Increase in culture of envy

[BrighteyesBonnie]

AIBU to think that the culture of envy has increased significantly in the UK (if Mumsnet is anything to go by)?

For example, a thread by a lawyer asking whether their current salary is fair given their qualifications and years of experience contained a lot of responses angry that the OP is earning more than them and also ridiculing the OP for wanting a better salary.

Another example are threads on private schools, where there is a strong undercurrent of anger at those who are sending or want to send their children to private schools. Privately educated people are viewed with harsh lenses and often insulted.

Ambition and doing well do not appear to be appreciated if you’re doing better than the average.

Exactly!
tall poppy syndrome. Drag everyone down to a lower level.

@TheThinkingGoblin exactly.
You know what, I personally am happy to pay more tax. If it means more benefit for ME, along with everyone else. Good schools, good medical services, highly subsidised quality childcare. I'm not asking for multiple long haul holidays or Gucci bags here.

But with the attitude on this thread and people like @ShoesoftheWorld it's clear that none of that is going to happen. The money will be taken, but swallowed up by the increasing number of people with their hands out. Higher earners pay out but get nothing in return, because 'we don't deserve it'.

EVERYONE has to pay more tax. And services have to be given to EVERYONE.

I didn't see the post, so I can't comment.

You seem to have zero idea as to what is going on in the UK.

The higher earners that earn INCOME via PAYE are essentially being taxed to death. Thats why productivity is falling off a cliff.

When this happens, trying to increase those taxes on higher earners further will result in:

1. Higher earners working less
2. Higher earners reducing their taxable income (pension)
3. Higher earners leaving the country

Options 1-3 result in tax take from higher earners going down, and not up.

The reasons for this are obvious:

60% of extra income goes to taxes. This is a massive incentive against working more.

I am just amazed you don't seem to understand this basic economic fact.

You will simply get poorer if you try this. A lot poorer.

Then what?

Policy mistakes like this cannot be fixed by saying "oops, we made a mistake". The damage will be done and it will be premanent.

Productivity is low in the UK because the country is falling apart. A failing health service cause low productivity. Poor public transport and potholed roads causes low productivity. A lack of decent housing in the right paces causes low productivity. A lack of educated workforce causes low productivity.

The productivity crisis needs greater public investment, not lower taxes on high earners.

Take a step back and think about what you've just said here. Do you understand that many parents do all they can for their children but are still unable to provide a foundation for success for their children? This may be due to poor housing, poor health, having to work more than one job, having a minimum wage job so unable to provide tutors, single parent households so only one wage coming in, unable to buy a house in a good school area, crime in the area, gang issues. The list goes on. If you have none of these issues, you have privilege and your children are a step ahead. Success is very rarely purely down to hard work. It is a lie that privileged people tell themselves to make themselves feel special.

This thread does go to show that MN is disproportionately over-represented by higher earners.

OP I hope to god you're a troll because you simply cannot be this deluded. So where poor people have gone wrong is by choosing to not be born into a wealthy family. It's because of their choices that they're poor. Silly them for not figuring this out sooner ! Give me strength

And yes, more often than not, your choices or your parents choices in life will determine how you fare in society

You are disgusting. Oh well, at least you are a transparent arsehole who does not pretend to give a single fuck about systemic inequality.

Remember this thread, and all your trite platitudes about choice, when suddenly someday your privilege runs out.

@kethuphouse 'Success is very rarely purely down to hard work.'

But when it is, telling the single parent who works endlessly to provide for their child, that they should 'feel their privilege' is insulting, unhelpful and unnecessary.

Wouldn't it be better to encourage everyone?

Is he/she wrong?

There’s nothing wrong with being aspirational and it should be the norm, even if sadly not everyone will have the desired impact upon their kids prospects for one reason or another.

And I too am getting a bit bored of the overused ‘privilege’.

The poster said ‘more often than not’, and it’s bloody true. Your phoney outrage is tiresome.

I am really concerned about what people think priviledge is. Because it is supposed to be something above standard, something special and not available to many. So going by what is apparently privilege based on here, we can deduce that a general and common living standard for most population are barely affording food and housing, living with gangs which affect their children, and not having parents who can help with homework and can/are willing to support their kids to get good start in life.

We have bigger issues than private schools.

People who talk about the politics of envy often correlate to those who are infuriated by people living in council houses with lifelong tenancies. This reaches boiling point if the council house is somewhere nice like Chelsea or Islington where "I can't afford to live there, so why should they?"

As much as people are angry at higher tax payers on this thread and mn generally, and politicians can use that for votes, driving them out with a combination of higher tax and vilification won’t make life better.

Unless lower income are ready to pick up higher tax to replace them. They won’t be able to though and things will go further downhill.

