Popular media on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

UKPunting is a free, independent and not-for-profit paid sex buyer site.


Author Topic: How much does a popular Adultwork girl earn? - you'd be surprised  (Read 23845 times)

Offline Sedlmayer

in a vain effort to get this thread back on topic after Qiesadilla's thesis on the education system.....

I know a Polish girl who comes over to London one week a month, stays in decent hotels, does 3 or 4 punts a day and makes not only enough money to live well in Poland, but also enough to be building her own house, on her own land, back home....

At some point the Snake is going to start revealing his insider information about how well-known girls don't earn an money... :sarcastic:
He's full of shit - but you already know that, of course.
At best, some little bird has sung him a song, and the cunt's believed her. Like a cunt.

Offline socks

I don't have kids, but if I did I would go private in a heartbeat - but then I can afford to.  Anyone who could afford to privately educate their kids and chooses not to is an inverse snob.

Nothing "snobbish" about giving your kids the best possible chance of a decent education.  State education in this country is woefully underfunded with unmanageable class sizes and your child is nothing more than a number to get through the system.  I personally did not enjoy one minute of my time in the state system and would not inflict it on any kid if I could avoid it.  Sure that was a long time ago but I have close friends who are primary and secondary teachers and despite being passionate about education they are incredibly disillusioned and frustrated in their jobs because they just don't have the time / resources to get the job done properly. 

Sure it would be nice if we could have good quality state schools, but as a nation we're just not interested in doing what it would take to make that happen (ie paying more taxes!!).  So meanwhile, back in reality you have to do the best for your kids.  :unknown:
She can spend her money how she likes of course. The ins and outs of education, who cares? She was whining about not being able to afford a handbag in one post yet revealing in another that it was because of paying for private education. I didn't feel massive sympathy for her and thought it worthy of a piss take.

You pseudo snobby bastard :lol:

Offline Cornish sub

As always West8 is living in cloud cuckoo land.

A WG charging just £100ph and taking 1 booking per day 6 days a week 48 weeks of the year is on almost £30k - that's almost £5k more than the national average salary.

I can't think of many WG's who charge as little as £100ph and take so few bookings so I'd say the realistic range for a decent WG is more likely £40-130k. 

Let's not get into the whole tax argument - many WG's do pay some tax - otherwise they wouldn't be able to buy so much crap without falling under HMRC's watchful eye - but you only need to declare "enough" to suit your lifestyle - certainly less than would take you to the high rate tax payer brackets - and then the rest is tax free.  For a civvy who is earning £100k it's depressing when you see that actually you lose about £30k in tax! A smart WG who avoids paying tax on the top end could well be £15-30k better off again.

Regardless of expenses that is a fuck load of cash for someone to earn without any specific qualifications, training or experience.  It's a job almost any woman can do either full time or part time in addition to studies or a full time day job.  It offers total flexibility and autonomy, can be done from the comfort of your own home or while on the road. 

The civvy / legit life is hardly that great by comparison.  First there's discrimination in the workplace which means even a well qualified and experienced woman typically earns 10-20% LESS than any of her male counterparts (depending on job). I don't know about you but that would piss me off.

Partly because of the generally lower pay I've known plenty of women who take second jobs to earn extra cash - evening jobs which include bar work, waitressing, telesales, cleaning.  Earning a pittance with hardly less unsociable hours than escorting and far from glamorous.

And if you're a young woman who actually enjoys sex (shock, horror, yes many actually do) your other option is go to your local meat market (ie night club/Tinder) get chatted up by some drunk twat who might just about to be able to afford to buy you a drink and a kebab before clumsily groping you.  Repeat ad nauseum til you get bored of random encounters and find a "decent" bloke for a "long term" relationship - ie the same boring sex over and over again, in ever decreasing frequency.

As for risk of STI's - a civvy chick is much more likely to bareback once she trust her partner, but as we all know there are lots of boyfriends and husbands who could easily be banging other civvies or WG's anyway.  The bareback angle just increases the risk and for a civvy chick of course without any suspicion that her partner has contracted say gonorrhoea if she is infected but asymptomatic (as is very common) she is far more at risk of long-term permanent damage than a WG who is tested monthly.

