UK Treasury trying to find a Head of Cyber Security for £55k
81–90 of 245 posts
Re: UK Treasury trying to find a Head of Cyber Security for £55k
#82It’s listed as mid-senior, with the same salary band as the roles this would be managing.
Re: UK Treasury trying to find a Head of Cyber Security for £55k
#83This is a problem across the civil service, although not as stark as this example usually. The cult of the generalist has long meant that specific skills are considered almost worthless. Instead of the civil service being an assemblage of people with different skill-sets, it instead consists chiefly of administrators with no more skills than a high-school graduate (although they do have tertiary degrees). Jobs which…
Re: UK Treasury trying to find a Head of Cyber Security for £55k
#84Could it simply be, that these types of jobs (high rank, low pay) are reserved to wealthy people? It might be so that the only ones that can apply are people for which the salary is a mere formality - it's just listed because it might be mandatory for the paperwork. Kind of similar to how artificially high housing cost is some sort of gatekeeping/community control and not actually reflecting demand in some places...…
Re: UK Treasury trying to find a Head of Cyber Security for £55k
#85I haven't dabbled too much in the UK market, but I recall interviewing for a low 6 figure position a while ago. Is the gap between public and private jobs that big?
C++ Dev in the UK public sector here. I make 40k a year and so does my boss. I think my boss’s boss might make 50k, or that might only be his boss.
Re: UK Treasury trying to find a Head of Cyber Security for £55k
#86The concerning thing, in my opinion, is that the poster linked by OP seems disillusioned as to the standard of living in the UK. They specifically mention being paid £55k as being equivalent to $100k in the US. It isn’t.
£55k in London is about enough to rent a place and live ok’ish on your own, and relatively comfortably if you have a partner whom is also earning a salary in a similar bracket.
Rent on a 1 bedroom flat in zone 5 is costing £1,500 as a minimum. You then have council tax which is about £200 a month (soon to be increased). If you travel to the city to go to the office that is gonna cost you at least £50 a week, more if you need to go everyday. Your utilities will cost you at least £100 a month and food, without takeaways is also going to cost you about £50 a week.
All the costs above are lowballing intentionally and do not factor in things like the inevitable lunch coffee and after work drinks, albeit non alcoholic. The reality is that the UK is becoming a much less livable place and that the cost of living/energy/whatever comes next is always passed down to the average person.
I will not be surprised to see an exodus of skilled workers over the next decade. I personally have set a 5 year target for leaving the country personally, which is sad. My partner has noticed the change herself and is equally as sad that the reality is she will need to leave (after working to acquire citizenship) in order to have a proper chance at buying a home and living a happy life.
Re: UK Treasury trying to find a Head of Cyber Security for £55k
#87A bit of a detraction from the link but can anyone who's lived for a significant amount of time in both the UK and the US confirm that £100k is equivalent to $200k? It seems fairly unlikely to me as UK tax and NI would be around 50% plus everything you purchase has 20% VAT. Sure medical insurance in the US is insane but surely that doesn't quite cover it.
£100k in the UK a top 10% wage for the country, but the wages in the UK are massively skewed towards London and the South East. As for the tax, we have progressive taxation in the UK. Earning £100k, you'd pay 0% on the first 12.5k, 25% on the next 70k or so, and 45% on the last 27.5k (numbers are from memory so they might be a little off). High wage earners are not giving up half their income in tax. That'd be silly.
Basic rate of 20% on earnings between £12,571 and £50,270.
Higher Rate of 40% on earnings between £50,271 and £125,139.
Additional Rate of 45% on earnings from £125,140. (this is from the tax year starting next week, it used to be £150k instead of £125k)
You also gradually lose your tax-free allowance if you make over £100k so there's a weird dead zone in which your marginal rate is something like 60%.Then there's NI which is effectively tax too but isn't listed in the bands above. Someone on £150k is paying 40% tax and NI (total, not marginal). Not quite half but it's not low either.
(You could get to more than 50% deductions if you factor in student loans)
Re: UK Treasury trying to find a Head of Cyber Security for £55k
#88This has caused a bit of a stir because the UK hasn't quite understood the relative weakness of wage growth for the last 10 years. The culturally understood milestones of "high pay" 30/50k have also not increased with inflation. I get paid well for the UK - but I could triple or even quadruple my salary in the US/Australia. Combined with relatively high taxes (my marginal tax rate is 60%) - it isn't a great value pro…
Also, how is your marginal tax rate 60%? I'm guessing you mean 40%.
Re: UK Treasury trying to find a Head of Cyber Security for £55k
#89I think the job title is misleading, from the job listing: > We are looking for an experienced Head of Cyber Security to lead a team of two cyber analysts > We are a team of around 40, responsible for the Treasury’s technology, security and knowledge and information management services. So it's not _the_ Head - but _a_ head, and that 'head' has a relatively minor / junior manager role.
If you entire IT team is 40, it's plausible to assume that the entire security team is these 2 analysts and their sought-after boss. Even if it's "a" head, why would anyone qualified for leading an infosec team be interested?
Re: UK Treasury trying to find a Head of Cyber Security for £55k
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was asking about this line from the linked post: > Yes, I am simplifying but, most people in the UK on £100k a year will have a lifestyle similar to, if not better than, most people in the US living on US$200k a year.
Oops somehow skipped that paragraph, yeah that's nonsense. Unless you're comparing SF to small town UK or something
115k a year in my country (~90k after all taxes), in the suburb of a city with 100k population, gets you the following: mortgage payments for a nice 4 bedroom house, payments for a luxury car, fuel, all necessities like electricity, internet, heating, water, food, etc. After covering all living costs, you will have around 60k of free money left over. Basic necessities like healthcare and education are taken care of by taxes.
Would the left over amount be similar in the US from 115k near a similarly sized city?