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?

You are just projecting into my post. I didn't say people were lazy who didn't do that. I was explaining what some immigrants do and indeed teachers as you describe. We were just talking about why some people get on and others don't. My children's father is like you and he worked school holidays and had a part time job on Sundays. It's not easy particularly given the pay in some jobs. How much child support does their father pay?

The thing that would need to be settled is what is reasonable as a maximum

In light of global inequality, if you are going to go down the route of capping salaries / possessions then why just stop at comparables with citizens of this country ?

The poor in the West are infinitely far better off than most of those in the developing world. Comparatively they have had much better luck by dint of being born in the West, so shouldn't their lifestyles and incomes also be capped & any excess given away to those less fortunate abroad ?

No. It's not projection. I face the 'single mum on benefits' stigma on an all too regular basis. You are ignoring the very real fact that some of the hardest working people - who are eligible for benefits - happen to also be (often) the lowest paid. Having children helps from a benefits point of view but you try being a low-paid, single adult in this country at the current time and then suggest such people are not always on time or stoic or anything else.

What has my ex's contribution (or not) got to do with anything? I do everything I can to support my children because I get fucking sick of people telling me how shit I am, that I didn't work hard enough at school, that I'm too quick to take a sick day, that if I only work a 40 hour week I'm not trying hard enough etc. etc. etc. Like many people in my siutation, my children are near as damn it neglected but it still isn't good enough.

you mention social mobility, but "social mobility" is only a concept that makes sense in a society based around class and sosio economic status, like is very typical in the UK, but less typical in other countries. So how can you compare like for like and make sense of any statistics. Compare to Norway, for example where you can barely get a foot into any workplace without further education and where you need certificates to be a waiter, and go through extensive sales and retail courses to work on shop floors, even though you are "just" selling clothes, but where the system is so flat that your salary as a shop assistant easily match that of a banker or a doctor. (almost)

After 20 years working his way up in the UK technology sector, and he still cant find a single company in Norway that wants to hire him, because he did not complete UNI. It is probably Just anecdotal, but it is happening.

I'm pretty sure the people who study social mobility across different countries have probably got it covered...

If Norway is anything like the country I am resident in (and I believe it is), education is free, Master's degrees are semi-expected for most professional roles simply because of that fact and because of the culture of most people who are at all academic usually studying that long, and vocational/training courses and certificates are a natural part of most jobs, however lowly.

Which means that unless you then try to introduce an (yet another) anecdote, specifically about an expat who did not grow up in the same culture and who is thus ill-equipped to compete in the market there, you absolutely can look at social mobility within the relatively closed system of country A and compare it with the social mobility within the relatively closed system of country B. And I find it very hard to believe the comment about a lowly shop worker earning near enough the same as a doctor, for example. That sounds like utter bollocks to me. I live in a similarly highly taxed country and the situation is absolutely nothing like that.

I'm honestly not sure what your argument is supposed to be re. the person (your DP? You don't seem to mention who it is unless I've missed it) moving to Norway. We were talking about social mobility within the UK compared to elsewhere. Not 'social mobility if a British person decides to go and try to slot into a country with a different education/work culture'. Really struggling to see how that is relevant.

I think 40 hours is plenty fedup. I recognise that the hardest working are not always the highest paid. I also realise that we live in a society with meritocratic features, but hardly a pure meritocracy.

It's been well studied that people who have done rather well like to think it is all by dint of their own hard work. It takes real perspective to acknowledge all the advatages one has enjoyed along the way.

I'm on the fence with this one. I believe in a society that supports those in need but I think the low NMW and tax credit top up system have been disastrous for Britain. We need people to be paid a fair wage for the jobs they do and we need more jobs and training available, including flexible work that can be done from home.

Equally though DH and I have both worked 2 jobs (DH still does, I will be again soon) and I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who tell us we're lucky. I've had health problems (physical and mental) so I know it's not always easy. But I made a lot of money in my second job (which I did in my 'leisure time' after my main job) and I did resent the huge wodges of tax payable when I could have spent that time sitting on my arse watching Corrie. I basically felt like I was being punished for having created a job opportunity and working my ass off in my spare time.

I'd still vote for Corbyn though

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

Or perhaps a tax on the unfortunate who don't manage to survive for a further 7 years.

agree Grazia. My kids inheritance will not be a windfall. It will be the result of a lot of hardwork that their parents have paid for. I will do the same

I don't believe in inheritance tax at all

Honestly interested, but can you explain why? I honestly struggle to understand why some see taxing unearned (by the recipient) windfalls such as inheritance is viewed as 'theft' or inherently unreasonable, while taxing earnings from labour is not.

