To think that being in a high tax bracket doesn't mean you work 'harder'

[dietcokeandgalaxyplease]

I'm so so sick of reading about people who welcome the Tory's tax reduction for high earners because of course they 'work hard' and why should they be penalised.
AIBU to think that even though you work HARD you don't always earn a lot? I genuinely think that if you earn more you should contribute more.
I'm a nurse married to a paramedic. Neither of us are paying the higher tax rate.... obviously we need to work harder???? 😡

Passthecherrycoke that’s interesting, in my own limited experience I’ve seen that attitude does transfer to success in the U.K. DH’s parents are Indian, born in India and moved here in their teens to get married and start a family. They’ve had several children, and despite his parents never having had any formal education beyond school in India all of their kids have made successes of themselves, all broken into different professions, every one of them has been to university and moved onto Masters or Doctorates. He doesn’t really recall his parents spending any time supporting them with homework as their level of knowledge was less than what their kids were being expected to learn, but there was still a general sense that education and hard work is the key to a better future and it clearly seeped into all of the siblings’ mindsets. His parents set up a shop and grafted, DH and his siblings are all doctors, architects, teachers, IT professionals. None of them earning mega bucks but all with a really good standard of living far beyond what their parents have been able to achieve (which partly I think is due to having so many kids so young).

I think that, rather than tweaking the tax system, we should look at differentials of salary within an organisation. No CEO should be permitted to take home more than a thousand times his poorest employees’ hourly rate. Just look at Jeff Bezos and the poor exhausted sods who toil in his warehouses on minimum wage. Of course Bezos should be rewarded for his enterprise and risk taking, but his current differential is exploitative and morally unjustifiable.
If a company is making obscene levels of profit, there should be a law that the directors can’t take more than a set multiple of the poorest staff salary. If that was the case now, Amazon packers would be on a very civilised salary and Bezos would scarcely notice the drop in his own. How many billions does one selfish man need?

Absolutely, Babdoc

It is not about hard work. Generally higher pay involves a specific skill set which is in short supply (even when that skill set is advanced bullshitting). I have a ton more responsibility and work at a much faster pace than DH. He’s paid vastly more than me because not many people do what he does.

Given my rate of pay I’m not sure I or anyone on under 40k pays more money in to the system in tax then they cost but I hope I contribute to society in other ways.

I'm a higher rate tax payer (just).

Not only do I not work nearly as hard as OP and her husband, if I make a mistake, no one will die.

It is disingenuous to assert that all higher earners are where they are today purely because of hard work. Of course, the majority will have worked their socks off, made sacrifices, studied etc but there are so many other factors that come into play regarding earning potential. Family upbringing, parental support, access to good education, your own health (mental and physical) and the health of those around you, natural ability, luck, being in the right place at the right time are just some. It also just isn’t feasible for everyone to be at the top. Taxation shouldn’t be seen as a punishment, it should be seen as contributing to a well functioning society where earners at all levels can thrive and nobody goes hungry and homeless just because their skills and contributions don’t command the same salary.

I would go as far as to say that without the earners at the lower end of the spectrum, the higher earners would be enabled to be higher earners. Would they be as intelligent without teachers and TAs? Would they be as healthy without nurses, fruit pickers, researchers etc? Would they have somewhere to live without labourers, tradesman, building regulators? Could they get to work without the person who made or repairs their car and maintains the roads? Could they even enjoy their wealth without waitresses, bartenders, airhostesses, shopkeepers, childcare, elderly care workers, supermarket workers? It’s vital that as a society we enable everyone and we have to tax higher earners more because they have more to tax! It’s as simple as that and higher earners will still be better off than someone on NMW.

However I do agree with some of the comments that some of the tax rules are bizarre. Child benefit being one. Why can a single parent on £50K not claim it but two parents both earning £49K (so £98K income) is fine?! I can see why that gets some higher earners backs up with things like that going on.

The vast majority of benefit claimants are working people because their wages are too low

I don’t think that’s true at all. If their wage is low then then they need to stop making choices they can’t afford without help like children, expensive areas etc.

