What's your idea of a good salary?

[dtmpower]

Earning your age in £XXk is something I tried to achieve. However I didn't achieve it all through my 20s, and now in my 30s I am still behind the curve. My wife is above the curve and hopes to stay above it before she is 40 - I think age+10 is more of a challenge for her.

However where is the salary sweet spot ?

I'd love to earn £100k, but not if it meant I was always on call, working late into the evening, being away from home or having to work at the weekend.

Also with the 40% tax band earning £50k/£60k doesn't seem much more in real terms than earning £40k

[alock]

mph1977 said:

ecs said:

markiii said:

They should bring back married couples allowance and allow the transfer of tax allowances

Why should married people get a discount on tax?

conversely why should co-habitees/ civil partners/ married couple be treated a single entity for everything else to do with tax and benefits ?


if both parties work and earn more than their personal allowances then they get an effective tax allowance of 20k

if one party works in a company which both are directors of and the other doesn;twork the effective allowance is still 20 because the second partner draws their income as dividends

if one party works PAYE and the other doesn;t work - tacx allowance halved becasue the other partners is un used or barely touched unless the high risk strategy of putting all assets and interest earning investments in the name of the none working partner.

Edited by mph1977 on Friday 17th October 12:49

Ironically enough it's a very easy problem to fix.

I could currently pay for professional child care out of my gross pay and yet I cannot pay my wife out of my gross pay to do the same job. A tiny tweak to the tax laws already in place would allow me to do this and we could then both use our tax free thresholds.

[Office_Monkey]

I'd say it depends on where you live. You could be on £30k+ outside the SE & be comfortably off. £50k in the SE doesn't go far if you have a mortgage, especially so if you're the sole earner.

[stuno1]

Interesting topic. My idea of a good salary changed as i went through my career but my goal was to earn more than my dad at the point he retired so that progression had been made given the opportunities he gave me and the sacrifice he made for me to have them.

I wanted to prove to myself i was worth his hard work and sacrifice. Thankfully and luckily i have achieved that far earlier than i expected but it seems no matter how much i earn my wife and i find ways to spend it!

Stu

[ecs]

Pit Pony said:

Traditionally a couple (a man and a woman in case you get confused), get married, because they want to have children. They want one of them to care for the babies and todlets themselves, believing that stay at home mothering (it usually is the mother) is the best start you can give a child, rather than engage the services of paid help in the form of a money making nursery.

So one person gives up a full time job, and the other sts their pants with financial worries, and works hard at arse licking the boss to get 3 promotions to cover the lost income. Only problem with this amazing master plan: EVEN if they manage to replace the lost earnings completely, they are still £3.5K down, because they can't use the unused tax allowance.

Now, you might ask how I know this, but that's what happened for me and my wife. I was earning £14K in 1993, whilst she earned £12K. She gave up work, we had 2 kids, and I attempted to replace said cash by "taking my career seriously and eventually after 3 job changes, I was earning £25K in 1998.

Now you might say, well women have a right to work. Indeed. It would have been better, if we'd both arranged to go part time, 2.5 days each. She'd still be registered as a nurse, we'd have been better off financially due to the tax laws, and I wouldn't have spent 20 years being referred to as "angry dad"

You might ask why "married" ? Well, because it's a contract in law that binds two people together. Unlike a couple who just live together, and have kids, married people have a pretty damming contract. If you've been married for 2 years, everything you have is theirs and versa vice.

Anyway back to the OP's question. It depends on what you housing costs are (pretty much everything else is the same price wherever you live), and that depends on where you live and work.

IMHO A good salary, pays for a family of 4 to live in a 3 bed semi is a nice part of town, have a car, a holiday and reasonable food. Where I live £35K would do that. Where I work £50K would do that.

That sounds more like a sob story than an answer to the question.

[Wacky Racer]

I think really it depends where you live, and what your expectations are.

For example near central London 450k would buy you a two bedroomed terrace house, but near the coast in East Yorkshire or parts of NE Lancashire a four bedroomed detached with double garage for £150,000.

