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!

There’s no way any of them are on minimum wage and managing with out some sort of help from somewhere.

But what I mean is why sneer at a PP who said she would up her hours if she became single. Without knowing her situation, what she could earn, what income protections she might have put in place.

It is possible to work full time with children. Actually two don’t receive maintenance currently, and one is unlikely to ever. They work really hard and I have so much admiration for them

I think it's partly because land values and house prices are so high. It's an investment and has been for a while which prices lower wages people out of buying homes. But it's also a really good investment for funds like BlackRock etc which is also making it harder for even high earners (on paper) people to be able to buy. So you can be in the top 10% and still actually have a huge mortgage. Plus you are also paying tax to pay housing benefits to people who could never afford rent without it. And if you increased NMW so that it did, then your childcare fees are even higher.
It's a trap and it's no one's fault actually but it is destabilising. And you can't exactly redistribute all the land or press a button to make it cheaper. It would be unfair and unacceptable to most.
But that's why you don't feel rich probably. Earnings aren't the same as wealth. Plus house prices mean there's the largest wealth transfer in history (5 trillion) on its way over the next 30 years without the government doing anything. Which is going to cause all sorts of side effects.

It’s not shocking at all…the most shocking part it’s that 20% of the population (pension age) is claiming 50% of the welfare bill (and that doesn’t include free bus passes, winter fuel payments, housing benefit and disability related payments)

Well yes, a single mum who works does not mean they are on NMW, and I don't doubt there are single mums who work and don't claim any benefits as they earn too much to qualify anyway.
But PP is smug in her ivory tower provided by her DH, and telling the single mums on NMW to just eat cake work more when they might be fucking knackered already. May as well tell them to use a TARDIS to go back in time so they can increase their hours.

That PP has opined from her ivory tower whilst working part time as her husband earns a lot that if people aren’t earning enough they should take second jobs and work up to 80 hours per week….coearly having zero clue what it’s actually like as a single parent

I think you’ll find the sneering is coming from the opposite direction.

@LivingDeadGirlUK I meant to say, being able to afford a mortgage on a nice house in a nice area is of course a huge privilege. But if you are in the top 10% of earners it feels like you should have a massive house debt free. Thats what "rich" is. Instead you are still paying a huge chunk out each month for something you own 30% off.

Unfortunately the point at which people become debt free/start to rich -even if they worked really hard and are high earners is now when (if) they inherit. Which is a strange place to be psychologically because even if you are the most "successful" of your demographic on paper the biggest financial thing to happen to you comes externally. That wasn't the case for older generations but again no specific persons fault.

Interesting - I’ve had varying requests from, say, charity shops, coffee shops, etc. One asked for cash because of the card costs, the other only took cards because of the cash costs (but maybe because no bank nearby which is another subject!)

So earning way more than NMW.

As an aside, plenty of NMW earners or just above work really hard too. How hard one works isn’t directly correlated to how much one is able to earn.

The salaries at the higher end are often determined by the market and multiple complex factors which are more about, skills, scarcity and how much value an individual worker can deliver for a given business. They are not something you can just cap. Higher income jobs (e.g. finance, tech, law, medicine, management) typically require longer training, formal education, or specialised knowledge.That creates barriers to entry, making qualified workers relatively scarce.The market rewards scarcity — so more skill or fewer people who can do the job = higher pay. Many white-collar roles carry financial, legal, or strategic responsibility. If a project fails, a lawsuit happens, or millions are lost, the fallout is serious. The higher the risk and decision-making responsibility, the more someone is often paid to carry that burden.Jobs that can scale their output (e.g. one manager overseeing 100 staff, or one tech engineer writing software used by millions) can be extremely valuable to a business.
Manual jobs, while essential, are often limited by time and physical output (e.g. you can only clean so many rooms per hour). The market tends to reward output scalability, not just effort. Finally, Many lower income jobs are low-skill not because they aren’t hard, but because lots of people can do them. When supply of labour is high and training requirements are low, wages are pushed down. White-collar roles are fewer in number and often more competitive, so wages rise.

In fairness they paid in earlier in their lives

What bothers me is that children etc haven't had a chance to pay in. But still need support. So children and a lot of young families look like a net drain.
I pay a LOT of tax now. But when I was younger I needed a lot of additional support for various reasons. The people providing it would have been a net drain on paper but without them I wouldn't be earning the income and paying the tax I am on now so if you assign some of my contributions to them they would be net contributors.

