To be annoyed/hurt by my good friend and think high earners should be willing to pay more ?

[whatislife]

i have been lurking on MN for a long time and never posted. Decided to join today and thought I'd mark the occasion with a rant.
I got in an argument with my friend (2 days ago) and the anger re-appeared when she sent me a text this morning. This doesn't really matter though.

The argument started when she made a snarky comment about an old friend of ours (not very close to be honest). The woman had been complaining about money and started ranting about high earners, tax and all sorts. My friend , a very high earner (think 6 figures), kept quiet the whole while and then started talking about it to me. This is where she said something along the lines of 'No one forced her to messed around at school and screw her life up. Im not going to feel bad because I worked hard' and 'why should I pay more tax when I already pay a ridiculous amount and she doesn't pay any'. These comments really angered me because I am also a low earner and rely on benefits - she knows this ! So we got into an argument about tax and benefits (silly i know but personal comments were also made).

My question is ; AIBU to think my close friend (and high earners in general) should realise how lucky she is and be willing to pay more tax so people like me can also have a normal life?

I really thought this one would be early because I'm so huge, but nothing. Not even a twinge! Don't worry - yours will probably come first!

I hope so!! (Though I hope yours gets a move on too...)

This one was measuring full term (6lb) at 33 weeks. Still no attempt to exit...

never in British history have the better off paid such a high share of the tax burden

A very timely reminder - and well worth pointing this out

I think 'ambitious' will be a synonym for 'selfish' in 100-200 years time

Very possibly the same thing was said in prehistoric times when someone went out searching for a better cave ... but it's still that ambition which helped the race to develop

Am I so much more valuable than a cleaner on £6 an hour or 16 year old on less than that?

Obviously I couldn't begin to speculate on your personal value - but clearly, rightly or wrongly, your skills are seen as more valuable in today's society

My DH is a higher - rate tax payer. He earns what he earns because he studied for years to gain knowledge and skills that make a lot of money for his employers. There are a very small number of people worldwide who have the same knowledge and skills. He could go and work abroad, and would if tax was put up even more than he already pays. He also pays thousands a month in maintenance, meaning his Ex and children are also not a 'burden' on the state.

Our cleaner is paid £18/hour. She enjoys her job, and happily admits she was not academic/didn't work at school. With the best will in the world, she is not particularly equipped to do a more challenging job. I actually think she gets a great wage for a job that anyone could do (although they might not enjoy it). Our gardener gets £15/hour for cutting grass/trimming hedges. Again, not skilled. I don't look down on them, they do a great job and get paid fairly. If we earned less, they wouldn't be working for us.

I studied for 5 years (degree + postgrad) to become a teacher. My hourly rate is £21. There are lots of teachers, so they don't have to pay more in order to attract them (although with the drop - out rate that may have to happen). I used to support my 2 children on this without help from the government as I worked full-time.

I used to have TAs who grudged me my higher wages, yet their standard of literacy/numeracy was in some cases appalling and they did not have many qualifications. They also did not have to work all the 'hidden' hours in the evenings and weekends.

My friend has spent the last 20 years working approx. 15 hours/week term-time only so she can get her housing benefit/tax credits/other benefits such as free vet treatment (PDSA), free eye/dental care etc. She doesn't see why she should work more hours, as she 'needs' her afternoons off to walk her dog/visit friends etc. and finds it 'too tiring' to work longer hours. I have had to bite my tongue on numerous occasions when she has said things like "It's alright for you with your wages" or been moaning about her pay.

Some people resent others their wages without wanting to do the extra study or put in the long hours necessary. I think everyone should get free healthcare/education, and the minimum wage should be higher/housing should be more affordable. I think people caring for family at home should also get paid more for the work they do, often with little/no support.

Do I think we should pay more tax? No, we pay huge amounts already. Do I think everyone should get similar wages? No, because then why would people even bother when they could do a job that they don't need to study for and that leaves their weekends/evenings free? Childcare needs to be more affordable/flexible, and people (like my perfectly - fit friend) need to be 'encouraged' to work for their money instead of working the system. Benefits should not be a lifestyle choice.

Rather than having even higher tax rates, why not just... not pay so much.

What is the point of bringing in a 50% or 60% or higher tax rate, to redistribute that money elsewhere? Why not just pay those people less, and pay the lower earners in the company more?

Woud have to be enforced in law, of course. A maximum wage? A set ratio eg. highest earner in company gets no more than 10x lowest paid?

Just to come back to this from last night ...

Tinkly I said, "Working is often more expensive than staying at home,"

No - I quoted you directly and you said There are definitely costs associated with working, and they are higher, the more prestigious your job. It is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. You didn't say you meant staying at home.

Ha my lot were 4 weeks early, 2 weeks early and 1 week early so I clearly win on baby incubation productivity. Make the most of your feet up time Binky and Jassy. I am MNing so that I can be on tap for the 10 minutes out of every hour when dd3 finds me absolutely necessary rather than completely ignoring me. If I actually tried to be productive she would suddenly need me 55 minutes out of every hour.

I think poor productivity in the UK has been attributed to people working to earn benefits rather than wages and companies being incentivised to over employ due to suppressed wages. I think the impact of the changes to NMW and benefits on employment levels and productivity are difficult to judge but may be significant.

celtictoast, you also need to factor in national insurance, he has to contribute towards a pension, as he works for a private company, there are no pension scheme, we do not get Child benefit, and I am a stay at home mum (my line of work, is lower paid) so he is supporting another adult aswell as 2 children on that.