You would have to be very naive to believe everyone on benefits was working full time and over. Plenty use them to work part time, not at all, have one parent stay home etc. They are no longer a safety net to catch people in times of need but a choice for many.

Price of progress exactly- there is a stereotype of all Asian parents wanting a dentist and a doctor but it’s more subtle than that. They had students who had obtained first class degrees from brilliant unis - yet they couldn’t land a job. Their friends seemed to manage. Coincidentally their friends were often privately educated and connected. And that’s the one thing hard work and good education can’t break through- the elite.

IceCreamAndCandyfloss sadly it is true that so many people working full time jobs are still in need of benefits / living in poverty. So many jobs don't pay a living wage. It's not always about making good choices.

Nobody is saying everyone on benefits works full time because obviously that's not true. Bit doesn't take away from the fact that far too many people can't earn enough to live on

And it’s interesting that things like medicine are easier to break into for the none elite, and you see a concentration of BME people here.

India and many African countries have such an unequal class system, yet they believe if you’re given the opportunities of the upper classes Ie a great education you too can succeed. But in the U.K. at least, it’s not true

I’m self employed and work part time approx 2.5 days a week. I will earn just under the threshold for the higher tax rate. If I want to double my net income after tax (take home pay) I would have to increase my hours to at least 6days a week to compensate for the higher taxing.
Any extra hours I do are taxed at 45% my current hours are taxed at around 18% (taking into account tax allowance). Just as an example if my hourly rate is £100 I will take home £82 for each hour I work in 2.5 days. For every hour I work over I only receive £55. You do the maths.
I’m happy working part time for max hourly net rate and I’m happy to continue.
So in answer to your post op yes they do have to work harder to gain financially. The above is very simplified because is doesn’t include national insurance.

"@TabbyMumzprofession was the wrong word. In his job. He's a train driver."....so hes worked hard, passed whatever quals he needs to drive a train and no doubt does a valuable job and earns good money which he deserves. Why should he have to pay more tax than someone who doesnt do that?

I'm a high rate tax payer and worked incredibly hard to get here. I am naturally academic and got great grades at school college and uni, which undoubtedly opened doors for me as I progressed my career (that teamed with a bit of luck, being in the right place at the right time and having an incredibly supportive family and mentors.)
Last month I paid £4K in tax, not including national insurance which does grate on me a bit if I'm honest. I've worked bloody hard to get where I am and to earn the money that I do to support my family, and I do at times think that the way our tax system is applied to high earners means that you're penalised for being successful.
HOWEVER
I without a doubt know that there are people who work in other jobs who do work harder in terms of either physical or mental strain, or purely workload, such as doctors nurses a and e people, etc who really do make the world go round.
I have loads of responsibility, work super hard but at the end of the day I'm not saving lives!!
So I guess what I'm saying is that there isn't really a simple answer and to compare one against the other doesn't really seem helpful - anyone who thinks that you become a high earners by pure luck and not working bloody hard is kidding themselves.

Spoken like a true lefty, @Babdoc

The easiest way for companies to manage any cap on salary multiples for executives is to get rid of the low paid workers via automation and outsourcing.

That’s not easy at all though downtown. You do have a point that in 30 years we’ll be seeing a huge impact from automation but replacing low paid workers with robotics or systems take a significant investment in year 1 and most boards are not focused enough on the long term to push that through.

I'm a higher rate tax payer and quite aware that this is in part the result of privilege, dumb luck and generally living a pretty charmed life. Over the past decade, all else being equal, my take home pay increased every April due to the personal allowance going up. At the same time, public services are woefully underfunded. I would be more than happy to pay more tax, if there was a sensible, costed plan to use the extra to invest in common goods. I certainly do not need a tax break (but I'm not a gazillionaire, so I'm probably not in for one anyway).

I respectfully disagree, @Passthecherrycoke

I work in consultancy in the area and we're busier than ever with coordinating automation projects at shop floor level and outsourcing further up the hierarchy.

Although I do agree that focus on the long term isn't the greatest strength of most boards!

What would happen to unskilled workers?