Which is it that you're upset about - the fact that high earners are taxed more to subsidise the low earners, or that the rich aren't taxed enough?

There's nothing grubby about working hard for your money - it's to be admired. I'm not sure why you believe anyone thinks otherwise?

I don't begrudge anybody having/earning more than I do...my only objections have been towards those on here with delusions of grandeur. Their veiled disdain and bigotry towards people on low incomes makes me shudder.

Sorry...my post was to you hypocrite

Of course I want my children to inherit. I am human. But, I think it is a difficult thing to defend. My kids won't have earned it. They will just be lucky.

I think income taxes are the worst. They tax productivity, far better to tax unearned wealth and passive income.

Blimey - some of the posts on this thread make Marie Antoinette sound reasonable. I'm a higher rate tax payer. I have been for most of my working life. And I don't begrudge a single penny I pay in tax. At all. I'm bloody lucky.

How funny that Calleigh hasn't answered my question about how many children her NMW friend has. Anyone would think they were making it up ...

Priti Patel and a couple of the audience comments on QT last night almost had me throwing my supper time cake at the telly Lynda

You don't have a 3 yo - no help from 15 hours extra childcare
Tax free childcare - no help if you get WTC as you can't claim it on top of TC help
rise in NMW - doesn't take effect till 2020 and no help if you already earn it or are self employed and can't increase your charges in order to earn it. I fact if you are self employed you may no longer qualify for WTC as you need to be able to earn NMW before claiming you are working.

I don't begrudge the tax I pay, I don't begrudge it going to the NHS to pensioners, to people in need, but I do begrudge it bolstering peoples lifestyles over and above basic needs. I don't understand how people who are on benefits can afford to go two weeks all inclusive to a 5star hotel in Turkey, I don't understand why they can afford to keep horses, or buy pedigree dogs at a grand a pop. Thats where I draw the line. I think this is what the ops friend is saying. Why should she pay more tax for things like this, and it does happen because I know people in this situation. I would happily pay more tax if I thought it was supporting people in need, but I will not be happy to pay more tax to subsidise people who have decided they don't need to make an effort, or for things that are luxuries not necessities.

total, that's why the Tories got in and are now trying to tackle it and despite some posters on this thread's views, it will happen and will make the UK a fairer better place.

IHT - I was asked "Honestly interested, but can you explain why? I honestly struggle to understand why some see taxing unearned (by the recipient) windfalls such as inheritance is viewed as 'theft' or inherently unreasonable, while taxing earnings from labour is not."

I don't believe taxing earnings is fine. I think about 10% tax/NI would be fair for me so and also that IHT shoudl be zero as that money is already taxed on me at highest rates (I do not have any equity in a home from price rises by the way - all of it is from earned fully taxed income).

Also I don't see why inheriting money is any different from inheriting a sunny personality or my good looks (joke) or good health or IQ. Children inherit all kinds of things. My father died just as he used th elast of his life savings on his full time care at home which cost him £130k in his last year (!!). He worked for the NHS for 50 years and drew his pension for 2 years. As he died soon after my mother I had to pay IHT on her estate after his death. SO yes I know all about the iniquities of IHT.

fedup, I can see you are very fed up. I understand your position. My chidlren's father cursed the day his father encouraged him into teaching rather than accountancy or business because the pay has always been and always will be pretty dreadful. However it was his and your choice. Either of you could have trained to be a doctor or lawyer if you could have passed the exams but you did not so live with the consequences. That is just how capitalism works and indeed a few teachers end up on over £100k as super heads too and plenty of lawyers earn under £25k a year doing legal aid. I also understand your positoin as a single mother myself. So huge understanding of the position of teachers and secondly as single mothers although the state has given me so very little - no maternity pay or rights (in my day), no child benefit now, never had a tax credit in my life. It just takes and takes and takes and you work 6 or 7 days a week (I had a week's holiday last yera) and pay out a fortune too to an ex husband and no one ever thanks you.

Right better get back to earning a crust. I just had a teacher on sick leave on full pay of course whinging to me about something or other on the phone (not paying me of course) and I am afraid it did not change mym views of some of them sadly. I know another who was also off with stress (whey do they succumb to stress so much? and both were more than fit enough to be setting up their new businesses. If they are too sick to teach why are they not too sick to set up the new business? Anyway just two anecdotal examples which enrage me as it's my tax whcih is supporting these lay abouts with supposed stress on full pay).

I would happily pay more tax if I thought it was supporting people in need, but I will not be happy to pay more tax to subsidise people who have decided they don't need to make an effort, or for things that are luxuries not necessities

No doubt you'll get flamed for this by some; personally I struggle to improve on it

You really are something else Grazia. Your clients are so lucky to have you.