I suspect the social stigma is probably the biggest issue. Even this is changing as sites like Seeking Arrangement and Whats Your Price look to make sugar-daddy / mutually beneficial type arrangements more socially acceptable.  Just prostitution by another name.

So as career choices go I'd say escorting is really not so bad.

Offline Cornish sub

For a civvy who is earning £100k it's depressing when you see that actually you lose about £30k in tax! 
I'd be more than willing to risk depression by paying £30k in tax (around £10k more than I actually earn BEFORE tax) if it meant being left with a take home wage of £70k.

Offline Quesadilla

She can spend her money how she likes of course. The ins and outs of education, who cares? She was whining about not being able to afford a handbag in one post yet revealing in another that it was because of paying for private education. I didn't feel massive sympathy for her and thought it worthy of a piss take.

You pseudo snobby bastard :lol:
Fairy snuff! Possibly a bit late in the day and I'm jet-lagged having flown back from Munich... :lol:
  :hi:
« Last Edit: January 15, 2015, 01:48:45 AM by Quesadilla »
Banning reason: Obnoxious and arrogant + Veiled threat of outing punter on UKE

Offline smiths

As always West8 is living in cloud cuckoo land.

A WG charging just £100ph and taking 1 booking per day 6 days a week 48 weeks of the year is on almost £30k - that's almost £5k more than the national average salary.

I can't think of many WG's who charge as little as £100ph and take so few bookings so I'd say the realistic range for a decent WG is more likely £40-130k. 

Let's not get into the whole tax argument - many WG's do pay some tax - otherwise they wouldn't be able to buy so much crap without falling under HMRC's watchful eye - but you only need to declare "enough" to suit your lifestyle - certainly less than would take you to the high rate tax payer brackets - and then the rest is tax free.  For a civvy who is earning £100k it's depressing when you see that actually you lose about £30k in tax! A smart WG who avoids paying tax on the top end could well be £15-30k better off again.

Regardless of expenses that is a fuck load of cash for someone to earn without any specific qualifications, training or experience.  It's a job almost any woman can do either full time or part time in addition to studies or a full time day job.  It offers total flexibility and autonomy, can be done from the comfort of your own home or while on the road. 

The civvy / legit life is hardly that great by comparison.  First there's discrimination in the workplace which means even a well qualified and experienced woman typically earns 10-20% LESS than any of her male counterparts (depending on job). I don't know about you but that would piss me off.

Partly because of the generally lower pay I've known plenty of women who take second jobs to earn extra cash - evening jobs which include bar work, waitressing, telesales, cleaning.  Earning a pittance with hardly less unsociable hours than escorting and far from glamorous.

And if you're a young woman who actually enjoys sex (shock, horror, yes many actually do) your other option is go to your local meat market (ie night club/Tinder) get chatted up by some drunk twat who might just about to be able to afford to buy you a drink and a kebab before clumsily groping you.  Repeat ad nauseum til you get bored of random encounters and find a "decent" bloke for a "long term" relationship - ie the same boring sex over and over again, in ever decreasing frequency.

As for risk of STI's - a civvy chick is much more likely to bareback once she trust her partner, but as we all know there are lots of boyfriends and husbands who could easily be banging other civvies or WG's anyway.  The bareback angle just increases the risk and for a civvy chick of course without any suspicion that her partner has contracted say gonorrhoea if she is infected but asymptomatic (as is very common) she is far more at risk of long-term permanent damage than a WG who is tested monthly.

I suspect the social stigma is probably the biggest issue. Even this is changing as sites like Seeking Arrangement and Whats Your Price look to make sugar-daddy / mutually beneficial type arrangements more socially acceptable.  Just prostitution by another name.

So as career choices go I'd say escorting is really not so bad.

