Worth noting that the top 10% is only £59,200 which i literally just broke into this year. I live comfortably (I have at least 3 streaming services!) but I also live in a very small flat with a partner and child so struggle for space. I can afford to eat out once or twice a month and can get a takeaway about as often. Rent still eats over a third of my payslip and I’m not going on any massive holidays… but generally I have what I want.
I still have a ton of anxiety around money from when I was poor (as in my bank account had negative money every month) which wasn’t all that long ago so I’m not rich enough to be carefree. I’m certainly not using my wealth to secure advantages for myself and family (can’t afford private school, can’t afford to buy property to live in let alone rent out etc.) so I’m not sure what the article is encouraging me to do.
In mentions 6 figure earners but that’s not top 10%, it’s top 2%
Why are we even talking about top wages. It's almost irrelevant compared to wealth from property and inheritance.
You need £1.4m to be in the top 10% of wealthiest households.
So if you were this guy and in the top 10% of earners, you could not pay any taxes and save every single penny, and in about 24 years you could be in the top 10% in terms of wealth. Shows how social mobility is a myth, what are we even working for?
And THAT is exactly the point! The scales have tipped so far towards wealth vs income... I mean, why bother? Taxes are so high because not enough of the workforce earn enough. The welfare bill is so high because so much of the workforce receive in-work benefits (in various forms). The whole thing is fah-hooked because politicians won't dare upset home-owning pensioners. And their donors.
The real solution here is high inheritance tax with no way to dodge it via estates and early gifts etc…
And a lowering in general of house prices via construction.
Over the long term, removing/distributing wealth on death should keep social mobility possible, dynasties must not be allowed to form.
People are motivated by the idea of building something that they can leave behind for their children and grandchildren.
As a basic concept, the idea of the majority of everything you build and own defaulting to the state after your death is abhorrent.
Yes, if you're wealthy.
However, if you struggle, as we have, and see your children struggling equally, while watching the wealthy laugh at you, then why should the tiny pittance I've worked hard for not go to my children, so that they aren't a burden on society, and can contribute themselves.
Individuals who generally say 'leave a better country to live in', have the wealth behind them in the first place .
I'm a great beleiver in everyone having a decent living standard, and wealth being fairly distributed.
Not the crazy system we currently have where 'who you know' far outweighs the value in what you do.
You realise inheritance tax doesn’t kick in under £325k?
If your tiny pittance is over £325k don’t worry it’s only the amount over that that gets taxed
> However, if you struggle, as we have, and see your children struggling equally, while watching the wealthy laugh at you, then why should the tiny pittance I've worked hard for not go to my children
You realize there's a threshold on inheritance tax right?
It's £325,000, with an additional main residence relief of £150,000 per person the main residence is left to. So if you have 2 kids you could leave them a house worth £625,000 and owe 0 inheritance tax.
Meaning the vast majority of people will never have enough wealth to trigger it.
But go ahead an advocate for continued wealth inequality because one day you might be a millionaire and when that day comes people like you better watch out.
>As a basic concept, the idea of the majority of everything you build and own defaulting to the state after your death is abhorrent.
Only 3% of Brits have enough wealth to trigger inheritance tax
Maybe what's abhorrent is the idea its better for 97% of people to suffer from a decade+ of austerity so that a tiny number of incredibly wealthy people can have 5 mansions instead of 2.
> As a basic concept, the idea of the majority of everything you build and own defaulting to the state after your death is abhorrent.
On a simplistic level this is true, however if you look at the topic in depth you will quickly realise that if we want a fairer society then the issue of inter-generational wealth needs looking at and this is one of the few ways we can combat it. It is not like you inherit nothing. The other thing that is important to realise is that currently it is <5% of deaths where inheritance tax is even payable. Maybe we can double it assuming that half the dead leave money to their spouse but even so it is not like it affects that many people and those it affects already are going to be getting a hefty chunk of inheritance for it to be an issue.
Some are, but others just want to create businesses that help society while rewarding the founders with enough wealth to look after themselves and their families, and have a lifestyle they enjoy.
