Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To be confused by 'high earners' complaining about taxes?

981 replies

tutuland · 10/02/2026 18:25

So high earners pay lots of tax. The top 20% pay for 70% or whatever the numbers are.

But (beyond printing more money) isn't the money there high income people make just coming from the paying public? No matter who you work for, your company's profit is just an accumulation of normal people paying for things.

So ultimately, isn't it all our money anyway? Just beacuse the game is rigged and you get paid 400K for management whatever, it doesn't mean you're more deserving of that money than anyone.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
nearlylovemyusername · 13/02/2026 12:14

Eddiestrangerthings · 13/02/2026 01:33

yes we need to try, but at the same time, we need to be different too and not just rely on the war economy

That poster only used defense industry as an example.

UK still has one of the world's leading science and research capabilities, but we are unable to monetise it. The moment there is an invention here, foreign mega money buy it off and make huge profits.

The reason - we try our hardest to make people with business acumen feel unwelcome with our tax the rich mantra.

nearlylovemyusername · 13/02/2026 12:17

Eddiestrangerthings · 13/02/2026 10:51

and how many of those roles would be profitable ? at present a few of them would need cheap labour or volunteers to do the roles, and if a job could be made from those roles then proper wages should be paid for those roles, but then its who pays for the wages and then its back to the argument that yes the roles need doing but its not profitable

Edited

these roles don't need to be profitable though.

If you take from society you must give back, unless truly disabled. There must not be an option to not to work and be funded by taxpayer, bar severe disability. Full stop

nearlylovemyusername · 13/02/2026 12:21

InWithPeaceOutWithStress · 13/02/2026 08:55

Just click on ‘show quote history’ and go right to the start. It was a different poster but you jumped in to respond and continue the argument. You said “you missed a bit. Quite a bit actually” and started talking about how income tax receipts are bigger. I continued my argument that I’m talking about proportion of income, which was the initial comment I responded to.
Calling me a bare faced liar is dramatic, rude, and inaccurate.

Can you please explain your point about low earners paying higher proportion of their income in tax than high earners?

To make it simple, please take one FT NMW single earner (23.8k pa?) with no top up benefits and one 125k earner and show their taxes and which proportion of income it is?

whereisitnow · 13/02/2026 12:24

@InWithPeaceOutWithStress Choose the example that works for you to illustrate your point, nobody else’s.

MissConductUS · 13/02/2026 12:56

nearlylovemyusername · 13/02/2026 12:14

That poster only used defense industry as an example.

UK still has one of the world's leading science and research capabilities, but we are unable to monetise it. The moment there is an invention here, foreign mega money buy it off and make huge profits.

The reason - we try our hardest to make people with business acumen feel unwelcome with our tax the rich mantra.

Exactly this. Arms exports was simply an example, one that is in the news currently because of the ramp up of European defense spending. It could be biotechnology, pharmaceuticals (look at what India has done), aerospace, etc.

Britain is blessed with a highly educated workforce, strong rule of law, great cultural institutions, and a creative and resourceful population. It could be very prosperous if it weren't held back by a political system that can't create a proper environment for economic growth.

NorthXNorthWest · 13/02/2026 14:56

InWithPeaceOutWithStress · 13/02/2026 08:55

Just click on ‘show quote history’ and go right to the start. It was a different poster but you jumped in to respond and continue the argument. You said “you missed a bit. Quite a bit actually” and started talking about how income tax receipts are bigger. I continued my argument that I’m talking about proportion of income, which was the initial comment I responded to.
Calling me a bare faced liar is dramatic, rude, and inaccurate.

Your post yesterday...

InWithPeaceOutWithStress · Yesterday 15:59
I never said they pay more tax overall, I’ve been explaining that they pay more proportionally. Perhaps you were misreading my comments which explains why we’ve been going around in circles.
Your original comment was “I have to pay more than double the amount proportionally that lower income workers pay?”
That’s what I’ve been arguing against. I’m glad to see that you’re no longer claiming this.

