Okay so this is wildly off topic but I have to point a few things out, as I live in Scotland but most forum members don't, and may be swayed by your statements. Your original suggestion that an average photographer could afford a ~£10k lens per year was silly, and you're massaging the figures even as you pull back from it (next it was 'not just once in a lifetime'!).
Did you also read that my original statement was in reply to someone saying I could never afford one or any photographer. Or that my estimates only changed the taking into account for people living in countries that don't have as high wages?
You've ignored income tax, national insurance, and a whole host of other living expenses - phone? Internet? Clothing? A computer to process your photos? Even then, rents are considerably higher than you state - I've just checked and the average for a 2 bed property is only just under £500/mo in a handful of postcodes, most are much higher, and for a 3 bed, far higher still. Buses don't generally take you where a big lens is useful - trust me, I've spent years doing wildlife photography without a car and public transport doesn't tend to go where the birds are (or at the best times for them); it's not impossible, but seems an odd choice if you're also saying a car is affordable (but once again, you've missed off insurance, road tax, fuel, maintenance, etc). Living alone is more expensive than sharing, btw, as some costs are fixed.
I didn't ignore income tax and national insurance. I based my figures on take home pay. The chaps in the co-op take home around £12,000 and the most junior position I can think of with a degree (of which you can get 2 for free) has a take home pay of £26,000.
I live not to far off St Andrews and a 3 bed stone built house is £500 a month, this is what I pay. If I want a cheeper house I could rent a brick built house.
No one said anything about taking the bus to your photography destination, I said you don't need to own a car. I worked 20 years without a car and only finally bought one with 11,500 miles on it for £2000 and it sits there. Car insurance is £26/month, road tax is £20 a year. And a car is not a necessity. You can buy a lens this year and a car next year.
You don't need a phone. BT full fibre 910 is under £100/year. You don't need to buy new clothes, mine have been fine for 20 years.
Any £10k+ purchase is a big, rare thing for almost everyone, and when it is non-essential, as these lenses are for even the vast majority of photographers, making it sound casual and easy is ridiculous. Saving £100 a month (which is a lot on a modest income!) it would take over eight years (although in any case I suspect more people buy them on credit and pay it back over several years, rather than saving up). Let's be realistic. (This is why the budget super telephoto lenses are so important - far far more people can justify a £1000 lens even with numerous compromises).
No one said it isn't a big purchase, I said I expect a photographer could buy one a year as I based that on the known incomes of photographers in my area. As for hobbyists, well that depends on your day job but I would still expect it to be possible to buy more than one if this was your passion in life. Frick my neighbours happily pay the equivalent in golf club memberships.
I don't know why we have changed from a specific set of photographers to all photographers. Why would a wedding and events photographer buy a 600mm f/4 and why would I buy a 85mm f/1.2? Why in a forum where people are happily buying £4000 R5's on release day that it is unexpected that photographers would buy more than one super tele lens? Having a 300 f/2.8, 180/200-400 f/4 and a 500 or 600mm has always seemed to be the norm for this set, I can see this on every YouTuber and other photographers I meet.
This is a incredibly daft discussion to be having. I can't imagine a photographer is slaving away for the absolute minimum wage yet is happily touting along two R5's, the trinity, and one or more fast prime.