To be confused by 'high earners' complaining about taxes?

So if im paying your company for services or goods, your salary is my money?

You think a night worker at mc’ds should earn the same as a surgeon?!

Thats ridiculous. You obviously dont think that.

But do you actually feel like you are living in a safe and secure society though? Genuinely asking because that’s a bit the point of your thread and as a non-white gay woman with an immigrant background I wouldn’t say I feel
« secure » in the UK or even in most high-tax countries, and as per my previous post, I don’t necessarily feel like healthcare, housing, education, nor safety is at the standard I would expect for the amount of tax expected from me/people like me, or even just the general population.

If you feel 100% secure in the UK then you are pretty privileged because I do feel the average citizen feels quite insecure in this current economy, with the current healthcare system, current housing situation and the current political climate/sentiment.

But then poor people can't afford to call an ambulance

The concept of "wealth extraction" refers to the critique that certain high earners—particularly executives, shareholders, and investors—derive disproportionate income not primarily through creating new value, but by capturing (or "extracting") surplus generated by workers, consumers, taxpayers, or societal systems.

This view, rooted in labor theories of value (e.g., classical economics from Marx or modern inequality scholars like Thomas Piketty), argues that frontline labor produces goods/services, while elites skim profits via mechanisms like low wages, monopolistic pricing, financial engineering, or tax avoidance.

, this manifests in examples like care home owners profiting from low-paid carers (whose wages are indirectly subsidized by taxpayer benefits), Amazon's warehouse workers enduring poor conditions to fuel executive/owner wealth, or CEOs earning hundreds of times more than median employees despite relying on collective effort.

Proponents see this as systemic: capitalism incentivizes extraction when returns on capital outpace economic growth (Piketty's r > g), widening inequality. Nuances include "rent-seeking" (gaining wealth through manipulation rather than productivity, e.g., lobbying for subsidies) versus legitimate profits.

Implications are profound: rising inequality erodes social cohesion, reduces consumer spending (as wealth concentrates), and fuels populism, while potentially stifling innovation if talent chases extractive sectors like finance over productive ones.

Counterarguments emphasize value creation over extraction: high earners often bear outsized risk (e.g., entrepreneurs facing bankruptcy), allocate capital efficiently to scale operations (enabling jobs and growth), or innovate in ways that multiply productivity (e.g., Jeff Bezos turning a garage bookstore into a global logistics empire employing millions).

Marginal productivity theory posits that pay reflects contribution—scarce skills in leadership or vision justify premiums, as poor decisions can destroy value (e.g., a failing CEO tanking a company and jobs).

Evidence shows mixed realities: UK FTSE 100 CEO pay ratios averaged ~109:1 in 2023 (High Pay Centre data), down from peaks but still high; yet many firms argue executives deliver shareholder returns exceeding wages.

Edge cases highlight distinctions—productive "wealth creators" (e.g., tech founders building sustainable firms) versus extractive ones (private equity loading companies with debt for short-term gains, then exiting).

In the UK, corporate tax avoidance (e.g., multinationals shifting profits offshore) exemplifies extraction from public coffers, costing billions in lost revenue for services. Broader implications: if extraction dominates, progressive taxes or regulations (e.g., windfall taxes, pay ratio caps) could rebalance; but overreach risks deterring investment.

No, it's not unreasonable for high earners to complain about taxes, and the confusion arises from overlooking key realities of the UK's tax system and public services.

High earners (often defined as £50k+ for higher-rate tax, or £100k+ for traps like the 60% effective marginal rate) contribute disproportionately— the top 10% pay around 60% of income tax—yet many report receiving poor value in return, such as long NHS waits, delayed ambulances, or inadequate GP access, forcing them to go private despite their contributions.

Their grievances typically centre on waste, mismanagement, and disincentives (e.g., doctors limiting hours or entrepreneurs slowing growth to avoid tax cliffs), rather than taxes existing at all.

