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?

Bof you are quite right, working is often more expensive than staying at home. Apart from the biggies like childcare and commuting, other stuff, like a work clothes wardrobe, lunches and coffees out of the home, drinks after work, collections for colleagues, readymeals because you are too knackered to cook, a cleaner and a gardener because you are time poor..... It all adds up and lots of it is compulsory if you want to succeed in your career.

Drinks after work? Cleaner? Gardener?

Was this a joke?

The problem with raising the minimum wage for me is that theres kot much dofference between my wage as a masters educated teacher and someone on 16 hrs a week minimum wage job with housing benefit and tax credit top ups atm. In fact a single parent friend of mine on a nmw carer job 16 hours a week with all her benefits on top brings in the same take home as a top of the ups pay-scale teacher. Makes me furious.

Surely it's a mixture of both luck and judgement.

It does no good to just give up and have a pity party for oneself.

On the other hand, even the most dynamic go getters should recognise that their "singular" achievements would not be possible without the stable society that we live in allowing them to accumulate and retain wealth. Society has given them the right environment in which to thrive, and they do owe something back in return.

Wow! You're actually against the minimum wage being raised??

Does your 'friend' know how you really feel about her Calleigh?

In fact a single parent friend of mine on a nmw carer job 16 hours a week with all her benefits on top brings in the same take home as a top of the ups pay-scale teacher. Makes me furious.

Well, me too, but only in as much as the state is subsidising businesses and increasing their profits at taxpayers' expense by enabling them to get a major input (in the case of a carer, the principal input) at below the cost of supply. And dressing it up as welfare/benefits rather than a business subsidy.

No we should take the lowest cost of accomodation- say £60,000 and no one should be allowed a property over £600000. Far more fair.

No one should have a garden or a foreign holiday unless everyone can.

hypocritesoaf - ha ha ha
I think you have major jealousy issues. Perhaps you should think of relocating to Cuba???

Perhaps you should think of relocating to Cuba???

Well, that's a refreshing change from the usual suggestion of North Korea. And (I assume) better cocktails.

It would be really lovely on these threads if issues/ideas/policies could be discussed without accusations of 'jealous!' 'smug!' 'Commie!' and 'fascist!' being thrown around.

But I'm a wide-eyed idealist, perhaps. Where should I go?

Call, that 's part of the reason the Tories got in because so many feel like you, part of the reason we now have a benefits cap (although it's ridiculously high) and the reason (along with the massive deficit) the deficit is being cut.
There are lots of women with the views of Karl Marx on the thread which is fine although it doesn't work in practice. China tried it. They paid doctors same as road sweepers and sent the chidlren of the elite to work camps and denied them education to break that cycle of privilege. Even there it hasn't worked.

I cannot get my head around people who are actually envious of people poorer than them. WTAF?? Do people imagine low-earners working 16hrs or so a week in receipt of tax credits/HB etc. are somehow living it up like the last days of Rome, eating gubbermint-subsided bonbons on brand-new chaise longues probably off Brighthouse, the financially illiterate bastards, laughing at poor, downtrodden Mr and Mrs Average schlepping out of their house in the morning to commute to their jobs - the fools! Why do they even bother? - whilst smoking two fags at once, wearing brand-new velour tracksuits and watching Jeremy Kyle on their gold-plated 74" TV???

Some people on this thread need to get a damn grip, sit down, and have a serious word with themselves. Life on benefits is NOTHING like having the security, safety and pride that comes from having a decent wage.

You are absolutely right Jassy North Korea is a far better option

Snufflet, that's what I really don't understand about the 'what is the incentive for me to advance and earn more if half of it goes in tax' argument.

The half (or slightly more) of any increase on advancement that doesn't go in tax is very nice and tends to make my life easier. It enables me to buy nice things that may not have been affordable before (whether that be material possessions, improved current or future financial security, or whatever else).

Suggesting that because a lot goes in tax, the other half isn't worth enough is an odd argument to me.

In deciding whether the role or opportunity that comes with the increased earnings is worth it, surely everyone does the opportunity cost calculation based on what they'd take home (not overall salary rise) vs whatever downsides come with the new role? And if those don't stack up, they either don't take the role or negotiate harder (much more possible at higher salaries) for a package that works for them?

It's quite rare, once you're already a higher earner, that earning more is going to make you worse off.