So that comment you stated point blank was mine, wasn't mine?

So, Instead of apologising for blatantly lying about that statement being mine, you have moved on to lying about the statement I actually made which was responding your comment.

The actual chain of posts: that poster with the 'paying double claim', your response, followed by my response to yours and so on.

Feel free to put that initial poster's comment, your reply and my response to your post into Chat GPT. Ask it my comment is agreeing with the initial poster's statement. While you are at it you can ask it to interpret what your statement is really saying and what mine is really saying about 'high earners'.

Nobody is 'jumping in' on an AIBU thread. With the exception of you, IME, from one falsehood to another without context or substance.

Pithykestralfish · 13/02/2026 14:58

nearlylovemyusername · 13/02/2026 12:17

these roles don't need to be profitable though.

If you take from society you must give back, unless truly disabled. There must not be an option to not to work and be funded by taxpayer, bar severe disability. Full stop

Edited

Exactly this, we’re writing people off to a life of dependency sometimes in their early 20s. Of course these people are going to feel hopeless and start threads like this. Not everyone is capable of being a software developer but everyone is capable of some contribution. If net contributors are expected to contribute 40% of their salary for the greater good (roughly 2 days out of a 5 day week) then there’s no reason why the recipients of the tax system can’t contribute 2 days of their time a week also for the greater good.

NorthXNorthWest · 13/02/2026 15:06

InWithPeaceOutWithStress · 13/02/2026 08:55

Just click on ‘show quote history’ and go right to the start. It was a different poster but you jumped in to respond and continue the argument. You said “you missed a bit. Quite a bit actually” and started talking about how income tax receipts are bigger. I continued my argument that I’m talking about proportion of income, which was the initial comment I responded to.
Calling me a bare faced liar is dramatic, rude, and inaccurate.

I asked you where I had made that statement.

You doubled down by directing me to said statement, which of course didn't exist.

You didn't apologise, you just switched to start to lying about one of my actual posts. Given no apology, and your subsequent behaviour, it's natural to assume it was deliberate, which makes it a bared face lie.

Not dramatic nor inaccurate.

Lmnop22 · 13/02/2026 15:11

So because you spend £20 in Tesco, you’re entitled to say that the salaries of the Tesco bosses are “your money” and they don’t work hard for or deserve it?!

Baffling. You realise when you pay for a product or service, you get that product or service for your money? Not a share in the company!

NorthXNorthWest · 13/02/2026 15:16

nearlylovemyusername · 13/02/2026 12:21

Can you please explain your point about low earners paying higher proportion of their income in tax than high earners?

To make it simple, please take one FT NMW single earner (23.8k pa?) with no top up benefits and one 125k earner and show their taxes and which proportion of income it is?

