Is £90,000 a year a middle class income?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- When being interviewed on the radio, I was told by the broadcaster that £90,000 was only ‘middle-class income’ and not enough for MPs. She was, very clearly, out of touch with reality.
#uk #money #economy #politics #government #tax #labour #starmer #keirstarmer
ABOUT RICHARD MURPHY
Richard Murphy is Professor of Accounting Practice at Sheffield University Management School. He is director of Tax Research LLP and the author of the Funding the Future blog. His best known book is ‘The Joy of Tax’.
This video was edited by Thomas Murphy.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT THE WORK WE DO, PLEASE CONSIDER DONATING:
ko-fi.com/taxr...
RICHARD MURPHY ON TWITTER
Follow Richard on his Twitter: RichardJMurphy or on his blog: www.taxresearch...
HIT SUBSCRIBE & GET NOTIFICATIONS
Subscribe and get notified of new videos released.
INTRODUCTION: • Welcome to my channel ...
PLAYLISTS:
Accountancy: • Accounting
Economics: • Economics
Tax: • Tax
Taxing Wealth Report: • Taxing Wealth Report 2024
Green New Deal: • Green New Deal
Money: • Money
Questions from subscribers: • Questions
Miscellaneous: • Miscellaneous
#richardmurphy #richardjmurphy #economy #economics #accountancy #accounting #tax #uktax #ukeconomy #greennewdeal
Interesting how the MP's were awarded a 5.5% pay rise by an 'indepent review body' and they are just fine with that. Another group,.offered the same amount, are being gas lit by the government and attacked by the public over it. This other groups have seen their pay lag significantly behind inflation, whilst the MP's routinely receive above inflation pay increases. Odd that.
And an MP's gross salary isn't comparable to the average person, given the freebies they receive and what they can claim to cover their expenses. And they can double-dip by taking second jobs where they sell the promise of political influence and inside access. It's a racket.
@@machidaman one rule........
Yes. The MPs have been getting regular pay rises for years! (Ever since they got exposed over the "expenses scandal". And they still get tons of expenses anyway!)
@@mattmckeon1688💯💯
And the bottom percentile of less than £15,000p/a for a household? They are really scraping the bottom of the barrel!
My wife is a care worker and society thinks its worth being in the bottom 10%.
The book Bullshit Jobs by the late David Graeber explained how the jobs most useful to society were often low paid. So much for the free market.
And we all know that care work (not always but a lot of the time) can be one of the hardest type of job anyone can do.
@@davidmcculloch8490There isn't a free market, we have minimum wage.
You want people to be paid less than that? F you.@@ltmund
I would never call myself middle class. I’ll always be working class.
Middle class is a capitalist invention to divide us. There's 2 classes people who work for a living, the working class, and the people who own everything and don't have to work.
To say that you can't live on £90k a year, even in London, is absolutely ridiculous. Indeed, it could be argued that £90k is an upper middle class income, let alone just middle class.
I'm disabled and in poverty. I can't even imagine that amount of money.
Same and i really wish they would make the assessments fairer
No jobs available?
@@MCDONALD6969she did say she was disabled.
@@michaelfourie345 I understood that. I just wondered whether there may have been a work from home role that may have been suitable. If I was stuck at home I would want some sort of job to occupy my mind.
@@MCDONALD6969 youre one of those who think that sort of quip is smart? I worked as I was suffering from a progressively disabling disease. I had to stop working eventually. I got £8k in non means tested disability benefits. Youre so dumb you think youre smart.
I don't mind MPs getting a higher salary, provided that a) they earn it and b) don't have any side hustles. Unfortunately, far too many wrong 'uns among top decile earners have been exposed in Private Eye.
Well, quite a few of them are being exposed in the media now, albeit the mainstream media is playing it down.
there should be a second job ban and they should have to put their shares in trust for the duration of their term in office.
We are a retired couple, she a mid-wife, me an industrial electrician, we were in the 9th decile. We're working class
These are household figures too. If you are a single adult in one of the bottom groups life is practically impossible in this country.
They should rename parliament super market sweep.
Thanks Professor Murphy.
Yes £91k per annum is a good salary, granted living in London/south East means that 91k per annum goes far less than in other parts of Britain. But your point is well made £91k is a high salary by any means that you care to measure it by.
