all that to drive something thats on rails and no steering? lol
What is a good salary in UK at present?
- Thread starter aspiring
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,354
Then get automated out of a job within 10 years. Though perhaps not with the unions.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 13,323
- Location
- London
Automated trains, at least in London, still have drivers/attendants on board. 10 years is way too early for full automation and all the works involved in setting that up, let alone completely driverless trains.
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,719
- Location
- Auckland
Agreed. It's very easy to slip into comfort and quietly forget that things weren't always this way. One of the things we're mindful of is that our girls grow up understanding the value of money for good and bad. Just because you have it now doesn't mean it will always be there so reflection seems wise.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2013
- Posts
- 1,212
I stumbled upon the ONS earnings report for UK PAYE stats, and it's quite humble reading... https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentan...yasyouearnrealtimeinformationuk/september2023
My understanding of this (and would love education if I'm wrong):
Section 4 shows the median earnings for various splits, which suggests as of Sep '23:
50% of UK earners are below £27360
75% are below £42696
90% are below £65920
95% are below £87888
and 99% of all UK PAYE earn below £181248
This is based on PAYE info, so any income outside PAYE is obviously outside these numbers - which would arguably be more likely for higher earners.
It's based on 30.1 million employees UK-wide, so arguably skewed by London wages... Which suggests that these thresholds are actually lower outside London... (for ref London account for 4,318,000 out of the 30.1 million total - 14%)
So, on the face of it - do people that earn £43k really feel like they're in the top 25% of UK earners???
£65k and you're in the top 10%...
I thought it was quite a surprise...
My understanding of this (and would love education if I'm wrong):
Section 4 shows the median earnings for various splits, which suggests as of Sep '23:
50% of UK earners are below £27360
75% are below £42696
90% are below £65920
95% are below £87888
and 99% of all UK PAYE earn below £181248
This is based on PAYE info, so any income outside PAYE is obviously outside these numbers - which would arguably be more likely for higher earners.
It's based on 30.1 million employees UK-wide, so arguably skewed by London wages... Which suggests that these thresholds are actually lower outside London... (for ref London account for 4,318,000 out of the 30.1 million total - 14%)
So, on the face of it - do people that earn £43k really feel like they're in the top 25% of UK earners???
£65k and you're in the top 10%...
I thought it was quite a surprise...
These are always skewed lower than reality- lots of company owners(1 man bands) /contractors etc pay themselves the minimum in PAYE and take the majority in divs.
I've mentioned this before when people complain about the increased tax rate between 100k-125k. It affects barely anyone, and if it does affect you, you're doing more than alright. The median pay for London as per your link was £2,703 per month, or £32,436/y so not that much higher.
There's 3.1m sole proprietors, which represent 10% assuming they all go through PAYE at some point. Still means 40% (12,000,000 workers) earn less than £27,360.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 28,279
- Location
- Boston, Lincolnshire
Not necessarily. If you are on 125k but are the only bread winner it isn't that special. A couple who are both on 40k most likely have a similar lifestyle if not better.
We are a lot poorer than we used to be as a nation though which no one realises. America has huge inequality but still has bigger salaries than ourselves compared to 15 years ago. Our wage inequality means that although from a GDP perspective we look okay because of inequality we are most likely behind Germany, France etc for the average Joe by quite some margin.
There needs to be some drastic changes otherwise we will end up like Italy before too long.
Last edited:
There were stats kicking around that the average UK family will be worse off than the average Slovenian family by 2024 and the average Polish family by 2030. The bottom of society are already worse off than in those countries.
I dont really agree with the fist sentence TBH... £125k/year is a great salary (outside London). It would bring in £4k/month NET extra than the median pay (circa £6,300 vs £2,200) and is £1.5k/month more than the 2 x 40K salaries you mention. Sure, you can bring in anecdotal examples of childcare etc but we could go round and round with anecdotal examples all day.... £6,300 NET/month is a LOT of money and to say its "not special" is, IMHO, incorrect.
Agreed here
Not really going to happen with the current Government in control. But people can always increase their own incoming level, that's one advantage.
Very much so.
I feel super lucky on 55k here due to my modest outgoings.
900 a month (split between 2) mortgage
No car loan
WFH
Cheap electric/gas (until 2024)
Especially as I jumped from 27-55 in 4 years. It feels a lot.
I've been able to spend so much on holidays that I never could. And still save and hopefully buying a camper van outright next year. Never ever could do this in past.
