Standard of Living US to UK Conversion
The_Non
5,691 Posts
I have a friend moving to a job in the London area. She is going to be making 33K GBP a year. What standard of living is this gonna be for her in the UK? Apt, spending money, purchasing daily groceries, etc? The more info the better UK strutters, help out! ThanksT.N.
Comments
Personally I could live very happilly on 33k in Bristol, most of my friends being brokeartisticktypes, dont earn half that.
Nothing they have over there is as good as what we have over here. Starting with their "rap" music.
Also, they have Omar and we have Justin Timberlake.
And they have Lloyd Bradley, which we do not.
So she can expect a lower standard of living no matter how she's caking off.
I am just keeping it all the way real.
Then again, the USA has Gwen Stefani and Nelly Furtado.
While the UK has M.I.A.
And Lady Sovereign.
Verdict?
Move to Japan.
They have TIGARAH!
its not "free" ~ its just subsidised / pre-paid for in taxes, if you break a leg or puncture a spleen you can go to an hospital and get treated without having to cough up $5000 or summin - in theory its a better system but it does have its flaws.
??33K roughly equates to ??2K a month after taxes - how much money have left over really depends on how much you are paying in rent, which could be between ??500 - ??1000 even on a flat share from my understanding...
Damn I was hoping it was going to be the vomiting basin.
you ever been treated on the nhs doggy?
Not forgetting National Insurance deductions which will be over ??2000 for the year based on those earnings.
Don't come to the UK, it's an overpriced shit hole!
Yeah, it all depends what she's paying in rent - a nice flatshare might be from around ??400 a month and renting your own place may be from ??1k or so, depending how centrally you live. Public transport is kind of pricey over time, so that could have a bearing, especially if by the 'London area' she means 20 miles outside London... She'll lose about a third of her salary in tax but healthcare is free and the NHS is really pretty good unless your friend is waiting for a hip replacement or some other geriatric shit. London is kind of expensive but it's a great place to live and like anywhere you get to know the spots. She can definitely have a very good time in London on that income.
Exactly. They are hallmarks of Englishness and represent all that is best about our fair country. Craig David's ours too. We rule the world still. I rest my case.
Working as a data manager for a company that analyses the NHS and private medical care I would say don't dismiss the NHS out of hand. It's far from perfect but a lot of this is down to the Government's handling of finances rather than the level of competance at the hospitals themselves. Considering the cost of a lot of the things we take for granted on the NHS I for one am extremely grateful for it.
Going back to the original question, 33,000 is enough to get by in London, especially if they go for a house share option. They could get somewhere reasonably central for a couple of 100 a month if they share with a couple of people. Although London is stupidly overexpensive if you stay away from tourist trap areas it's not so bad.
I personally like London. Most of the gigs are there. Wouldn't want my kids to grow up there but that's a problem for most big cities. As for the NHS, yes, you pay for it by being taxed but it works as well as it can for a healthcare system with 55 million customers.
I personally think those 20 stone chainsmokers should pay extra tax because they are going to be the biggest users of the system, but, irony of ironies, they are the cnuts least likely to be working... Ho Ho.
In theory smokers cost the NHS about ??2.5billion a year but cigarette duties bring in around ??5.5 billion a year, hence the fact that you can still buy tabs and watch F1 cars whizz round a track whilst plastered in Malboro logos. So...smokers do pay extra tax every time they buy a packet of cigarettes - about ??4 a time. As for the fatties, that's another question entirely...
Forcing the chains to cut out the sugar, salt and chemicals would be a good start. I thought it was telling that when McD's trumpetted the fact that they'd lowered fat, salt and sugar in burgers it turned out that their new healthy salad dressings had more fat, sugar and salt that even their biggest sandwich. I'm not sure what the answer is but I think it lies with taxing the corporates according to the volume of crap they put in the food they turn out - healthy food manufacturers pay less tax maybe...
I know I could do with ??33k a year. As long as she doesn't plan on owning a car, she should get by fine - congestion charges and petrol prices just aren't worth it.
which is not - be sure -
limited to UK only
I am just too real for this board.
Now please proceed to "son" me by posting pictures of Hijack in their dominatrix outfits.
This doesnt stand up to scrutiny doggy. If private healthcare in the UK is really vastly inferior to what the NHS provides then why are so many willing to pay for it on top of what they already contribute to the NHS through taxation? Its not really plausible to suggest that they are all well to do idiots
That sounds just like our system! The only public we have is the Veterans. Which was allowed to decline in the 80s under Reagan, but Clinton rebuilt it, but Bush is trying to dismantle it again. Recent studies show that Veterans provide the best overall health care in the country.
There are very few exclusively private doctors or surgeons in the UK. They may do private work but pretty much all of them work for the NHS too. So it isn't uncommon that if you go private you're treated by the same consultant who'd treat you in the NHS. Private health insurance effectively buys you a quicker appointment and maybe a private room - the care and the staff are often the same.
I'm going to need a link to this study or you're going to have to expound on "best overall." I work in healthcare and deal with the VA on a daily basis and am having a hard time coming up with one area of their operation that is better than the private sector.
I mean, it's free to those that qualify...
Sounds like you came up with one way. Unless you don't think free is a good price.
It took awhile, here is the article:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html
I'm gonna go read it now.
Dan