I just love your free wheeling and honest explanations which always are "SPOT ON" well I agree with them! Keep it up!
The less money one gives MPs the better the quality of MP. Make second jobs illegal, make Lobbying in government illegal. Make the ‘independent’ org assessing pay for MPs truly independent and democratically elected.
I am disabled and signed off from my job at the moment, today I am having to spend food money on a taxi to go for a work coach appointment (I am signed off sick and have a job already). Clare Foges has no clue how some of us have to live
Just as an idea, have a look at taxi card, it gives cheaper taxi journeys based on your pip assessment
Let’s not forget all the expenses they can claim as well. It’s not forget that cars, drivers housing food trips
💯💯 Plus everything inside the HoC is subsidised!
I've been below 30k for most of my 37 years of life.
Very few ethnic minorities are anywhere near that money, let alone working class native British people.
it's a bloody fortune mate...
Not to some reporters and commentators, hence bias of the media
@@fylbike their bias is probably less to do with their personal income and more to do with the income of their paymasters and whatever narrative they wish to present.
£90k seriously isn't that much especially in London or the south east
@@MCDONALD6969 yes it is statistically it is a very good salary still comfortably in the top ten percent if one then goes on to add the generous travel accommodation and other expenses this is a top level salary. If this is considered insufficient to experience a reasonable standard of living what does one consider the lives of the other 90% to be?
@@philipnorthfield a "reasonable standard" can mean many different things to many different people. Also good jobs are available & i always ask myself how much are people putting into advancing their careers or being business minded to give them a better quality of life. Also some people may be happy on the minimum wage & don't aspire for anything more.
I once heard an informed commentator on radio 4 who had run the stats of MPs salaries against what they HAD earned before they became MPs, as once they've been in power for a while they start saying "I'm not paid enough". Apparently over 65% of them would be earning a lot less if they went back to their original jobs!
I live up north. It’s a sea of minimum wage jobs with the odd better paid one here and there so even the £35k average is more than most people make.
Well the saying, that price and quality go hand-in-hand; doesn't seem to the the norm, when it comes to politicians!!
I don't need to praise the consistently excellent and thought-provoking content!
I loved the picture of Cromwells Castle in the Isles of Scilly from the beautiful island of Bryher ♥️
Everyone knows this is 90k is top 5%. Average income about £32k.
It's really not that much in London or the south east
@@neilsmith154 to me median is still working class & to be middle class means to be relatively well to do.
@@DavidByrne85 That’s what sticks with me sometimes. From what I understand, traditionally, the middle class could include lower levels of aristocracy, new money or even high paid professionals or successful artists/singers and things like that. Very comfortable, not disgustingly wealthy compared to the very top but still rich by the vast majority of most of the population’s wealth.
But I think we have reordered the term to literally mean the middle between everyone now.
@@MCDONALD6969you keep saying this even though it is a statistical fact. Here’s a hint nobody here is going to say it’s ok for you to not pay your tax.
@@Redf322 who said anything about not paying tax?
The middle class has been destroyed
Financial education is what we need right now for more than 70% of the society in the country as very few are literate on the subject. Thanks to Stacey Macken, the woman that changed my financial life.
Honestly, I'm surprised that this mrs Stacey Macken is mentioned here, came across a testimony about her from one of the beneficiaries on the CNBC news, she seems to be doing extremely well .
That woman has changed my life for good. I attended her investment class couple of weeks and she's the best when it comes for guidance
She understands every beginner's intention and fix you to a trading course that matches your capacity, she knows her stuff! Her advice has been invaluable to my trading journey. Definitely worth giving a shot
I agree with you.I was 35 when I finally educated myself and started taking steps. I went from $176,000 in debt with zero savings or retirement to now, 2 years later, fully debt-free and over $1000,000 net worth. I know that doesn't SOUND like a lot, but I'm incredibly proud of it. Now I'm fast-tracking my wealth building (investing $400,000 annually) and don't owe a dime to anyone. It's a good feeling!
Stacey Macken guided me through budgeting, highlighting areas where I could optimize spending and increase savings. She also provided insights into smart investments to grow my wealth over time, ensuring financial stability even with the higher income
It is not surprising given the total lack of understanding of statistics and mathematics demonstrated so clearly during the height of the pandemic. No wonder these "advisers and politicians" have had enough of experts!
