To be fed up with all the threads about high earners feeling poor

[trekking1]

It's always the same condescending "I've worked so hard and only have a 3 bedroom house in a great location and an expensive car", as if 1. that's not a lot 2. people who make 5 times less do not work as hard!

And the suprised pikachu face that having a degree did not magically get them a 500k job. That is not how capitalism works folks

No it would damage many professional careers (including mine) irretrievably. I worked in the city earning six figures, it’s not so easy as jacking it in to go on benefits then restarting where you left off. It’s not likely you would ever be able to get an equivalent job with a gap like that. Most women I know who took any significant time off with kids, have not been able to get back into their careers.

Most high earning careers are very competitive especially in the earlier years. You can’t just pick them up and put them down (unfortunately for many women). Gaps in careers are career suicide for those types of careers. Things are changing maybe a little now, but it’s still pretty much the same.

you don’t understand the world of high earning professional careers. That’s ok but don’t make nasty comments.

But "I work hard" is not a statement about whether anyone else does or does not - taking offense yourself and on behalf of anyone that works hard and earns less is your own perception imo.

Yanbu only because there’s been so many of them recently. Especially on AMA

The one on AMA was about a woman who earns more than 500 K , and IMHO she is an example to us all. More women should know women can make big money. And no, this is not a dig at low earners.

Are you in the same camp as anyone more than you should pay more tax?

If people have bigger aspirations than you, what’s wrong with that.

In Scotland the tax is much greater and your a higher rate tax payer at 42% from 43k (you pay 21% above 23k). A new band is coming in at 75k of 45% then it's 48% above 125k.

The amount of tax generated from higher rate tax payers is substantial and with the new rates there is concern people will move elsewhere. Although in Scotland the 30 hours aren't related to income or working so everyone gets it whether they work or are a high income household.

I don't understand vilanising higher tax payers they are critical to pay for many services.
To me it's reverse snobbery in a lot of cases.
My "DB" for instance doesn't think it's a real job unless it's manual/on your feet all day. He happily calls me a pen pusher (doesn't understand my job at all) and thinks I do nothing. I don't earn anywhere near 100k but I don't resent anyone that does.

Nothing at all against high earners , but IF everyone was to aspire to these types of jobs and were able to do them successfully, who would do the lower paid jobs that are also really important to society ?
Things would very quickly break down if suddenly everyone had the big office and flash desk but nobody to clean it or empty the rubbish or take them to work on the train or bus

Im on a decent wage. Yep i work hard..but so do people on a lesser wage..i dont see my skills any better than anyones. We all have strengths.

I would say my wage is reasonably high.. however, i also don't like those posts from high earners moaning about mortgage payments and cost of living. We all have choices...they chose an house etc in expensive area. We choose to be in that position..so ...downsize , dont over extend. I have a modest cottage...if mortgage goes up i can cover it. Those contingencies need to be looked at before commitment.

Theres people who work as hard as me who should be on a better wage.

Sure.

What’s the point you’re trying to make?

Yes. Just as things are breaking down now with not enough tax payers.

The exact same can be said for the opposite.

Did you miss the bit that most of that was earned by her husband?

No. Did you miss the new one about a divorced woman in tech who earns that in her own right? Please go check before being snide.

Where is that then? I was obviously referring to another on AMA.

I am on the Tube now and I really can't be bothered to link.

DH out earns me X5

I used to be his supervisor and took 5 years out raising 3 kids.

Of course it makes a huge difference.

Teachers in todays wages would be earning £80K and have a detached house a kids in private schools. Wages have dropped massively.

Just because someone earns more than you doesn’t mean they are richer in today society.

My generation could by a property on x3 of one salary - you can do that now unless you are a super high flier - you need to be on £100,000 to by an average house.

You are deluded.

I think the point she is trying to make is the high earners always giving the same advice to "get a better paid job" is ridiculous because if everyone did that society would break down.

