At last the REAL rise in the cost of living is revealed!

[Bartfarst]

So in answer to your comment, yes middle class families did practice family planning much the same way as they do now because a family usually interfered with their lifestyle, and they had children when it was convenient to them not because they were saving up and investing.

Oh, so only working class mothers and fathers want children, they must just be 'necessary evils' to the middle classes?

That lifestyle and investment are one and the same thing; building up their way of life to one which will benefit the child as well as their ability to pay for nappies. That usually means getting ahead in a career so that one of them can take a career break to raise the child to schooling age. Just putting a few coins in the piggy bank isn't enough.

 

Your post implies that we go back to the good old days of natural selection, no free heathcare and no state safety net.

No, it may imply quite openly that people should not deliberately start rutting and producing snotty-nosed wastrel kids if they have no intention of feeding them from their own pockets, but I have never said that there should be no safety net for genuine cases of hardship that are not self-induced.

[em2007]

do i get my child license yet!

 

you remind me of a take that song too cyclone, sorry just thought i'd tell u.

[shoeshine]

 

By the way, I like shoeshines selectivity - he has quoted almost all the article except;

 

"The figures indicate that middle class families, with a combined income of £100,000 and outgoings on school and university fees, are seeing their cost of living increase at an annual rate of 5.8 per cent"

 

- at last the Telegraph showing it's true colours........

 

 

Longcol, there was no intentional selectivity on my part on the Opening Post.

 

I could quite easily have posted the whole article as a full copy, but that is a practice severely frowned on by the Administrators. For those with a concentration/interest quotient lasting longer than a gnat's, a link is usually preferred. I won't charge you for this information.

 

I usually select the first couple of paragraphs of an article, followed by a "meaty" centre section, and of course always a link to a full article.

 

The OP on this thread has much more quotation on it than I normally post from online newspapers.

 

Reams of copied articles on one post often result in people losing the will to live, never mind bothering to read it all......check out some of the posts on the Religious Threads!

 

Discerning/interested readers of a topic normally take the time to read the full article at their leisure, and then make comments on the subject matter.

[Bartfarst]

Originally Posted by Longcol

I know.

It was Bartfarst who used the term to describe a combined middle class family income of £100,000 as "middle income". I wouldn't describe £100k combined as middle income.

So he did.

To me it is middle income, you gentlemen may see it differently.

I see two senior teachers as being 'middle income'.

Or a police superintendant married to a nurse - middle income.

 

Once we start talking executive salaries around the £250k mark we can think about calling it high income, but when a GP earns over £100k, along with dentists, lawyers and an awful lot of middle managers, I don't think that £100k is all that great.

[Longcol]

Originally Posted by Longcol

I know.

It was Bartfarst who used the term to describe a combined middle class family income of £100,000 as "middle income". I wouldn't describe £100k combined as middle income.To me it is middle income, you gentlemen may see it differently.

I see two senior teachers as being 'middle income'.

Or a police superintendant married to a nurse - middle income.

 

Once we start talking executive salaries around the £250k mark we can think about calling it high income, but when a GP earns over £100k, along with dentists, lawyers and an awful lot of middle managers, I don't think that £100k is all that great.

 

In 2002 20% of households in the UK had a gross income of £750 per week or more. So allowing for inflation it is probably reasonable that the top 20% of earners start at say £900 per week say £47k pa. Therefore I'd think a more accurate description of household earnings of £100k pa would be top 10% of earners rather than middle income.

[stackmonkey]

Considering that the UK's average (mean) salary is 'about' £25k, I would say that £100k, or even £50k, each is far from 'middle income' whether the earners are middle class or not.

 

A head teacher on £75K?? You have to be joking!! My mum wasn't on even half that as a headteacher! Even the head of a large secondary school in a major city would be pushed to better £45-50k.

[Cyclone]

I don't see on what measure you can call a household income of 100k middle.

It's neither mean nor mode nor median, nor are the professions you quote the easiest to get into or the levels you talk about achieving the normal level of achievement of someone in those professions.

[Cyclone]

In 2004/05, the original income (before taxes and benefits) of the top fifth of households in the UK was around sixteen times greater than that for the bottom fifth (£66,300 per household per year compared with £4,300). After adjusting for taxes and benefits this ratio was reduced to four to one for final income, unchanged from previous years.

The average income of the top 5th earners per household is 66.3k/annum.

I think that conclusively proves that 100k/annum is well above middle income.

 

From national statistics website.

[Longcol]

The average income of the top 5th earners per household is 66.3k/annum.

I think that conclusively proves that 100k/annum is well above middle income.

 

From national statistics website.

 

I'll say amen to that.

 

It would be like describing the sides in the champions league places in the Premiership as "mid - table".

[Bartfarst]

In 2002 20% of households in the UK had a gross income of £750 per week or more. So allowing for inflation it is probably reasonable that the top 20% of earners start at say £900 per week say £47k pa. Therefore I'd think a more accurate description of household earnings of £100k pa would be top 10% of earners rather than middle income.

Never mind the amateur statistics, do you describe a pair of senior teachers as high earners, or middle income?

 

For me it's the latter.

 

The same applies to a junior doctor and a nurse.

Or a police chief inspector and sergeant.

 

. . . they are middle income families.

 

There may be lots of low earners, which affects the average wage, and therefore the percentage of earners on incomes above a certain band, but the spread of incomes is vast from a few thousand to millions, and on that basis I see a combined £100k as very middle.