Aeroflot, NI was factored into the calculation I did for you.

Pension is a personal choice - and a form of saving for the future to achieve a better standard of living in retirement. It's sensible, but not a requirement of the state.

Similarly, the costs of you not working, and the costs of having children, aren't something that should be factored into what's paid in taxes. They're the costs of choices made by the family, not the state.

yes jassy, saving for a pension is not really a choice, its a necessity that some tend not to think about. What I am saying is, if my husband was taxed anymore, he would be working mostly to pay tax.

yes jassy, saving for a pension is not really a choice

It's not a palatable choice for many who are used to a certain standard of living. But it's still a choice (unlike in some countries that have compulsory retirement saving schemes) and one that many on lower incomes feel they can't afford.

I get that things feel tight - I was simply pointing out that your husband pays much less that half his salary in tax and NI.

It's 40% tax he pays I just asked him, nit that much difference!

Yes fine, but more taxing more, I disagree with.

grazia unemployment is at 1.85 million....this is full employment by your reckoning? If another 15 hour of work comes up, it should be done by somebody who is already in work rather than one of the 1.85 million?

I really can't understand the idea that people already working should work even longer and be paid even more, rather than giving work to those who are currently unemployed.

The bottom line is after making pension contributions, unless you want to live hand to mouth later on, no child benefit, you are not wealthy. Public sector workers get a good pension, it is up to private sector workers to make their own provision, which you are advised to do.

He pays 40% on only the income that falls above the 40% threshold. Not on everything he earns.

Honestly, if he's paying more than £15,700 in income tax + NI, and there are no other complicating factors, he needs to talk toHMRC urgently.

In fact, if he's making pre-tax pension contributions, he should be paying less than that as his taxable income will be reduced.

Aeroflot, I get what you're saying, but I hope you can see that it's also fortunate for people like us to have the choice.

When I'm feeling hard done by by the world (friends with nicer homes/cars/more disposable income/better paid jobs), I remind myself of the answer to the question 'what's the thing I find tough to afford, but am not willing to cut or do without, and so will make sacrifices to pay for?'

For me, like you, its pension contributions, as well as certain savings.

For other people, pension contributions are so far out of reach its not even a consideration. For some, it's more likely to be 'having the heating on when it's cold and damp to prevent my asthmatic child getting ill' or 'a new warm coat for my kids every year' or other similar things, and that's what they make sacrifices to achieve.

Considering how others may answer that question provides useful perspective for me.

IceBeing you do come out with some tosh!

a house is only worth what people can pay to buy it. If noone has 500K then a house can't be worth that much.

So in other words, people losing their life savings, going bankrupt and being born to wealthy parents with property overseas is fair in your eyes.

If people are still motivated to work full time, then they certainly can! They just wouldn't get paid more for it.

Are you crazy?

I would like a surgeon who is in it for the caring not the money. IF they were in 5 days a week for 4 hours a day then that would also be perfect. They wouldn't be tired from working 60 hours the previous week. Sounds good to me.

Well, apart from horrendously high waiting lists, operations being cut short, under-using skills, etc..

Another gem:

I think the immigrant success stories are people who are only disadvantaged in the specific manner of starting from nothing. They are not then further disadvantaged by disability, low academic ability, low parental aspirations, low personal tenacity..etc etc.

Only on mumsnet does being lazy, disorganised and irresponsible become "disadvantaged" and all down to luck. This in a country where every British person is entitled to free extensive education and health care of a higher quality than provided in the vast majority of the world. That comment about immigrants is particularly appalling in its first world ignorance.

Have you ever thought of taking out a column as sort of anti-Katie Hopkins? Your comments are so far off the scale that it would be hilarious.

I would be very happy to oppose Katie Hopkins in all ways possible!

I don't think it is particularly insane to imagine a world where people do things for reasons other than money....

I would do the job I do for a lot less money than I get...

I work hard at being a parent even though I don't get paid for it at all...

Only on mumsnet does being lazy, disorganised and irresponsible become "disadvantaged" and all down to luck

Did you seriously paraphrase being disabled, not academic or possessing certain skills or just plain not very bright, and having rubbish parents into being 'lazy, disorganised and irresponsible'? After directly quoting what the PP had said?

That's quite disgusting. Which did 'disabled' become, out of interest?

Haven't read whole thread, but... hmmm. I have friends on both sides (like the OP). The point I would want to make is that there is, actually, an element of luck.

I worked hard at school, and was one of the highest achievers. Until my father's mental health became so bad that I ran away from home and dropped out of school. This did actually save my life, but unfortunately ultimately meant that, along with the dysfunctional start I had in life, I was unable to take advantage of chances I might otherwise have had.

I realise that there are people who manage to overcome their circumstances (and go them!), but it is not always a level playing field for everyone- for various reasons. And we can't all earn in the same upper salary bracket. However, it does seem to be easier to be in that 'upper bracket' if you have had a private education and family wealth (for example) than if you have not had many advantages.

Ice a nurse , robots could certainly perform certain tasks but it would be difficult to program them to do the human elements of the job .

I understand that jesse, my job before chikdren, was working for the council, as a community worker with people who have disabilities, the pay was very low. Those in low paid jobs don't have that choice, unfortunately the way things are going, by the time I'm pension age p, I am 38, there might not be one.

Permanently
See my post of 23.23.