He’s right - it’s labour who are out of touch on this issue. They simply can’t come to terms with the idea that income =/= wealth. How much do you actually take home on £100k p/a?
Yet heaven forbid poor lickle orphans shouldn’t get a cool mil tax free from their parents
For a care worker with two kids after mortgage and bills are paid i think that leaves about 400 quid a month maybe? That is subsistence living so sorry laz 100k is huge. You do show yourself to live in a bubble sometimes fam.
The difference between 100k pa and 20k per year is to give an average family an extra 1k to 1.5k a month on disposable income.
Nothing to us. Lots to them.
Not sure what parsnips point is other than an ive got it humblebrag. But i remember him saying he thought Truss' premiership would herald a golden age so yeah nah
Which over 1 year is quite a big sum already but over 10 yrs and with the compounding effect of paying down your mortgage and putting some away in an ISA etc it’s the difference between life being a struggle and life being very comfortable.
There is a very odd disconnect on rof between ppl professing not to care about money, being glib about any sort of expenditure, bling crap cars ad nauseam, and the obsession with Other People’s Money.
It was a very stupid thing to say because this was always going to be the reaction (and because it draws attention to how debased the currency has become under these idiots).
In context it wasn’t an entirely unreasonable point though. Is 100k such a ‘huge’ salary that people earning it don’t need support with the (frankly crippling in the UK) cost of early years child care. I would say there is a sensible case for the threshold for that being raised.
The cost of childcare is ridiculous. In South London it costs more than my mortgage to have nipper #2 in full time. Over the course two kids the cost of nursery will be the thick end of £100k.
Jeremy Hunt is wrong though, obvs. £100k a year is an absolutely whacking wage, whether in Surrey or anywhere else.
Is 100k such a ‘huge’ salary that people earning it don’t need support with the (frankly crippling in the UK) cost of early years child care.
At 100k, no one needs support, and I think it is quite ridiculous and out of touch with average people living of average salaries with no support from the Bank of Mum and Dad. That doesn't mean there cannot be good reasons for giving people at 100k some support anyway. There could be benefits for the kids. It could benefit the economy and support the financial independence of women. But if you're financially struggling with a 100k salary, you really have to rethink your priorities and reflect on your misplaced sense of entitlement. You should also realise that any income/expense support for people earning over 100k is primarily paid for by people who don't get that support.
We are the state. It's our tax they spend. And what they spend on childcare for high earners is not spend on the NHS, roads, police, pensions, ... Child care support for high earners is money flowing from other people (mostly high-tax paying people of course) to the supported people.
Why do parents need that help? They can pay the 40k from their income or savings and they can decide to stay home and not pay 40k. You need support when you can't pay for acceptable housing, food, or healthcare. You don't need support when you decide to bring your kids to childcare just to not have to put your career on hold. Parents who need to both work fulltime to get food on the table don't have a 100k+ family income.
If you're on a single income in a place like Farnham where the cheapest 3bed is £550k, and a moderately nice one is £700k, it's not a wealthy person salary.
Even on 100k...and with hyper careful management, the idea there would be 4k disposable income left for an average family a month is laughable but yeah crack on lads with the sneering.
I mean how can anyone think that 100k is anything other than a meagre annual sum to live on in Surrey?
Once you have deducted the cost of essentials such as child care and private school fees, golf club membership, school trips to the Himalayas, Christmas skiing in St Moritz, there’s very little to spend on any forms of self indulgence at all. In our case it is shocking that we’ve had to switch to supermarket branded bubbly from our usual Bolly for dinner parties and most horribly we recently had to replace on the table our usual grand cru with house red.
Hard times all round it seems. Thank god that in our case late Aunty Pandora left us our 5 bed detached house in Weybridge and mummy and sadly settle the council tax for us. Otherwise we’d be truly paupers.
Indeed, but our poverty levels mean that we've had to let the chauffeur go, along with the full-time English-speaking nanny and two of the three gardeners. We do though have a Romanian house-helper (who seems to know her place) and a Polish handyman (whom we pay in cash only). But even essential staff like these are hard to afford on our meagre six figure income....
2
4
It isn't
Hth
1
3
Never would have had him down as a ROFfer
1
4
Preposterous that he’s getting stick for this. I mean, it’s just not a huge salary, especially in the UK’s wealthiest county.
