Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Wondering, after a debate that got going in the family room, how many of you would be shocked to learn that an individual income of 45k probably puts you in the top 10% of earners in the UK?


Everyone talks of London being an exception but based on this government report, average HOUSEHOLD (not individual income) is only 900 per week and 60k household income makes you top 10% of households in the UK and top 17% of households in London...


Anyone richer than they thought?!



http://data.london.gov.uk/documents/FocusOnLondon2010-income-and-spending.pdf

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/25907-house-hold-income/
Share on other sites

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Everyone talks of London being an exception but

> based on this government report, average HOUSEHOLD

> (not individual income) is only 900 per week and

> 60k household income makes you top 10% of

> households in the UK and top 17% of households in

> London...


"Only" ?900 per week? That's the problem with averages - because there's a well-defined minimum income (?0), but no maximum, averages give an unrealistically generous impression, especially in London. As the document says "The difference between the mean and median measure of individual income in London was more than ?15,000", which is quite a lot. Or, if my sums are right*, 70% of households in London earn less than the average.


It's also worth noting that most of the data comes from HMRC data, which reports only on taxpayers. Those who have been 'taken out of tax' are as hidden here as anywhere (except in Chart 2 which does include benefit income and seems to cover around 3m households, which seems about right), and that's going to further inflate the averages given.


Of the taxpaying homes, they state that 24% bring in less than ?300 per week (?15.6k), or less than a third of the average. That's a bit more than minimum wage, and about what the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reckon's a reasonable living wage (though not necessarily in London) for an individual.


This isn't good, and it's clearly not getting better, especially given these numbers exclude non-taxpayers who (despite the Guardian, are more likely to be poor than rich). I'd guess one of the key reasons for the situation is the changing nature of employment. The shockingly small incomes from 'self employment' might reflect back-bedroom hobbies and the under-reporting of cash-in-hand trade, but it's as likely to be because the lowest paid workers - cleaners, security guards, carers etc - are increasingly being taken on a self-employed or casual basis, leaving the burdens of national insurance, sick pay, pension contributions etc. to the worker.


It's a common argument that large employers are, in this way, forcing the taxpayer to subsidise their businesses, and there's some truth to that. Except that we're a long way from the effects being felt by the state. It's only much later, when illness, redundancy (without redundancy pay) or the non-existent pension, kick in, that the state will be left holding the pieces. In the meantime, it's the worker, whose real-terms income has been slowly and invisibly cut by 20% or more, who has to cope. Which is possibly why those in the 70% aren't so easily impressed by public-sector whinges about pay freezes, despite the best efforts of the Guardian's interns.


The trouble is that only politicians can solve this, and it's politicians that won't. They don't want to upset businesses, and they don't want to be seen to be spending more. So they find ways to blame the previous administration or kick the issue into the next one and, in the meantime, talk about 'change' and 'vision' and 'fairness' while doing stuff all about it. OK, not entirely stuff-all. But when giving people the 'right' to request 'flexible hours' from their boss without being sacked for their temerity turns out to be the best** a "Labour" government could do in thirteen years, it would take a certifiable sort of optimist to hold out any hope.


*As the data behind the Paycheck-derived barchart isn't freely available, I rescaled and measured the bars to get these figures, using the 'two in five households in London had an annual income between ?15,000 and ?35,000' line for the percentage conversion. As I am old and slapdash, they might be out by a tiny bit.


**The Agency Workers Directive might, conceivably, improve the lives of some. But it's too early to say yet and I, personally, doubt it'll do anything but shift even more workers off the books.


Disclaimer: My choice of Saturday-night activity is no reflection of either my income or my prospects.

 

I've got no guilt as I worked hard to get where I am and don't come from a wealthy background. Still, based on some comments on the forum some of the middle class in Dulwich seem to be confused and think "middle class" means average. Just wanted to provide a bit of a reality check as there are lots of threads discussing the various government cuts at the moment. Some forumites are "outraged" that their nannies will be limited to only 1 session of Sure Start a week so the program can better reach its target audience. Some are even threatening to commit tax fraud to keep their child benefit!


???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Huguenot Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Guardian readers on average earn ?30,500 per

> year

> > compared to the UK average of ?21,000 and are

> > twice as likely as the average UK adult to earn

> > ?40,000 or more.

>

> MIddle Class guilt RIGHT THERE

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?2

> 9,960124,page=1

>

> Extraordinary expectations of entitlement...


I haven't laughed so much at a thread for ages. Then I realised they were actually being serious...

That's pretty disgusting.


Why don't they demand a slice of single parents' benefits while they are at it, after all their taxes pay for it!


I am totally gobsmacked that these women can't see why underprivileged kids should be prioritised and why nannies trained in child care don't need the services as much as some poor girl bringing up a baby on her own.


Shame on you selfish, self-absorbed and greedy women.

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Once and for all, middle class and working class

> DO NOT EXIST ANYMORE!!!!!

>

> And if they do, it's about your world view, not

> your income.


Surely wealth created the original class system and income and class remain interlinked today.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...