You say many WGs do pay some tax. Thats of course an unprovable guess. Personally my unprovable guess is some WGs pay tax, not my business as my taxes go towards tax collectors so its their job to catch those that are breaking the law, not something that i concern myself with. When WGs get cash off punters it isnt that difficult to buy many things in cash or have family and friends they trust if they have any they trust that much to purchase things for them. Buying things that cost thousands in cash is more difficult and can attract attention obviously but if smart there are always ways and means.

I know after speaking to some WGs over many years that most of them didnt want the authorities to know they were WGs, they wanted to be able to become a WG, make money and then slip away to start a new life. This included landlords, mortgage providers and councils. Only if a WG owned the freehold outright of her working premises could she operate within the rules many of those three lay down. In fact this was why a few only worked out of hotels and only doing Outcalls.

As to what WGs can make, again not my business, as long as they offer me a good service good luck to them if they make a lot. I wouldnt fancy or be able to suck and fuck women i found repulsive so i give the good ones great credit for being able to do that and with a good outward attitude. :hi:

Offline Quesadilla

Just more evidence that West8 has no clue.

Posted in another thread today a link to an article about a murder of one prostitute by another.

A friend of the two women, and fellow prostitute, said she thought the defendant had become jealous of Ms Anders because she had more clients and earned more money, about £3,000 a week, the court heard.

Clearly the difference between a "popular" WG and one who is not is enough to kill over.  £3k adds up to nearly £150k a year!

Scary as she was in my neighbourhood and cute enough I would definitely have seen her!
Banning reason: Obnoxious and arrogant + Veiled threat of outing punter on UKE

Offline west8

Just more evidence that West8 has no clue.

Posted in another thread today a link to an article about a murder of one prostitute by another.

Clearly the difference between a "popular" WG and one who is not is enough to kill over.  £3k adds up to nearly £150k a year!

Scary as she was in my neighbourhood and cute enough I would definitely have seen her!

You can't compare the income and outgoings of a WG who lives and works in shitty suburbia with a WG who lives and works (and tours) in central London. Any touring girl will tell you that. It's also the reason the girls from up north often increase their rates by £50-£100 per hour when they journey to the Metropolis.

The economic reasons are obvious. But the main difference is that central London WGs spend a fortune on their social lives. Take a trip to Boujis or Tonteria on a Thursday night to see the kind of cash the girls will splash out. It's mind-boggling.

As for any blurb about the riches of escorting you might read in the press, more fool you if you believe the hype.

That said, as you have little to no experience of the central London cattlemarket, I can excuse your ignorance.

Offline vt

You can't compare the income and outgoings of a WG who lives and works in shitty suburbia with a WG who lives and works (and tours) in central London. Any touring girl will tell you that. It's also the reason the girls from up north often increase their rates by £50-£100 per hour when they journey to the Metropolis.

The economic reasons are obvious. But the main difference is that central London WGs spend a fortune on their social lives. Take a trip to Boujis or Tonteria on a Thursday night to see the kind of cash the girls will splash out. It's mind-boggling.

As for any blurb about the riches of escorting you might read in the press, more fool you if you believe the hype.

That said, as you have little to no experience of the central London cattlemarket, I can excuse your ignorance.

That reported £3000 a week was under oath in a courtroom, so not press speculation...but was likely a good week of a popular girl.

So, why would girls bother to tour Central London if they couldn't earn even more than in the 'burbs??

Also, what's the spend on social life got to do with income...surely that's optional!?!  :unknown:

Why don't you just come out with what you're itching to reveal about a certain girl's earnings???  :wacko:

« Last Edit: January 15, 2015, 09:28:17 AM by vt »

Offline west8

That reported £3000 a week was under oath in a courtroom, so not press speculation...but was likely a good week of a popular girl.

So, why would girls bother to tour Central London if they couldn't earn even more than in the 'burbs??

Also, what's the spend on social life got to do with income...surely that's optional!?!  :unknown:

Why don't you just come out with what you're itching to reveal about a certain girl's earnings???  :wacko:

Under oath in a courtroom. I guess you haven't spent much time in the Crown Court.