Chat GPT

Can you please explain your point about low earners paying higher proportion of their income in tax than high earners? To make it simple, please take one FT NMW single earner (23.8k pa?) with no top up benefits and one 125k earner and show their taxes and which proportion of income it is?
Good question — and using two simple examples is exactly the right way to separate what’s actually true from what’s often said in debates.
I’ll keep this clean and mechanical first, then explain where the “low earners pay a higher proportion” argument comes from.
Assumptions (to keep it simple)
Tax year: 2025/26 (England/Wales/Northern Ireland rates)
Standard PAYE employee
No pension salary sacrifice
No student loan
No benefits or tax credits
Single earner
Only Income Tax + employee NI first (direct taxes)
Figures based on current HMRC thresholds
1️⃣ Full-time NMW earner – £23,800 salary
Income tax
Personal allowance: £12,570 (tax free)
Taxable income = £23,800 − £12,570 = £11,230
Income tax @ 20% = £2,246
National Insurance
NI at 8% between £12,570 and £50,270
NI = £11,230 × 8% = £898
Total direct tax
£3,144
Effective direct tax rate
£3,144 / £23,800 = 13.2%
Take-home pay
≈ £20,656
2️⃣ £125,000 earner
Important: personal allowance is almost fully removed above £100k.
Reduction = £1 lost per £2 over £100k
£25k over → allowance reduced by £12,500
Remaining allowance ≈ £70
Income tax
First £37,700 taxable income @ 20% = £7,540
Remaining £87,230 @ 40% = £34,892
Total income tax = £42,432
National Insurance
£37,700 @ 8% = £3,016
£74,730 @ 2% = £1,495
Total NI = £4,511
Total direct tax
£46,943
Effective direct tax rate
£46,943 / £125,000 = 37.6%
Take-home pay
≈ £78,057
3️⃣ Side-by-side comparison (direct taxes only)
IncomeIncome TaxNITotal TaxEffective Rate
£23.8k
£2,246
£898
£3,144
13.2%
£125k
£42,432
£4,511
£46,943
37.6%
Simple conclusion (direct taxes)
The higher earner pays:
Much more in £ terms
Much higher % of income
So direct taxation in the UK is clearly progressive.
4️⃣ So why do people say low earners pay a higher proportion?
Because they’re usually talking about the whole tax system, not just income tax/NI.
The key difference = indirect taxes
Low earners tend to:
Spend almost all their income
On goods/services that carry VAT and duties
High earners tend to:
Save more
Invest more
Spend a smaller proportion of income on VAT-rated consumption
Example (very simplified illustration)
⚠️ These are illustrative, not exact household models.
NMW earner
If they spend 95% of income and much of it attracts VAT:
VAT burden might be roughly ~£2k+
Council tax could be ~£1,800
That alone can add another 15–18% of gross income.
£125k earner
If they spend only ~50% of income:
VAT as % of income is lower (despite higher £ amount)
Council tax roughly similar in £ terms
Council tax might be ~1–2% of income instead of 7–8%.
5️⃣ The key point (this is usually what gets muddled)
TRUE:
Income tax + NI = strongly progressive
Higher earners pay a much bigger share
ALSO TRUE:
VAT and council tax are relatively regressive
They hit lower earners harder as a % of income
Both things can exist at the same time.
Think of it like layers:
Income tax system → progressive
Indirect taxes (VAT, duties, council tax) → regressive
Benefits/credits → strongly progressive (pulls the overall system back again)
That’s why economists sometimes argue about whether the overall system is progressive or not — it depends whether you include transfers and indirect taxes.
6️⃣ The blunt, plain-English version
If you strip everything away:
Low earners do not pay a higher proportion in PAYE taxes.
They can pay a high proportion of their income in consumption taxes because they must spend almost everything they earn.
High earners pay a much larger proportion in direct tax but can defer or avoid indirect tax by saving.
If you want, I can show you something that usually surprises people:
⭐ The “hidden middle” — roughly where the effective tax rate peaks in the UK (it’s not actually at £125k).
That’s often where the real debate starts.

TLDR

Chat GPT summary:

Low earners don’t pay a higher proportion of their income in tax overall. They pay a higher proportion in VAT and other indirect taxes because they spend most of what they earn. But VAT is only one part of the system. Higher earners — including many middle earners — pay a much larger share of their income through income tax and National Insurance, so the overall direct tax system remains progressive.

Lmnop22 · 13/02/2026 15:19

tutuland · 10/02/2026 23:59

I think you may be reading critique as a spiteful attack.

I think it is fair to be critical of how women are taught to defend the privileges men gain from a capitalist system, while doing a lot of the work to keep it running.

If you want to join in, maybe engage with the actual point.

Here you go.

You’re losing the argument so you turn it into a feminism debate thinking people will then be on your side.

I am a high earning single woman and I earned every penny of what I worked for - years of education, possession of the skills/focus/criticial thinking/analysis required to do the job, countless hours of training and betterment and learning. Why shouldn’t I earn more to reflect the experience and skill required to do my role? Why shouldn’t wages increase as the number of people in society capable of doing the job you’re doing to an equal
standard decreases? You’re paid for your uniqueness and desirability.

