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

[tutuland]

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.

What is my hypothesis?

It helps society because the pot holes get fixed, the litter gets picked up, minor traffic violations get reported, there are more staff on public transport, the streets gets swept and the graffiti gets cleaned up.

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

If we expect net tax payers to work two days out of 5 to contribute to society, why can we not ask the same of the net recipients? Why is one slavery and one not?

as for your tax incentive then who covers the cost of the loss in tax ?
There is no loss in tax, it just goes via tax incentives to low ability people to encourage them to work rather than straight to them. Society benefits from having people do the jobs and not sitting around becoming ever more resentful. Imagine instead of forcing pubs and cafes to close through excessive taxation to fund benefits, we incentivised more pubs to employee people to reduce benefits.

how ever it spun slavely is not allowed, wages should be nmw or higher,
if society cannot be improved and needs slave labour instead then we need a new economic system

Of course you are correct about slavers, but this is giving net recipients the chance to contribute to society as net payers do. I don’t know why you’d have a problem with that if you don’t have a problem with net tax payers working two out of five days to contribute to society? Seems a bit entitled.

its because of the fact that yes the role needs doing but oh by the way society does not want to pay you nmw, thats why. they would rather you work for slave labour and the old Victorian style work gangs etc

if working truly pays then companies can pay proper wages, otherwise it proves work does not pay when the work needs doing but society cannot pay nmw for a person to do it

If a job needs doing, then pay people for it properly with all the protections and benefits that proper employment provides. What will happen to the lollypop people, traffic wardens, street sweepers etc if you just have people forced to "volunteer" in their roles?
People on benefits who have work search requirements already have to carry out 35 hours of work search activity per week anyway.
The people who do not, have caring responsibilities or are too sick/disabled to work.

that low earners spend 95% of their income and this all attracts VAT. I'm trying to explain that most of their expenditure does not attract VAT. In contrast with higher earners.

ETA: this makes the gap between lower and higher earners effective tax rate (incl indirect taxation) even higher

Ah, what about if we paid more than nmw and then took 40% as a contribution towards society and reduced their access to free child care and child benefit? Would that be more palatable?

you would have to ask more knowledgeable people because if those changes stopped other workers working then how are they going to create tax revenue ?

I’ll leave you to think on this discussion a bit. Nice chatting with you.

@Pithykestralfish
relax... I found that supporters of high taxes and high welfare aren't usually able to answer basic questions about economics. It's kind of religious believe rather than rational thinking

there would not be as much welfare needed if companies would pay for the jobs at proper wages, but then that proves the current economic system we have is not suitable

i thought and i used help:

Where I struggle is that these kinds of incentives or clawbacks often backfire. Paying above NMW but then taking 40% back (plus cutting childcare/child benefit) would push effective tax rates even higher than many middle earners face, making extra work barely worth it. We've seen this before with old benefits high withdrawal rates trapped people rather than encouraging sustainable jobs. Businesses also exploited similar schemes by replacing proper paid roles with subsidised ones, which ends up hurting overall employment and tax revenue.

If we want real reciprocity with dignity, why not create properly paid jobs (NMW or above, full rights) for things like street cleaning or community support? Fund them progressively maybe close some loopholes at the top end so tax payers aren't shouldering it all, and recipients get genuine work that pays off. Or ease Universal Credit tapers so moving into work actually boosts net income.
That way everyone contributes meaningfully without it feeling like punishment or exploitation. Thoughts?

What I’ve been hinting at and what you’re now describing is exactly what should be happening! We are doing the exact opposite, firstly in taxing business (especially SMEs) into the ground rather than incentivising growth, ironically in order to increase spending on benefits. Secondly in a benefit system that disincentives working. Thirdly fostering an anti success culture for political purposes.

I can see why the way I have cut and pasted Chat GTP might seem like I think along those lines. @InWithPeaceOutWithStress appears to be on a misinformation mission - the central thesis being indirect taxation is apparently the only/ most important consideration and it also stops our tax system from being progressive...