As for the earnings of ANY individual, I already clarified that point. But keep on hoping it will happen - it won't.

Offline James999

You say many WGs do pay some tax.

If a pro$$ie buys cigarettes it includes VAT and as such they claim to pay tax

Anyone who believes pro$$ies pay proper tax is a fool  :music:

Offline pianodave

Who cares? Some people need to spend less time thinking about punting, and more time actually punting :)

Offline west8

Who cares? Some people need to spend less time thinking about punting, and more time actually punting :)

Wrote the guy who has only punted four times (or is too fucking lazy to review the other 200 girls he might have met).

 :drinks:

Offline Quesadilla

You can't compare the income and outgoings of a WG who lives and works in shitty suburbia with a WG who lives and works (and tours) in central London. Any touring girl will tell you that. It's also the reason the girls from up north often increase their rates by £50-£100 per hour when they journey to the Metropolis.

The economic reasons are obvious. But the main difference is that central London WGs spend a fortune on their social lives. Take a trip to Boujis or Tonteria on a Thursday night to see the kind of cash the girls will splash out. It's mind-boggling.

As for any blurb about the riches of escorting you might read in the press, more fool you if you believe the hype.

That said, as you have little to no experience of the central London cattlemarket, I can excuse your ignorance.
Shitty suburbia? Richmond?  :wacko:

And once again a massive west8 U-turn when things aren't going your way - your OP did not state you were exclusively talking about WG'S working in "Central London" - the thread is posted in UKPunting not even the London section - and although you mention London that covers a rather huge area. I still consider myself to be London based despite a Surrey post code as I'm inside the M25 and can commute in to the centre quicker from here than from any of the London Postcodes I used to have and my train line is on the Oyster card network.

So firstly as you are now stating this thread is only related to London I suggest you ask Admin to move it and / or possibly change the title.

Secondly and as always you are wrong - 6 out of the last 10 girls I've seen operate out of central London (Paddington, Pimlico, Euston, Kensington & Chelsea) and not one is living in penury or anywhere close.  In fact half of them don't actually live in central London they live in the "shitty suburbs" like me and commute in.

And we all know why so many WG's migrate to London which is because there are unquestionably more punters and more affluence than anywhere else so your pathetic attempt to move the goal posts still doesn't stack up.

If being based in central London resulted in WG'S making less money or simply being worse off they wouldn't do it. They are hardly forced to come to London are they you twat?

So as always West, utter bullshit. 
Banning reason: Obnoxious and arrogant + Veiled threat of outing punter on UKE

Offline west8

Shitty suburbia? Richmond?  :wacko:

And once again a massive west8 U-turn when things aren't going your way - your OP did not state you were exclusively talking about WG'S working in "Central London" - the thread is posted in UKPunting not even the London section - and although you mention London that covers a rather huge area. I still consider myself to be London based despite a Surrey post code as I'm inside the M25 and can commute in to the centre quicker from here than from any of the London Postcodes I used to have and my train line is on the Oyster card network.

So firstly as you are now stating this thread is only related to London I suggest you ask Admin to move it and / or possibly change the title.

Secondly and as always you are wrong - 6 out of the last 10 girls I've seen operate out of central London (Paddington, Pimlico, Euston, Kensington & Chelsea) and not one is living in penury or anywhere close.  In fact half of them don't actually live in central London they live in the "shitty suburbs" like me and commute in.

And we all know why so many WG's migrate to London which is because there are unquestionably more punters and more affluence than anywhere else so your pathetic attempt to move the goal posts still doesn't stack up.

If being based in central London resulted in WG'S making less money or simply being worse off they wouldn't do it. They are hardly forced to come to London are they you twat?

So as always West, utter bullshit.

My experiences are based on central London WGs - as 99% of my posts over the past three months have made clear.

Offline Quesadilla

My experiences are based on central London WGs - as 99% of my posts over the past three months have made clear.
And your point is...?

Still wrong for all the reasons stated.
Banning reason: Obnoxious and arrogant + Veiled threat of outing punter on UKE

Offline RedKettle

you can see why the site bans members arranging socials - it would be a blood bath!!  Mind you I would buy a ticket.....

