Page 23 | To be irritated by this £100k a year whiner

MrsDoylesTea · 23/02/2024 19:10

WhiteLily1 · 23/02/2024 18:31

Yes - and that’s the point! It doesn’t matter why they are earning so little to put back into the pot. Whether they’re fault or not, someone else is paying for them and their kids. Yet they moan on and on about the person paying! Talk about bite the hand that feeds you. Would that person prefer to be out on the street AKA Victorian times swimming in their own filth then? Because without people who are actually earning higher, they would be!

Show quote history

👏👏

Ninaberlina · 23/02/2024 19:18

Mara246 · 23/02/2024 09:23

Somebody has to do the 12k jobs and it's not just a matter of working hard at school or making the effort to better yourself. Clearly someone on12k can't afford to pay tax. Full-time work, whatever it is, should be paying enough to live on. A lot of people on high salaries are doing jobs which have little value to society and think it's okay to pay low wages to others, then complain that the low earners aren't contributing.

Show quote history

A lot of people on high salaries are doing jobs which have little value to society

Whether or not their jobs have much value to the society, the high taxes they pay definitely do.

FixTheBone · 23/02/2024 19:18

ZebraPensAreLife · 23/02/2024 00:26

Take home pay on a salary of £100,000 is £5,650 per month.

I looked up how much childcare for 2 children would be in my local area, and how much the mortgage would be for a fairly basic 3-bed house. The total comes to £5,680. So before council tax, other bills or food the person’s already at minus £30 for the month.

Of course £100k isn’t a bad salary (and I earn less than that) - but the cost of childcare and housing is out of control. That’s the real problem.

And the even worse problems are the cliff edges - there's a pile of barriers at £100k, especially in the public sector that make it very hard to earn more.

Loss of personal allowance, potential pension tax charges, loss of child care allowances. My rate of marginal tax is currently 68% on additional earnings.

There are things like NHS waiting lists I could be helping with, but not if I'm only taking home £20-£25/hr.

Mara246 · 23/02/2024 19:20

Ninaberlina · 23/02/2024 19:18

A lot of people on high salaries are doing jobs which have little value to society

Whether or not their jobs have much value to the society, the high taxes they pay definitely do.

Edited

Show quote history

That is true.

Noangelbuthavingfun · 23/02/2024 19:23

edwinbear · 23/02/2024 00:16

I saw it too, but the reality is that we’re reaching a tipping point in the UK, where people earning those sort of salaries (and it’s not many of them) are propping up the entire country. Somebody earning £12k a year is paying nowhere near enough tax to fund their own DC’s childcare and that woman’s tax bill is funding maybe 3 kids childcare bills plus having to pay for her own on top. And the general consensus from the general public is that she should pay even more. I’m not surprised she’s ’whining’.

This!! But mostly people on the lower salaries will not want to hear or comprehend this . It is unfair - everyone should benefit from childcare as we are an ageing population also and need younger generations... the cost of it to some will be unaffordable. Must the higher earners fund lower earners to benefit having kids and free childcare... and then as a result of propping up the taxes for lower earners as a result be unable to afford to have the same amount of kids themselves ? Ludicrous

professionalmum01 · 23/02/2024 19:29

Viviennemary · 22/02/2024 23:52

On Question Time tonight they were talking about subsidised childcare and the new benefits for younger children. Then a woman came on with a boo hoo sad face and said she wouldn't be getting it. So I think Fiona Bruce said because your income is £100k a year plus Then she said that it wasnt fair as there was only one wage. And their household only had one earner.

Well tough. Folk on just over £12k a year are paying tax and this cheeky woman thinks her child care should be subsidised. It made me mad.

I think you are out of order as she has a very valid point. She might be on £100k a year but if she is the only one working and her childcare is £2k a month and she has a mortgage of £2k then she only has £1k for food/transport etc....

Now let's say that she has two kids and on that income. Her childcare fee is £4k and then she can't even afford to pay for her mortgage. Now someone earning £99k will get 30 hours free childcare and she gets NONE for both her kids.

