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........
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
We are a retired couple, she a mid-wife, me an industrial electrician, we were in the 9th decile. We're working class
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.
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.
I just love your free wheeling and honest explanations which always are "SPOT ON" well I agree with them! Keep it up!
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.
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
They should rename parliament super market sweep.
Let’s not forget all the expenses they can claim as well. It’s not forget that cars, drivers housing food trips
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 ♥️
Well the saying, that price and quality go hand-in-hand; doesn't seem to the the norm, when it comes to politicians!!
These are household figures too. If you are a single adult in one of the bottom groups life is practically impossible in this country.
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"
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.
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.
Keep telling it like it is
Now check for London households where MPs spend most of their time
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.
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.
90k is in the top 5% of UK income.
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.
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%
Lower middle class 150000 middle class.
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
But £91k barely covers two kids school fees! 😂
Exactly!!! £90k isn't much at all. Especially in the south east
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.
Yes because the majority of working class get to live off around 20k a year.
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.
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.
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.
You all fail to mention someone on £90k will be paying over £23k in tax alone. For what exactly?
What do get for that exactly? Nothing more than the person paying no tax on benefits.
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.
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 .
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.
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.
Distorted view from her because she probably works and lives in London. Your figures are for the whole of the UK
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
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.
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.
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!
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'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.
that seems like a rich persons income honestly
£90,000 doesn’t today buy what a middle class income bought 50 years ago.
Those charts show some awfully low numbers. I earn more than the average of the top bucket, and after saving into my pension and ISAs, I have nothing left each month. I still go camping for holidays and still drive an average old car. If people are earning these very, very low numbers, then how are they still going abroad and buying new cars? I guess people need to live life, but it sounds like many are being careless at the same time. I won't even eat until my pension and savings are maxed out first.