90k is in the top 5% of UK income.
Very. Well explained. I wish MPs would take notice of your sound thinking. Best wishes. Al.
I broadly agree with this analysis, but I would seriously question the validity of allowing MP's a second home.This is a definite conflict of interest as they benefit from rising house prices and it increases the opportunity for excessive expense claims. It would be better for the State to provide that second home whilst an MP is in office and for the State to retain ownership of that home.
EDIT:-
Philip Northfield below has corrected me on the second home. I still think though that the State should provide those homes. There is great inconsistencies in expenses claimed still.
@@richardhale9664 the MPs expenses don't buy them a second home they allow an expenditure for them to rent one, if their constituency is outside London it is reasonable not to expect them to pay for such accommodation out of pocket and travel certainly for those further afield would be impractical.
The Government should build 1-2 blocks of flats (each unit being 2-bed) and every MP would get one allocated to them for the time they are in parliament. They should also get free utilities, but only up to a certain amount. Of course, if they did not like the arrangement they would not have to stand, or alternatively they could pay for their own accommodation. I'd also set a minimum age to stand (say, 35) to ensure that they had real-life experiences outside of the Westminster bubble. Intelligence tests would also be useful, as would maths tests to see if they can handle and discuss numerical data.
@@philipnorthfield I have just looked it up. Thank you for correcting me. I still think it would be better if the State provided that accommodation though.
@@richardhale9664 I personally wouldn't argue against that position.
@@jasonali4122can you imagine it? It would be a scandalous den of filth
I'd settle for a proper MP wage scale that starts lower and ramps up with experience. The pension is also too generous for those with shorter service. And MP's should not be allowed to be landlords because it gives them a perverse vested interest in housing policy.
Now check for London households where MPs spend most of their time
Keep telling it like it is
There are people who have studied hard and learned to do some amazing and very vital roles within our society and absolutely deserve to be rewarded well for the work they do. What is unacceptable is having people do jobs - that are clearly important or the jobs wouldn’t exist - that pay so little that the people doing them can barely afford to exist let alone have a decent quality of life.
What is communicated by that is “you are an unimportant member of society and do not matter” and if that’s the case why should people in that position even care about the society they are meant to be apart of.
£91k is not so much in the South East where family homes typically cost north of £400,000 starting prices. People on median incomes of £30-40k are poor in London / SE - cannot buy a home, probably weighed down with rent or shared ownership for their entire lives. A middle ranking clerical role in the City pays more than £91k.
I suspect all this leaking of freebies and client media talking up if they were paid more, there'd be less inclined to take freebies is putting out the feels fir upping the MP salaries to an even more disgusting amount.
Did not know that university professors earned so much.
So, if 90k is middle class? That puts working class where? Sounds to me like an inadvertent admission that too many UK jobs are too poorly paid to bother with. Yet, they wonder why millenials and younger are increasingly choosing mental health issues and benefits with free time over getting a job and having no free time.
Traditionally, in the U.K., class is not about income.
I find it hard to imagine living on 90,000, in the sense that I´ve never seen anything like that money in my life.
£90,000 should be a middle class income, but it sadly isn't and it's not even close.
I think you'd be better doing median earnings for London. It would still show the pay's clearly not middle class but would give people who disagree less opportunity to dismiss it.
Also.. had a flat mate in London, privately educated, who thought people weren't rich because they spent most of their money on private school fees, a nice car, a nice house and a second home somewhere nice! "Not much left after all that"
You missing the point. Westminster isn't attracting the best and the brightest. As a country we have suffered severely because our MPs are at best second rate induviduals with limited or no experience who spend their time playing the Westminster game, popping up on TV and backstabbing each other. No one has a plan fir improving the country.
Agreed. 100%
When has anyone that wants to help the majority ever voted into power? Those are the people we're told to hate!
Here are Three quotes by Nye Bevan:
How can wealth persuade poverty to use its political freedom to keep wealth in power? Here lies the whole art of tory politics.
--------------
Honest politics and Tory politics are contradiction's in terms.