While it's true that much private income ultimately cycles through public spending and societal infrastructure, this interdependence doesn't negate the frustration when the "social contract" feels one-sided: high contributors subsidize broad services but see declining quality and personal penalties for success.
Your point about wealth originating from "normal people paying for things" has merit—profits and salaries often trace back to collective demand, consumer purchases, or taxpayer-funded ecosystems—but it oversimplifies value creation and risk.

Many high earners take on significant stress, long hours, or entrepreneurial risks (e.g., potential bankruptcy) to generate jobs and growth that benefit society, including lower earners.

Dismissing this as a "rigged game" ignores that market pay reflects supply/demand, skill scarcity, and voluntary exchanges, not just extraction. In a healthy system, progressive taxes are fair for redistribution and public goods, but when services falter and marginal rates punish extra effort, complaints are valid across income levels—not just envy or entitlement.

Ultimately, the real issue is systemic inefficiency, not high earners' right to voice dissatisfaction with how their substantial taxes are spent.

You are being robbed.

I've met family in Asia who have domestic help. The help have their own apartment/rooms to stay in. Get treated well, paid fairly and have enough to look after their own families.

I am not attacking you I am questioning your motives.

I am not from the UK as previously stated but similar system and have a dad who never left the country yet never paid maintenance. Many men don’t pay maintenance or pay a measly token monthly « participation » in the UK and in many other equally « modern » countries, because there’s a big difference between what the system tells you it can do for you and ways in which it can protect you and what it actually does.

I don’t think that poster’s situation would be much different if she divorced him and he stayed or he left. Morally corrupt people will find ways to not pay maintenance and bail on their responsibilities whether they live in the UK or move to a tax-haven.

I am curious though. If you feel you shouldn’t be a high earner and the cleaning lady at your office should earn as much as you or you as little as her, why don’t you share your salary with her? Hire her to clean for you and pay her half of what you make?

it’s interesting you don’t feel you should earn more than others but still do and yet are upset at others who also do?

It’s unacceptable to minimise tax on the scale Amazon and others do it. The tab for the difference between the tax they should pay and what they actually pay gets picked up by UK tax payers whilst Amazon laughs all the way to the bank.

Do you think it is rational for firms like Amazon to benefit directly from UK workers, UK customers, and systems paid for by taxes: healthcare, education, infrastructure etc without making a contribution to living salaries or taxes for the up keep of those systems. Because if Amazon and similar companies aren’t paying enough tax or high enough wages who do you think funds the services or the state income top-ups some of their direct and/or indirect workers rely on?...

There’s nothing wrong with making a profit. There is something wrong with making large profits while expecting the UK public to subsidise your labour costs and the systems your business depends on.

until they can fully use robots

The working conditions are shit.
But you can't see that from your ivory tower.

He does it so his business can run and make money. He does it for his own benefit, but indirectly is providing employment and income for people?

but when they charge over the odds for the actual services offered etc then thats greed

Do you think the majority of households in UK manage to save USD 400 a month? That is net salary as everything is paid for. I don't live in Dubai so have no idea what their working conditions are like so cannot comment. I am only commenting on where we live. Where we live in Asia, domestic helpers are treated well as part of the family. They are paid between GBP 600-GBP 1000 per month net and they get bonuses on top. All their expenses are paid for. Majorities of families in the UK cannot save this on a monthly basis . Why is that modern slavery. Don't form judgement about things you do not know much about.

The part that you're missing in this example is the several million quid Joe has invested in the care homes. He could have used that money to buy government bonds and live off the interest payments, or invested it in shares and had long-term gains.

If Joe can't make a living from his investment in care homes, no one will own or operate care homes.

You explained it well.

I don't earn anything like £400,000 but I'm in that group of highest tax payers. As I'm in Scotland the headline tax on the top slice of my income is 67.5%.

No, I'm not happy at paying so much.

He does. Not you.

I think you are all over the shop.

Has many other technical and soft skills as well. AI won't fully replace what he does. Even so, the grads would be the ones who would be replaced at the start. If the very very worst happens and he's replaced.... then we'll enjoy retirement.