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 difficult to understand for a lot of high earners on this thread but you’re disregarding them.

Do you mind there being massive inequality in how hard some people want to work though? Because that's a thing.

I agree.

I see absolutely no reason to have fancy things and a shiny life. My priority is making sure we’re all housed, fed, warm and clothed.

We have one UK holiday a year, and occasionally go abroad. If we buy my son branded clothes, they’re off Vinted, because I’m not buying £40 tshirts that need replacing in a month because he’s grown, again. I’ve spent about £200 on him for Christmas, he’s got a room full of toys and doesn’t need infinite amounts more.

We live an okay life, and go on days out etc, but we get nothing from flashy displays of how much money we have.

I’ve got absolutely no problem contributing what I do, to make sure other people can also keep their families housed, fed and warm.

I agree. I think there is enormous privilege in not having to be motivated by money. Tends to be said by those who already have plenty, or are reliant upon a support network that not everyone has.

Nobody wants to ‘take their earnings away’. Looking at tax like that is not just selfish, it’s impractical. We need the infrastructure. Try paying for your own private roads, police force, army, health (without the state training the staff). It’ll cost you a lot more than your tax. Tax isn’t taking earnings away any more than your weekly food shop is taking them away. It’s the cost of living in society.
Plus as pointed out repeatedly, many very useful and satisfying jobs don't earn 6 figures.

No it’s not they are as entitled to want to earn more as anyone else is. You may not have to be motivated by money but a lot of people are and that doesn’t make them bad people.

exactly.

Where does all your money go then if you are so frugal?

Agree

Then they aren't virtuous, are they? Did you mistake the meaning of the word? What an unpleasant little post.

How does wanting a decent welfare state equate to being motivated by money. Do you believe everyone advocating it is on benefits and out to steal you hard earned dosh?
Id actually prefer not to have to use welfare money to subsidise poor wages paid by greedy businesses as it happens. Perhaps the sort of places finance directors are on well north of £100k.

It’s not privilege, it’s a mindset. I certainly didn’t have plenty of money at the beginning of my career but I’d always have rather had a badly paid interesting job than a well paid boring one.

YES!!!! Totally agree with you @cardibach

I’ve often pondered on this and in my mind it is giving the employer “corporate” benefits because, no mattter the minimum wage, it is not a living wage (rents etc being so high).

An element of companies whose employees have to claim UC is from the taxpayer. Yes so people will continue to be employed which I think is what the scheme came in for initially, but then what is the difference between the lowest and highest paid? If it were reduced, would fewer low paid have to claim UC? Is there an argument where declared company profits that are of a certain level AND where over a certain number of employees pay was topped up by government, becomes repayable somehow?

Also taxpayers are contributing to landlords profits through the government paying for housing etc. Lack of decent properly affordable housing being a root cause here.

Some businesses seem to operate very well in the back of low pay/high rents because they essentially are also benefits recipients.

There's a big difference between wanting enough money to live comfortably and wanting more and more money and resenting that you have to pay towards society.

I feel like Brenda from Bristol “Not another one!”

I don’t recall saying we didn’t have any?

It’s not frugal, it’s just not wasteful. There’s a difference.

We pay x amount off the mortgage, have savings for my son as he’ll never live independently so I’d like there to be a safety net, I’ve just spent £48 on adult sized nappies for him if that’s helpful?

We either save it for him, or spend it on things to do rather on random objects.

But being able to do either of those things means accepting that you have the privilege to do so. There’s a lot of hard done to people on MN this week, who in actuality have the same privilege.

I’m not moaning about it. I’m saying they shouldn’t be moaning about it.

That's nonsense. "Mindset" doesn't pay the bills.

However if I didn’t lose this I probably would think about working more or , woudlnt have to think about spacing kids out as much for financial reasons so could go back full time sooner - which would be better for the country overall as I would be working more and paying more tax. It’s very short sighted.

I think this is absolutely right @Theboymolefoxandhorse . It’s that the current system is very short sighted. The amount people pay for nursery is absolutely insane. It changes the entire course of your life and this society (like this user pointed out). I know people say it’s still better than other countries, but as always, it shouldn’t be a race to the bottom. And I absolutely think OP has a point - what this really is, is a tax on people who aren’t poor, yes, but also aren’t rich enough to start doing “creative accounting,” as the Panama papers showed us! Maybe it wouldn’t feel so badly paying, @Arseholeneighbours , if you knew they were also taxing someone with $10 million at either the same rate or more? It absolutely boils my blood that they’re targeting people on $100K and still letting people with truly huge amounts of wealth just skate by. No, I don’t earn $100K or even close, but even I can see this is wrong. They have to tax how many $100K earners to get what they would have gotten if they’d just close the tax loopholes for millionaires… and billionaires!

Can’t you offload some of the profits to employees to make it even more equal?

You can make choices too to lower what you get and increase what others do.

Yes, but not everyone defines "a better life" in terms of money. For many people, there are other factors that they consider to be much more important - connection, contribution, personal learning and development, pride in their achievements etc.

I actually feel a great deal of pity for anyone whose main goal in life is to earn ever increasing amounts of money.

The decent welfare state comes from the higher taxpayer painful but true. A decent and fair welfare state should not include those who are not prepared to work and try to support themselves. And it certainly shouldn’t support able bodies and non carers who could work full time but don’t as benefits are affected, It is there to support those in need not those who won’t help themselves

Up to a certain point, yes, people work to have money to finance their life. Some (many? Most?) people don’t then go on and on trying to earn more and more as their sole motivation.

It's an inconvenient truth that shit and uninformed parents play a significant role in limiting the earning potential of their children.

Why worry about a broken system when you can sneer contemptuously at high earners, whilst using them as a cash cow for bad policy and other people’s choices?

Sadly it is a matter of record that the concentration of financial services in the UK didn’t do much for growth. And it’s not just down to Labour. The Tories couldn’t manage sustained growth during their long stint in office, either.

The pandemic, of course. But we have sat at or near the bottom of the G7 for a long time now.

I think the flight will be limited, but we shall see