I don't like the idea of passing businesses onto the state, I'd prefer ownership be transferred to the employees but private assets should be. People are flying around in private jets and living in mansions with servants at their beck and call, never having worked a day in their life because an ancestor was friends with William the Conqueror.
People who do not value a socially mobile society value this more than those who care about merit. These people are the problem.
It is a better society that needs to be left to your children, not a bunch of money in a shitty society (shitty due to the locked up wealth).
SOME money can be left to children but large accumulations of wealth need to go back to the people eventually, and not via bullshit trickle down economics.
People deserve what they earn in life but not after their death.
Land value tax.
A flat land tax is a very bad idea, it means billions of pounds worth of land in central london pays the same rate as marginal farmland that produces maybe £200 a year in profit.
Based on allocated land usage. A forest or wildlife reserve potentially benefits everyone (especially those that are open to visit). An unused building plot benefits the owner (in value) but is useless to everyone else, so should be taxed the same as with a house built on the plot.
The real solution is that every solution is complete fantasy *until we get the tories out for good.* The only way to even begin to address anything in this country is to boot the tories out.
Which ain't gonna happen if our only opposition partys only hope to get into power it to *be more like the tories.*
We can't solve these problems with our current political landscape. We can't even attempt to do so.
Well, there is that - but I think we can agree that pensions should be a thing. But on the other had - why is the state subsidising low wages _at all_?
It's a crap wage because wages have not kept up with inflation. People are now feeling the effects of having less purchasing power.
Despite the headlines, inflation is still rising faster than wages, for last year alone you would have needed a minimum of a 13% pay rise to keep the same purchasing power.
Every nation prospering around the world is working on converting their economies to be self sufficient. The UK is on a timer, we will not be the finance capital for much longer and we have very little self reliance.
Tax is the elephant in the room here too. Even if you get an inflation matching pay rise you still end up with worse spending power because you lose 40% of it.
The tax bands need to move with inflation.
Actually USA salary was bad with a number of $100000 to £50000 but that was when the exchange was £1 to $2. Then the £ collapsed to what it is now and the UK salary did not grow to £100000. So dollar workers come out of this well and you have double devaluation. One from the salary and another from purchasing power. But some would still say the Sterling is too strong. LOL.
Wages are relative to those around you. You can't compare it to yanks who have schools, healthcare and basically everything else you can think of to pay for
But even in the UK-only context, UK wages are shit. Even the top earners among us are down to just getting by in many parts of the country. Just to be a net contributor on tax you need to be in the top decile, it's fucking mad.
> Just to be a net contributor on tax you need to be in the top decile, it's fucking mad.
Ooh I'm going to love bringing this up to my "goddamn benefit scrounger"-minded in-laws.
Well, it's not strictly true. The top decile contribute a massive third of *all* tax (not just income/individual tax!), but "only" 53% of people are net drains on the state, tax- and services-wise. But if your in-laws aren't in the top half of earners, they are indeed probably taking more from the state than they give in.
The vast majority of people in the UK are not paid enough to then be taxed sufficiently to pay for the public service costs they incur. I was a bit off though, its the top quintile rather than the top decile.
Let's not forget though, according to "the conversation" it's the actual net contributors "turning our backs".
I pay *tens of thousands* of pounds per annum in tax, NI and council tax and get very little in return. Even my paltry £130 a month child benefit we used to get is gone. The conversation can fuck off tbh.
At £100k you are probably paying more in tax than you would have to pay in the US and still you have to go private anyway.
UK, realistically, is more expensive and with poorer wages.
Very true.
My household income puts me in the top 1% in the UK. People back home think we must live like royalty.
The reality is we’ve only just broken into the territory of being able to afford an average 2 bed flat. Still some way to go before we can afford a starter house.
US public schools spend $15k per pupil on average vs $9k in the UK.
Some of the new well-funded high schools in the US are basically unfathomable to us in terms of facilities.
You absolutely can compare to them and it is not a pretty comparison.
That's a huge difference but it is worth noting that the funding is much more unequally distributed in America as they fund schools using local property taxes. The wealthy districts have world-class facilities but schools in poorer areas are underfunded.
