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?

Of course it is.

Hard to believe. This is how it is for me as someone just below the higher rate band with parents who were below the higher rate band.

You assumed one heck of a lot which someone else brought up earlier so I won’t reiterate

I disagree. I own a house with a mortgage and I do see it as security for life. If, worst case scenario, I lost my job and couldn’t regain my current income - I could sell up now and move to a smaller place / in a less affluent area and own it outright. That’s an incredible amount of security compared to someone private renting on UC. I think the issue may be a higher sense of entitlement. Certain people on £100k plus just can’t imagine living in a less privileged way.

I’m on £50k, my partners on £30k and I’m planning to retire at 60. The only way to explain why people on £100k are struggling and can’t retire early and so on must be because their day to day costs are so high. It’s totally tone deaf to argue otherwise.

And that's why I said it was the more secure of the two. But it isn't security for life until your mortgage is paid off. You need a secure income to pay housing whether that's mortgage or rent.

Certain people on £100k plus just can’t imagine living in a less privileged way.

Of course they can – they just don't want to. No one wants to drop in income, regardless of what they earn. A person in a 4 bed doesn't want to go down to a 3 bed, a person in a house doesn't want to go down to a flat. A person with two cars doesn't want to go down to one. A person who goes on an abroad holiday a year doesn't want to go down to none.

The only way to explain why people on £100k are struggling and can’t retire early and so on must be because their day to day costs are so high. It’s totally tone deaf to argue otherwise.

'Struggling' and 'not able to retire early' are two very different things. Most people in their highest cost of living phase – usually 30s and 40s, with a mortgage, nursery fees, wraparound fees, assisting children at university (all of which costs WAY WAY more than it did 20 years ago, inflation aside), likely couldn't project retirement age at all right now. These people have likely only been at their £100k jobs for 5 years and the next 20-30 years is murky in terms of level of income. Many people on these bigger jobs won't retain them into an advanced aged.

Sorry, but if you're not on £100k + then you really don't know what the challenges are, same as you're accusing high earners of not knowing what the challenges are for people less fortunate.

I'd be very interested to hear the details of retiring at 60 on an income of £50k (and presumably your partner will continue working?). Area of the country, number of children, age of children, health of children and parents, price of home when you bought it, average interest paid across the term of your mortgage, etc etc.

Yeah I thought that too, sell up and move. But than a worldwide economic crash happened and hello negative equity and job loss.

You haven't come close to the worse case scenario

But you do realise that some people on 33,000 per year also have mortgages, childcare and do not get UC??
I do agree though that working shouls bw tge standard and that nobody working should be worse off than someone on benefits and I know several who are!

I'd like to spend Christmas somewhere warm and not in a place where I have to worry about getting stabbed for my phone.

Warm, fair enough. But most people spend their Christmas with family, who aren’t stabbing them for their phone.

I’m aware that was “I live in London” hyperbole, however. Think Lawrence Fox might have been the last person I read saying that.

Well according to people in this thread if I lost my house and job, I’d end up private renting, on UC and living the life of luxury and security, so what’s the problem?

https://apple.news/Ai32dNhDtRUyYuVka1rFShQ

Can’t read it, but it’s not true anyway…tax rates don’t work like that.

Perhaps read it before you comment, it is absolutely correct for a highly educated subset of people. It isn't behind a pay wall.

I can’t get to it without giving info I don’t want to give. Copy and paste if you can?
Mind you, using edge cases to decry a whole system is pretty unreasonable.

I'm not being asked for any information. I just agreed cookies and read it. Copying it would be acopyright beach, sorry. The article contains a complete breakdown of the headline figure. It's not an edge case it's a sizeable proportion of the working population, the ones who are highly qualified.

Put lots into your pension and retire early OP?

Quite. I like how it also accounts for graduate taxes, student loans, which pretty much most need to have now in professional roles. They also skirt over the other stuff which will not impact the older generation from the public sector. Stuff like private pensions and retirement plans because of salary sacrifice. Working age people in the private sector aren’t a small number.

It’s basically saying that someone with a postgraduate degree will be repaying 15% of their income for student loans and 40% of it in income in tax. Now I’m pretty sure higher rate tax payers still get their personal allowance and only pay 40% tax on amounts over the higher rate threshold - which is the £50,270 this hypothetical person earns. Obviously they won’t pay any tax on the first £12,570 and 28% (income tax and NI) on the next £34,000 so I call bollocks and would very much like to know where the writer gets the extra 12% from.

How sizeable? Is this the £100-125k cliff edge again? Because while that’s a bit daft it’s not a sizeable chunk of anything. Only 4% earn more than £100k and some of those will be over £125. Many, many highly qualified and very societally useful people will not earn anything like this.
Edit: I can see it’s already been shown to be bollocks

This is the actual breakdown as run through a salary calculator. Actual deductions 30% leaving take home pay of 70%. Link here for anyone who wants to check.

https://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.php

Im not speaking of them with disdain

Their jobs are nowhere near as stressful as mine

Actually it is well established that the less control you have over your work environment, the more stressful your job. Retail workers have very little control, people on high salaries can generally exert more.