Lying is a necessary part of a tory's political equiptment, for it is essential for him to conceal his political intentions from people. This is partly the reason for his success in keeping power. (Yep! The tories have taken over the Labour Party)
--------------
The right of the Labour party would rather see it fall into perpetual decline than abide by its democratic decisions.
(To late, Nye!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And a couple by Americans:
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing."
Malcolm X
--------------
If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.
Lyndon B. Johnson
@@rdh-daliasjb3796 the Tories help the majority. They offer aspirations
MPs are certainly paid enough imo. To the extent that second jobs should be banned. If they really do work for us, other sources of income or donations clearly risk a conflict of interest and should be banned. (With minor exceptions to maintain professional quakifications possibly allowed.)
Academics do quite well. I worked for a southern UK principal lecturer of accounting 14 years ago. He was on £70000 a year and he paid me a small fraction to lecture 480 Chinese students per class, in China of course. Could not get away with that in UK.
One day the govt will decide if it is looking an individuals ( how we are taxed) or households ( how benefits are paid).
Better to think of middle class costs and what income is needed to cover these costs and where the costs are 50% of net income.
In London £90K is a modest income if you want to have a life, holidays, family, etc and not just pay the bills. GPs tend to earn more than MPs and I bet as a senior academic you are not far off £90K yourself. Given the risk of corruption in public office I would say it is probably more important to pay MPs well than it is to pay doctors and academics. Human nature being what it is people are going to take advantage of being close to power. Better to have the state reward them genoruosly than vested interests doing so.
Distorted view from her because she probably works and lives in London. Your figures are for the whole of the UK
They are extremely well paid. It's a tough job with long anti social hours for many they are away from their families a lot. I don't begrudge them this salary, but I think their pay rises and pensions have been more generous than other public sector workers this is not a good luck. As for being out of touch this has been a real problem. The harsh cuts to our welfare state have been made by people who have never had to rely upon it and have rich families to help them out. We need more genuinely working class MPs and less Oxbridge educated MPs.
£90000 before tax/NI = £62000 after tax/NI = £1190.32 a week to live off...
Quite simply ,no. It is high end.
Well said. I'm always amused when MPs defend their second jobs and directorships on the basis that it keeps them in touch with the real world. As if mahogany-panelled boardrooms and business lunches were a feature of most people's lives. I think 90K is reasonable - provided they are no allowed to do second jobs. It puts them on a par with many professionals and compensates them for extra hours worked compared to the rest of us and for being away from home for long periods but it does at least mean that they have to be aware of bills and expenses just like everyone else.
are those percentiles pre-tax?
UK has such low wages, it's one of main reasons the economy struggles as there is no spare cash to buy things outside the necessary for many.
It’s interesting hearing this when various members in parliament deem approximately £1,000 PER MONTH is appropriate for pensioners - okay so there are other benefits. But it still does not add up to a hill of beans when someone could have been paid considerably more in their working life. And furthermore, is the governments way of lumping all pensioners into the corral of near-poverty. And I have no power to say anything to the chancellors of this world because I have no money. It wouldn’t do to have an uppity pensioner smacking down a chancellor, would it??
My MP has 6 posts and his combined income is near to 160k, yes he is a red MP but is he middle class?
It’s interesting hearing this when various members in parliament deem approximately £1,000 PER MONTH is appropriate for pensioners - okay so there are other benefits. But it still does not add up to a hill of beans when someone could have been paid considerably more in their working life. And furthermore, is the governments way of lumping all pensioners into the corral of near-poverty. And I have no power to say anything to the chancellors of this world because I have no money. It wouldn’t do to have an uppity pensioner smacking down a chancellor, would it??
oh dear, I am so poor 😓😢
Is the graph correct / complete? Firstly they’ve added quartiles at 25 and 75 and missed 50 completely. More importantly, if the ‘10’ column represents the median of the bottom 10% then the ‘90’ column represents the median of the 80-90 decile? Where is the tenth column - 90-100%?
Did the broadcaster mention the very generous pensions MPs receive, and payments when they leave office? To put things into perspective. In the UK, if you qualify for the new State Pension, then as a single person you are expected to survive on just £221.20 a week, or £11,502.40 per annum (2024). It's one of the lowest pensions in Europe. The standard Personal Allowance for UK tax purposes is £12,570. So, if you did the right thing, and, say, paid into an occupational pension, then any income above your Personal Allowance-which is just another £1067.60 above the state pension-will be taxed. How's that for a comparison, and how's that for fairness!