So I hate how short-sighted the rhetoric of who is taking what from the system in number terms. It's decisive. Yes they need to balance the books. But what someone is taking/giving is just a snapshot of their lives at any one time. And people contribute in different ways.

I was telling anyone able bodied to work hard. Don't stay on NMW forever. Work hard and work your way to a better job. Take some time to develop up skill yourself. Work extra hours/another job use that extra income to grow your capital/invest.

I give the example of my DH because I know how hard he worked and how he came from little money and made something of himself.

I am a solo parent who works full time and has never claimed any benefits, nor have been entitled to. Please don’t stereotype!

That’s really patronising. I know lots of single mums who work full time. Many of them work long hours in very demanding and stressful jobs.

Not everyone can upskill. Some people will be on that bottom rung forever, for lots of reasons. Have a think about why if you need something to do.

Again, you are hanging on to your DH's coat tails. He worked hard. Have you?

I do understand what you’re saying but the differential between the highest and lowest seems excessive. And let’s face it, certain professions are better paid than others (till AI flips this in due course!). I don’t agree with :

“Finally, Many lower income jobs are low-skill not because they aren’t hard, but because lots of people can do them. When supply of labour is high and training requirements are low, wages are pushed down.”

Doesnt seem very easy to fill vacancies in, say, care or farm labour like fruit picking - I don’t see the rates for these jobs going up because although in theory many people could perhaps do them, they don’t.

What does everyone make of the recent ABTA research that found that holidaying is at an all time high with the average brit taking 4 holidays a year (2 of them international) and huge numbers in the above average category taking 5, 6, 7 or even 8 holidays a year. Young people and people with children apparently take the most.

"The most prolific travellers were families and those under the age of 35, with 18-24 year olds taking an average of 5.33 trips, 25-34 year olds going on 6.43 breaks and families with children over the age of five going on holiday 5.32 times during this period. However, it’s families with young children (aged under five) who took the most holidays, at an average of 6.49, up from 5.27 last year and much more than five years ago (3.89 in 2019)"

This certainly tallies with my own experience of the middle and high income earners I know. They are all off on holiday at the drop of a hat - long haul, luxury etc, kids in tow. I presume they've met all their other expenses and are putting money aside for savings and kids uni etc if they feel able to do this. It does seem to contradict the narrative of all these struggling workers. A huge number of people are clearly doing really well.

www.abta.com/news/number-holidays-taken-person-reaches-new-high-people-seek-getaway-get-together

No one is stereotyping.

a PP who works part time bevause her hubby earns oodles is telling peopld who cang maid ends meet at 40 hours/week to work as much as 80 if they have to.

It’s perfectly reasonable to point out that many single parents (ie women) struggle to work full time without help whether that be earning way above minimum wage to buy in help, a family who chips in, free flexible childcare, a father who Actually steps up and does his bit, free housing, universal credit - pointing out the grim reality for many (having to claim benefits and muddle along with patchwork childcare, isn’t stereotyping anyone.

But good you being able to earn enough so you don’t have to claim benefits.

@Googlygogglygoo there was a thread on here recently where posters were sharing what they spent on holidays each year it was mind blowing to me.

I can’t remember the last time I went on holiday - was certainly over 15 years ago.

Apologies - I hadn’t realised the above. It is a juggle but an after schools programme helps. We can only do our best.

Maybe you should get yourself a decent and supportive partner rather than taking from the tax payer?

Same. But it is harder because its one salary compared to two. Or one salary paying for childcare compered to one salary with a SAHP. So single parents are more likely to claim benefits than couples. But the alternative is not to support children/poorer families at all and accept that we will have far less economically active adults (and crime and starvation).
The people now claiming pensions worked all their adult lives. But they grew up in a welfare state with the older generation paying much more taxes than any of us do now. And the generation above them risked life and limb in a war so they could have the lives they lived. Sometimes I feel people forget that...

Yes, because women should just look for a man who can provide for them....

i think you’ll find she meant that as a single parent, unless you’re able to afford to buy in help or find that magic family help/school/after school club combo, it’s very difficult to work full time.

That’s the grim reality. Not patronising at all.