InWithPeaceOutWithStress · 11/02/2026 17:06

That’s actually very unlikely to be the case. Lower earners tend to spend most, if not all, of what they earn (on rent, bills, food, consumer goods) and tax is paid on all of that (VAT). In contrast, higher earners are more likely to save, taking advantage of ISAs, tax free pension funds, and earning interest on their savings. Proportionally they spend less on consumer goods, therefore paying less VAT and overall less tax (proportionally).

InWithPeaceOutWithStress · 11/02/2026 21:06

Income tax is progressive but it’s well evidenced that the U.K. tax system overall is regressive due to the impact of VAT and other indirect taxes (fuel duty, alcohol, excise and tobacco duties, customs duties etc). Council tax is also regressive at the bottom.

What I’m saying isn’t spoken about very much so there’s ignorance in the general population, however it’s a standard argument and well accepted in public-finance economics and tax academics that overall the U.K. tax system is regressive.

As a share of income poorer household pay so much more VAT and other indirect taxes that it offsets the income tax progressivity.

InWith'* *has been trying to educate me on the error of thinking the big picture is indirect tax, direct tax and benefits received (means tested and non means tested). Apparently the big picture is 'only indirect' taxation.

ChatGPT’s summary is a overly simplistic - it misses some important detail ( ie the £100k–£125k cliff edge / 60% effective marginal rate - I have spoken about this up thread so wasn't too bothered) and ability to avoid some (not all) indirect taxes etc). But it did get to the key point: you can’t just focus on indirect taxation and pretend that tells the whole story.

I had wrongly assumed you had been swept up in the “indirect tax is everything” fever dream, and I responded largely for the benefit of Inwith'. Please accept my apologies.

What's confusing? Work your arse off and most of it goes to the tax man.

It seems to me that it is primarily the very richest who complain about the tax they pay. Those paying the higher rate but who are not in the super-rich bracket tend to moan a bit but are not as vociferous as the super-rich.

It seems to me that if you are earning vast amounts of money you should not be complaining about the current tax rate. Poorer people pay a disproportionately high rate of tax as compared to those who earn millions - and they still have to pay VAT however little money they have at their disposal.

@TestingDailyJust give up and go and do something more interesting with your time. You won't get anywhere with the OP. What you say seems emminently reasonable to me!

@ellyeth ,. it's not the very rich who whinge. it's the people who are trying to build or sustain small businesses. They employ roughly 80% of the UK's working population. And the last two budgets have heaped costs and regulations on them.

My criticism is that no-one in the Cabinet has ever had a business and had to pay their employees at the end of the month. It sounds straightforward but the real life of the small time entrepreneur is generally more hand to mouth than weekends at the Savoy. My DH has had a micro business for 35 years. It is extremely specialist and has nothing to do with the individual consumer. But, left to work, it is very profitable and extremely necessary.

Can you define the super rich bracket, what you’d define as earning vast amounts of money and do you not think it’s valid to complain about current tax banding which has remained fixed since 2021 when cumulative inflation has been 22%? These bandings are now fixed until 2030, can you explain why it’s not valid to complain about that? You might even find yourself in that banding by then.

After we have paid our staff, who are earning significantly above NMW, we pay corporation tax so when we take something for ourselves we pay income tax or dividend. Both are levied at +2% above income tax rates. In all honesty, we are quite seriously considering leaving the UK. We have no real objection to paying our shout, but small time entrepreneurs are being fucked over. WHY would you risk your time and capital to have it stripped off you?

@Pithykestralfish , we're not super-rich. We have a tiny company with a specialist skill niche. It has taken 36 years work to reach this rather modest level of prosperity. We do not want to pay freeloaders, native born or imported or migrants. Work or fail?

We’ve got 3 more years of this, I’d move your business abroad.

No, I wasn't.

Interesting, though, to think the moral/fairness case for taxation/equality of outcome could be so outré as to be thought sarcastic. Interesting and sad.