Isn't the problem that quantitative easing caused an asset bubble and assets are not taxed that highly - creating a two tier tax system where working wages are taxed to death whilst super rich asset holders pocket a larger share?

When I think about the rich, I'm not thinking of a GP partner on £100k who works for a living but someone who owns assets mostly.

Crabs in a barrel mentality. Absofuckinglutely it’s increased. People mentioning they even own a car is tone deaf these days. It’s unbearable.

Where will the government get the money for this greater investment? From a magic money tree? It will be through taxes. If we continue to tax higher earners, some of whom are already paying 60% on some of their income, the country will lose them and get even poorer. The UK cannot tax a small group of people to their necks, whilst the vast majority are net takers, and expect to prosper.

As for education; yes a better educated workforce is essential but on Mumsnet, the cry is to make private schools unaffordable for ordinary people (make it only accessible to very rich), drag every one down to the lowest common denominator (in the hope that ambitious parents will make poorly funded schools with behavioural problems better).

The mindset of many in this country is what has driven politicians, who want to win votes, to implement destructive policies - Brexit is a case in point. The country is on a decline. We all know it, can see it, and can feel it. The inequality has been increasing precisely because of lower productivity - net takers and a huge disincentive to work and pay 60% marginal tax rate. The brain drain is already taking its toil.

This is very true, Dh has been applying for a new jobs and a couple of times I’ve pointed out that he doesn’t done something before on the list. He actually said “see thats the difference between men and women”. We’ve agreed that men tend to overestimate their worth and women underestimate their worth.

But ordinary folk like GPS may own their own homes. A very valuable asset that increases in value.

We would have to be clear by what we mean by asset rich.

Kind of yes. It means the likes of Rishi and his wife pay less tax than a GP on PAYE.

High earners are paying more tax now than they were under Labour.

Labour only introduced the 50% rate at the end of its term in office.

At this time the higher rate tax level was at £150,000 .

The Conservatives have reduced that level to £125,000 despite the number of years inflation.

Under Labour the amount of tax paid could be reduced by high earners easily by diverting to pensions.

The Conservatives restricted payments into pensions for high earners earning above 180,000 and more recently 250,000 ( the latter as a sop to Consultants/ GP partners whose incomes come in up to 250,000) Until the last budget you could only pay in £4000 to a pension now increased to £10,000. This means that in the future many wealthier pensioners will pay little tax as it has been upfront end and they have had to max ISAS.

The amount that can be invested tax free into an ISA has not been raised for years.

The Conservatives abolished the personal allowance for high earners.

Very high earners above £250,000 can only pay £10,000 into pensions per annum. This means that unlike under Labour they are forced to pay more under the higher income tax bracket and can’t squirrel money into pensions.

Also dividends used to be base rate tax free - because corporation tax was already paid - that’s been abolished. So profits are in essence double taxed.

CGT gains could be offset by tapering relief to allow for inflation - that’s been abolished.

CGT tax free allowance has been halved. Therefore if you have an asset and it only increases by inflation there is a gain to be charged - when in reality it has not made a profit.

Child benefit removed from high earners.

In the meantime for the less wealthy, personal allowances were raised considerably anbove inflationary levels ( the personal allowance was approximately 7500 under Labour) and monies redistributed via universal credits etc. So ironically the Conservatives have taxed more the rich to redistribute to the poor - but that does not fit the left wing narrative to recognise that.

Also fiscal drag means that more better of families are paying IHT on assets that would have been IHT free a few decades ago. A family home is a family home - 20 years ago free of IHT now it’s subject to IHT because of property increases - but the family is not richer now n assets - there is still just that family home.

So actually high income families pay less tax in France and get enormous state pensions. Yet they have better medical care and services - why is that?

What this tells us is that despite actually putting far more tax burdens on the higher earners ( above £100,000) the UK is unprofitable and not making enough money.

Also there are lots of big businesses or global players not paying enough tax. For everyone complaining about privilege stop buying goods via Amazon or stop buying coffee in coffee shops that do a loan or loan arrangements to/ from the parent company so that ultimately the money is remitted or accounted for in tax free regimes like Lichtenstein. Look at all the companies off shoring their workforce someplace cheaper etc. There is a difference between high earners who are easily tapped for tax and international players who can off shore money. No government will ever get those.

Also we were completely messed up by COVID when ridiculous amounts of money were flung around. How many people complaining about poor standards in NHS etc have voluntarily paid back their furlough if they have surplus income each month? Yet big businesses with moral consciences did exactly that. All those accountants, law firms voluntarily paid back millions in furlough. Other companies kept it and made huge dividend distributions etc. how many people ask businesses they use - did you repay the furlough. How many people complaining about private schools will take a P and O ferry this Summer to France ? Yet they took furlough money and sacked staff.

Moreover If you want to pay more money in tax and can afford it nothing is stopping you today making a voluntary contribution or repaying your furlough.