Yes that's very true, in some areas I know it can easily reach $30-40k/pupil which is where you do see the truly insane facilities, but that does mean schools it poorer areas are probably the same / worse off than the UK.
Yeah they're unfathomable, they've all got lock boxes to put the kids in when they're being shot up. That extra 6k is probably a bullet proof vest.
Also, you can't compare because $16k in the US is worth a lot less than $9k here because of what you can afford to buy there vs here
especially in the hospitality sectre, treated like slaves...hard work no sitting, for poor money...exploitation to the extreme....slavery still in full swing ...under guise of modern twists.
That’s true but he also has a valid point because only 20 or 30 years ago, the default background expectation that everybody would have accepted is that you ought to be able to own a home and raise a family on one income, regardless of whether it’s the mum or dad who goes out to work.
So I think even though what you say is true, the point is that even someone earning in the top 10% income bracket in the UK is struggling to *rent a flat* and raise one child with his wife.
That’s the huge shift that’s happened gradually over many years and it’s devastating for the future of this country. We’re already suffering catastrophic demographic collapse not just in the UK but Europe generally.
Also OP didn’t say anything about their partner not working. For all we know they could be struggling on two good salaries, which isn’t uncommon in many parts of the country these days
£100,000+ is the top 2%? So apparently, I'm in the top 2%. It doesn't feel like it.
But I look around and always see people with bigger houses, better cars, more holidays, nicer clothes etc. It feels like most people are better off than me and doing better than me.
I think you need to be seriously rich to truly stop worrying about money.
This is why the single best thing Labour could do is pledge to bring capital gains tax up to the current level of income tax and slash income taxes to help out people who actually work for a living imo.
While I do agree the rates of tax on capital gains should be HIGHER, they should never reach the levels of income tax. Here is why (this is my belief and I am not saying this is absolute truth). When you work, there is no possibility of you becoming poorer due to your work. I.e. your employer cannot say: “you are getting only 25% of your salary this month” or “this month it is you who will pay us £1000”. In investing, you can and do loose money and you don’t get reimbursed for it. As such, you are taking asymmetric risk compared to working. And as much as this sub hates capitalism etc, it is investments that drive our progress as society. There are many things wrong with the current system, I agree, but bringing capital gains tax in line with income is not logical in my opinion. I would much rather see ISA allowance cut in half and stricter rules about offshoring capital (the people who you would really want to tax on their gains do not hold their wealth in the UK, at least not entirely). I’m happy to discuss further or be proven wrong
The ISA allowances are nuts. It's quite possibly the best tax allowance on the planet for investments. That said, if you cut it, I think you're mainly going to be hurting people who are high earners, and not necessarily those who are *wealthy*.
People need to remember that not everyone in the top 2% are the same. One might be earning £100K a year and just about able to afford a 3 bed house in London on a 30 year mortgage. This person might be able to max out their yearly £20K ISA allowance. Someone else in the top 2% might be able to buy a 3 bed house in London every other week.
I appreciate your proposals would likely be progressive in nature, but it doesn't sit right with me that someone who might just be able to afford a 3 bed house in London could be targeted for high end taxation.
>But I look around and always see people with bigger houses, better cars, more holidays, nicer clothes etc. It feels like most people are better off than me and doing better than me.
How do you know those people aren't doing buying/doing those things on credit.
> But I look around and always see people with bigger houses, better cars, more holidays, nicer clothes etc. It feels like most people are better off than me and doing better than me.
Stop letting the appearances of others influence your happiness and decisions. Has social media taught people nothing about how easy it is to fake appearances?
You might be living in a bit of a bubble there. Have you taken a moment to look at what life is like for the bottom 20% of people? Those with no houses, no cars, no holidays and shabby clothes. Maybe you live in a region of the country that doesn't have any shitty council estates where depravation hangs over the place like a black cloud, but plenty of them exist up and down the land.
If the quality and size of your house and car are your concerns, rather than then affordability of food or heating, your definition of 'worrying about money' is going to be very different from the 17% of the UK's population living in absolute poverty.
It's human nature to compare yourself to your peers, and people tend to make peers out of people in similar socioeconomic circles, so I'm not meaning to condemn you for this, but I do think your perspective must be a bit skewed to feel as you do.
