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?

Rufus you put it rather more succinctly than I!

Mrs D I am looking at Corbyn's figures upthread. According to them the TA on 10k would get an extra 33k, the HT on 60k would lose 17k to tax. That seems quite shocking to me.

Why is that deemed the fair and proportionate way? Why is it fair and proportionate that people who made hundreds of thousands out of property or who inherited wealth don't pay more?
I agree with tinkly- employed high earners are low hanging fruit.

Oh my God, I've had enough!

I'm going to bed so I can get my lazy arse up at 4.30am to carry out my low paid, easy, meaningless job.

Good luck Mrs DV & co - and OP, please make this your first and last ever post? :)

Tinkly is more or less right.

A TA assistant earning 10k with three kids in private rented accommodation & childcare would have the same net income as a HT on 60k.

I'm sure there's some rounding errors in there but Tinkly has shown a real life example.

I do agree with that snufflet-

C'mon, no one has said that.

The benefit cap is 26k but doesn't apply if you receive working tax credit. The 10k TA would receive working tax credit so no benefit cap.

So tinkly still seems right.

Income tax is structured so that it is levied at different rates relative to earnings so very well paid people do pay more tax. The top rate of tax is 45% on all earnings over £150k and those you earn more than £100k lose their personal allowance by a pound for every 2 pounds they earn over this threshold.

What always amazes me about threads like this is just how much people knwo about, and talk about, other people's finances.

I have never had a specific conversation about money / salary / benefits with any of my friends. Don't get me wrog, I know in broad terms who earns OK, who is struggling. But this level of specivity? Never!

I used to assume that people who pay "40 per cent tax" paid 40 per cent on all their earnings. However, they're only paying that percentage on what they earn above the threshold.

They'll be paying zero tax for the first £10,600 they earn, then 20 per cent for what they earn between £10,600 to £42,385. They only pay 40 per cent on what they earn above £42,386, and 45% on what they earn above £150,000.

So someone who earns £42,387, who complains they are in the 40% tax bracket, is actually only paying 40% on £1 of their earnings, and 20% or less on the rest.

corbyncatpigeons, where did you get your figures mentioned upthread?

Benefits cap does not include help with childcare either.

I used the Government benefit calculator for the first three and a Tax calculator (paulbanks.org/projects/ukpaye/) for the rest.

I very much resent the idea that low pay means you didn't work hard. My salary would be considered low by many on here. I've worked my arse off and always have done. I have a doctorate (which i worked through). I didn't mess about at school or make bad choices. I also have had some MH issues which have perhaps held me back a bit from being the 'striver' I could be whilst, y'know, trying to stay in one piece and keep lliving from day to day without cracking up.

BIL is petrified of Jeremy Corbyn and his tax plans. I am sorry, but if you would still be left with 6 figures and a massive bonus after your salary had been Corbynated, you should appreciate that you are in a much, much better position than someone whose salary is low enough that they need benefits to get by.

I love my job. I help people find their feet in this country and get into education after leaving some pretty desperate places. I earn enough for me and frankly i think BIL could do with talking to some of the people i work with to see what real hardship and fear are like when you don't have a guaranteed 6 figure safety net.

Actually I think the problem here is not the amount of tax high earners pay its the wide gulf in earnings between people at opposite ends of the pay scale. If profits where more evenly distributed between all the employees in a company working hard to produce those profits benefits wouldn't be needed so much and there would be less resentment all round.

YABVU - higher earners DO pay a significant amount of tax.

This is all crap though really. Dave and his boys absolutely love us plebs to be arguing among ourselves. Let's be honest, the power brokers don't even worry about income tax; their massive wealth is tied up in complicated trusts and protected by clever accountants. The rest of us are just pawns in their game.

They'll be paying zero tax for the first £10,600 they earn, then 20 per cent for what they earn between £10,600 to £42,385. They only pay 40 per cent on what they earn above £42,386, and 45% on what they earn above £150,000.

And after £100k they also lose their tax free allowance £1 for £1. The point remaining that they are paying a LOT of money in tax, and are very much living up to the paying more tax to subsidise those less fortunate so exactly how much more do you want to take off them? Till they earn the same as someone on benefits? Then why the hell would they bother? They wouldn't. Then where would we be?

exactly how much more do you want to take off them? Till they earn the same as someone on benefits?

Where exactly did I suggest that someone on £100,000 pays 85% so they're left with £15,000?