[tennis_sort]

£100k London as a single person could definitely buy a flat somewhere. Maybe not a great area but it's doable.

A house with a garden, kids, private school etc. 100k won't cut it unfortunately.

For some reason I thought FAANGs in London were paid really well but seems like contracting or finance is the only way to get a reasonable income.

I have a buddy who was working for a DeepMind and now works for Google (UK). His salary is £140k. Meanwhile day rates of £600 per day are pretty standard and pay the same for arguably less hassle.

[Balero]

I agree with everything you said aside from: "For some reason I thought FAANGs in London were paid really well but seems like contracting or finance is the only way to get a reasonable income."

Even in London £100k is above a reasonable income for one person. It's not enough to buy a house and provide for a family on one income and still have no worries, but expecting that is unreasonable. It's really easy to get stuck in a bubble where we forget that six figures is crazy out of the ordinary for an average person.

But as to your main point. Yeah finance and contracting really is the right way to go to get a high income. Though I think this might be changing with the contracting as there were some recent changes that make contracting less efficient tax wise, and could push high performers to either ask for more, or just move to being an employee.

[onlyrealcuzzo]

It's really out of the ordinary when you're in the top 1% and can't afford a decent life - meanwhile lower middle class people who bought before QE (15 years ago) can afford a decent life.

We shouldn't be lowering our "unreasonable" standards. If you're in the top 1% in income - you should have an complementary lifestyle. Not just be grateful that you're not in complete financial misery like everyone else your age.

[jltsiren]

You should pay more attention to household incomes than individual incomes, because housing is a per-household expense. Even if you are a high-income individual, you may still live in a mid-income household. In most large cities, being mid-income means you can afford to rent in most areas or buy in cheap areas.

[onlyrealcuzzo]

Income is so unevenly distributed that if you're in the top 1% of personal income, you're in the top 3% of HH income.

Assuming you're single and in the top 3% of HH income (top 1% personal) - you have 2.1 less persons to provide for. You should probably be better off than two people with a kid. You need less bedrooms and floor space, that's for sure.

If you can't find a decent 1 bedroom in town - I feel sorry for the family shopping for a 3 bedroom on a slightly higher income that has most of that extra income going directly to the tax man.

[jen20]

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that someone in the top 10% of incomes should be able to buy a house.

[sokoloff]

Top 10% of household income with some savings for a downpayment should indeed be able to purchase housing if they choose to tie themself down that way.

It’s not necessarily the case that top 10% individual income means you’re top 10% household income (and the top 10% household income can obviously bid more for housing than the second, third, or farther decile of household income).

[jen20]

A household (not individual) income of £100000 is sufficient to be well inside the top 10% by income. Using the standard ratio of 4.5 times income for a mortgage means that you are capped at houses costing around 560k, assuming you have 20% to put down.

The following search for 3 bedroom houses [1] provides either flats, maisonettes and a few houses in areas with poor transport links, and many of these are still over budget.

[1]: https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/find.html?sear...

[Balero]

What's wrong with a decent flat or maisonette?

I agree with your general point that housing is too expensive! I'm just curious.

[gpderetta]

Not as nice as an house, but having lived in one for a 10 years, they are perfectly fine homes.

An usual downside is that technically you never own it.

[phphphphp]

The downside of contracting though is that the work is typically the work full-time employees don't want to do. You gain in flexibility, but lose in enjoyment -- enjoyable contracts are a minority. Specific to the point on finances: there's typically 250 billable days in a UK year so £600/day is £150k/year. There are tax benefits to contracting, so it's not a one-to-one relationship, but £150k/year salaried is better than £600/day for most people.

[tennis_sort]

Yeah you're right there. 150k salary is better than a £600 day contract.

£150k per year is tricky to find for salaried positions as a dev. They exist but not as visible (to me at least) compared to the contract equivalents.

The enjoyment side is something I hear mixed opinions on. There are plenty of "disguised employment" type contracts in the UK that just go to contractors for rarer skill sets. YMMV.

[cutthegrass2]

I agree. I left £800pd for £150k salaried for work interest reasons mainly, but tbh I haven't noticed the reduction in monthly income at all.