Offline west8

Okay, as you seem to want to play the fool, I'll give a more comprehensive dissection:

Shitty suburbia? Richmond?  :wacko:

Yes. Try booking a girl in Richmond after 12pm. Won't happen. I'm not talking about the place being aesthetically or economically shitty. I'm talking about the fact that WGs in London make a fuckload of money as they can fritter between hotels quite literally 24/7 if they so wish. Not possible in suburbia.


And once again a massive west8 U-turn when things aren't going your way - your OP did not state you were exclusively talking about WG'S working in "Central London" - the thread is posted in UKPunting not even the London section - and although you mention London that covers a rather huge area. I still consider myself to be London based despite a Surrey post code as I'm inside the M25 and can commute in to the centre quicker from here than from any of the London Postcodes I used to have and my train line is on the Oyster card network.

No U-turn. This is thread about AW girls - who also happen to work the central London hotel circuit. My stomping ground and the topic on which virtually all of my posts on this forum refer to.

Seems you again missed the point. Virtually every single popular AW touring girl does the central London circuit - including all the porn stars and overseas guests. Yes, they often pay a fleeting visit to the suburbs but the big money is in Zone 1. Richmond/Surbiton/Esher/Kingston/Epsom whatever is not London. I should know - I grew up there.


So firstly as you are now stating this thread is only related to London I suggest you ask Admin to move it and / or possibly change the title.

It's not a London thread - it's a thread about earnings - the majority of which are made in ZONE 1  ...  central London.


Secondly and as always you are wrong - 6 out of the last 10 girls I've seen operate out of central London (Paddington, Pimlico, Euston, Kensington & Chelsea) and not one is living in penury or anywhere close.  In fact half of them don't actually live in central London they live in the "shitty suburbs" like me and commute in.

They commute in because there are slim pickings in the suburbs. No-one wrote that all the AW girls are living in poverty. This is a thread about whether the economics stack up. They clearly do  .. but not to the degree many would assume. Myself included.

Particularly given the costs of commuting and the hotels. Most WGs factor in 35% of the daily 'take' on expenses. Factor in cancellations and the truth is sometimes 50% of a daily take.


And we all know why so many WG's migrate to London which is because there are unquestionably more punters and more affluence than anywhere else so your pathetic attempt to move the goal posts still doesn't stack up.

The only thing that is moving (or not it would seem) is your frontal lobe.


If being based in central London resulted in WG'S making less money or simply being worse off they wouldn't do it. They are hardly forced to come to London are they you twat?

Erm, they do the London circuit because it's their bread and butter. You again missed the point: it's profitable, but not the pot of gold that is often assumed.


So as always West, utter bullshit.

Touche.

Happy now?

Offline Quesadilla


Yes. Try booking a girl in Richmond after 12pm. Won't happen. I'm not talking about the place being aesthetically or economically shitty. I'm talking about the fact that WGs in London make a fuckload of money as they can fritter between hotels quite literally 24/7 if they so wish. Not possible in suburbia.
And in Richmond where I just demonstrated a popular WG can make £3k per week or £150k pa, you are now saying that's peanuts compared to the WGs in London who make a "fuckload" of money.  Just so we've got that clear?


No U-turn. This is thread about AW girls - who also happen to work the central London hotel circuit. My stomping ground and the topic on which virtually all of my posts on this forum refer to.
And thereby make - according to you a "fuckload" more than £3k per week right?

It's not a London thread - it's a thread about earnings - the majority of which are made in ZONE 1  ...  central London.

Yup got that now - zone 1 earnings - a "fuckload" more than £3k per week right?

They commute in because there are slim pickings in the suburbs. No-one wrote that all the AW girls are living in poverty.
Now are you sure about that West?  Because it kinda seemed like - just taking say the opening statement of your OP - that that is EXACTLY what you are saying.
Apparently some of the better know AW girls are living in penury. Either that or they're snorting it up their hooters.
Sorry do you know know what "penury" means? Because maybe it does not mean what you think it means.  Penury West means not just poverty but I would say "extreme poverty". 

