Resentment at 100k

[Arseholeneighbours]

Theres a lot of vitriol spilt towards people being “high earners” at 100k and over. As net contributors, and most likely having made sacrifices, stresses and difficult life decisions, there’s many judgements about life choices , expectations and living within one’s means. What is the motivation to push forward in a career and to try and be as successful as one can if there’s no personal gain? It’s all well and good saying those with the broadest shoulders should take on the most - but to what end?

Ok.. sounds like maybe it would be better for you to take a step back then. Doesn’t make sense for you to project a sense of resentment about that onto people who have also worked hard and made choices and sacrifices and who still can’t pay their rent without benefits, or who have disabled children, or have a disability that means they work harder than you ever will just to tread water.

I never said a full time salary. Thats the problem, the most common salary is that low as too many people don’t work full time.

Also as of October 2025 the median salary in the Uk was £39,039 according to the office of nationals statistics.

Sacrifices are made at every level. What sacrifices do you think the low paid father/mother makes to take a second job as an uber driver to put food on the table and give his/her kids a nice Christmas?

A lot of people work part time for a lot of reasons. "Too many people work part time" is a bit of a bald statement, what point are you trying to make?

why do you believe because I question tax brackets for career growth I resent disabled children?

Yes, I probably don’t know as it’s not a situation I’ve been in.

Because they can and we look after people in our society if we want a good life for ourselves too.

We are higher earners. Over £100k but not ultra rich and I have no problem paying taxes. We have a lovely life, are not feeling the squeeze at all.

And that’s probably because we do exactly what poor people are told to do all the time: we live within our means. We don’t have our dc in private schools. We don’t take £5000 holidays. We take packed lunches on a day out and coffee in a flask. We don’t regularly get takeaways or eat lots of convenience foods. We don’t have Sky or car finance or gym memberships. We have plenty of money left over every month such that a bit more on taxes is no big deal given we make good use of those public services ourselves.

I think maybe take the hit. Save up so you have enough money to live on for six months, then quit your job and live on benefits. The savings will cover the period you're sanctioned for. Then you can enjoy your life on benefits without having to work ever again and still get a lot of money from the taxpayer.

Simples.

I would feel resentful too

Is NMW enough to live off in a "cheap area" if you don't have kids and you work FT for a year. Can people manage without benefits? As in you're just providing for yourself, no caring or dependents? You'd probably do a few overtime shifts as well and get a bit more like that right?

Do it.

Hit pause on progression and choose to stay on good where you are for the short term and spend that extra time getting marginally more sleep and face to face time with young children.

Look at where people 15-20 yes older than you are in their careers. That ladder climbing pauses at different points for different people. Almost everyone has done it at some point by 50. Now might be your time for it.

Those high earners losing a small fraction of money to help pay for the country in which they live are nothing but whiny and greedy.

If in a private company, don't you have a potential big pay day when your projects come to fruition and the patents kick in ?

Or do you work for a cheapskate company like I did, that only pays a quid for each patent.

I do know Engineers who done really well out of innovation and patents . Big house buying level.

Me, I got a quid for each one.

Such is life :-)

Does seem odd to have so much earning potential and quibble over a few K over the next few years.

They already pay a large fraction of their earnings and they are now being forced to give up more.

A awful lot of people who work part-time are parents, with most of them being mothers. Are you really suggesting (on Mumsnet of all places) that parents should all work full-time? Do you know how much childcare costs?

But I think this sums it up really.

The £100k+ earners are told they are the rich. They cannot use some state services like childcare because they’re so well off. Their tax rate is over 60% on part of their income. The top ~4% of earners.

Yet you say ‘live to your means’ - but that’s the point isn’t it, the previous upper middle class who did have a big house, private schools etc are now… ‘take a packed lunch, don’t buy a nice car, no TV streaming services, no using a gym’ etc.

Twenty or thirty years ago the people in this income bracket would have had a completely different kind of lifestyle - that’s why people are complaining, the quality of life achievable has plummeted while the personal taxes on this group have risen significantly.

I currently pay an effective 100% tax rate between £100-150k between tax and loss of benefits.

Is that a sensible piece of tax policy?

I see you have been reading the Daily Mail🙄

My exact circumstances aren’t really the issue are they? It’s a policy problem

Yep

What I find comical is that if tax bands had moved with inflation, the rather mythical threshold to "well off" would apparently now be at 270k. It feels as if the collective opinion of what 100k is worth was frozen in time circa 1990. I typed it into the bank of England calculator. 100k in 1990 is 249,650 in today's money. That should be the definition of well off.l if our economy was performing the way the US has. Taking chunks out of people for having the temerity to prosper will get nobody anywhere.

So you want benefits ?

I don't see how you can subtract benefits low paid get, from your take home, and define that as tax.

Personally I think it's all deflection to keep people thinking 100k is a high salary.
Anyone up to 150k are still slogging away, able to afford only average 4 bed houses, especially in the south east, and driving normal cars.
While CEOs and board level people of huge businesses are on 4million a year, the majority of their most senior staff are sitting around 150k for Director level positions.
There is a huge disparity.
Entry level job salaries havent changed much in 20 years. Whikst house prices and CEO salaries have skyrocketed.
We are all squabbling about differences of a couple of thousand in income disparity beteeen 50k and 150k. Whist some other people are taking millions as salaries out of these companies.
And this keeps all the other salaries low for essential jobs, like nursing and refuse collectors and police, because they follow the market.
I think wages are suppressed all round.
There is money, it's just flowing upwards in huge quantities.

The loss of the personal allowance at £100k was introduced in 2009.

With the new extended freeze on thresholds, it will have been in place for 22 years…!

It’s just so irrational too - a random spike in tax for people just hitting senior / professional roles, before it drops again - why?!