I got into this "argument" with a work colleague clearly earning a lot less than that and we agreed to disagree.

Plus the more you earn the more you contribute and the less you get in return. How is that fair! If you were in her situation I'm sure you'd think differently.

GotMooMilk · 23/02/2024 19:29

You see it all the time on mn though- posters debating whether to go part time and claim UC/one person stop work and claim UC and give figures about being better off/the same financially with less stress. The vast majority of posters signpost them to find out what they’re ‘entitled too’ (ironic as mumsnet also hates entitlement) and urges them to put their family first and do what they need to do.
This isn’t sustainable in any way. If you need to work to afford the children you choose to have that’s life. It should never ever be an option (imo) to choose to go part time and be subsidised when working full time and supporting yourself is an option.

WeAreBorg · 23/02/2024 19:29

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

inamarina · 23/02/2024 19:30

Startingagainandagain · 23/02/2024 09:26

Agreed.

I never understand people who say 'I am struggling and by the way I make 80K or 100K'....These people have no clue of what it means to struggle.

Then you read so many stories here about people who have been pushed to the limit by the cost of living talking about how they have no money in the bank and how they are worried about food and you just want the above fools to keep quiet and count their blessings.

''@MississippiAF

A person earning 100k a year is subsidising a person earning 12k a year.''

Yet another smug comment...with your logic my taxes as someone who works part time because of disability and make about 30K is also subsidising the person who earns 50 - 100K's subsidised childcare...

It’s not smug, it’s just factual.
There’s nothing wrong with it, in a civilised society we should support each other. Technically it’s subsidising though.

professionalmum01 · 23/02/2024 19:34

What makes me mad about these posts where people are whining about high income earners is that they do not take into consideration the amount of effort that has gone into earning that money.

From my own experience, I have studied multiple degrees, I did 10 years of studying part time in the evening after a full day of work 5 x a week, the weekends and evenings I was studying and I didn't have as much time to go out and have "fun", the sacrifices made to pay for said course that costs tens of thousands and after 10-15 years of working insane hours at work to get promoted and studying in your free time to get to this salary only for it to be taken away in taxes and people think that they should be taking a share of your HARD EARNED cash. What's the incentive to work BLOODY HARD to get those wages. I wish i had come from money but i didn't. I grafted to get that. And yes its the choices that you make as people work hard but you have to work hard at the right type of job to make that kind of money. I'm not even on a super high wage but i know a lot of people who do and they have to make a lot of personal sacrifices to get there. Its just not the type of job that you switch off from at the end of the day.

Noangelbuthavingfun · 23/02/2024 19:42

Perhaps the 100k plus population should drastically start playing the system and reduce hours or increase pensions just to be at a level playing field... whose going to subsidise childcare then for lower earners ? It should be on combined household income but it's too hard to administer for the government. Its ludicrous. And for the posters who argue that anyone paying taxes are also subsidising higher earners- do the math. What do higher earners actually get and benefit from ? If they start using combined income they are still funding themselves and more!! Start taxing large corporations instead of hammering people trying to do well for themselves and give everyone a break !

taxguru · 23/02/2024 19:46

We need to change the entire tax/benefit system so that marginal tax/loss of benefits is NEVER more than 50%, so whatever you do, whatever income bracket, if you do an extra shift, or take a promotion, or whatever, you get to keep at least half of it, after taking into account income tax, NIC, student loans, minimum level of workplace pension deductions AND loss of benefits such as UC, help with rent/council tax, free prescriptions, free childcare, etc - the lot. With computer modelling, it's entirely possible to do. We need incentives for people to work and for people to work more, to help solve the skills shortages, and we're never going to achieve that when people can end up with less than half of their "extra" earnings in their pocket, all things considered.

BlackForestCake · 23/02/2024 19:49

A person earning 100k a year is subsidising a person earning 12k a year.

Wrong, the people earning 12k a year are subsidising the people earning 100k a year.

