This has been the argument all along. The percentile just says x amount of people are in x percentile, that it, it does not say it is a high wage. It does not say 100k is a high wage for our economy etc..
 
£100k is a relatively high UK wage by any reasonable measure.

Whether that affords you a decent quality of life depends on your needs, wants and life choices.
 
Mrwong said:
It compares metrics within a range it, as people have quite rightly pointed out 100k is not a high wage when you take into account living costs. This has been the argument all along. The percentile just says x amount of people are in x percentile, that it, it does not say it is a high wage. It does not say 100k is a high wage for our economy etc..
Click to expand...
If you fix living costs at say the level of someone earning median wage, then clearly earning £100k is high with those same living costs.

You can't change multiple goalposts at the same time.
 
danlightbulb said:
If you fix living costs at say the level of someone earning median wage, then clearly earning £100k is high with those same living costs.

You can't change multiple goalposts at the same time.
Click to expand...
Living costs are not fixed are they, living costs are much lower up north than south.
The cost in rent is double in London than Manchester. 100k up north may be a big wage, in London it is not a big wage.
 
Last edited:
Mrwong said:
Does that say £100k is a high wage or does that say 5% of people receive that wage (ie it compares a range or unit with in the range of the distribution), it does not mean it is a high wage.
Click to expand...
Are Everest and K2 high mountains?
 
Mrwong said:
Living costs are not fixed are they, living costs are much lower up north than south.
The cost in rent is double in London than Manchester. 100k up north may be a big wage, in London it is not a big wage.
Click to expand...
There are lots of people in London not earning anywhere near £100k. So £100k is still a high wage relative to those people. I don't know if a regional breakdown exists of the income percentiles, it would be interesting to see where £100k falls if you look only at salaries in London. Maybe it would be 80th percentile there instead of 97th percentile. If it was 80th percentile, clearly that is still 'high'.
 
Mrwong said:
Does that say £100k is a high wage or does that say 5% of people receive that wage (ie it compares a range or unit with in the range of the distribution), it does not mean it is a high wage.
Click to expand...
of course it does!.
relative to the average working person in the uk £100k is an incredibly high wage and even compared to the average working person in london its still a damn good chunk of change. Sure if you want to benchmark against Elon musk its a pittance but if that is how you benchmark your salary i would say that is rishi sunak levels of not understanding the life of the average working person in the uk.

There are loads of properties in the commuter belt of london as well, so its not like you have to buy a house in Nottinghill (Royston has a line to london and prices there are more more sensible - tho not cheap, more than enough for a 100k salary to get you on the ladder even as a singleton (and as a working couple with say 1 on 100k and lets say 1 on 40k............................. you are looking at a 4bed+ no problem)

having a high wage does not mean being utterly loaded. simply being able to cover your bills and not worrying about "sensible" spending as well as putting a little aside for a rainy day puts you in a better position than most in the uk... (and we are still just about considered a fairly affluent country)

BTW i live just outside of cambridge and my salary is less than half of that, and i still consider myself fortunate and am able to afford a nice car, and have luxury items like solar and battery etc..... I have to save for them for sure........ but i dont think not having everything available to me without having to think about it is a good yard stick for am i in a fortunate financial position or not.

(my wife works as well........ but we have a child and he does not go without anything he needs - and tbh gets more of what he wants than he probably should (way WAY more than i ever got) . Personally i do not believe a single persons salary should necersarily be expected to be good enough to cover yourself and your child AND you partner in luxury....... imo the days of a worker and a housewife are generally long gone. we all need to work and equally all need to pull our weight around the home and with child care.
 
Last edited:
200sols said:
Everest and K2 would be the billionaires if we are equating mountain height to wealth though. 100k is probably around Ben Nevis level.
Click to expand...
This is what I am trying to get to.

£1000 lost

min wage worker, London living worker, average national worker, average London worker, 50k worker, 100k worker , millionaire, multimillionaire, billionaire.
What impact would losing £1000 have on each person.
 
bigmike20vt said:
of course it does!.
relative to the average working person in the uk £100k is an incredibly high wage. Sure if you want to benchmark against Elon musk its a pittance but if that is how you benchmark your salary i would say that is rishi sunak levels of not understanding the life of the average working person in the uk

having a high wage does not mean being utterly loaded. simply being able to cover your bills and not worrying about "sensible" spending as well as putting a little aside for a rainy day puts you in a better position than most in the uk... (and we are still just about considered a fairly affluent country)
Click to expand...
it is a high wage but not incredible high. I posted average wages in Manchester and London v rents and disposable income.
The London worker had 6K less in savings, even having a higher wage, in his eyes it not a high wage. The worker from ,Manchester says the worker from London has a high wage and the distribution would suggest the London worker is in a higher value group.

34k for Manchester worker,39K London worker , we have scale 0 - 100 based on 0 to 39k, the London worker would be in the top 1 %, yet has less disposal income than someone from Manchester.
 
Last edited:
Mrwong said:
it is a high wage but not incredible high. I posted average wages in Manchester and London v rents and disposable income.
The London worker had 6K less in savings, even having a higher wage, so in his eyes it not a high wage.
Click to expand...
i will grant you the cost of living is more in london and perhaps the london weighting does not cover it all....... i could not afford to live in london on my salary (if i wanted to own a property).

but if i had 100k i am certain i could make it work - even if like i said it meant buying a pad on the outskirts like Royston. Everyone i know with over 100K salaries (3 of top of head but there may be more its not like we willywave our money when meeting up) all have swimming pools and plots of land big enough for tennis courts, if that isnt decadent i am not sure what is!.
 
Last edited:

.
bigmike20vt said:
i will grant you the cost of living is more in london and perhaps the london weighting does not cover it all....... i could not afford to live in london on my salary (if i wanted to own a property).

but if i had 100k i am certain i could make it work - even if like i said it meant buying a pad on the outskirts like Royston. Everyone i know with over 100K salaries (3 of top of head but there may be more its not like we willywave our money when meeting up) all have swimming pools and plots of land big enough for tennis courts, if that isnt decadent i am not sure what is!.
Click to expand...
£100,000 income.
£67,049.68 after tax
£9600 just to travel into London.
Leaves you with £57400,
£1600 rent leaves you with £38,200.
it is better off than most, but not life changing.
 
Last edited:
A lot of people look up to "6 figures" and have discussed the almost sense of pride to reach such a figure.

100k is not easy to get and the reason for that is because it is so high
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom