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?

I think absolute poverty should be tackled. Where people are in such dire straits. But I don't really care about relative poverty at all.

I am a high ish earner... £80k but I will never inherit anything. My parents and my DP's parents are piss poor. Do not own their own houses.

My best friend is a teacher. She is also a single mother. She only works 3 days a week so she doesn't loose benefits. She is also inline to inherit 1/2 of two £1m+ houses. Her parents own one each and she has a brother.

So I am working 5 - 6 days a week. Never going to be 'rich'. Paying a shit load of tax and helping her to work a breezy 3 days knowing she will be minted!

I am struggling. I know people would say how on £80k.. mortgage, car, tutors, gymnastics lessons, food, heating etc.. etc... I never have any time or any money. It's not fair!

Well, I agree, but this is why I bang on about the psychology. The psychology of those board members earning 4m is not different to the psychology of those earning 100k, 50k or 20k. We're all loss-averse by nature.

The only difference is that below a certain level, there's nothing further to cut in terms of expenses.

I'd like to see some sort of measures that limited profits and senior salaries to a maximum proportion of the lowest salary.

Earn as much as you like, make as much profit as you like - but not at the expense of junior staff earning a (good) living income.

This is the perfect example of what I’ve mentioned bedoreand it’s people like your friend who shouldn’t be entitled to any extra help. And really why should the taxpayer pay for someone to only work half the week. It’s utterly ridiculous

I do a job where average salary is 100k to £150k (and hasn't really changed for years). When I first hit 100k about 25 years ago it felt like (and was) a lot of money. Less so now with inflation. However, I can still live comfortably and pay my taxes. I have no objection to a redistributive tax system but, if there are odd cliffs its best to keep my earnings under, I do so. Its not hard. I work fewer days or put more into pension. Overall I consider myself incredibly lucky to be paid well for something I enjoy doing. You won't hear any vitriol from me for the 2 child cap being lifted or for any other redistributive policies.

Because "the taxpayer" will then moan about paying the extra childcare bill.

Also once the kids are grown up the teacher will realise her future pension has taken a hit and the inheritance will possibly go on care fees.

But your financial situation is not everyone’s who is earning that amount. And labour have seen off adding extra salary contributions to your pension

My view is support the disabled and this caring for disabled kids. Support people temporarily in dire dire situations where the world is about to collapse. Maybe don't let kids starve.

But if you are healthy. If you are not mentally and physically unwell. Why don't you become the driver for your own success? There are people who do work longer hours than the standard 40 to make things meet. They might take on an extra shifts here, do a "side hustle". Some use the extra cash to set up something better in the long term. Sometimes people spend extra time they have studying to gain extra skills that would be valuable to employers in the future.

There’s a lot of hate for every end of the scale at the moment. The hate I’ve seen for people set to claim more child benefit is everywhere. I’m also a high earner and stopped at 2 children because I simply couldn’t afford more. The country can’t be equal though. The country can’t afford it. Just imagine if all the benefit scroungers were driven to have high earning jobs. There’d be so much less work for everyone. You’d have super smart driven people cleaning toilets or wasted sat at home. There has to be a place in the country for everyone.

You've HAD the benefit of living in this society which has helped you to get where you are.

Did you go to school? Did your mother give birth to you on the NHS? Do you drive to work on the roads? Are the people you employ literate because they were educated by the state? Just because you don't claim benefits doesn't mean you don't take anything from the state. Over your life, you may well be a net contributor, well, so will anyone earning over £40k. I feel proud to know I'm giving rather than taking.

The concept of the cliff edge is silly. You still take home more at £105k than you do at £99k, it just goes up a bit more slowly.

As an educated person who earns higher than the national average, I don’t get how you saw PPs comment and thought you were what she was talking about tbh

you’re clearly not trying little
you’re not poor
don’t seem feckless either

I can see why people are divided on this. I earn £6000 a month after tax - which is very good. I also work 12 hour days, most weekends, and am generally stressed as it is a very mentally draining job. I feel that is sometimes missed. Also, I haven't had a payrise this year, but all other costs have gone up - but if I say that;s a pain, I get flamed.

there are plenty of jobs that come between £100k and minimum wage. Essential jobs: teachers, nurses, social workers, police, fire, allied health professionals etc. etc. etc. All with masses of responsibility and very little to show for it at the end of the month. The arrogance that goes with the £100k plus is the issue - that it somehow makes you a better person who has made better decisions...urgh. Ridiculous.

And those minimum wage hospital cleaners as an example - probably one of the most important jobs going. Being able to do it well is essential. Perhaps recognising that it takes all sorts for a society to function and that none of us are doing our jobs in isolation and require others - some paid more, some paid less - to be able to do that job properly would be a good start, eh?

There are cliff edges and anomalies in our (overly complex) tax and benefits system which are a significant disincentive to taking on more responsibilities, working more hours etc. They are unquestionably bad for productivity and growth, which are major issues for the U.K. economy.

Most people understand the need to pay tax. What people object to is paying unfair and in some cases economically stupid taxes. Quite a bit of the mess was introduced or perpetuated by the former Conservative governments - if the Labour Party had really wanted to improve life for everyone they’d have tried to do something to sort it out rather than making it a worse mess.

I don't think the economy or jobs are fixed. People can set up their own stuff, do something new. Start their own business. I don't think the economy is fixed with a certain number of jobs.

The amount you earn is not a marker of success to me. At all. It’s down to luck that you fell into an industry that pays well - thinking finance, IT etc. I’m thinking of all the incredible teachers, nursery staff, carers etc who will never earn close to that. 100k is a huge amount to earn. I also don’t rate success as how big your house is either, or how many cars you own or what society really defines it as. As Kevin McCloud once said on grand designs, humans have got used to too much space. We don’t need it. Once society realises that, the better as we will all consume less. If you want to slog away and have a stressful job to earn 100k, that’s utterly your choice. No one is forcing you and if it was me, there is no chance I’d do that. I love a 9-5, stress free job with a brilliant work life balance. It might not pay 100k, or close to it, but I work to live not live to work. It’s your choice at the end of the day. I don’t judge anyone who wants that lifestyle, but the potential to earn that much is a lot down to luck and the industry your skills fall into. It’s an individual choice.

Where does the 22k loss come from ?

I am looking at the government websites, and they 30 hours per week, 1140 hrs per year. Per child.

Is it not your choice to send kids to nursery ?

This is what I am not getting. You can still put food on the table, pay bills etc.

Other folk can't.

But you can afford to work, and take a promotion, because it's only a couple of years till DC start school anyway.

When they start school you will have your promotion and your pay rises since.

But you could choose to be a teacher and work 3 days a week.

But your situations would still be massively different because of her wealthy parents.

She could not work at all or work in the exact same job as you and would still be massively better off in the long run because she’s set to inherit a massive amount of money.

I work FT and I’m a single parent.
With UC top ups plus earnings I get about £35k a year. Due to additional training this can increase but I’ll never earn over £45k in my field. My manager is on £45k.
So I do find it surprising when people say they earn £80k and struggle.

Labour are basically acknowledging the country and economy (and the NHS, and schools, and public transport, and housing - thanks Tories) is in shit’s creek and trying to very slowly fix it. While Tories and Reform would happily lie to everyone that everything is fine until the country is on its knees and there is mass homelessness and riots. At which point there will still be no need to change tack for as long there are still some immigrants/single mothers around to blame.

I strongly agree with most of this. I do think though, that we need to give Labour some time and space to try and sort out the mess they inherited. Whilst I disagree with some of their policies, I think they are aiming in the right direction which is more than can be said for the Tories.

If I hadn't gone part time to have DC, I would have been on about 100k by now; but I have never begrudged paying tax, as I live in a secure country with excellent free healthcare, free schools, and so on.
In addition to that, our taxes ensure that people in government-funded industries receive a wage that means they don't have to be corrupt to make ends meet, so (broadly) our public infrastructure is built with the materials specified by the safety engineers, the roads get swept when they're supposed to, people can't get off serious crimes by bribing the judge, and so on. These are the invisible benefits that we take for granted, but it all comes back to funding in the end.
The various rules in place have created noticeable "tax trap" for working parents, which I think should be addressed by reforming the funding system for childcare. However my current view is that these things tend to be identified and resolved iteratively, and the government have not yet found a model to ensure that funding for childcare is fair and appropriate at all points of the income spectrum, taking into account the likely other pressure points on the respective families.

No personal gain?

really ?

once the childcare years are over you don’t even have that to moan about. You can pay your own way - you should be proud not bitter

and the implication that only people on big wages make any personal sacrifices and work hard is disgusting

the vitriol isn’t towards people on 100k

its people on 100k who moan like they are hard done by , and think they are somehow harder working and more clever than anyone else

It's you they doesn't understand. The ridiculous thing here is not that you lose 22k in childcare. It's that you were ever getting 22k in childcare while earning 99k.

But that is the problem isn’t it someone working only 3 days week and claiming benefits to stay home all at the expense of the tax payer. They should be doing what you are doing and working full time to support themselves and their families and if they need help after that then they are given it.

So don't vote Tory ?

Tory bad, and Labour bad. ?

Surely if people want more, then they need to pay more tax. Like the Nordic countries do.

But it seems folk don't want to pay tax.