You absolutely do not need to be on £100k to buy an average house in most areas, possibly London/south east but certainly not where I live. My mum lives alone, earns £27k and owns a 3 bedroom terrace that she bought 2 years ago for less than £150k (Nottinghamshire). She did have a 50% deposit but there is plenty of affordable housing in many areas.

This is often said as a “gotcha”. I appreciate you don’t seem to mean it like that, but more as a genuine question.

On a societal and economic level, the idea is that people should not be in lower paid jobs for life. They should make progression through them. (This obviously varies on an individual level according to a persons needs, wants, and abilities).

So, for example, someone starts on the tills in a supermarket as a school leaver, progresses to supervisor, to deputy store manager, uses the transferable skills to become area manager for a company in a different industry, and so on. In the meantime, obviously someone else has started on the tills.

There is never a scenario where the lower paid jobs stop existing, but they are (many of them, not all) supposed to be a rung on the ladder, not the only step.

Of course some people can’t progress, some don’t want to progress, some make an active choice to stay for various reasons. But the argument that society will collapse if people have aspirations is highly flawed.

Anecdotally, I know someone working as a care worker while waiting for her nursing training to start. Someone working in a nursery while training as a teacher. Someone working as a cleaner while building her business. There is nothing at all wrong with the jobs they are doing now, and they are proud and happy to be doing them, but they don’t intend to be doing them in 5 years time. And, more relevantly, in 5 years time when they have moved on there will be someone else filling their shoes.

No, it wouldn’t.

It’s completely understandable that low earners take issue with people on a high income complaining about their finances. It’s obviously near impossible to feel sympathy for someone on £100k if you are earning £10.50 an hour.

However higher earners are not to blame for low wages. Government policy allows employers in this country who generate billions in revenue to pay wages that are so low that employees need benefits to top-up their income despite working really hard.

This has created an unequal society but the object of people’s ire shouldn’t be the woman who has worked her arse off and earns £150k and is complaining because she doesn’t feel well off (and yes, the woman on £10.50 an hour also works hard), it’s the government and the corporate friends they work hand in glove with to keep wages suppressed.

Honestly, the Tories have provided a Masterclass in how to divide and rule and successfully deflect blame. This is proved by the countless benefit bashing threads on here, almost always started by someone on a low income, who is bitter because Jane from the school run is on benefits but has a big car, widescreen TV and took her kids to Disneyland and so OP wants to know if she should report her? Never mind the U.K. billionaires who don’t pay their share of taxes, let’s target the benefits claimant because clearly she’s the bigger culprit.

Or threads like this one where people sneer and insult higher earners. Again, let’s ignore who’s actually at fault for economic deprivation and focus on people who take home £5k a month but are genuinely struggling as they spend almost all their take home pay on housing and childcare.

Who do you think pays the taxes that go towards paying for Government spending? When you see some of the whinging, entitlement and expectation that 'the Government' should pick up the tab for people's fecklessness, I think they can absolutely feel aggrieved. If you are a net contributor you are literally subsidising other people's lives and the choices (passive or otherwise) that they make.

Im a reasonably high earner...middle class income..I come from working class background. I understand the aggrieved. Some people cannot seem to get a break. Its not always their doing. Theres a poor rich divide/ divide and conquer rhetoric ...and more so on mumsnet.

Or threads like this one where people sneer and insult higher earners. Again, let’s ignore who’s actually at fault for economic deprivation and focus on people who take home £5k a month but are genuinely struggling as they spend almost all their take home pay on housing and childcare

it’s not sneering. It’s failing to recognise their privilege.

people on 2k and 3k net income also have housing and childcare costs.

people on 5k take home are not “genuinely struggling”. They have options that those on lower net incomes don’t have.

if people are “genuinely” struggling on 5k net they’ve either overextended at some point or need to overhaul their budget.

Yep.

Somebody who pops out 4 children by 3 different men without a job and relies on benefits is championed on here, is never accused of ‘entitlement’ yet the people who work to provide those benefits are ‘entitled’ for wanting a good standard of living?

It’s utterly mad.