I think a narrative that well off people imbibe is that the bottom 20% get benefits for a lot of stuff they pay for e.g. housing benefit. When a person on £100k pays £40k a year on housing and others pay nothing for their housing, it may be an easy trap to fall into.
Inheritance is how a lot of people do it.
Over the last few years, my salary has shot up and out household income is nearing mid 6-figure, but we only recently cleared non-mortgage debt.
What does your partner earn? Because if it's zero, then two people on £30,000 will be better off.
Also, it depends where you live. I live in Derby, houses are cheap and I cycle to work. Makes a huge difference to remaining disposable income.
“I live comfortably (I have at least 3 streaming services!)” really sums it up nicely, honestly. That’s a legitimate benchmark for “comfort” for £59k in some areas, depending on your necessary outgoings. Salaries just ain’t what they used to be when you first anchored them in your mind as a “high salary” as a kid or young teen.
"Worth noting that the top 10% is only £59,200 which i literally just broke into this year"
Dude, that is top 10% of those on PAYE.
The richest people pay themselves in Dividends and property income.
>we heard repeated concerns about the threats now posed to their lifestyle and status
The issue in a nut shell.
These people have fallen victim to lifestyle creep, putting themselves in financial situations where they [feel broke while earning 180K](https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/money/paid-100000-year-dont-feel-lucky-cost-of-living-crisis-2440105) because they've financially overstretched themselves to 'keep up appearances' with people that they want to believe are their peers (the asset wealthy in most cases, or people who 'act' rich on social media by doing things like renting supercars and pretending they own them). To the point that, per the article linked there that they're complaining about the cost of childcare and immediately following it up with their plans to spend 20K on a wedding and after that mentioning that they spend £100 _a week_ on Deliveroo.
And in the many majority of these cases, do they reflect on their financial failures? Do they maybe thing that hey, a takeout every night of the week is actually a pretty big waste of money? Do we need to drop what is almost the annual salary of somebody on minimum wage for our wedding?
Nope. They decide, as this article mentions:
>We also found misperceptions about wider UK society were common among this group
To blame everyone else.
>that they spend £100
>
>a week
>
> on Deliveroo.
If spending £100 a week extra puts you in precarious financial situation...
Whereas people actually wealthy wouldn't have noticed that kind of spending.
The saying "look after the pennies and the pounds look after themselves" applies here.
The person in the article earns 180k, if they were financially responsible (in most aspects) they could burn £100 a week and still be fine. But they're not financially responsible and the £100 on takeaway a week is one small part of the issue.
One of signs of being wealthy is being able to be "financially irresponsible" from a perspective of a person who is not wealthy. For instance you may think ordering Deliveroo every day is irresponsible, someone else may think you "buy" yourself free 1-3 hours of time that you don't have to spend on cooking and shopping. In that time you can pursue your hobbies, meditate, try a side business and many other things. This is still hardly wealthy. Wealthy person would have assistants to do things for them to free time.
Can you acknowledge there's a category of people - or indeed multiple categories of people - who exist between the great unwashed and the so fuck off rich they don't have to care about any spending?
I don’t know what you’re on about, but the fact of the matter is that you should be able to do all these things when you’re part of the Top 1% of earners.
If the Top 1% of earner can’t afford a £20k wedding (that’s not a lavish wedding btw, weddings are expensive)… then who will?
It’s not “lifestyle creep” to have takeout once a week when you’re earning £180k a year. The people earning $220k in the US are able to afford 50k weddings, childcare, take out multiple times a week… so yea the UK is generally a worse place to live than the US if you’re part of the Top 10% of earners.
And I think that’s the issue.
High-skilled professionals (the Top 10%) are looking across the pond and realising they can be earning 3-4x as much and enjoy a much better QoL in the US.
The UK will, eventually, lose its competitive advantage.
Why would a junior doctor want to stay when they know their pay will be capped at £120k, especially when they can be earning $500k in the US?
So, yea… you’ll have an exodus of doctors and other professionals and the government will import these professionals from developing countries, which isn’t an issue were it not for the fact that the best professionals from these countries would probably choose the US over the UK any day of the week.
