Anyone else lost a bit of ambition now they’ve been taxed to the brink?

[Peasontoastt]

I used to be extremely ambitious and was really eager to reach some sort of financial security. As a consequence, I’m in what’s considered a highly paid career, I work hard and it took me many years to train.

Just as I paid off my student loan (which took many years), I then had a baby and returned to work to be stuck with the childcare dilemma. I struggled through that phase and have come out the other side but being taxed so much, no child benefit, still paying for nursery even though dd has ‘free’ hours now. It’s likely that savings are going to be bashed next, so what’s the point in even putting anything aside when there’s likely going to be a 4K cap on ISAs.

I used to feel so ambitious and of course I know money isn’t everything, not by a long shot. But having worked my way up the ladder and with huge responsibilities only to feel penalised financially for doing so…what is the point? Yes I have more financial security than someone claiming benefits but equally, I am not being flippant when I say a few years of resting and being at home and being frugal is starting to seem so much more attractive. Has anyone else started feeling this way? I feel taken the piss out of by every financial angle!

Sorry I was on the side of the working person. Not on the side of the UC claimant.

Your cousin isn't taking from the state.

She is giving less to the state than she could.

The UC person is taking from the state and also giving less than she could.

This is becoming ridiculous now. So if we have more than a homeless man who’s had his food stolen we shouldn’t grumble?

The bar is set several miles below Satans foot and points to why the country is in the state it’s in.

There are many things the government can fix but our cultural issues around success and reward can’t be fixed by any government .

I've got a cousin who is a nurse she is paid why less than a lawyer but still doesn't get any benefits. Is she taking from the state because she choose not to be a lawyer?

yes, here is a summary from chatgpt: Yes — there's credible evidence that high-contributing individuals, especially very-high-net-worth and non‑dom residents, are increasingly leaving the UK. Here's what recent data and expert analyses show:
📉 The Wealth Exodus: What’s Happening?

• A record 16,500 high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs) are expected to leave the UK in 2025, moving a total of around $92 billion in assets — largely prompted by Labour’s tax reforms, including changes to non-domicile rules, inheritance tax, and capital gains (ft.com).
• In 2024, around 10,800 liquid millionaires departed — a 157% increase from the previous year — relocating mainly to tax-friendlier countries like Italy, the UAE, Switzerland, and the USA (thetimes.co.uk).

💷 Tax Revenue Risks

• The Adam Smith Institute estimates that losing these millionaires equates to a loss of income tax revenue equal to over 528,000 average taxpayers — given each millionaire contributes about £394,000 in income tax (adamsmith.org).
• Projections show that the removal of non‑dom status alone could cost the UK between £32 billion and £111 billion in GDP growth and up to 44,000 jobs by 2030/2035 (adamsmith.org).

🌍 Where Are They Going?

• Top destinations include the UAE (Dubai), Italy, Switzerland, Monaco, Singapore, USA, and Portugal, all offering more favorable tax environments and lifestyle advantages (emifast.com).

🧠 Counterpoint: How Unique Is This?

• Some analysts (e.g., LSE studies) suggest that tax hikes alone don’t automatically trigger an exodus, especially among those prioritizing personal ties, careers, or culture (ft.com).
• However, the scale and consistency of departures — with thousands leaving each year — suggest a systemic trend beyond isolated individual decisions (neilmccoyward.com).

✅ Bottom Line Yes — recent evidence shows a significant and growing outflow of net contributors from the UK, especially among wealthy individuals. The scale is substantial, and the economic implications for tax revenues, investment, and jobs are a major concern for policy-makers. Let me know if you'd like a deeper dive into specific sectors — e.g., how non‑dom changes affect pensions, or which professions are most likely to leave — and I can dig further!

• ft.com
• ft.com
• thetimes.co.uk
• thetimes.co.uk

What we need are more robust education services to carry people of all backgrounds upwards and into higher tax bands and aspirations. But Labour knew they couldn’t do that, so levelling down private schools (who were doing a perfectly good job), was the easier move. It’s sad, but the UK is a bleak pond at the moment. Many we know are looking to work offshore.

My household earns over £200k gross - I’m the higher earner - and I don’t feel like this. Just a different perspective!

People working a couple of days a week with the result that they are net beneficiaries. My own father told me that he could earn twice as much as me if he’d tried harder. I’m angry with the people that don’t fucking try and then expect other people to pick up the bill.

I have no problem with net contributors working part time. And I am a full time worker by the way.

Most able bodied people on UC have to earn over a certain amount each month. They won't be allowed to just say no to doing work. I think people don't understand what UC is like now.

Not at all. I don't think anyone is saying she is

But people are saying the lawyer who chooses to 3 days a week rather than 5 is taking from the state. We all choose what job we do.

@Lioncub2020 I don't understand why you are talking about lawyers & comparing jobs?

My cousin is a doctor! 😆

She is giving less to the state than she could.

So anyone who works p/t is giving less than they can?

Presumably a lot of these jobs will be AI soon anyway?

20% of the population are using 50% of the benefits bill (plus nearly 40% of disability portion of the benefits bill)

Its a huge chunk going to only one fifth of the population.

Some will be, some won't be. There may be good reason for having to work p/t that is not about tax savings.

But I was sticking up for your cousin with that comment - I was showing she is not comparable to the person we are all talking about who claims UC. Read it again. It wasn't a dig.

Who is going to be left to do ‘ordinary’ jobs?

And how would making most jobs high paying work exactly? EG - company director - what ixactly will the position be ‘directing’ if there aren’t employees further down the chain?

Oh wow. I mean if someone wants to work less it's their choice. If they are happy with the lower income but more leisure that's fine it's their life.

@JustPinkFinch sorry wasn't accusing you of a dig. I just think it's an interesting conversation that p/t working is not giving all you can.

@cloudyblueglass

"20% of the population are using 50% of the benefits bill (plus nearly 40% of disability portion of the benefits bill) "

does this include pensioners though?

Yes pushing downwards is not the answer.

I think the crux here is some posters are trying to state that high earners who reduce their hours (to reduce their tax bill) are taking from the state in just the same way as people who work less hours/have lower pay and claim universal credit or whatever. It's false equivalence and it's confusing the thread a bit.

Obviously your cousin is far from taking.

Thank you for the compliment, it’s appreciated. My account hasn’t been hacked, I was playing devil’s advocate but the principle is just the same - it’s two people limiting the amount they earn to maximise their income. The difference is in the detail.

I agree. Read some of the other posts.