1
4
He’s right - it’s labour who are out of touch on this issue. They simply can’t come to terms with the idea that income =/= wealth. How much do you actually take home on £100k p/a?
Yet heaven forbid poor lickle orphans shouldn’t get a cool mil tax free from their parents
System is absolutely fvcked
1
4
It is true within the polite company of a small bubble of people.
But outside that it is monumentally crass and a dumb thing for a politician to say, in an election year especially so.
he said it is "not huge salary in our area if you have a mortgage to pay".
How is a mortgage something that others are supposed to have sympathy for?
What a chump.
0
6
Fence foal supporting the Tory. Interesting.
0
3
The word huge is subjective. £100k is 3 times the median for Surrey though.
3
4
And yet they refuse to raise salaries to a comfortable level for:
Care workers
Social workers
Teaching assistants
Teachers
Nurses
Nurse practitioners
Junior doctors
Firefighters
Police.
Some of whom will live and work in Surrey and earn significantly less than 100k.
Out of touch. Out of ideas. Blinkered and callous.
GE now pls.
0
4
Most people I know in Surrey are on about £30k-£40k. Depends who you know, I guess.
1
4
Some of the people we get in here don’t know the difference between a Bordeaux and a claret.
0
2
obvious fact is obviously factual
“huge” ffs
1
4
it’s not huge, sorry, and you don’t have to live in a bubble or be “monumentally crass” whatever that means, to think so
some people earn 18k a year yeah
they don’t think 100k is “huge”, they just think it’s a lot more than they earn
1
4
Such an ignorant thing to say, but not unexpected
0
3
Oh yes it b***** well is!
Just don't send your kids to public school. If you're sending them to a state school, leave Surrey because it's a bit chavvy.
0
3
Absolute state of this.
1
2
Agree with g'wan.
Also,
Paralegals
Most lawyers not in the City
Anyone in law working for legal aid practices.
Junior Officers, NCOs and ORs in HM Forces.
The tin with the label, Jeremy Khunt, when you open it, one will find what it says on the outside.
3
3
For a care worker with two kids after mortgage and bills are paid i think that leaves about 400 quid a month maybe? That is subsistence living so sorry laz 100k is huge. You do show yourself to live in a bubble sometimes fam.
1
3
Scraping ends to meet in Sevenoaks.
Christ the state of rof’s millennials.
2
2
100k would not be a "lot more" money. It would be transformative.
3
2
Universal Basic Income NOW
0
3
Tiny
small
Average
Big
Large
Huge
£100k is not huge
It’s not small either
1
2
The difference between 100k pa and 20k per year is to give an average family an extra 1k to 1.5k a month on disposable income.
Nothing to us. Lots to them.
Not sure what parsnips point is other than an ive got it humblebrag. But i remember him saying he thought Truss' premiership would herald a golden age so yeah nah
0
2
Great maths there gwan
0
2
Back of an envelope says an extra £4k a month?
0
2
Yeah an extra 4k ish I would think
Which over 1 year is quite a big sum already but over 10 yrs and with the compounding effect of paying down your mortgage and putting some away in an ISA etc it’s the difference between life being a struggle and life being very comfortable.
0
4
Dawn Handbags is alive and well.
0
2
The difference between 100k pa and 20k per year is to give an average family an extra 1k to 1.5k a month on disposable income.
Err wot?!
2
2
There is a very odd disconnect on rof between ppl professing not to care about money, being glib about any sort of expenditure, bling crap cars ad nauseam, and the obsession with Other People’s Money.
1
2
It was a very stupid thing to say because this was always going to be the reaction (and because it draws attention to how debased the currency has become under these idiots).
In context it wasn’t an entirely unreasonable point though. Is 100k such a ‘huge’ salary that people earning it don’t need support with the (frankly crippling in the UK) cost of early years child care. I would say there is a sensible case for the threshold for that being raised.
0
2
The cost of childcare is ridiculous. In South London it costs more than my mortgage to have nipper #2 in full time. Over the course two kids the cost of nursery will be the thick end of £100k.
Jeremy Hunt is wrong though, obvs. £100k a year is an absolutely whacking wage, whether in Surrey or anywhere else.