AmusedShark · 13/02/2026 15:21

Lmnop22 · 13/02/2026 15:11

So because you spend £20 in Tesco, you’re entitled to say that the salaries of the Tesco bosses are “your money” and they don’t work hard for or deserve it?!

Baffling. You realise when you pay for a product or service, you get that product or service for your money? Not a share in the company!

I don't think OP really thought it through and was going with the 'money doesn't really exist, the government could just print more and it doesn't really mean anything as it's just an exchange for things and the value and costs of things is made up so..'

By her reckoning, I as a public sector worker am paying for my own wages so what? I shouldn't pay tax?

I'd be delighted.

Eddiestrangerthings · 13/02/2026 15:23

Pithykestralfish · 13/02/2026 14:58

Exactly this, we’re writing people off to a life of dependency sometimes in their early 20s. Of course these people are going to feel hopeless and start threads like this. Not everyone is capable of being a software developer but everyone is capable of some contribution. If net contributors are expected to contribute 40% of their salary for the greater good (roughly 2 days out of a 5 day week) then there’s no reason why the recipients of the tax system can’t contribute 2 days of their time a week also for the greater good.

Edited

its not that people cannot make a contribution its the fact of if the role needs doing then it should be paid the proper wages even if its nmw.

the problem is no one wants to pay the proper wages for those roles, thats the issue and yes it may be for the greater good but then why not pay or create the role for a worker to be paid a proper wage and if its a case of no £ then thats not the workers fault

Eddiestrangerthings · 13/02/2026 15:26

AmusedShark · 13/02/2026 15:21

I don't think OP really thought it through and was going with the 'money doesn't really exist, the government could just print more and it doesn't really mean anything as it's just an exchange for things and the value and costs of things is made up so..'

By her reckoning, I as a public sector worker am paying for my own wages so what? I shouldn't pay tax?

I'd be delighted.

plus the govt could not just print more, yes money itself has no true value and is not backed by the gold standard but at the same time we cannot just print more

Lmnop22 · 13/02/2026 15:29

tutuland · 11/02/2026 22:36

It blows my mind they think they worked harder, and still 'sacrifice' more than nurses and police officers

But nobody said higher earners necessarily work harder - it’s about replacability.

Rarer things are more valuable. There are more people with low skills so there are more people to do low skilled jobs. There aren’t that many people who can cut tumours out of brain matter without killing the person they’re cutting or people who can research, present and win legal cases for example.

That’s why lawyers and surgeons are paid more than wait staff and street sweepers - because their skills are rarer and they are, therefore, more valuable.

Eddiestrangerthings · 13/02/2026 15:29

nearlylovemyusername · 13/02/2026 12:17

these roles don't need to be profitable though.

If you take from society you must give back, unless truly disabled. There must not be an option to not to work and be funded by taxpayer, bar severe disability. Full stop

Edited

they need to be profitable for the company to stay in business and pay workers and taxes etc

AmusedShark · 13/02/2026 15:44

Eddiestrangerthings · 13/02/2026 15:26

plus the govt could not just print more, yes money itself has no true value and is not backed by the gold standard but at the same time we cannot just print more

I know that. But I think the views that the OP is proposing come from ideology where the idea of 'money isn't real' is a core or peripheral belief.

Eddiestrangerthings · 13/02/2026 15:46

AmusedShark · 13/02/2026 15:44

I know that. But I think the views that the OP is proposing come from ideology where the idea of 'money isn't real' is a core or peripheral belief.

fair points

Pithykestralfish · 13/02/2026 16:18

Eddiestrangerthings · 13/02/2026 15:23

its not that people cannot make a contribution its the fact of if the role needs doing then it should be paid the proper wages even if its nmw.

the problem is no one wants to pay the proper wages for those roles, thats the issue and yes it may be for the greater good but then why not pay or create the role for a worker to be paid a proper wage and if its a case of no £ then thats not the workers fault

Edited

Are you suggesting people on benefits are only interested in themselves and not contributing to society like net tax payers do ? I don’t think that’s correct on the whole.