I think if you can earn around £60 000 between two people and if you're careful you can live comfortably.
and the rich get richer....and richer
I don't think 90k is an absolutely amazing salary in London. In the UK we are so used to shit salaries. I've got friends in Texas who have living costs 1/3rd of London earning 200k dollars in middle management positions in HVAC companies. Yet here 90k in the most expensive city in the world is considered not middle class I mean cummon! We need better wages across the board! I wouldn't want to live in London on less than 100 household income frankly. And basically any accountant, lawyer or doctor (all middle class jobs) should be able to make that
You probably need to look at London as this will massively change the stats...
Depends where you live, too. In Northern Ireland, if you make £35k a year you are comfortable. Two people on that and you are coining it. he average is £28k I believe.
In London, you're on the struggle bus with that sort of salary.
You missed out that on top of the £91k salary MP's claim for everyday living expenses plus free rail travel and free postage and a kick in the teeth for millions of people, the HoC and the HoL do not have to pay a TV licence ( Crown property )
As you work in Sheffield you will know that areas such as Walkley, Crookes, Manor and Parsons Cross for example are deprived areas and £21k pa is enough to live on.
Trying to live anywhere south of Watford Gap is almost impossible if you earn less than £80-£100k a year.
Earnings and salaries are relative.
I'd be fine with members of parliment being paid that if they for however long they're in that job every 4 year cycle they spend a minimum of 6 months preferably a year living and working as the lowest paid working class constituent from the areas they represent.
I also don't think they should be able to claim for things like a second home in London, there should be a tower block on the outskirts of London made available for them to rent and they have to use public transport to travel back and forth.
I'm more concerned about what someone is doing that makes them worth being paid £90k a year. I spent 45 years in the workplace, gave my best efforts to my employers, and earned around £25k on average for a job with responsibility and sometimes long hours. I hope I made a difference with the work I did - I certainly tried to.
Unequivocally NO
You can understand the comment that "I can't see how anyone can live on £90,000 per year" by assuming that poor people are not people and don't count.
Thanks for highlighting this Richard. I think in the UK, we have, over the past 40 years completely skewed the definition of "Middle Class". It seems to me that we have too many really wealthy people hiding out in that defined group, which means that any discussion around tax and redistribution is presented as an attack on the "Middle Class". This is a problem because most people like to define themselves as MC from a cultural POV, not too rich but not too poor either. IMHO I think we need a clear fiscal definition of "Middle Class" so we can go after the wealthy with a redistributive tax system.
So if this journalist thinks £90K is what most people earn or need to live how much does she think pensioners need with either no other income or a small occupational pension? Or full time carers for a family member? Such a lack of awareness or it seems interest.
I think MP income should be directly proportional to either the median or even the lowest incomes.
My reason is that I believe the UK's obscene level of inequality is almost entirely due to political failures of the last 45 years.
Raising MP pay to bring it closer to the elites they keep making richer is just incentivising more failure because when the rich get even richer as a result of their policies MP will argue for yet another above inflation pay rise.
Not saying MP should be on median or minimum wage but their salaries should be proportional.
and that salary is regardless of where their 'home' address is so, this could be many times that average.
Lower middle class 150000 middle class.
Yes because the majority of working class get to live off around 20k a year.
I found this very depressing for no apparent reason. And yet, not depressed by govt support for genoc!de or push to WW3, which I follow closely. Granted, after nearly a year without getting depressed or shedding a tear, I took time off witnessing the carnage on Telegram and spent the day bursting into tears every half hour, so not expecting much correlation between events and emotions. Also, impressed, but unmoved by new estimates of the nuclear war UK govt keeps trying to provoke: it will last 72 minutes and basically eradicate all life on Earth. But the question, "Is £90,000 a year a middle class income?" = no longer keen to live😹
I'd be interested to see how cost of living regionally differs. See what the ratio of HH income Vs cost of living is..... would this be a measure of affordability per percentile. I'd wager you need to be in a high percentile of income just to meet the cost of living.