0
2
I assume a/he was trying to say ‘an extra 20k’ but given it was posted at 4am was completely off his/her tits
0
2
It’s a lovely salary if you’re single with no dependents.
1
2
At 100k, no one needs support, and I think it is quite ridiculous and out of touch with average people living of average salaries with no support from the Bank of Mum and Dad. That doesn't mean there cannot be good reasons for giving people at 100k some support anyway. There could be benefits for the kids. It could benefit the economy and support the financial independence of women. But if you're financially struggling with a 100k salary, you really have to rethink your priorities and reflect on your misplaced sense of entitlement. You should also realise that any income/expense support for people earning over 100k is primarily paid for by people who don't get that support.
1
3
No, it's not. It's paid for by the state.
1
2
One person earns 100k
The other 18k
Both work full time
Costs of 2 kids care from 8 to 6 is around 40k in surrey
Parents need help
2
3
We are the state. It's our tax they spend. And what they spend on childcare for high earners is not spend on the NHS, roads, police, pensions, ... Child care support for high earners is money flowing from other people (mostly high-tax paying people of course) to the supported people.
Why do parents need that help? They can pay the 40k from their income or savings and they can decide to stay home and not pay 40k. You need support when you can't pay for acceptable housing, food, or healthcare. You don't need support when you decide to bring your kids to childcare just to not have to put your career on hold. Parents who need to both work fulltime to get food on the table don't have a 100k+ family income.
1
2
No. It's not.
0
2
A good society is a working one
4
2
People earning £100k ought to be able to manage their own finances without needing benefits.
0
2
Childcare should be universally free
1
2
If you're on a single income in a place like Farnham where the cheapest 3bed is £550k, and a moderately nice one is £700k, it's not a wealthy person salary.
2
2
That’s what I used to tell my ex-girlfriend.
0
2
“They can pay the 40k from their income or savings and they can decide to stay home and not pay 40k”
Do you even Britain?
0
2
Christ the state of rof’s millennials’
The ones paying £2k pcm for their mortgage on a 3 bedder somewhere stabby?
Yeah they’re the problem, not the old codgers who bought their house for 3&6
0
3
Would say 99% of people do not have 40 k per annum for 5 years in savings at child age
0
2
Precisely
0
2
Can I help?
2
2
Sigh. A conservative estimate based on childcare etc. Suddenly becoming affordable etc. Clue was in the term "disposeable" income.
2
2
Even on 100k...and with hyper careful management, the idea there would be 4k disposable income left for an average family a month is laughable but yeah crack on lads with the sneering.
1
2
Give over, all of you fvcking pretenders. You’re not kidding anyone. Nobody on ROF thinks 100 grand is a “huge” salary now behave.
0
2
Gwan digging that hole, keep on digging
3
2
Wtf are you on about dalek?
100k is 5.6 I pcm take home. I literally cannot see how you could have 4k left to spend as you see fit. . impossible
3
2
A number of grifters on here are shameful.
Anyone on 100k per annum does not need any state handouts.
5
2
I mean how can anyone think that 100k is anything other than a meagre annual sum to live on in Surrey?
Once you have deducted the cost of essentials such as child care and private school fees, golf club membership, school trips to the Himalayas, Christmas skiing in St Moritz, there’s very little to spend on any forms of self indulgence at all. In our case it is shocking that we’ve had to switch to supermarket branded bubbly from our usual Bolly for dinner parties and most horribly we recently had to replace on the table our usual grand cru with house red.
Hard times all round it seems. Thank god that in our case late Aunty Pandora left us our 5 bed detached house in Weybridge and mummy and sadly settle the council tax for us. Otherwise we’d be truly paupers.
1
2
Don'r forget the cost of maintaining an adequate butter cellar
2
2
Indeed, but our poverty levels mean that we've had to let the chauffeur go, along with the full-time English-speaking nanny and two of the three gardeners. We do though have a Romanian house-helper (who seems to know her place) and a Polish handyman (whom we pay in cash only). But even essential staff like these are hard to afford on our meagre six figure income....
2
2
Neither risky or cookie rwad the post or it seems understand the normal meaning of disposable income.
Elitist fools.
0
4
Lol:
The difference between 100k pa and 20k per year is to give an average family an extra 1k to 1.5k a month on disposable income.
Join the discussion