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?

It’s not for a short period of time, it’s for the entire length of time your child is in nursery now - which for two children might be 6-8 years.

Nothing is as absurd as making a cliff edge at which you lose potentially tens of thousands in benefits - incentivising people to work less, and pay less tax to be able to claim bernifts. Worse yet it targets the group paying 50%+ of income tax, making them incentivised to… do less.

You have completely failed to understand the argument, if you think it just comes down to whether or not you are struggling to cope.

Can I ask. Do you begrudge women who choose to be SAHMs after marriage? (If they don't claim benefits)

No, not at all.

And she is entitled to do that if she feels it’s affecting her life. You may not like that but she is free to share how she is feeling. As a high earner she is already carrying a heavy tax load, that is a fact. And those taxes then go to help other people. Without those taxes there would be no benefit system and we would be back to the times of the workhouse. As I said earlier they are not the enemy

But that’s what I mean when I say that those who set salary bands are aware of the £100k-£125k pinch point.

I set salary bands in my company. We try to avoid anyone falling into a £110k salary and if they do, they will have gone from say £80k to £110k so they do feel the pay rise and then we make sure they get above £125k quickly in their next pay review or when they achieve their next bonus.

This will be even more important now the restriction on salary sacrifice has come in.

This is what I did. Now my kids are grown. I just do really basic office work PT for extra cash. Like treats when we go on holiday.

I always supported DH with everything. He's always provided and taken care of us. We've been together through the bad and good.

And a teachers pension is much better than most private sectors... I'm paying her pension too you know!

I don’t think it’s resentment. People are just fed up of the incessant fucking whinging.

But this just proves the point, nasty comments for no reason

Well clearly funded childcare and childcare costs and the cliff edge are a mess.
But the 'what's my motivation to work hard' question..... Have you gone down a very unhelpful (but common) path around values and motivation? I'm guessing family, wider social circle (and let's face it society from Thatcher onwards) has promoted the work hard, get good job in right career earns good money have a good life line. Trouble is when it boils down to it money is an extrinsic motivator. It's a reward. If your motivation to work or work harder in your role is all about the extrinsic reward (or too much about that) then you become over reliant on the financial rewards. If however you've been able to follow your values and had the luck and freedom to do something you find intrinsically rewarding you'll get pleasure from your job because it gives you a sense of achievement, satisfaction and pleasure.
There are (or should be) many components to a 'good life' and a sense of happiness is not actually completely related to a good lifestyle or earning loads.
Having the money back from the cliff edge is not in all likelihood going to make you feel much happier. Working out your values and motivation (yours not your parents expectations the unwritten rules or the wider family or social expectations) and then operating to them might.....

But you know what at least she would be contributing and when her kids have gone school she could have all that lovely wage to herself. It is not the taxpayers responsibility to pay someone to stay at home. And as for her pension taking a hit that was also entirely her choice. You can’t have it always

Are you ok? Who drags someone from a finished thread to a new one, by tagging them on it. Did you go back your thread to find my username? Seems a bit targeted if you ask me.

My opinion however is that I agree with this part of the OP: “ those with the broadest shoulders should take on the most.”

Employers base their salaries on what the market pays for the job.

That may be impacted by the thresholds - but it can’t accommodate childcare eligibility as that’s an individual benefit.

The tax system has many cliff edges that seem unfair to the people that are just over the cut-off.

Don't a lot of people just contribute any excess over the cut-off to their pension, so their "earnings" are below the relevant figure?

The main thing is to stick with your job if you enjoy it. The childcare years aren't very long actually and it'll probably be difficult/impossible to get back in at the same level if you take time out. I'm of an age when there was no government-funded childcare at all and stupidly gave up my job.

What do you mean by 'make sense'? When my twins were in nursery, it was £85 a day each. Had they been in full time, that's £3.6k a month if you're not eligible for tax-free childcare.