Are you going to now deny that was your opening statement you lying U-turning snake??


This is a thread about whether the economics stack up. They clearly do  .. but not to the degree many would assume. Myself included.

Particularly given the costs of commuting and the hotels. Most WGs factor in 35% of the daily 'take' on expenses. Factor in cancellations and the truth is sometimes 50% of a daily take.

...they do the London circuit because it's their bread and butter. You again missed the point: it's profitable, but not the pot of gold that is often assumed.

And thereby proving yourself wrong once again.  If a WG can make £3k from the "slim pickings" in the "shitty suburbs" and by your estimation they earn a "fuckload" in zone 1 - I think we'd all agree it's likely more than double given the gold-paved streets of zone 1.  So even if they lose 35% on expenses, they are still much better off. 

Given the inconvenience of travelling etc I think we can all assume that they must AT LEAST be making an extra £1k per week AFTER expenses to make it worth their while.  Otherwise why would they do it?

So let's just summarise - that would put a "popular" central London / zone 1 WG as earning something like £4k MINIMUM AFTER expenses which is equivalent to £200k per annum. 

Now, in what part of Narnia does an equivalent salary to £200k per annum equate to penury? 

Oh, hang on - you don't think they make £200k do you - again from your OP:
£50K gross is a figure I have often heard bandied about as being 'barely enough to survive on'. Take off all the usual girlie expenses + travel + hotels and the net figure is a akin to an average London salary.

So you think they make £50k gross in zone 1?  Which indeed might be "barely enough to survive on" for someone living in zone 1.  But as we've proven in this thread, a zone 1 WG would HAVE to be making more like £200k to make it worth their while bothering, otherwise they'd stick to the "shitty suburbs" where they can make £150k pa and have nothing like the expenses to worry about.  Correct?

So to summarise - you have no clue what real WG's earn, because you are dumb as a brick and have just wasted pages to demonstrate that fact comprehensively.  :wacko:

Thank you for the demonstration West - for future reference you have nothing to prove - we all know you are dumb as a brick as well as being a total prick.

Now fuck back off to Narnia you moron.   
Banning reason: Obnoxious and arrogant + Veiled threat of outing punter on UKE

Offline carlisle78

Or at least stay in the Wardrobe.

Banning reason: Trolling another member because he posted a negative about his favourite prossie. Also known as EdiTed on other sites.

Offline west8

And in Richmond where I just demonstrated a popular WG can make £3k per week or £150k pa, you are now saying that's peanuts compared to the WGs in London who make a "fuckload" of money.  Just so we've got that clear?

You didn't demonstrate anything. You linked to a single newspaper report, which we all know is more hype and over-reaction than substance - just like your ill-informed responses to this thread.


And thereby make - according to you a "fuckload" more than £3k per week right?Yup got that now - zone 1 earnings - a "fuckload" more than £3k per week right?Now are you sure about that West?  Because it kinda seemed like - just taking say the opening statement of your OP - that that is EXACTLY what you are saying.Sorry do you know know what "penury" means? Because maybe it does not mean what you think it means.  Penury West means not just poverty but I would say "extreme poverty".

You clearly know more about poverty than I do. But don't feel angry. Work a little harder and you can play a little harder.


So let's just summarise - that would put a "popular" central London / zone 1 WG as earning something like £4k MINIMUM AFTER expenses which is equivalent to £200k per annum.

Now, in what part of Narnia does an equivalent salary to £200k per annum equate to penury? 
 

The penny still hasn't dropped. What a WG is earns is the NET figure after deductions. Jesus, you don't need fucking KPMG to explain that.


Oh, hang on - you don't think they make £200k do you - again from your OP:
So you think they make £50k gross in zone 1?  Which indeed might be "barely enough to survive on" for someone living in zone 1.  But as we've proven in this thread, a zone 1 WG would HAVE to be making more like £200k to make it worth their while bothering, otherwise they'd stick to the "shitty suburbs" where they can make £150k pa and have nothing like the expenses to worry about.  Correct?