It’s bit of an odd argument on one side suggesting people paying 40% of their salary shouldn’t complain whilst also suggesting state dependent people shouldn’t bother contributing their time unless is pays well? Don’t you think?

nearlylovemyusername · 13/02/2026 16:22

NorthXNorthWest · 13/02/2026 15:16

Chat GPT

Can you please explain your point about low earners paying higher proportion of their income in tax than high earners? To make it simple, please take one FT NMW single earner (23.8k pa?) with no top up benefits and one 125k earner and show their taxes and which proportion of income it is?
Good question — and using two simple examples is exactly the right way to separate what’s actually true from what’s often said in debates.
I’ll keep this clean and mechanical first, then explain where the “low earners pay a higher proportion” argument comes from.
Assumptions (to keep it simple)
Tax year: 2025/26 (England/Wales/Northern Ireland rates)
Standard PAYE employee
No pension salary sacrifice
No student loan
No benefits or tax credits
Single earner
Only Income Tax + employee NI first (direct taxes)
Figures based on current HMRC thresholds
1️⃣ Full-time NMW earner – £23,800 salary
Income tax
Personal allowance: £12,570 (tax free)
Taxable income = £23,800 − £12,570 = £11,230
Income tax @ 20% = £2,246
National Insurance
NI at 8% between £12,570 and £50,270
NI = £11,230 × 8% = £898
Total direct tax
£3,144
Effective direct tax rate
£3,144 / £23,800 = 13.2%
Take-home pay
≈ £20,656
2️⃣ £125,000 earner
Important: personal allowance is almost fully removed above £100k.
Reduction = £1 lost per £2 over £100k
£25k over → allowance reduced by £12,500
Remaining allowance ≈ £70
Income tax
First £37,700 taxable income @ 20% = £7,540
Remaining £87,230 @ 40% = £34,892
Total income tax = £42,432
National Insurance
£37,700 @ 8% = £3,016
£74,730 @ 2% = £1,495
Total NI = £4,511
Total direct tax
£46,943
Effective direct tax rate
£46,943 / £125,000 = 37.6%
Take-home pay
≈ £78,057
3️⃣ Side-by-side comparison (direct taxes only)
IncomeIncome TaxNITotal TaxEffective Rate
£23.8k
£2,246
£898
£3,144
13.2%
£125k
£42,432
£4,511
£46,943
37.6%
Simple conclusion (direct taxes)
The higher earner pays:
Much more in £ terms
Much higher % of income
So direct taxation in the UK is clearly progressive.
4️⃣ So why do people say low earners pay a higher proportion?
Because they’re usually talking about the whole tax system, not just income tax/NI.
The key difference = indirect taxes
Low earners tend to:
Spend almost all their income
On goods/services that carry VAT and duties
High earners tend to:
Save more
Invest more
Spend a smaller proportion of income on VAT-rated consumption
Example (very simplified illustration)
⚠️ These are illustrative, not exact household models.
NMW earner
If they spend 95% of income and much of it attracts VAT:
VAT burden might be roughly ~£2k+
Council tax could be ~£1,800
That alone can add another 15–18% of gross income.
£125k earner
If they spend only ~50% of income:
VAT as % of income is lower (despite higher £ amount)
Council tax roughly similar in £ terms
Council tax might be ~1–2% of income instead of 7–8%.
5️⃣ The key point (this is usually what gets muddled)
TRUE:
Income tax + NI = strongly progressive
Higher earners pay a much bigger share
ALSO TRUE:
VAT and council tax are relatively regressive
They hit lower earners harder as a % of income
Both things can exist at the same time.
Think of it like layers:
Income tax system → progressive
Indirect taxes (VAT, duties, council tax) → regressive
Benefits/credits → strongly progressive (pulls the overall system back again)
That’s why economists sometimes argue about whether the overall system is progressive or not — it depends whether you include transfers and indirect taxes.
6️⃣ The blunt, plain-English version
If you strip everything away:
Low earners do not pay a higher proportion in PAYE taxes.
They can pay a high proportion of their income in consumption taxes because they must spend almost everything they earn.
High earners pay a much larger proportion in direct tax but can defer or avoid indirect tax by saving.
If you want, I can show you something that usually surprises people:
⭐ The “hidden middle” — roughly where the effective tax rate peaks in the UK (it’s not actually at £125k).
That’s often where the real debate starts.

