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?

And carers? Nursery staff? Bin men?

Which is pretty irrelevant considering the different costs of living in different parts of the UK

Nobody is telling you to shut up. The whole point of debate is to be able to offer different angles and opinions. You seem to feel you're a hard done by victim of the system. I don't agree that's a healthy way to think when you earn over £100k a year and a lot of people in the UK are in poverty and far more badly affected than higher earners are. Could the system be better? Yes of course it could. Are we the worst affected? No.

Both of us can think what we think and challenge each other's point of view, that's literally what debate is. Don't make out you're being oppressed and silenced in some way because other people don't agree with you. There's multiple threads on here full of whiny upper middle class people who resent the poor, you've got plenty of company if you want an echo chamber.

Yes, much more secure. The person on £100k owns their own home, that’s safety and security for life. They have a decent pension and can probably retire before state pension age and enjoy their retirement. More safety and lifelong retirement. If they have kids they’ll have been able to support their kids through education and early adulthood and see them set up for life. That’s safety and security for the whole family and the pride that comes with it.

The person on UC is subject to rent rises and political whim - one government raises benefits, the next cuts them. Once their kids are grown up they lose all that financial support. No pension until the state pension kicks in at 67. The stress of unemployment and underemployment. A lower life expectancy. Higher rates of mental and physical ill health. Shame, guilt, dissatisfaction with your life. Nothing to help your kids with into young adulthood. Nothing to leave them when you die.

You seem to be totally insulated from reality.

Much of what you have said about the higher taxpayer is wrong as well

Then the higher rate tax payer gets to sell their home to pay for their care whilst the benefit claimant gets it funded 🙄🙄.

The higher rate taxpayer gets to choose how much care they need/want, and if they require/want to live in a care home, they get to choose which one.

The benefit claimant, aka the working person, is at the whim of the LA. The provisions/funding allocated will be woefully inadequate for their needs, and if they need a care home, they'll be placed in whichever one has space, regardless of how far away from their friends and relatives it is or whether it is suitable for their needs.

I don’t like the idea that owning your own house means safety and security for life. My DH and I have only been on the property ladder a few years. If either of us entered into financial difficulty or lost a job etc we could lose our house. It can be quite stressful holding down a job, paying a mortgage and bills.

It doesn't. I've lost a house before 🤷

Sorry to hear that 🙁

Thanks. Tough times, but all worked out for the best in the end 🤷

Really sorry to hear that. Hope things have turned around for you.

I’m glad to hear that 🤍

It does, but only if you actually own it outright and can afford the council tax. Banks can be brutal when they want their money paid.

.

I'm not sure you know enough about care homes. They are mostly filled with both private payers and council funded people. And of course the residents are treated equally. The difference is that the private payers pay a lot more than the council do and are subsidising the care of the other residents in the home.

It's actually grotesquely unfair.

Some care homes - the most expensive obviously - don’t accept local authority funded residents and the fees are double or triple those LAs can pay. And of course self funders can choose those homes.

I spent 5 years working in one. I know enough to know that if you pay privately, you decide how long you need and what you need from your carers.

If you are funded by the LA, they decide how long you need.

You try being woken, bathed, dried, dressed, medicated and fed in 15 minutes vs the 45 minutes private residents usually pay for for their morning calls, and then tell me which one you would prefer.

That's why I said "mostly". It means not all.

£100k a year while working isn't enough to finance the kind of care home you're talking about when you aren't any longer!

That's not what I and friends with people in other care homes than the one you worked in have experienced.

As awful as this is how is this the fault of the taxpayers?

Of course it is. If you’re earning £100k you buy a house and save into a pension. Nobody in that salary bracket is going to land in old age with no assets.

Do you know how much it costs for one person to live in a care home? You were referring to a top class care home with no local authority paid residents. Bearing in mind also that there is likely to be a partner who does not yet need care and a home for them still to be paid for. £100k a year while working and the pension that might (or might not if you fund crashes just before retirement date as happened in 2008) result from that would not pay those kind of fees.

A bog standard home is now £100k a year.

I know how much it costs. I also know that most people spend less than two years in a care home. And most care home residents are widowed. Anyway there’s a waiting list for the best care homes round here filled by people who never earned anything like £100k so it’s a spurious argument.

A few misconceptions here.

The person on £100k owns their own home, that’s safety and security for life.

A mortgage isn't owning your own home, and safety and security for life. Yes – it's the more secure of the two, but it's only 'your own' home' as much as you can make your mortgage payments. High earners are at more at list of redundancy, as when companies restructure they strip from the top down. It's also harder and takes longer to secure another position at that salary level. Doing so can also very often mean more and more expensive travel.

Probably retire before state pension age

Perhaps if they are already mid 50s, and likely older. I know many people on £100k+, from mid 30s to late 40s. None of them are on track to retire before state pension age. Only one is, but he is on £300k a year. People are having children and getting on the housing ladder later and later, meaning that their earning have to stretch much longer now.

If they have kids they’ll have been able to support their kids through education and early adulthood and see them set up for life.

Absolutely not true for anyone I know on £100k+. Most of their earnings are going on nursery and wraparound care for all the school and nursery years, which sets back savings as awful lot. Most are more able to support with university costs, but 'setting them up for life'? No. Again, perhaps if you are one of those people in the top 2-5%, but not your bog-standard £100k earner.

Isn’t that called being responsible as the government wants us all to be?