Resentment at 100k

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? My post was crystal clear.

I assume you’re lucky to be in a postcode area where the NHS still provides some level of care. Here it’s non existent and it’s even starting to affect private provision - which is now overstretched due to the recent influx of people looking to opt out of NHS care.

There is no safety net anymore. We’re increasingly being asked to pay into a system into which we have no stake. The salary sacrifice changes were particularly galling for this reason. High taxes to support pensions for today’s ageing population with no guarantee of future provision, and diminishing opportunities to save for own pensions.

I’m in exactly the same boat. It’s really hard.

To quote the OP:

"As net contributors, and most likely having made sacrifices,...."

I don't think there is resentment to people earning 100k, I think it's the bit in bold that causes a bit of resentment, The " I pulled my bootstraps up, made sacrifices, why can't you" attitude.

Do you think a warehouse worker getting up at 5am on a winters night to go do a 12 hour shift on minimum wage is not "making sacrifices" ?

That, and the fact that many people who say the bootstrap stuff brush off the luck factor. Luck does play a part.

And lets be brutally honest. Most of us have seen the way workplace politics work. It is not always the best that get promoted.

Many of us have experienced it first hand, the sycophantic two faced stuff that goes on. For such a person then to say " I pulled my bootstraps up and made sacrifices to get to where I am", , people can get a bit riled.

The latter points not aimed at the OP of course.

To what end? Better public services for everyone.

I am a high earner, and your post is utter bullshit.

Firstly, it is not a given that we are all "net contributors". I have MS - I'm pretty sure I am now taking more out of the NHS than I pay in tax.

Secondly, I am now seeing the purpose of being able to contribute for several years. It's not so that I can whine about tax and look down on people less fortunate than me. It's so that the state will support me when I need it. I'm fortunate to still be working. I'm also fortunate not to live in the USA, because the cost of my treatment would have bankrupted me by now.

Thirdly - the absolute temerity of claiming there is "no personal gain"! You work all month and come home with nothing, do you? The government takes every penny? In that case I strongly recommend that you give up work and see if it is possible for you to sustain your current lifestyle on minimum wage. And then, just as an experiment, see how easy it is for you to climb back up that ladder when you change your mind.

Being a high earner, contributing to the society in which you live and having a tangible stake in that society - these are what we call privileges. I consider myself extremely fortunate to have come from a working class family, if only because it means I don't think like you.

'Broadest shoulders' is a joke anyway. Tax billionaires and corporations fairly and, yes, that makes sense. A worker sacrificing their freedom and family time on 100k is not the one with the broadest shoulders.

What will happen is brain drain for those who want to achieve, and those who stay will not bother.

I’m all for fair taxation OP which to me should mean that we all FEEL that we are benefitting somehow within the system.

Nope, because my husband needs to be near London for his work (he works in film) there are no jobs like this outside of London.

Yes, I suppose that is my point. No one can argue it isn't a decent salary but its (1) attainable (senior teacher?), (2) not Scrooge McDuck money. But the cliff edge has was attached to the symbolic figure and even though it no longer has the same value the cliff edge has not been adjusted upwards in proportion. (and that assumes one believes in the principle of punishing high earning workers)

Try being on 40k a year and not entitled to any benefits, with a mortgage, in the south east.

It’s simple enough to dodge the worst effects of the governments greediness if you are earning around the £100,000 mark. Usually such people have the knowledge and motivation to do so. Reeves assault on salary sacrifice acknowledges this.

100k is symbolic but it doesn't really mean what it used to, partly because of changes to taxes and benefits and partly due to wage inflation and cost of living increases. I think we should find a new target for our envy and hate 500k is the next obvious increment.

OP and @Theboymolefoxandhorse I wish these hard cliff edges would go. Wouldn’t benefit me as a basic rate taxpayer, but can see the impact and unfairness. The single or combined salary child benefit limit - plainly wrong too. Yes, it is mad that those earning 3 times more than most reduce their hours to keep within a tax band, or offload into their pensions which to be fair are already probably pretty healthy.

I think reintroducing the 10% band, giving everyone a personal allowance, smoothing cliff edges with additional tax bands as needed, and allowing everyone the childcare benefit, is fairer and could - could it? - make sure that the highest earners feel they too benefit from the system, not dump more and more into pensions but spend a bit more thus helping the economy. In tandem, merge tax & NI and tax all income the same - dividends, CGT, the lot. Until income of any type to an individual is looked at that way, there is inequality of taxation between the workers and passive income recipients. Who knows how this would end up from an economic model, but I’ve heard lots of people suggest huge simplification of tax and certainly merging tax and NI.

I too have seen much more vitriol towards the lifting of the 2 child cap than other things. Comments like “I’m paying more and more tax to pay for those with loads of kids”.

I am also struggling with narrative about paying more tax when income tax, VAT, and NI have not changed. I understand the fiscal drag and inflation.

It probably doesn't matter what salary someone has, there will always be someone who gets two thirds of that, say, who can see only the immense feeling of relief from money worries that that salary would give them, and so finds it impossible to imagine someone having that and still feeling stressed. And they're not exactly wrong to think that it would make their life a lot easier, because it would. They're only wrong if they think it must always make for no worry at all, when obviously people can be worried and stressed with any salary, especially if they're temporarily a bit over committed due to things like childcare.