AIBU to think the £100k tax trap is unfair?

I don’t understand this. The person can sacrifice sufficient salary to bring their tax code down, and potentially to receive certain benefits. And when they retire of course they will pay tax, we all do. But that future tax could well be at lower band than it would have been if not sacrificed.

I can however understand encouraging people to save for a pension by incentives. But why can someone reduce their salary to take them down a tax band, claim child benefit, get the childcare stuff, for buying a new car, I don’t get that.The person sacrificing tax will benefit straight away from various things and get a new car as well.

Who are supplemented by those paying taxes who don’t have children, in part because they didn’t want the financial burden of paying for children.

Whom to vote for when you are socially liberal, but economically conservative? I don't want the right to get in and tamper with LGBT or Women's rights. Like the Conservatives did in the 80s with clause 28.

At the same time, I don't want the economy stifled in the way that it has under Labour.

I think we partially agree. I don't find it astounding and a lot of disabilities don't allow insurance. Additionally, other people aren't in a position to afford the extra income. Take care.

Yes this would be tough. I can afford to change my circumstances - downsize and stop working - but appreciate that that option isn’t open to everyone. I do find it astounding that so many people go through life without insuring against losing their income through disability.

But you realise "support" is not a thing in and of itself? It has to be given. So if you don't think work should be rewarded, who would be giving the support?

Yeah, those people. Taxes are a finite resource and we need to prioritise where they're spent. People who can afford to pay their own expenses, should pay them. Otherwise, isn't this a communist policy? I'm not against that but we seem to be confused about what our country's fundamental beliefs are.

Ok. I'll leave you be. I honestly hope you don't suffer the pain of disability. All the best.

It's not a separate question. What people "deserve" is irrelevant if you can't say where that support should be coming from.
If not a meritocracy, then what?

And what about if your child was born with a severe disability? I hope, of course, this doesn't happen.

That's a separate question, though. The point being made wasn't “what should the welfare system look like?” It was questioning the idea that someone's entitlement to support should be based on whether they're a “hardworking” person. If you believe the meritocracy argument and that work and "success" equates "reward", then what happens when someone who has worked all their life becomes disabled tomorrow? Are they suddenly no longer deserving because they can no longer demonstrate their “merit”? That's the question being asked. You need to answer that before jumping to asking what system I'd design.

I’d be fine as I have insurance that pays my salary if I become too disabled to work, as a heck of a lot of other people do. You can insure against the financial impact of becoming disabled very easily.

I know many people who have gone part time to avoid it which is mad. I think childcare is a different issue and I would personally prefer to see an incentive for people to stay home esp those early first years to raise their own if possible.
100k is often seen as this humongous salary and while it is a good amount, a single earner on that in a family loses child benefit, any childcare support, pays more tax because of cliff edge etc so are worse off that earning much less!

The tax paid by higher earners shot up under the Tory government actually. I’m not saying Labour aren’t about to make it worse, but what neither Labour or the Tories want you to know (for different reasons) is that the Tories hammered the better off.

So what is the alternative? What system would you put in place?

It can catch people out who get made redundant with high exit packages, especially when they leave yesterday the end of a tax year.

People talk about meritocracy and applaud people for what they've achieved, but they ignore the lived reality for a lot of people. It's fine to talk about merit and achievement, but for some people that's just not a possibility because they're disabled and physically unable to work. And disability is one minority that you don't have to be born into. You can become disabled at any point in your life. Crudely, you could be hit by a bus tomorrow, become disabled, not be able to work, and all of a sudden you wouldn't be a "hard working" member of society anymore. You'd be disabled and reliant on welfare. So what would happen then? What happens to people's ideas ideas of meritocracy then?

It's what they're like.

Nail on the head.

Yup. Huge numbers of people ensuring their income stays under £100k or £50k or self employed staying under £90k (VAT threshold), means the government gets LESS tax overall and not only that, but it stifles economic growth as people are working less than they could, small businesses are selling fewer goods/services than they could, etc. It's utterly bonkers.

It's Labour - the politics of spite, hate and envy. They want everyone dragged down to the lowest common denominator for the sake of "fairness". If that means everyone is poor, everyone gets a crap education, everyone gets crap healthcare, it's fine by them because everyone is equal! Utterly bonkers.

Government should not demand sacrifices from one group of working people while declaring the benefits it promises another group beyond meaningful reform.

Reform welfare. Attack fraud and error. Cut procurement waste and duplicated bureaucracy. Demand genuine improvements in public-sector productivity. Then attack the other side of the balance sheet: build energy security, infrastructure and R&D, commercialise British IP and accumulate productive national assets capable of generating returns for future generations.

Hardworking private-sector taxpayers are not an unlimited ATM for an unreformed state. If the triple lock is on the table, £1.4tn of unfunded public-sector pension promises, extravagant senior payouts, welfare, waste and inefficiency belong on that table too.

Stop continually reaching into the pockets of people who work, save, invest and provide for themselves while shielding vastly expensive promises elsewhere. It isn’t sustainable. It isn’t equitable. And it isn’t fair.

Enough is enough.

It’s really unfair. Especially as a 2 adult family could earn £99,999 each before being penalised!

I’m the only earner and have to be careful with bonuses. I normally put extra into my pension to keep under 100k.

Why is the UK tax code all about punishing hard work and success

I agree. I think disability benefit should be too, if needed.