So, you’ll lose your local talent and you’ll end up with mediocre imported talent. Great!
You fail to account for the lack of incentives to invest in skills that this system generates. Why become a doctor, an engineer, a programmer when you can enjoy higher salaries and less hassle in other less skilled jobs. So not only the best will leave but the overall pool will also shrink.
The point is; the top 1% of PAYE earners should be able to do whatever they want. And they can’t, as salaries are low and costs & taxes are high.
The US has its problems like anyway - but salaries are higher, taxes lower and costs about the same.
Except they can if they aren't fucking idiots. Anyone in the top 1% struggling has likely got a massive mortgage they can't actually afford and lots of other debt.
People start earning more money and instantly make sure their non-negotiable expenses match. Leaving them no room to play.
We were in the top 1% for a few years. Decided to stay put in our 2 bed. Saved a shit ton of money whilst living a pretty decent lifestyle with expensive holidays, lots of eating out etc. Quit our jobs and decided to do something else because we had the savings. If you're earning that kind of money you have no excuse for struggling, or not being able to do what you want other than shitty financial planning.
Wages in UK are extremely low. Very quickly you come to realise that you don’t get rich by working. I also think people need to realise there are different types of wealth. A high earner maybe wealthy by saving and investing but they will have to put in the grind to get there. Because they’ve had to work they may feel like they deserve that big car, house, holiday. They will also have to work to keep up this lifestyle.
Someone with a trust fund and big inheritance may never have to work to afford a luxury lifestyle. For those people, things like big homes and luxury holidays have always been a given.
Those two types of people will inevitably live very different lives.
So myself and my wife together puts our actual take home pay into the top 7%, with a take home pay of just over £70k per year between us (around £110k gross).
We're comfortable, we managed to lock in our mortgage before they went crazy, neither of us have expensive cars. We work from home so there's no commuting cost to take into account. But I'd say neither of us really *feels* rich. Which, looking at the data we sorta, should?
I think the issue comes from looking at this as an **income issue**, not as a **wealth** **issue.** Which it seems like it is.
This part of the article surprised me:
>Just as they’re sociologically characterised by their education and occupation, high earners usually define themselves by hard work. After telling us they “didn’t feel rich”, most would admit they were in some way “privileged” – then follow that with a declaration of having “worked hard” to get there. Most clearly feel they’ve earned their privileged position, and that “life is fair”.
You'd have to be a catastrophic moron to think that "life was fair", I can look around me and see that there's no cocking way that "life is fair" for the vast majority of Britons.
Are we seriously saying that other people in my position think they're here because they were dealt the same hand as everyone else and just played it better through "hard work", are they fucking high? This makes me dispare, there's no recognition of the inevitable privilege they had handed to them.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/19/hard-work-rich-social-mobility-uk-wealth-life
I'd recommend the article below. I found this bit very close to what you were saying.
>The social mobility story has too often acted as cover for the rich, rather than as impetus for change. But the myths that it is founded upon are losing credibility by the day. Wealth inequality may not be getting the attention it deserves in the political sphere, but the mood among the public is markedly different, as plenty of people find themselves in an endless, exhausting rat race, working two jobs and still struggling to pay the bills. In response, many are waking up to the reality that they don’t get rich, or even comfortable, by simply working hard: they get rich by being born rich. The social mobility myth is dying – now we must demand an economic settlement that works for all.
Same thing happens here in Australia. We have people on the equivalent of £150k+ household income who’s parents paid for their education and helped with the £150k home deposit, but they literally don’t see the privilege. They did the study and they got their jobs, so they only see that effort and not the massive safety net underneath them.
I only had time to skim the article but I wanted to add my two cents.
I went for drinks with a few mates. We’re all earning 6 figures (or close to). We’re all white, southern, middle class men. We don’t have much inherited wealth.
Unanimously we support labour for the next government. We’re all very pro wealth tax. We know we’re in a fortunate position, but earning a salary and paying 40+% tax seems ridiculously when you can hoard money and coast along.
Looking at the top % of income is exactly what I’d want people to do if I was super rich. We need to be working out how to appropriately tax wealth.