Before I'd consider a holiday over 1k expensive. Now I'm thinking 3k is nice for an experience if it's worth it.i expect to spend 15k on a van and 6k on holidays next year - that'll come out of short term savings and CC load up. And I'm still saving even with that.
Edit. That's another thing. I can now get so much credit too. Another benefit that makes rich richer. You get more perks more you have.
This isn't even a lot by many peoples standards. Then I see the local fb group of people on minimum wage asking about social housing or food banks.
Its easy to take for granted what you have. Especially if you've been on that salary for a while.
Last edited:
Perhaps if you don’t have kids that might be true. As soon as you have kids, having a non-working partner saves you a tonne in childcare costs and means there’s someone who can look after the household finances more efficiently.
Agree with this from non kids side.
Wouldn't be able to afford half of what could with child care. Partner would have to not work. But her wage would be sucked up nearly entirely from what I gather from how expensive it is.
Losing an entire wage would be life changing. Plus the additional costs on top of that.
Then it would very much be better to be on 125 and 0. Than 55 and 30 (or 55 and 0 if not working) .
Last edited:
Agreed - I didnt pick up on the "only breadwinner" statement.
If you can walk away with over £6,000/month and have no childcare costs due to a parent staying at home then this is a HUGELY comfortable wage.
I guess this is yet more fuel to the demographic decline. The tax free allowance and costly child care makes having kids with 2 middle incomes a real shock.
You go from feeling really rich to not due to child care cost / losing a salary choice.
Its a shame it's so stark really. Child care shouldn't be so expensive.
One issue is having that sort of income means you miss out on a lot of stuff. You get no child benefit and no tax free childcare (a downgrade from childcare vouchers in that regard). Now you could argue if you have a partner not working then you don't need free childcare, but not everyone is in that position. My wife doesn't want to be a SAHM and give up her career for example. Not to mention wanting to avoid the annoying marginal tax rates £100-125k whereby you lose your personal allowance.
So you're 'forced' (from a tax efficiency perspective) into overpaying pension to bring down your earnings, but until this year that was limited to £40k max contributions per year (now £60k), so getting under the £50k threshold for full child benefit is unlikely.
The reality is that typical net take home income for people on this sort of income probably isn't as fabulous as some might expect - although clearly if you are in a position to overpay pension that will carry long-term benefits to offset your somewhat underwhelming paycheque.
Of course, not many tears will be shed for the top 5% of earners but I think with the way the tax system is structured I'd say £50k is a good salary to be on, due to the diminishing returns you get above that. I don't mean that higher salaries are not better, simply that e.g. a £125k salary isn't anywhere near 2.5x as good as a £50k one. Assuming no tax avoidance you pay over 4x as much in tax/NI and lose all your child benefit and tax free childcare.
So you're 'forced' (from a tax efficiency perspective) into overpaying pension to bring down your earnings, but until this year that was limited to £40k max contributions per year (now £60k), so getting under the £50k threshold for full child benefit is unlikely.
The reality is that typical net take home income for people on this sort of income probably isn't as fabulous as some might expect - although clearly if you are in a position to overpay pension that will carry long-term benefits to offset your somewhat underwhelming paycheque.
Of course, not many tears will be shed for the top 5% of earners but I think with the way the tax system is structured I'd say £50k is a good salary to be on, due to the diminishing returns you get above that. I don't mean that higher salaries are not better, simply that e.g. a £125k salary isn't anywhere near 2.5x as good as a £50k one. Assuming no tax avoidance you pay over 4x as much in tax/NI and lose all your child benefit and tax free childcare.
Last edited:
I have no real desire to go much above this.
That 40pc kicks in so you end up putting more into pension like you say.
But responsibility (for me) would shoot up too. I'd have to take on more senior responsibilities which comes with the expectation of working late etc. I do not want that.
Without changes to tax system there will be a lot of people who don't want more. Or want 4 day weeks. More time and under 50k? Great.
More and more people value time now. Unfortunately cost of living means many have to step that 50k range. But whipping away 40pc? Really puts a lot off going for more senior jobs.
Maybe that's just me and my peers though, and is too anecdotal
Caporegime
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 28,279
- Location
- Boston, Lincolnshire
Oh I agree that 125k is a fantastic salary. I was merely stating that two people on a normal combined salary of 80k would live a similar life to one person on a single high income due to tax etc. 2x incomes get the first 25k tax free and none of them pay 40% tax. When you look at it like that the 125k doesn't look so amazing. It's about a grand extra month or 12k a year. Yet the salary in isolation is 45k more before tax.
Last edited: