to be fed up of hearing 'I've worked hard for my money'

[newbluesofa]

Lots of chat on MN recently about taxes on high earners. So heard lots of 'we have this money because we work bloody hard for it' and honestly I'm sick of it and think the people who say it are selfish.

Nurses work incredibly hard, long shifts, difficult job. Carers provide absolutely essential service, again shift work, difficult hours, difficult job. Teachers provide essential work, I know multiple teachers and they all devote evenings, weekends, school holidays to the detriment of their own families. All of these jobs also have huge emotional tolls. So 'I've worked hard for my money' means nothing to me, because a lot of people work a lot harder for a lot less.

Nothing wrong with just stating the facts as it is. Who pays the most tax here? Who are funding those on benefits? (Many of which genuinely need help)

I think that the problem is that merely being paid isn’t per se a useful contribution to the country. It depends what you create for the money. If we decided that digging a hole and filling it up again was worth a £200k salary, the hole digger would contribute a lot to the exchequer.

That is clearly a reductio ad absurdum argument. But I feel a lot of the city (and the incredibly overpaid lawyers who support it) are doing something a bit like that.

Of course we need a financial sector but it is ludicrously overbloated and has become a lot about pushing unnecessary product onto countries and corporates as opposed to the basic function of providing liquidity and hedging. So, instead of being a contribution, it is, in effect a tax on everyone else. Of course, The City is, in a sense positive for us, as it taxes internationally and not just domestically.

So, I do see a massive difference in quality between an entrepreneur, a senior surgeon and a banker or a City lawyer. Contribution to the country is about wealth creation, not just moving profitability from one sector to another.

I think this is a great point. The book Bullsh!t Jobs by David Graeber is about exactly this, it's a great read. Lots of high earners contribute important things to society. Lots don't. The whole system is messed up and it's a complex thing to tackle

I think a big thing that many people who defend billionaires and business owners who 'provide jobs' miss, is that business owners are subsidised by the taxpayer.

Many people who work full time but recieve minimum wage are still reliant on benefits to make ends meet, because minimum wage isn't enough. Especially in areas with higher housing costs for example, that still need carers, cleaners etc. So those areas need low paid people to live and work locally.

So instead of forcing businesses to pay a wage their employees can actually live on, we keep minimum wage too low, which means the businesses can make more profit, and leave it to the state and the taxpayer to make sure their employees have enough money to survive. So essentially we're subsidising businesses so they can pay low wages and keep profits high. I don't see that as particularly valuable.

An anthropologist academic wrote a book about bullshit jobs? Did he include himself to?

I totally agree

Gary Stevenson (author of the trading game) is very good on this.

He makes the point of how hard it is as someone from his background, however bright, to get a well paid job. He managed to get into Citibank by winning a mathematical competition and a trading game. However, as he says, that is a one in a million, and most have similar backgrounds.

Not all busineses can afford to pay more. If you actually look many of the margins are small. They barely make any profit % wise. Nominally it looks big because of the volume of sales. But some of these companies can't afford to pay more. I give you the fact about carers though. But they are linked to government funding for it.

And obviously this is only in certain (low-skilled) sectors.

If you actually spend time looking at the income statements in retail you see that the % they make in profit is tiny.

The Underserving Poor you mean

I think Gary Stevenson is great. He also talks about how extreme wealth is bad for the economy, as when wealth is put into assets, as the very rich do, it's taken out of circulation and stagnates the economy.

Hmm. Maybe if they just tried working harder then they'd make more money?

This isn’t Oliver Twist, stop treating people like peasants.

This 😅

👏

Yup. A company I worked for, a manufacturer, was bought and sold a few times, and each time, new directors would be appointed.

High earners, but they never actually done anything for the company. They were there to maximise the return.

Of course, it could be argued that by maximising the return for investors they were improving the company. But no, they had no interest in the business at all. Their business was making money.

Each time, there was a new round of redundancies, cost cutting etc.

And for them, there was no risk, because they sat on the boards of multiple companies. If one did not perform, just asset strip it, or sell it on.

And these are the people we are supposed to be sorry for now. Because they have to pay a mansion tax.

They don't actually do anything for the economy. They just shuffle the money about, skimming all the time, leaving a trail of destruction behind.

If you add up all the job losses they leave, the people that now need benefits, they are a massive drain on the whole system, not contributors.

It's a competitive industry. I want prices in shops to be as low as possible.

Using taxpayer money to subsidise businesses to lower prices seems like a bit of a false economy

Companies do have to cut costs to remain profitable. Especially since energy prices are so high here due to NZ policy. They need to stay internationally competition.

They aren't subsiding a business! We are subsiding individuals.

I believe most major supermarkets pay above minimum wage anyway. Also I know people who work at Tesco who seem to manage financially. One's just bought a house.

Ohh you know someone who works at Tesco who just bought a house, I guess everything's fine then.

If the state has to top up wages because business can't afford to pay a livable wage then yes, we're subsidising businesses.

Absolutely. But I am not talking about that.

Maybe people on NMW should budget better or maybe come up with ways to increase their earnings and not stay on NMW for their whole working life 🤷.

I understand in certain circumstances people would need support temporarily. Some people might have lost their job and need to do something in the meantime. I know people who maybe had a second job or did longer shifts and more hours to make things meet.

Apparently the data shows that 2/3 of UC claimants aren't in employment. And on average those working only do 21 hours a week. I understand some might be due to caring for relatives or a disabled child..but I'm always of the believe of you being the master of your own destiny and future.

Where do you live in the country, what do their partners do if they have one, have they come into money - there can be a multitude of reasons they bought a house - my son has a big and lovely 3 bed semi with partner and their son back in my home town in East Midlands - they would struggle to get a 2 bed flat here in Bath and that’s on£70k combined income

The top 1% of earners pay almost 30% of all income tax collected, the top 10% around 60%. The lowest 10% of earners pay almost no tax because their income falls below the personal allowance.

Except often that's EXACTLY what they're saying.

Hope that helps.

perhaps the narrative needs to change to own your choices.

high earner here. (No access to welfare and not a remote role like most of MN) Hard worker too but I don’t think that’s why I earn well.. I made choices in earlier life that puts in that bracket! Re tax. It is what it is.