In fairness if you want to live *in* london and own your own house (a perfictly resonable middle class aspiration), even with 90k that would be a struggle. anywhere else in the uk yeah 90k is loads. You would hope MPs would live in the constituencies they serve, but that seems to be rare unfortunatly
Class is not income, Richard. It's a social status, not a just an economic one. I would argue that what you're talking about here is individuals and households being "middle-income" (or not, as the case may be). Social class has to take into consideration such questions as: level of education, how you earn your money (whether you get your hands dirty at work), where you live, what you consume, how you spend your free time, what your social circle is, what your parents did for a living, how you speak. It can't be boiled down to a number.
Class is defined by who your labour makes money for.
They are aware how much it is ,in comparison with what other proffesionals get , there are crazy incomes ,that you can take out of it ,footballers ,successful actors etc, then the super rich .
That's the problem you've got politicians on around £90,000 a year mixing with the super rich etc , so they want a bigger slice of cake .
Where a lot of people are under £35,000 then it drops again to around £15,000 then benefits, whome just can't afford to survive at all on what they get .
And some having their incapacity stolen from the bent state by false assesments , which is worse than the post office scandal .
But £91k barely covers two kids school fees! 😂
Exactly!!! £90k isn't much at all. Especially in the south east
@@MCDONALD6969roger was being ironic. But that said so much about your attitude..
We need to stop this Americanisation of the UK and its terminology. Our class system doesn’t work like americas.
If you went it private school, you’re probably middle class. If you have to work to maintain your lifestyle (including keeping a roof over your head), regardless of your income, you’re working class.
Politicians are not worth the money because of their poor performance, but this is an inadequate analysis. Income before tax is an irrelevant figure. What counts is the net. How much of the £90k is returned to the government in tax and NI? At that level of pay, more than half of the gross labour costs are tax - the money is just going round in a loop. This applies to the entire public sector. It's nonsense on stilts. Professor Murphy needs to look at this.
that seems like a rich persons income honestly
90k per year , and that does not include everything they get subsidised or their expenses. Snouts in trough.
Its all semantics but yes i think a 90k household income is middle class (not to be confused with 'median!) It affords an 'upper end of normal' lifestyle: a nicer house, car, holiday than is usual but not the power or freedom which comes with true upper echelon wealth.
I think that could buy you a lot of freedom actually if you don't buy a mansion and buy a flat in a modest city
@@chibiarts9029 a good cushion of security, definitely. But within the context of a pretty normal middle class lifestyle.
As always with these type of issues it all depends on where you live. In north Northumberland £90k a year is a huge income that all but the most profligate could live on comfortably and buy a very nice house on. In large parts of London, £90k is hard to live on unless you are a single person living in a 1 bedroom flat which you probably rent because buying will be close to unaffordable if all you rely on is that salary.
So in north Northumberland £90k income is definitely way above middle class, whereas in large parts of London, £90k would be middle class.
That Richard does not even consider the possibility of regional differences says as much about his biases as it does about the journalist's biases
Yes: I'd say it was a pretty upper middle class income! But then again, it's not an upper class or a millionaire's income, because it is commensurate with what someone like a GP would get (in fact I know that they can get a lot more), or a "country solicitor", or a local tradesman with a decent business, etc.
Still it's a LOT more than most of us...
It depends on your existing wealth
I do wonder if people are out if touch because many consider their salaries higher but are using salary sacrifice for pension
E.g. someone earning £100k but putting £50k in their pension will show up in the data as a £50k earner but when asked how much they make would still say £100k.
Taxes have been frozen and not kept pace for so long or other penalties like chiod benefit charge, so many people are using this more and more to lower their tax burden as nobody wants to earn above £50k if they can avoid it.
Mps should be paid a median salary or less and their so their livelihoods are actually linked to the state of the country they are supposed to manage. The fact that you need to pay a lot to attack the very best and smartest is a lie, the very best and brightest are often in academia doing phds and working as postdocs for very very median salaries if they are lucky!
Middle Class isn't about being in the Middle income group, that is a lie. Middle Class is inbeetween working and upper class. Working class people derive their income from work while Upper Class derive their income from owning assets therefore middle class has a mixture of income from assets and a job. An example would be a self employed plumber with an employee or someone who owns a house but has a job as they effectively rent their house to themselves. If you cant afford to start a business or buy a house with your job then you are not working a 'middle class job'.