Also, do you have a spouse/partner/children?

Are you happy driving a nice three year old Mondeo, or does it have to be a top spec AMG Mercedes?

Anyhow, back to the question.

I would say For the average person a minimum of £100,000 would be a [/b]GOOD[/b] salary....bearing in mind a very large percentage goes in tax.

I'm sure some on here would struggle by on that, three kids in private school... but to many others it would seem a fortune.

In other words are you better earning 60k in London or 30k in Blackburn?

[silverous]

I read an article once that suggested those on around 60k a year are happiest.... I can relate to that as I recall having more than enough money to pay for living expenses, being able to save, good holidays, nice car etc. but without the additional grief that comes with earning much more than that. Typically that comes with stress, responsibilities, hard work, long hours and high expectations of those who pay you above that level. I'm not saying those things don't apply in some jobs below that level but people don't give you 80k, 100k, 120k+ a year for doing 9-5 in an "easy" job unless you are lucky. After tax, are the higher salaries worth the grief that goes with it? I think there's perhaps also a case that although the violins won't come out for people on higher salaries, unless they are earning megabucks it can become a burden. Suddenly their eyes are opened to a world of luxury products but can only afford *some* of them. They are *almost* wealthy, very very comfortable indeed, yes. Maybe they can buy an aston martin with some excess income and bonus/savings. But can they buy all the stuff that goes with it? Is the salary sustainable and secure? Can they afford to replace that luxury car in 3 years when they get bored of it or are they back to a very nice bmw? What will the perception be of them when they have had to downgrade the car.

I know people who have received income of millions in a short period of time, but are they happy? Some are, some are not - is that because of the money? They scrape around to save a few quid on a new car rather than treat themselves to a new car, while sitting on a bank statement with lots of zeros on the end, they like cars but can't bring themselves to spend the money sometimes I think money causes people to be less happy or always to want the next thing that they can't afford.

A good salary is one that allows you not to stay awake at night worrying about living expenses, one that allows you to be comfortable and enjoy life.

There's a theory that people who spend lots of money e.g. when winning the lottery do so because they are not comfortable with having the money, they are not used to it and it becomes an issue, almost a burden for them.

[theboss]

ecs said:

That sounds more like a sob story than an answer to the question.

As others have said, its unfair that tax liability is based on individual income whereas entitlement to benefits is based on household income. My view isn't particularly traditional, I don't care whether people are married/co-habiting, have kids or not, are straight or same sex, but simply that a 'family unit' (however that may be defined) be taxed on household income. You'd be surprised how many other countries operate their tax systems in this way - including many of the renowned 'higher tax rate' Euro countries.

At the moment you have a situation where two adults are taxed individually but assessed for any sort of benefit entitlement collectively - the state both has its cake and eats it.

As for the subject of the thread - I think £7956 is a good salary

Edited by theboss on Friday 17th October 14:11

[dtmpower]

theboss said:

As for the subject of the thread - I think £7956 is a good salary

per month ?

[Bullett]

For the average man in the street I reckon £40k+ would be seen as coining it. Remember that the average salary is £26k ish.

I saw some figures a few years back, £45k put you in the top 10% and £60k was the top 5% these are PAYE based figures.

[mph1977]

Bullett said:

For the average man in the street I reckon £40k+ would be seen as coining it. Remember that the average salary is £26k ish.

I saw some figures a few years back, £45k put you in the top 10% and £60k was the top 5% these are PAYE based figures.

certasinly for a single person 40 k is an income which allows a reasonable standard of living and some choice in where you live 9 outisde the London bubble)

for a family with 2 adults and a couple of kids 40 K main earner and 'pin money' second job provides a reasonable stand of living , and if both adults were earning 40 k each ...

[thefrog]

For what it's worth, the French pool the tax allowance in a household together, then look at the total income for the household and apply allowances accordingly.
Children count for 1/2 an allowance until they leave/reach 18 (or something like that).