CutthroatDruTheViolent · 23/02/2024 19:50

Goldenbear · 23/02/2024 17:26

Because your "spends" of 'rich' people on 100,000 are hyperbolic and wouldn't look out of place in the comments section of the DM!

Show quote history

ok? Just sounds like you know more about the price of a Lexus than I do, and also ignored the entirety of my comment.

But whatever. Not sure I see a correlation being a Lexus neophyte and a Tory but if it makes you feel better, then carry on.

professionalmum01 · 23/02/2024 19:50

taxguru · 23/02/2024 19:46

We need to change the entire tax/benefit system so that marginal tax/loss of benefits is NEVER more than 50%, so whatever you do, whatever income bracket, if you do an extra shift, or take a promotion, or whatever, you get to keep at least half of it, after taking into account income tax, NIC, student loans, minimum level of workplace pension deductions AND loss of benefits such as UC, help with rent/council tax, free prescriptions, free childcare, etc - the lot. With computer modelling, it's entirely possible to do. We need incentives for people to work and for people to work more, to help solve the skills shortages, and we're never going to achieve that when people can end up with less than half of their "extra" earnings in their pocket, all things considered.

I agree. When you earn just over £100k you get taxed at 60% between £100-120k! How is that fair. People on low wages are always jealous of people on high incomes but i bet they wouldn't like the govt taking 60% of their wages and they say they can afford it but generally speaking those jobs require higher skills from pursuing further education and getting experience. If you are going to get a tiny % of that income then whats the point!

rwalker · 23/02/2024 19:51

MidnightMeltdown · 23/02/2024 01:39

I agree OP, I thought that she was a cheeky fucker

No she’s someone who got off her arse and will pay more in deductions than I earn a year

people who pay in should be able to benefit

the argument of saying she can afford it is no different than saying if you can’t afford kids don’t have them both arguments are unacceptable

professionalmum01 · 23/02/2024 19:51

BlackForestCake · 23/02/2024 19:49

A person earning 100k a year is subsidising a person earning 12k a year.

Wrong, the people earning 12k a year are subsidising the people earning 100k a year.

WHAT???? HOW??? If you are on 12k you get a whole host of benefits from the govt. When you are on £100k you get taxed heavily and get NOTHING from the govt. What planet are you on?

LondonPapa · 23/02/2024 19:52

BlackForestCake · 23/02/2024 19:49

A person earning 100k a year is subsidising a person earning 12k a year.

Wrong, the people earning 12k a year are subsidising the people earning 100k a year.

How so?

TooOldForThisNonsense · 23/02/2024 19:55

rwalker · 23/02/2024 19:51

No she’s someone who got off her arse and will pay more in deductions than I earn a year

people who pay in should be able to benefit

the argument of saying she can afford it is no different than saying if you can’t afford kids don’t have them both arguments are unacceptable

Show quote history

Presumably you get off your arse and work too?

people aren’t better and don’t work harder just because they earn £100k as opposed to £12k

Fiona142 · 23/02/2024 20:01

BlowDryRat · 23/02/2024 00:19

The point she was making (badly, TBF), is that if she and her DH each earned £99k, they'd get the free childcare but because one of them earns £100k, they get nothing. This means that a family income of £199999.99 can pay £0 for childcare, while a family with a household income of half that on £100000.00 pays £4k a month for the same childcare. This is inherently unfair but it also pushes the lower earner (usually the mother) to either go part-time or become a SAHP. As the woman on NN, was saying this is both bad for the mother who wants to work more and for the economy, which needs women paying income tax to fund pensions, the NHS, support for Ukraine etc

I'm in this position my husband earns over £100k; I work in the social care industry where we struggle to recruit and earn a reasonable wage as a manager but it barely covers £90 a day nursery costs. My husband feels that i might as well become a stay at home mum but that would leave a vacancy they would struggle to fill or they would promote but then that would leave a vacancy. I also feel that the government doesn't want me to have my own pension; pay tax and contribute to the economy etc. Yes we have a very comfortable life and nice holidays etc but really it's not as much as some people think; we do nice things but we aren't going to the Maldives etc.