So for most people who entered the workforce after 2008, It is not normal to be middle class.
Yes. Middle class have to 'work' their own assets to create income, whereas Upper class is largely passive income from their assets. Traditionally this was landed gentry collecting farm rents, now it's people with managed investment portfolios. There is, however, significant overlap between the old landed gentry and the portfolio owning class.
@@briskyoungploughboy Aye, more people need to be aware that the housing crisis is actually the collapse of the property owning middle class.
The problem is £50,000 a year is not enough to pay for a decent home… a room yes or a flat share maybe
A Terraced FULHAM family home IT IS NOT A MANSION despite valueation exceeding £1 to £2 million… it is still a family terraced house (terraced not even a semi or detached)
house costs… rent / mortgage in south east… but in west wales poorest part of country left behind for 45 years or say Scunthorpe or Birmingham, or Sunderland etc
Familiarity breeds contempt.
Provide 600 family flats barracks for MPs not from London, problem solved.
And professor how much is your home worth? You are in the top % but more to the point, shortage of homes forcing unit values up has distorted everything else.
LBC … a reputable media company 🤣🤣🤣
You (Richard) as well seem to be trotting out the mantra of ‘you have to pay the right money to get the best people’ when thats clearly not the case, the higher income management / executive group are just a merry go round of job flippers a large amount of whom are inept.
A good example would be Paula Vennels.
I think it is a "middle class" income and it is high mean or median income. One is about the lifestyle you are have access and cost of living to (which will vary by location) and the one is just statistical number. UK is just a high cost, lower overall income per decile country compared to other prosperous countries. I agree that is enough for MPs and you the other comments about expenses they should be able to claim.
No such thing as middle class. You are working class or owning class.
I'm not sure middle class or working class means anything. Progressive taxation means everyone has more or less the same take home. I think a better class system would be Renters, Mortgage Holders, Home Owners, Rentiers. So much of people's wealth is tied to property, it really defines the quality of life you will have. Your job ... not so much anymore.
Earnings doesn't equate to class 🤔
Class becomes pretty meaningless if it doesn't equate to earnings and wealth; in fact it then becomes a disguise worn by rich people like Lee Anderson and that idiot who owns Pimlico plumbing.
It depends on asset wealth, income is a very poor measure any more. The simple fact is that if you own a house with small mortgage you can live on relatively little. If however you are either renting or have been forced to buy in recent years your housing cost is massively high meaning even a large salary by any standards is not as grand as it first appears. I am old but if I were supporting young kids and the necessary expenses of living I would not feel very wealthy. On top add in student debt at 8% tax on top of all other PAYE taxes and you certainly not that wealthy. The tax take on that sort of salary is something nearing 40%. So not the breadline but around £50,000 net income to pay housing, build a pension, cover household expenses and child care is not that high at all.
I would love to earn 90k, but would it be enough to buy a pad in London, 3x times income would be £270k, or now the 6x times income £540k per year, so if you went 4x times income its possible to get a small flat £360K,. Anything earned after £50K would be subject to 40% income tax, but however some of that could be offset by maximizing company or private pension contributions. Also these people are likely to have 2nd incomes through rents, their partners earning good pay or other schemes. There are some terrible high stressed jobs on £21K per year then they have been zero hours or highly unsociable hours. The people at the bottom are really struggling. Maybe a there are some exceptions you might find some plumbers or electrician who are on call 24 hours a day reach that figure, but it would not be for every year and there would be times when they would earn nothing. I would say £90K per year is a comfortable income not only that the middle class professions are often closed shops among friends and associates its so hard to get in from the outside even with masters. .
£90,000 doesn’t today buy what a middle class income bought 50 years ago.
If 90k is an income that this journalist believes is too little to live on then how does she reconcile with how the majority of the countries average earnings is about a third of that and pension itself is a pittance yet they pay tax just like those working if the manage to receive more than £12,750.
There’s something drastically wrong when you believe in your tiny minds that the lowest paid are getting enough yet 90k is a struggle.
As someone from a poor working class background who has spent most of their adulthood in middle class income bracket through hard work, I can tell you there’s still snobbery and a lot of debt in those circles, funnily enough friends or family who are millionaires who worked for it are much nicer than the nepo lot.