To be fair, minus doctors and senior nurses, is there actually a higher or advanced rate career that we couldn't live without? Most top paid people are company directors, CEO's, marketing execs, top lawyers etc. Do we NEED those people? No, not really. We do need cleaners otherwise the plague would rise again and wipe us out, we do need bin people because again, rats would infest us if they were never emptied, we need teachers (most are not higher or advance rate tax payers), we need nurses (again, most are not higher or advanced rate tax payers), we need police officers, fire service people, paramedics, couriers, carers, delivery drivers, warehouse people etc so we can eat and get medicines delivered.

If anyone knows of a top tax paying job minus a senior doctor or surgeon that we NEED and couldn't possibly live without, let me know. So while they pay more tax than the person on NMW or just above, they aren't actually making a major contribution to society or a service. We massively underestimate someone's duty to society and keeping us safe/healthy when we get into these 'tax talks'.

Some people are actively selflessly living on the bread line in order to fulfil essential roles and they are looked down on by Francesca, the HR manager that effectively could be made redundant tomorrow and no one would die! But if this person is for example maintaining water lines, them being made redundant (and no one else willing to do the job in their place), people could die!

It's not all about how much tax you pay. A bit more respect to the people doing the essential roles and paying less tax wouldn't go a miss. I don't do an essential role, I work in accounts. I respect someone that cleans or serves me in asda because they are making sure I don't die of something nasty from an unclean environment and also making sure I can eat.

I actually find the middle class just in the higher rate band to he more patronising and uppity than people that pay advanced rate taxes. A medium business owner for example could be on £££'s but they don't look down on their cleaning staff because they value them and would be lost without them. Then you've got someone in IT sat at their desk, maybe on £45k a year not giving a shit and leaving mess all around them and not even talking to or acknowledging the person hoovering the floor. It's sad times

Probably hardest to replace lowest paid workers with automation. Care workers and things general we're personal interaction matters ..

The middle has already been squeezed via automation. You can do a lot online that used to need a solicitor. The future for airline pilots is less secure than that of the air hostess

Price of progress exactly- there is a stereotype of all Asian parents wanting a dentist and a doctor but it’s more subtle than that. They had students who had obtained first class degrees from brilliant unis - yet they couldn’t land a job. Their friends seemed to manage. Coincidentally their friends were often privately educated and connected. And that’s the one thing hard work and good education can’t break through- the elite.

Hmm. I can’t speak to that as it’s not something I’ve witnessed, I think it was smart of DH and his siblings to focus on professions, in my experience those are the most reliable way into a well earning career. Gaining a qualification that gives you entry into a profession (medicine, law, nursing, social work, accountancy) seems to be the most foolproof way to secure a career with longevity and a living wage.

Most top paid people are company directors, CEO's, marketing execs, top lawyers etc. Do we NEED those people? No, not really.

That’s a really bizarre viewpoint, if there isn’t a CEO running the company how do you expect it to function and provide jobs? If nobody is directing a company, how do you expect it not to fold? There will always be someone at the top in any business who takes ultimate responsibility, whatever that position is called. And lawyers? You don’t think it’s crucial to society that the laws that govern our behaviour are actually upheld? That people have a right to a fair trial if accused of something? Or that victims of crime have lawyers to prosecute the perpetrators?

Probably hardest to replace lowest paid workers with automation. Care workers and things general we're personal interaction matters ..

That is exactly what is happening though. Jobs that require the use of judgement (and learning) and don’t have clear protocols are the least likely to be automated currently. Care jobs have clear protocols and Asian developers are already automating these jobs - there are even robots available that provide comfort to dying people.

@JenniferM1989 sorry but your post strikes me as naive and a bit silly.

Of course society needs CEOs - it’s not store managers or assistants who set strategy, targets, handles technical issues such as imports and tariffs.

And what do you think lawyers do? If it’s not criminal law (defending or prosecuting), it could be commercial or contract (dealing with transactions that make the economy go around or even advising pension schemes or fines which pension schemes invest in), setting health and safety standards and ensuring they are complied with, dealing with competition issues, constitutional issues etc... the list goes on

Basically everything is a cog in a huge wheel - the wheel being the law, society and the economy - which everyone needs

Yes these people may be over paid which is a different point - but of course it’s basic knowledge that they are NECESSARY for a functioning society in the Uk

*or funds not fines