House Hold Income

[LondonMix]

Wondering, after a debate that got going in the family room, how many of you would be shocked to learn that an individual income of 45k probably puts you in the top 10% of earners in the UK?

Everyone talks of London being an exception but based on this government report, average HOUSEHOLD (not individual income) is only 900 per week and 60k household income makes you top 10% of households in the UK and top 17% of households in London...

Anyone richer than they thought?!

http://data.london.gov.uk/documents/FocusOnLondon2010-income-and-spending.pdf

[Jessie]

Nope, just as poor as I already knew

[zeban]

Ditto Jessie!

[Annette Curtain]

Asset rich/cash poor

(as I often tell my accountant)

[MrBen]

Mitt Romney recently defined "middle income America" as households with gross income of $200,000 to $250,000. That's Republicans for you.

[Ridgley]

Ditto Zeban

[Loz]

That's why I laugh when I read the comments in the Guardian proclaiming, "WE MUST TAX THE RICH MORE!!". Chances are, most Guardian readers ARE the rich...

[Huguenot]

Guardian readers on average earn ?30,500 per year compared to the UK average of ?21,000 and are twice as likely as the average UK adult to earn ?40,000 or more.

[RosieH]

That's coz we're all dead clever, innit?

[zeban]

I'm a Guardian reader. I earn just over minimum wage.

[Burbage]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Everyone talks of London being an exception but

> based on this government report, average HOUSEHOLD

> (not individual income) is only 900 per week and

> 60k household income makes you top 10% of

> households in the UK and top 17% of households in

> London...

"Only" ?900 per week? That's the problem with averages - because there's a well-defined minimum income (?0), but no maximum, averages give an unrealistically generous impression, especially in London. As the document says "The difference between the mean and median measure of individual income in London was more than ?15,000", which is quite a lot. Or, if my sums are right*, 70% of households in London earn less than the average.

It's also worth noting that most of the data comes from HMRC data, which reports only on taxpayers. Those who have been 'taken out of tax' are as hidden here as anywhere (except in Chart 2 which does include benefit income and seems to cover around 3m households, which seems about right), and that's going to further inflate the averages given.

Of the taxpaying homes, they state that 24% bring in less than ?300 per week (?15.6k), or less than a third of the average. That's a bit more than minimum wage, and about what the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reckon's a reasonable living wage (though not necessarily in London) for an individual.

This isn't good, and it's clearly not getting better, especially given these numbers exclude non-taxpayers who (despite the Guardian, are more likely to be poor than rich). I'd guess one of the key reasons for the situation is the changing nature of employment. The shockingly small incomes from 'self employment' might reflect back-bedroom hobbies and the under-reporting of cash-in-hand trade, but it's as likely to be because the lowest paid workers - cleaners, security guards, carers etc - are increasingly being taken on a self-employed or casual basis, leaving the burdens of national insurance, sick pay, pension contributions etc. to the worker.

It's a common argument that large employers are, in this way, forcing the taxpayer to subsidise their businesses, and there's some truth to that. Except that we're a long way from the effects being felt by the state. It's only much later, when illness, redundancy (without redundancy pay) or the non-existent pension, kick in, that the state will be left holding the pieces. In the meantime, it's the worker, whose real-terms income has been slowly and invisibly cut by 20% or more, who has to cope. Which is possibly why those in the 70% aren't so easily impressed by public-sector whinges about pay freezes, despite the best efforts of the Guardian's interns.

The trouble is that only politicians can solve this, and it's politicians that won't. They don't want to upset businesses, and they don't want to be seen to be spending more. So they find ways to blame the previous administration or kick the issue into the next one and, in the meantime, talk about 'change' and 'vision' and 'fairness' while doing stuff all about it. OK, not entirely stuff-all. But when giving people the 'right' to request 'flexible hours' from their boss without being sacked for their temerity turns out to be the best** a "Labour" government could do in thirteen years, it would take a certifiable sort of optimist to hold out any hope.

*As the data behind the Paycheck-derived barchart isn't freely available, I rescaled and measured the bars to get these figures, using the 'two in five households in London had an annual income between ?15,000 and ?35,000' line for the percentage conversion. As I am old and slapdash, they might be out by a tiny bit.

**The Agency Workers Directive might, conceivably, improve the lives of some. But it's too early to say yet and I, personally, doubt it'll do anything but shift even more workers off the books.

Disclaimer: My choice of Saturday-night activity is no reflection of either my income or my prospects.

 

[????]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Guardian readers on average earn ?30,500 per year

> compared to the UK average of ?21,000 and are

> twice as likely as the average UK adult to earn

> ?40,000 or more.

MIddle Class guilt RIGHT THERE

[Marmora Man]

And for a wider comparison:

?21,000 annual salary would put you in the top 3.5% of world earners.

?45,000 annual salary would put you in the top 0.77% of world earners.

Anything over ?100,000 means you earn more than 99.9% of the world.

[LondonMix]

I've got no guilt as I worked hard to get where I am and don't come from a wealthy background. Still, based on some comments on the forum some of the middle class in Dulwich seem to be confused and think "middle class" means average. Just wanted to provide a bit of a reality check as there are lots of threads discussing the various government cuts at the moment. Some forumites are "outraged" that their nannies will be limited to only 1 session of Sure Start a week so the program can better reach its target audience. Some are even threatening to commit tax fraud to keep their child benefit!

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Huguenot Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Guardian readers on average earn ?30,500 per

> year

> > compared to the UK average of ?21,000 and are

> > twice as likely as the average UK adult to earn

> > ?40,000 or more.

>

> MIddle Class guilt RIGHT THERE

[Huguenot]

Where was that comment about outrage over the nanny's sure start?

I WANT to read that thread!

[BrandNewGuy]

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?29,960124,page=1

Extraordinary expectations of entitlement...

[LondonMix]

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?29,967696

This is one regarding child benefit.

[Otta]

Once and for all, middle class and working class DO NOT EXIST ANYMORE!!!!!

And if they do, it's about your world view, not your income.

[Huguenot]

Absolutely extraordinary BNG. My eyes are opened.

[Loz]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?2

> 9,960124,page=1

>

> Extraordinary expectations of entitlement...

I haven't laughed so much at a thread for ages. Then I realised they were actually being serious...

[LadyDeliah]

That's pretty disgusting.

Why don't they demand a slice of single parents' benefits while they are at it, after all their taxes pay for it!

I am totally gobsmacked that these women can't see why underprivileged kids should be prioritised and why nannies trained in child care don't need the services as much as some poor girl bringing up a baby on her own.

Shame on you selfish, self-absorbed and greedy women.

[Mick Mac]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Once and for all, middle class and working class

> DO NOT EXIST ANYMORE!!!!!

>

> And if they do, it's about your world view, not

> your income.

Surely wealth created the original class system and income and class remain interlinked today.

[Otta]

Linked perhaps, but my point is that traditional working / middle class is outdated, and far too simplistic these days.