A rise in tax is great if it was used to invest in industries to increase productivity/ gross domestic income but as it is it is just used as a downward spiral as the better off have less money to invest in industries via stocks and shares. The bottom line is that everyone can be oh so generous with someone else’s cash or make generous statements such as ‘I would pay more tax’ when they are in the scheme of things not paying a huge part of their income as tax ie at least 40% overall. It’s easy to say let’s have better hospitals or schools etc but how are we going to pay for it? There is something seriously wrong when no matter how much more tax is raised from the sitting target of the better off who are domiciled here - it’s still not enough. Money has just been squandered all over and lost.

The bottom line is that the UK is an increasingly poorer and less productive country. There’s no easy pickings from the better off - they have been silently plundered under the conservatives. Labour know that which is why there are no real radical tax policies being suggested against them. The concept of VAT in private schools - will raise a pittance in tax. It will probably cost more to educate the additional kids in state - what is the point other than to make people feel less envious. If it’s not about tax revenue what is it about? Is it envy? The thought that all those parents will suddenly raise school standards is ridiculous. They will just pay more for houses in desirable catchment areas squeezing out all those mum betters who hitherto would secure such properties. They will also pay more for tutors and rises their hourly rates.

And yes there will be people being paid more - and if you want to earn as much no one has stopped you getting the qualifications and earning that much. If you are so hard working then redirect that to the jobs that paid more. Go through the stressful 5 levels of recruitment that seems required these days for top 4. Big businesses like these offer all sorts of bursaries and sponsorships to recruits from low income families. What’s stopping anyone - you can even get sponsored through university. You don’t even need to put yourself through university to get into professions as they offer paid apprenticeships.

No one forces anyone into a career. Most people surely go into careers with their eyes wide open. Therefore they might prefer to say be a librarian but realise that it will only pay x so decide to go into big 4 instead. However if they become a librarian should they really jump up and down and complain about what they earn. They simply did not fancy the years or accountancy exams and preferred librarian qualifications. Basically they would rather work in a library than in accountancy. No one forced them to do that. It’s not like they were surprised by the pay? But overall even higher earners are seeing downward trajectory in pay even lawyers - unless you manage to ascend the giddy heights of equity partnership in a large top firm. But how few people do that? How competitive is it to get partnership in top 4 or top legal - a lot more than it was say 30 years ago when firms were smaller and there was consequently more partners and not a consolidation.

However it is rot to say that people cannot be socially mobile. My father was born in a work house ( they still existed int the 1920s) had to leave his rented homes as a child at night as his parents could not afford the rent, had his army salary docked to pay maintenance to his alcoholic dad but went to night school and got A Levels whilst working. He then got a degree whilst being supported by mum who sewed all day and night. He managed to enter the professional classes or the middle classes. It was a lot harder then but anyone can do it with hard work. If he could why couldn’t you? Things were a lot harder in the 1950s and on one occasion they burnt old furniture as they were so cold.

Also I think Sweden and Norway don’t have inheritance tax. So they tax highly for social programmes but generational wealth can be passed on easily. I wonder what that does to social mobility? Maybe most people are just bunched up around the middle.

In a wider sense: No-one has said tax higher earners less. Oh - apart from a financial body - the chancellor commissioned a study which told him the effective tax cliff edges were hitting productivity. Why do you think they are now panicking? It’s trashing the economy.

You just simply can’t keep taking the same 1% of PAYE earners who pay more tax than billionaires like the Sunaks. They stop working, they go abroad or they start putting more in a pension. It’s basic economics and has been done before - taxing people into oblivion results in less. It’s what is happening right now, it’s why everything is declining. Alongside BREXIT of course.

There are less and less people who are net contributors to society paying an ever increasing burden through tax. Compared to tax systems around the world they are paying their bit. To start rolling out the equitable Nordic models -everyone else need to chip in more. About 10% you’ll find.

Oh and I’m not a high earner. I’d be paying 10% more tax under a Nordic model. However, where this county has it wrong is that if I were single - I’d need UC to survive. A masters level graduate. First in our families by the way - zero help - never see them. My husband, educated to the same level pays my wage 3x over in tax a year. Low wages have been baked in by years of austerity and top-ups.

The economic illiteracy is outstanding and it’s why the Government get away with so much. The crabs in a barrel mentality is also awful. We have the provision in this country to always better ourselves via education. People don’t as it’s not handed to them.

Yeah there are studies on that. It's really bit odd and most frustrating thing when you know about it and.... Still fucking keeep doing it😂

LOL, my DH has mentored female colleagues, I’m going to remind him to talk about how to apply for roles. He’s trying to recruit for a position, he’s got some great internal prospects who are women but he’s going to have to call them to tell them not to worry about the job spec and just apply otherwise they won’t.