PoppingCandles · 23/02/2024 20:01

Questions
Why are people earning so little?
Too many graduates. There were no jobs as far back as 2000. About half i knew took non graduate jobs
Banking criss
Later retirement - my parents retired about 55yo
Now women have gone from 60 towards 68. And men. So average of 5.5yrs each
Huge population growth

Obviously more women working generally
We have to put into our own state pensions.
Out of small wages still have to pay into own pension pot is it 3%.

Why is childcare so expensive
Probably partly due to the 'free' hours which some get from 2.

Why would the determiner be having 2 in childcare in london?
Obviously london os expensive many comute in instead
To avoid having 2 in childcare
Mat leave till dc1 is 1yo
Have dc2 when dc1 is 2+ for the free 15-30hrs.
Or 4 for when they start school

Here 10-20% of kids are collected from school by grandparents.

Some people seem to manage to fund 14yrs private school which could be 20k per child. Something like 7% of kids...

Overall all the tech and expensove cars etc has made everyone more greedy imo.

I guess reflected in the increase in shop thefts

inamarina · 23/02/2024 20:03

Startingagainandagain · 23/02/2024 10:17

I guess many of the posts here proved the points that the OP was making:

People on high salaries complaining about their high mortgage, living in the South East and how they work hard while the low paid live a life of complete leisure at tax payers' expenses...

Basically a bunch of privileged, whiny people who don't have a clue and should instead realise how lucky they are to have a house and a job that pays well.

And no, you don't work any harder than your office cleaner, hospital porter, catering assistant or the person behind your supermarket till.

Who said that those who earn less ‘live a life of complete leisure at tax payers' expenses’?

Saltandpeppero · 23/02/2024 20:06

GotMooMilk · 23/02/2024 19:29

You see it all the time on mn though- posters debating whether to go part time and claim UC/one person stop work and claim UC and give figures about being better off/the same financially with less stress. The vast majority of posters signpost them to find out what they’re ‘entitled too’ (ironic as mumsnet also hates entitlement) and urges them to put their family first and do what they need to do.
This isn’t sustainable in any way. If you need to work to afford the children you choose to have that’s life. It should never ever be an option (imo) to choose to go part time and be subsidised when working full time and supporting yourself is an option.

Yeah this is very common , a friend of mine and her partner both work part time. He does casual work and she works less than 16 hours a week. Their kids are all 13+ and she’s in her 30s but she has no intention of going to full-time work. She also didn’t work for most of her 20s and only went back when she had to so she didn’t have years of shelling out for early years childcare.

I’m not even picking at her or saying she’s doing anything wrong as such as people will understandably do what they are allowed to get away with, but my point the system has a major flaw if people can just do this and get topped up by heaps of benefits while others are slogging away from the day their child turns one and then being denied various benefits. The system must ensure that it pays to work basically. Wages have been suppressed for so long while rents and house prices have risen steadily. I don’t have kids and I don’t earn 100K but having just finally caught up with question time I see what that woman was trying to say and she has a point.

Ninahaen · 23/02/2024 20:13

BlackForestCake · 23/02/2024 19:49

A person earning 100k a year is subsidising a person earning 12k a year.

Wrong, the people earning 12k a year are subsidising the people earning 100k a year.

how exactly have you came to that conclusion?

BewitchedorBewildered · 23/02/2024 20:13

Like most things, there is nuance in this. Not everyone earning £100k per year plus is living a life or luxury, particularly in London where living costs are very high. Conversely, there are many earning £12k per year or less through no fault of their own and certainly not because they just didn't try at school. However, it is a fact that someone earning a high salary is substantially funding the people at the other end of the spectrum, you could say the individual discussed is paying twice for childcare - her own whilst also heavily subsidising the less well off through taxes. I personally have no issue with paying high taxes as I fundamentally believe in a welfare state. However, I don't expect contempt just because I earn a high salary.