If you earn, say, £80k, going down to 4 days a week is over £680 a month loss in salary. Going to 3 days a week is loss of £1,539 a month.

But the a day in nursery per month for two children in £738 per month.

Not to mention loss of pension contributions and career progression.

Of course they will have spent years training and specialising. Nobody is suggesting that they won't have put in a lot of work. People are just acknowledging that hard work alone is rarely enough... there is inevitably some luck as well.

Take my dd for example. She is currently doing medicine at uni. She had to work incredibly hard to get into medical school, and she continues to work incredibly hard to meet the demands of her course. We are under no illusions that the road ahead is going to be bloody tough too. But my dd would be the first to acknowledge that luck has also played a significant role in her journey - she was lucky to have been born into a family which valued education and supported her learning, she was lucky to have had various opportunities that enabled her to develop the soft skills needed to get through the med school admissions process, she is lucky to have the kind of brain that enables her to excel academically, she is lucky not to have health difficulties that get in the way of her education, she is lucky to have parents who will be willing and able to support her financially through the unfunded 5th year of medical school etc etc.

It isn't that she doesn't work hard - she does work incredibly hard. But it is about recognising that some people work equally hard but start out with far fewer advantages, and so their hard work doesn't necessarily deliver the same degree of success.

The problem is - for an economy to do well it needs to have people feeling like they can spend money. Its this transfer of funds that keeps things going. A family moves house ... they need to hire movers, cleaners, maybe even builders, buy new furniture / housing products etc etc.

If people feel they don't have disposable income to buy goods or services and they keep their money in the bank because they are worried about not having enough money - the economy dries up. Jobs dry up.

What the government needs to do is stimulate the economy and its a win for everyone no matter what they earn because there will be more jobs to go around.

I read a lot about taxes - I am not really seeing what the government is doing to stimulate the economy.

I think economics should be taught in schools so people understand how important it is to their everyday lives. Having wealthy people in an economy is not a bad thing because they are more likely to spend and keep the economy going - they also have to pay more in taxes so help with keeping the welfare system going. If a business owners business is doing well, they then hire more employees so more jobs to go around.

I didn't understand this until I was fortunate to learn economics as a young adult.

To me what sets us apart is our welfare - and I wouldn't want to change that. I would hate to live in a country where people who need money to live don't have it or there isn't a free medical system (like America).

This has to be paid for ....but it doesn't just have to be paid for by raising everyone's taxes. Stimulating the economy by providing tax incentives for overseas businesses to set up in the UK, reducing housing tax (especially for those down sizing) - there is a lot more that can be done.

Paying 62% marginal tax on income between 100 and 125k, sandwiched between 42% and 47% marginal rates is unreasonable.

It makes for perverse decision making on taking new roles and pension planning.

It's bonkers.

People on lower incomes rightly get irritated with folk on £100k plus moaning about financial hardship.

Not moaning about hardship, saying it’s a barrier to progression

She didn't say they work harder, she said they had more responsibility. And it's true – the buck stops with them and they more exposed to job loss and redundancy than people on less than them.

Why should relatively wealthy people be on benefits?

Because thats what free childcare is, a benefit, in part paid for from the taxes of people on low wages and/or who don't have kids or if they did, FC wasn't available.

Quite unbelievable people on 100k or more are moaning about not getting Welfare.

How about people on lower incomes stop asking people on £100k incomes to fund them?

My husband was a high earner when we lived in London (left this May). Chancellors wet dream. No education cost to the state, no retirement cost to the state, didn't use the NHS once in the 6 years he lived in there, and paid more than £50k a year in tax and NI.

It would be nice if more of that money was raised through chasing corporate avoidance, or even a tax on stuff like gambling, which ruins lives. Won't happen though as the CEOs are all mates with politicians.

It’s not childcare benefit that employers are conscious of, it’s the loss of personal allowance.

Employers want pay rises to be meaningful to the employee. To motivate them. Employers are very aware of the effective tax rates.