You are absolutely right Jassy North Korea is a far better option

That's a 'no' then?

Calleigh - the top payscale teachers I know earn £40k+.

There's no way your nmw-earning friend has an income that gets anywhere near that unless she has 10 children.

It's quite rare, once you;re already a high earner, that earning more is going to make you worse off
Agree
Everyone should live in a house worth no more that 600k
WTF??

I was being sarcky total - but seeing as there are plenty of posters who believe that no one should be paid more than they need then I guess it didn't work/stand out!

I sense there's those amongst us that don't draw their high salary from a career that requires empathy or a caring disposition.

Sorry hypocrite

No, genuinely, why are those on a high salary seen as the scum of the earth - whereas those with inherited wealth or those, like many of my 'socialist' friends who are minted from the property boom, are not?

No, genuinely, why are those on a high salary seen as the scum of the earth - whereas those with inherited wealth or those, like many of my 'socialist' friends who are minted from the property boom, are not?

I think it's shitty if they are, and particularly if they're seen as somehow worse than those enjoying the wealth of inherited privilege. (But I don't think there should be a sinner/saint view at all, it seems bonkers to me and a little bit uncomfortably 'the noble poor')

I think any individual making the most of the system they find themselves in is doing a fair enough thing. But I am baffled by any system that taxes windfalls (such as inheritance) lower than what people have actually worked for.

Who's said high earners are the scum of the earth hypocrite?

Some people (high earners and low earners) have been criticised because others found them and/or their comments disagreeable, that's all.

Don't be such a drama queen.

Omg this thread is STILL going. I saw it start up and scarpered. But now I'll have my tuppence worth.

High earners.
Mixture of choice, hard work, right place right time (aka luck). I currently have a very good job and it's down to all of those factors
Do I begrudge paying taxes? No. There but for the grace of god I go and all that.
Do I feel lucky? Hell yes I do. I am lucky, totally get that.

However at the end of a long day/ week. (Maybe on the wrong day). When I'm shattered. Haven't seen enough of my kids. Feel guilty at not being a the school gate. And someone said 'you're lucky, pay more in taxes to give someone else a better life'. I think I'd be seriously tempted to chuck it all in and run for the hills.

Don't be such a bossy boots.

Ok- why should high earners be taxed more - and told they're selfish/don't know about fun/have never had bad things happen to them when those who have (often far more) wealth acquired by other means get off scot free?

Is it just an English snobbery? - people who work for money are just that bit grubbier than everyone else.

My brother (doctor) stopped doing weekend work once the state was going to take half from him as the balance between being with his children and the money tipped the other way at the stage, whereas at 40% it was just about worth (in his view) working the extra hours. High tax tends to generate less money for the state and that usually means the poor lose out. Tax the rich a lot and the poor have less money is true but that's quite hard for people to get their heads around.

There are no moral rights or wrongs about tax really. In a democracy people vote in a Government they want and tax rates tend to have a huge impact on how they vote.

I don't believe in inheritance tax at all and I will not pay it. If you give your money away and survive 7 years you don't pay any so I call it a voluntary tax on the stupid given that most people will live to about 70 - 90 it's not that hard to plan for. In a sense I have already started stopping the IHT theft by the state by helping the older children with a deposit on a first property.

If your family all work very hard are stoic and never give up, are always on time and are happy to work 6 or 7 days a week..

so in your opinion people who work less than 6/7 days a week and sometimes take a sick day are automatically lazy? do you not understand that people who are 'poor' and 'disadvantaged' are also very likely to be working several jobs, 6/7 days a week, to try and make ends meet? are they not working hard because at minimum wage, their work doesn't demand that they have a degree?

I am a teacher. I work during my lunch times doing 'duties' to earn a little more. I mark exam papers every summer. I tutor via skype. I have been known to go into school after throwing up in the morning as a result of migraine, hoping that the meds will kick in quickly. I have peeled my sobbing, sick children off me onto my mum so that I don't miss exam classes and their essential preparation. I am in school at 8am and rarely leave before 5pm. I work till 10:30pm at home at least 3 nights a week and usually a full day at the weekends.

But I am also a single mother of 3 and still don't earn enough to preclude me from receiving a considerable sum in tax credits. Where I used to live, I would also have been eligible for housing benefit. Do you want to tell me how I could work harder? Am I not stoic? Am I not always on time?