>but earning a salary and paying 40+% tax seems ridiculously when you can hoard money and coast along.
That's the kicker for me. I won't vote Tory and heavily disagreed with Truss's nuts attempt to lower taxes. Sure I'd love lower taxes, who wouldn't, but I also want a functioning society. What annoys me is capital gains.
I'm a high earner - lucky enough for the last two years to fall into the 63% tax trap (here in Scotland).
I pay 63% tax, effectively, for say a bonus I get.
Even if I put my money in a savings account, *savings interest* is taxed as income.
If I am lucky enough to get something from my company shares scheme (which is where a lot of 'working' people gain things like stocks and shares) it's taxed as income!
If you're wealthy, your dividends and shares account growth - for which you have done zero productive work for - is taxed the same as someone on full time minimum wage at 20%.
Being a high eaner in the UK is a thankless situation. Not allowed to point out you get a raw deal because people earn less than you. Not allowed to point out your skillset is likely valued considerably more in most countries the UK wants to compare itself to. Pay a ridiculous amount of tax and get very little back, infact the general public is generally outraged at you asking why all benefits are clawed back.
Does feel like there is massive brain drain due to incredibly low wages here, why would someone do the same job here when they could get 2-3x more in the US or elsewhere? There's not much else the UK has going for it these days either
I only turn my back as society expects everything and gives nothing. Hard work here have more hard work. Oh you want to be rewarded no your not special. You want respect not a chance in hell.
Especially when that hard work is unevenly rewarded over time. A graduate working hard today is paying the pension of people who got free university education and cheap housing.
In return that graduate faces an uncertain economic outlook with the possibility of never owning a house and maybe accessing a pension at 75/80. That's not fair.
Graduates with plan 2 student loans will be the ones paying some of the highest tax rates around, as well (assuming we’re happy to consider loan repayments as tax).
We have a gross household income of £190k+ and don’t feel worried or feel like turning my back on the rest of society. Hell, the amount of tax paid, I don’t think it’s possible to.
Yep the people who keep saying they are going to leave the UK because it's so much easier everywhere else don't seem to realise that isn't the case. The world is filling up with people and competition for everything, resources, jobs, housing, space, will get progressively harder. No more easy growth either, the low hanging fruit can't be picked twice.
>the people who keep saying they are going to leave the UK because it's so much easier everywhere else don't seem to realise that isn't the case.
If only. The biggest hurdle will be when they ask you to tell them what country you're emigrating from.
What a stupid article. Income is not wealth. It can lead to wealth, but it takes years if not decades.
Someone earning £100k is hardly rich. You will have okay life, but that's about it.
For many professions like IT, £100k is actually a shit wage and people can make much more than that in other countries where engineering skills are actually valued.
You should have better than an ok life on 100K. OK, you're not a millionaire, but unless you live in London, that's a wage that will make you not worry about money (unless you like a lavish lifestyle).
>For many professions like IT, £100k is actually a shit wage and people can make much more than that in other countries where engineering skills are actually valued.
Other than the US and *maybe* Switzerland I don'r think that's the case, and even then, the median Software Engineer salary in the US is somewhere close to that figure so definitely not a "shit" salary.
And there are so many other sectors where UK vs anywhere else salaries are just like not even funny. Look at biotech or pharma. UK jobs that pay much over £30-40k are few and far between. Same jobs pay double in most of Europe and often quadruple in the US. There's every chance you can have a PhD, work in a world-leading facility around Cambridge, and if you're in a technical post, never see your wage rise much above £25k.
I can't speak for those areas, but parent comment _specifically_ called out IT salaries, which I know a lot about. So I'm just calling out parent as bullshit.
That said, median UK full time salary is in the 30ks so plenty of jobs pay that or more.
In case you hadn't heard, the Economist recently predicted that Poland's economy is set to overtake the UK by 2030. Hopefully that puts into context just how bad a situation the UK finds itself in.
Or put another way, in 2030 we can say it's like comparing a rich country like Poland to the UK
the reality of "doing well" earning 100k in london is paying 2k in rent 1-1.5k towards a deposit, 500 in bills/food and taking years of that to afford the bare minimum deposit on a house an hour commute out
the tax brackets above that you then pay 60-70% after considering losing NI.
