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?

There’s so much people can do. Downsize, offload more profit, whatever not just posts. It’s nonsense other people are ‘sadly motivated by money’ and they are not.

Of course they are you only have to read some of the comments. There’s a lot of anger there towards these people. And they can come on here and say they are pissed off and it’s more than one or two who are saying it. You don’t have to like it or agree but they have every right to say it. As I have said before no one knows what goes on behind closed doors

I really dislike how the phrases "net contributor" and "net recipient" have crept in to our vocabulary in recent years and how people are keen to label themselves (and others) as one or the other and judge based on these labels.

Not about what people earn though. About their attitude to it, to the welfare state and to benefits claimants. I haven’t seen a single post angry that someone earns a high salary - could you quote any I missed? I admit to missing a section of posts in the middle of the thread

What is my attitude to benefits claimants?

Having a secure future is a reason to push forward. The benefits given to people who don't have children under 18 are very, very low. People on benefits aren't buying their own houses, they're in rental properties that aren't secure. They can't save more than £6000/£16000.
Once their children grow up they will be living on next to nothing if they don't get a job. They won't have a secure home as they will likely struggle to pay the rent on a family home once the housing element of their benefits becomes for one bedroom. They won't have a good amount of savings or a lump sum for retirement. They won't be able to support their DC through uni or getting started with adulthood.
High earners will have no reduction in income when their DC get to 18, they can support them to go to good unis and have nice accommodation. They can support them in a deposit for their first home. They will still have their own home and probably have the mortgage paid off so more disposable income. They may have the opportunity to retire early or have a flexible retirement. They will be able to afford luxury holidays as their income has stayed the same but they no longer have children to pay for.
Benefit income is also a lot less secure, the next government may reduce it. Those in good jobs will always find it easier to find more work than those who have been unemployed would.
It's a no brainer to me. Of course I'd prefer to push on and not rely on the state. I don't think anyone would consciously chose a life on benefits.

I didn’t reference you. This was about higher earners in general if you read the post it’s in reply to. In fact, in an earlier post I made a point of excluding you from a similar observation.

Us high earners are already pay enough. We pay nominally and more percentage wise. It's all easy said and done when it's with someone else's money. I used to be a libertarian. I'm not anymore because I completely believe we should have some government support for those who are disabled. But many things (not all) could be done privately. Many universal healthcare system operate a hybrid system with public and private together. Here we rarely use the NHS and and have private medical insurance with work. We've found the wait times to be so much faster and the quality to be a lot better. A friend got a surgery done so much faster because they private health insurance with work. I could want a US system. I like the systems they have elsewhere in the world.

You have a point on army and police. Though doesn't everyone complain the police do nothing and are useless.

Roads however, come on. Private sector did cars, but won't do roads? Private roads can work via electronic road pricing.

sigh

Of course there's personal gain. Don't be daft. They don't confiscate all of your wages over £100k you just pay a higher percentage on the bits that exceed £100k.

There's no vitriol towards people who earn well.

There is vitriol towards those who want to whine about paying a small amount more while complaining that the poor have it too easy.

You haven’t seen it because you don’t want to. I’ve seen them and I’ve no skin in the game so there really is no need to get snarky with me. And I’m not going to trawl through other posts I’ve other things to do but these’s nothing stopping you from looking

And lose any childcare benefits

They haven't lost money from their salary. They knew the whole time what the take home pay would be.

If you earn £100k you are better off than someone on £50k. I do not care if your mortgage is a million billion squid a week or if your childcare provider needs a fresh kidney every month.

You made choices when you picked your house and your mortgage, you made choices when you decided how many kids to have, if they couldn't afford it then they shouldn't have made those choices. We have one child and live in a small terraced house, because we live within our means. If people on £35k can and people on £70k can then people on £100k definitely can.

What is it I keep reading? Oh yes!

If you can't afford to look after them don't have them

i can afford to look after them….however it makes more financial sense to cut back working hours when the 100k threshold is reached

The childcare issue is temporary. I agree there should not be a cliff edge, but you are still gaining in the long term by increasing your earnings, unless you plan on continuing to have children until you retire?

You don't sound like you have ever worked in retail and aren't you the lucky one? Retail is anything but stressless, rubbish hours, rubbish pay, lucky to leave work on time verbal and now physical abuse. I have been in situations where we were afraid to leave work at night due to it all kicking off during the day. You never knew how real those threats to wait for you after work were. Yet these retail workers who you clearly feel are beneath you get off their backsides every day and go to work. I'm lucky I got out but there was a time I thought I was stuck in that line of work forever. I have no time for anyone who could work but won't work, but have complete respect for anyone who goes out and does their bit whatever they earn

So does everyone else and you can not care about them either but the truth is if you are a taxpayer be it big or small you have every right to complain about it. You and others may find that distasteful but they have every right to do it. And I really don’t think they are looking for people who are paid less sympathy (they aren’t that stupid) they are just saying how it affects them.

One thing I am absolutely clear on regarding Tax is that private schools should absolutely pay tax. They are not a charity and they should have been paying tax for years

“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?”

There IS personal gain! How ridiculous. You still take home more money even when you pay more tax. There’s also career satisfaction.

"The feckless poor..." That old trope.

That's what I just said, so do we all.

The difference is some people are working full time and can't even pay for food without support, or they can't work because they are not well enough, or they need childcare support because their wages are less than childcare.

Anyone taking home £6k a month and grumbling because it would have been £9k if it wasn't taxed should go and work for minimum wage for 6 months, or spend some time with someone who is too disabled to work or has a disabled child and can't work because the child needs full-time care and nurseries won't take them, or any of the many other reasons people need state support, and then come back and tell us that they can't afford luxuries.

It’s so we can all afford to live in this wonderful country and enjoy its green and pleasant land and walk it’s clean and safe streets That’s the aim of the exercise I think it’s just the land isn’t particularly green anymore and the streets aren’t particularly safe.

But the wage is equal to how the market values the output. It's what the output is. Some output requires hard work and diligence. Some doesn't.

The pay is just = monetary value of the output.

Labourers get paid well I believe. Builders do well. Electricians, plumbers, gas engineers all do well for themselves.

I earn near that and don't feel hard done by at all (granted I don't have childcare expenses).

I have a career and a purpose, I get to do interesting things and travel, I make a difference with my job and get paid pretty well for it. I'd like to say I have worked hard for it but i don't really think i have worked especially hard. My life is not one of luxury but I have enough money to pay for the things i need and want. I don't have to worry generally about affording things in an emergency - (my boiler is leaking slowly at the moment and i am annoyed rather than being gripped by dread about affording repairs - even I have to replace it totally it will be annoying to organise rather than a financial disaster).

I am genuinely puzzled by anyone on my level of income or higher who would be resentful of someone who is dependent on benefits.

That said i do think the sweet spot is to work out a career that is fulfilling and pays enough for a modestly comfortable life but doesn't take all your time and effort.

I wasn’t snarky. I said I’ve missed a chunk of the thread but I hadn’t seen any. I don’t think I’m blind to anger, I just haven’t seen it. You say you have. I just asked if you could show me. You don’t have to if you don’t want to, but don’t get angry with me because I haven’t seen it.

Those terms are used because of the misconception that the government gives us stuff for free. If the nhs is free for one person, it must be costing double for someone else. The person paying double might be forgiven for not feeling quite so grateful for our 'free' health service.