So where a family has two children and only one income, the income tax paid is across 3 people, not only does the tax free allowance apply, but the various thresholds do too.

Seems like a fair system to me.

[theboss]

thefrog said:

For what it's worth, the French pool the tax allowance in a household together, then look at the total income for the household and apply allowances accordingly.
Children count for 1/2 an allowance until they leave/reach 18 (or something like that).

So where a family has two children and only one income, the income tax paid is across 3 people, not only does the tax free allowance apply, but the various thresholds do too.

Seems like a fair system to me.

Exactly as per my post above. I believe the German system is very similar. These 'high rate tax' systems are actually much fairer for single income families than our own. I believe their employers' NI equivalents are excruciating though.

Edited by theboss on Friday 17th October 15:08

[Olivera]

Assuming no significant family wealth (inheritance/gifts) nor house equity, I'd say 50k was a good salary in poorer areas rising to at least 100k in the South East and London.

[thefrog]

theboss said:

Exactly as per my post above. I believe the German system is very similar. These 'high rate tax' systems are actually much fairer for single income families than our own. I believe their employers' NI equivalents are excruciating though.

Yes, and other not-income-tax taxes too. Conversely two married high earners would end up paying a lot more tax overall there than in the UK.

[V88Dicky]

I think a good salary is one that is paid to you for doing a job that you absolutely love, regardless of how much it is.

Take mine for example. My basic wage without O/T is just above average, yet I'm completely happy with it. I only work half the year, and this gives me all the time I need to spend with family and partake in my hobbies and pastimes. When I'm at work, I can only describe it as like spending 12 hours having a laugh with your mates

[Bradgate]

I voted for £50k, which is higher than 90% of the population (source : ONS).

If you can't live comfortably on that, you're doing something wrong.

[anonymous-user]

Bullett said:

For the average man in the street I reckon £40k+ would be seen as coining it. Remember that the average salary is £26k ish.

I saw some figures a few years back, £45k put you in the top 10% and £60k was the top 5% these are PAYE based figures.

2013 was £27k (29k for men), but this is based on 30 hours or more per week (25hrs+ for teachers), so using 35-40hours would give a higher number.

Also London is c£35k as median, so £40k may not seem as a lot for London worker in many cases

[anarki]

I'm happy with my job, for my level and certainly my job title I should be on about £10k a year more than what I currently earn but to me it isn't all about the cash.

My missus works part time too and we have 3 kids, we never struggle or sweat about money but we also don't have a house or cars that we cannot afford.

I'd rather have happiness and no work related stress.

That's just me though.

[STW2010]

dtmpower said:

Earning your age in £XXk is something I tried to achieve. However I didn't achieve it all through my 20s, and now in my 30s I am still behind the curve. My wife is above the curve and hopes to stay above it before she is 40 - I think age+10 is more of a challenge for her.

However where is the salary sweet spot ?

I'd love to earn £100k, but not if it meant I was always on call, working late into the evening, being away from home or having to work at the weekend.

Also with the 40% tax band earning £50k/£60k doesn't seem much more in real terms than earning £40k

You picked up the age + 10 idea I mentioned in the previous page. I have been fortunate in meeting the targets so far, but am under no illusions that it will continue.

I finished Uni aged 25 with a PhD. I was paid a bursary equivalent of about £21k up to that point. My first job was £26k and then months before my 30th birthday I secured a promotion which hit the £40k target. My next promotion would see me hit my 40 year target, and I have 9 years to do this (I have a target of 2-3 years from now to achieve this). But beyond that promotion is difficult, and I don't know if I would manage it. But I wouldn't be disappointed.

Crucially I enjoy my job (most of the time) and would probably do it for less money. I did chemistry at Uni, so certainly didn't go to Uni with the expectation to earn much (to be honest, earnings never even entered my mind until finishing and seeking employment). Had I not returned to Uni to complete my postgraduate studies then I doubt I would be on half my current salary.