I would happily pay more tax if I thought it was supporting people in need, but I will not be happy to pay more tax to subsidise people who have decided they don't need to make an effort, or for things that are luxuries not necessities

No doubt you'll get flamed for this by some; personally I struggle to improve on it

It's as perfect (and meaningless) as Cameron's rhetoric. No-one would argue with the "logic", but it's a ridiculous over-simplification. It is what Tories since Thatcher have been really good at though - using the pretence that there is a simple solution to complex issues that "anyone can see" - like pretending National Debts and Deficits are a bad thing created by Labour as if they've only ever existed under Labour.

Well my dh was lucky to have a high paid job. Years of studying played a part. One which paid just over 60k. He was unbelievablely stressed and with commute was out from 6am to 7.30pm every evening. It all got too much so he resigned and is currently looking for a lower level job. He was so lucky to lose his dad and inherit some money to allow him to do this. However, the problem is that employers keep telling him he is overqualified. So I get that you can be trapped in a low paid or highly paid role.
I used to work earning16k in an admin role and no way did I work as hard as him. So salary does sometimes equate to how hard the job is although not always.

wasonthelist - why is it meaningless? My point is exactly as I say. I have a friend on benefits/WTC etc has a LA home (subsidised). She has two horses. I can't afford two horses, and even if I could, I wouldn't have the time to ride them because of the ridiculously long hours I work as a high rate tax payer. How can this be right in anyones book?

I would happily pay more tax if I thought it was supporting people in need, but I will not be happy to pay more tax to subsidise people who have decided they don't need to make an effort, or for things that are luxuries not necessities

This is simply taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If you paid more tax it would be supporting people in need. There will always be people who play the system but they are not as prevalent as the Tories and the Daily Mail would have you believe, even if you do know some of them personally. There will always be some people who can't be bothered to pay for car insurance but I don't see people getting quite so worked up over their insurance premiums as they do over their tax liabilities. Why is that?

Historical and social analysis is pretty conclusive about the fact that a more equal society equates to a happier, more stable and economically productive society. Inequality is bad. That doesn't advocate communism, just equality of opportunity and high rates of social mobility reflecting those opportunities - a true meritocracy if you will. What we have currently in the UK, a country in which social mobility has declined in the past decade, is not a meritocracy. The socio-economic bracket you are born into is the single most influential factor over the socio-economic bracket you'll end up in as an adult.

Money talks.

When we live in a society where education and social care is funded well enough to really provide equality of opportunity - so that children from deprived backgrounds are leaving school with the same qualifications as those from privileged backgrounds - then and only then can we start saying that wages are a reflection of merit. And even that fails to take into account sheer damn luck about health, caring responsibilities, etc.

Numerous studies have shown that despite students from state school backgrounds often outperforming students from private school backgrounds at university, those from private school backgrounds tend to earn more. Researchers believe this is because of the networking opportunities offered at private schools. Who you know and all that.

I have worked hard under incredibly difficult circumstances to get where I am today. I think I've earned my position. But I appreciate that my determination has come in part from being fortunate enough to be raised in a family that nurtured my education and emotional well-being, one where I was given extra-curricular opportunities, and one where my horizons were encouraged to be as broad as possible. Without recognising that there was a better life out there, I might never have had the ambition to keep trying to achieve it despite the misfortunes I went through.

I for one don't begrudge paying tax. My own children will benefit from a fairer society just as those from poorer backgrounds will. I hate the thought that if my children had been taken from me at birth and brought up in a deprived background, their life chances would be very different to what they're likely to have having been raised by me. How can a situation like that ever be considered fair or reflective of someone's true worth? No child should be held responsible for the circumstances into which they're born.

Permenantly - these are not people playing the system, these are people getting what they are entitled to - which is plainly too much in many cases, and as for your comment that it is not wide spread, i totally disagree, everyone knows somone who has government money to subsidise their income (legitimately) who has enough money for foreign holidays, pets, large TV's etc. If it wasn't so wide spread then I doubt the Tories would have won the election, this is not about people believing the DM, its what ordinary people see day in day out. If the money that some are able to spend on luxuries were cut to necessities there would probably be enough money in the pot to support those really in need without raising taxes.

No-one would argue with the "logic", but it's a ridiculous over-simplification

I'll admit to it being a simplification, wasonthelist but would query whether it's ridiculous

Yes it's a complex issue, but sometimes basic truths can get lost among all the noise, fury and admin complications. Personally I believe there's a lot of value in remembering them