No WG is banking £150K in the suburbs unless she is doing the central London circuit. Not sure how many more times you are going to fail to see that point.


So to summarise - you have no clue what real WG's earn, because you are dumb as a brick and have just wasted pages to demonstrate that fact comprehensively.  :wacko:

Thank you for the demonstration West - for future reference you have nothing to prove - we all know you are dumb as a brick as well as being a total prick.

To summarise, it appears that your first language isn't English. My apologies, I assumed it was.


Now fuck back off to Narnia you moron.

Someone is very angry today. Boss tell you off for being late?

Offline anyfucker

just to add my 2cents, was told a couple of months ago by a WG in zone 1 she earnt £30k in her first month by working her bollox off  :D
she has cut back her working to earn 20k per month so she doesn't burn out.
her rates are in the range £120-130 per hour in-call.
flat about 2k per month rent.
she has a good goal for her earnings and is well on the way to achieving that goal in the next couple of years.
tax situation unknown.

i know there are some WGs who have "regular" jobs and so only escort a few times a week or at week-ends so their WG earnings are at the lower end of the scale but enough for what they want.

Offline west8

just to add my 2cents, was told a couple of months ago by a WG in zone 1 she earnt £30k in her first month by working her bollox off  :D
she has cut back her working to earn 20k per month so she doesn't burn out.
her rates are in the range £120-130 per hour in-call.
flat about 2k per month rent.
she has a good goal for her earnings and is well on the way to achieving that goal in the next couple of years.
tax situation unknown.

i know there are some WGs who have "regular" jobs and so only escort a few times a week or at week-ends so their WG earnings are at the lower end of the scale but enough for what they want.

Very interesting for sure.

I couldn't find it, but in a previous post I broke down the expenses of a typical £150/hr central London WG.

That £100K or whatever it was was more like 30 after deductions. She didn't pay any income tax either.

The biggest single 'expense' the vast majority of WGs have is their family - not just the non-native WGs either.

Offline Quesadilla

You didn't demonstrate anything. You linked to a single newspaper report, which we all know is more hype and over-reaction than substance - just like your ill-informed responses to this thread.
And you linked to what evidence of your assertion that a WG in London earns £50k? None. Just assertion from someone who clearly has no clue, and who is a proven liar.


You clearly know more about poverty than I do. But don't feel angry. Work a little harder and you can play a little harder.

Hilarious West, hilarious. I work about 10-20 hrs per week most weeks, from the comfort of my own home in the "shitty suburbs" - which suits me fine, allows me plenty of time to do my own thing and I think I play quite hard enough thanks. 



The penny still hasn't dropped. What a WG is earns is the NET figure after deductions. Jesus, you don't need fucking KPMG to explain that.
Yes, exactly what I said. Even after expenses a WG in central London must be making more than she could make in the "shitty suburbs" or else she'd stay in the suburbs. Not rocket science West.


No WG is banking £150K in the suburbs unless she is doing the central London circuit. Not sure how many more times you are going to fail to see that point.
Err...prove it. I have provided one item of evidence which you assert is "exaggerated" others in this thread have also suggested £150k is normal, Anyfucker there just commented about a WG boasting of earning £30k in 1 month! 

Let us be clear West - nobody believes a word YOU say.  So anything that you ASSERT without EVIDENCE will just be laughed at.  Present some EVIDENCE or fuck off back to Narnia.
Banning reason: Obnoxious and arrogant + Veiled threat of outing punter on UKE

Offline 306

sorry to say who gives a fuck the price you pay is your choice
do you think 1 hours work on your car is worth £78 to £130 per hour plus vat
 yes its dear to punt but the choice is yours ,
try it if you wish but most males on aw charge £10 hour or so so a little less than girls !!
Banning reason: Constantly making nonsensical useless posts + Constantly ignoring admin requests


Latest videos on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

Latest images on UKEscorting.com (free site!)