TLDR

Chat GPT summary:

Low earners don’t pay a higher proportion of their income in tax overall. They pay a higher proportion in VAT and other indirect taxes because they spend most of what they earn. But VAT is only one part of the system. Higher earners — including many middle earners — pay a much larger share of their income through income tax and National Insurance, so the overall direct tax system remains progressive.

Edited

I knew exactly what you were going to say about indirect taxes.

And this is why AI is still not clever enough.

Low earners will spend most of their income of expenditures which don't attact VAT:

  • rent - VAT free
  • utilities - energy 5% VAT, water 0% VAT
  • food - VAT free in supermarkets
  • Concil tax - lower earners are unlikely to occupy high band properties so 1.8k pa is very unlikely. £800-1000 is a more reliable estimate here

Shall we agree that these three categories will eat up about 70% or more of low earners income?

For higher earners who tend to live in more expensive properties council tax will be much higher.
They save/invest more, but all income from savings/investments attracts 33/40% tax.
They spend much higher share of their disposable income on discretional purchases, e.g. more cloths, cars, furniture etc etc, all of which attracts VAT.

Sorry, but your hypothesis is based on wrong assumptions and the conclusion is wrong.

Pithykestralfish · 13/02/2026 16:22

Eddiestrangerthings · 13/02/2026 15:29

they need to be profitable for the company to stay in business and pay workers and taxes etc

Can you explain where the profit is in paying people to do nothing? Surely two days a week voluntary work to payback society would even the balance? Or businesses could be given tax incentives to employee these people rather than giving the money straight to them. It might also have the benefit of restoring some self worth and cutting down on anti social behaviour.

Lockdownsceptic · 13/02/2026 16:37

Yes that’s the socialist view All money belongs to the state and they allow us to keep a little bit for everyday expenses if we’re lucky.

Lockdownsceptic · 13/02/2026 16:43

GrumpyFrogg · 10/02/2026 19:00

I'm not sure thats fair. You could say that about a lot of jobs. Where would we be without care workers, teachers, police officers. Your contribution to society isnt worth more just because it comes from your wallet.

No but there has to be a balance. If no one is generating income by making something or providing a service that people will pay for, then there would be no one to pay the taxes to pay for the nurses, teachers, civil servants etc. These people do not generate any income for the country. Someone has to.

Eddiestrangerthings · 13/02/2026 16:45

Pithykestralfish · 13/02/2026 16:18

Are you suggesting people on benefits are only interested in themselves and not contributing to society like net tax payers do ? I don’t think that’s correct on the whole.

It’s bit of an odd argument on one side suggesting people paying 40% of their salary shouldn’t complain whilst also suggesting state dependent people shouldn’t bother contributing their time unless is pays well? Don’t you think?

Edited

then how can a person pay bills if on slave wages ? plus i thought society was against slavery ? if a role needs doing then a person should be paid nmw,

as for higher tax payers are you basically saying its ok for people to be paid slave wages so the higher earners dont have to pay as much tax ?

Eddiestrangerthings · 13/02/2026 16:48

Pithykestralfish · 13/02/2026 16:22

Can you explain where the profit is in paying people to do nothing? Surely two days a week voluntary work to payback society would even the balance? Or businesses could be given tax incentives to employee these people rather than giving the money straight to them. It might also have the benefit of restoring some self worth and cutting down on anti social behaviour.

Edited

businesses used to do something similar and they got rid of the full wage workers and used the cheaper workers . how does that help society ?

as for people doing nothing, we abolished slavery years ago if the current economic system is not suitable then we need a better system,

as for your tax incentive then who covers the cost of the loss in tax ?