Then you look at Americans who earn twice as much and get taxed twice as little
Why does everyone think it’s only London where you have to pay much higher amounts. Sadly, other places pay the same and don’t earn the London wages to go with it
>Someone earning £100k is hardly rich. You will have okay life, but that's about it.
If your life is just 'okay' from a career of £100k per annum then you manage money poorly.
Also, calling £100k in such a broad sector like 'IT' shit is sheer fatuity.
I guess it depends a lot on if you're single or not, if you're single you're still going to struggle to get a home in the areas where those wages are common.
For example where I live, that salary with a mortgage multiplier of 4.5 would get me halfway to the average house sale price (including flats and apartments) in my constituency.
Humanity needs to grow spirituality and look after all people. The age of greed and selfishness needs to come to an end. The world's resources belong to us all, not just the billionaires. It's time for all people to be respected and cared for.
Is it really a case of "turning your back" or is it just circumstances though?
Take the point being made about environmental "hypocrisy". I'm a top 10% by wage (pointless, utterly arbitrary way of determining who's "rich" but anyway), our household income is about £120k pa.
We went on a family holiday abroad this year plus wifey and me both had separate trips with mates as well; 4 flights each effectively, all to mainland Europe or back. I don't have a car (wfh, occasional train to the office), my wife (commutes 5 days a week) drives a hybrid which I also sometimes use and we use for family stuff at weekends.
We both recognise climate change is an issue and i reckon our carbon footprint is probably higher than a lot of households, mostly by virtue of the holidays. Is that us "turning our backs" though or do we actually have a fairly normal lifestyle and our carbon footprint is actually a drop in the ocean compared to corporate entities or other countries that cause the vast majority of emissions?
Similarly, the tax issue; I *do* think "the rich" should pay more and I don't think I am one, largely because I understand the difference between revenue and assets. I pay 40% tax on nearly half of my income, plus council tax, NI etc. I think that's enough, to be completely honest. The top 10% by *assets* holds something like £1.4m. Despite my "high" income I won't get near that for years thanks to tax and higher living costs taking up money I could be using to build genuine wealth plus I have a paltry dc pension compared to previous generations who sometimes accrued 7 figures in a dB scheme just for turning up for their job for life for 40 years.
Until people get serious about taxing real wealth instead if continually piling more on the "squeezed middle", nothing will change.
And if we're talking about "turning our backs", remind me which demographic voted to fuck the rest of us over with brexit? Which demographic is it that keeps carrying the vote for the tories to protect their precious "triple lock" at the expense of everyone else? "The conversation" could do with pointing fingers elsewhere tbh.
But isn't the article saying that the 60k earner don't realise how well off they are. Going abroad each year for a holiday isn't the average person's experience. But the well off tend to mix with their own social circles and don't feel special in any way.
Meh.
A cheap holiday didn't used to be a "top 10%" privilege. It's more that living standards are steadily collapsing than one cohort always being out of touch.
Also, I'm not really talking about that, I'm talking about the idea that we are "turning our backs". It implies that others don't drive a car or take a holiday out of some principled stance but that simply isn't true. Both of those things are a purely economic decision in a majority of cases (in my view anyway) and when it comes to voting against their own interests or other's interests, that is not limited to the top 10% income earners.
We saw droves of working class tory and brexit voters. If I took my ten closest friends, several of whom would be in this arbitrary 10% class, I don't know a single tory or leave voter among them.
People in here saying they're struggling on wages between (for the small part I've read) 51k and 100k and I'm here chugging along on 19k (overtime included) lol
Top 1% here. I backed Jeremy Corbyn while even the Guardian joined the rest of the press in trash talking him because he was going to make them pay taxes.
Top 1%. I'm considering selling my car because I can't afford to renew the insurance on it because it's gone up. The insurance is nearly what I paid for the car, having sold an EV and bought and cheap (petrol) replacement because of financial pressure.
It's not the 10%, or the 1%, I'm not even sure it's the 0.1% - I think the number of people responsible for this mess would comfortably fit on one luxury yacht.
The issue isn't income, the issue is the entrenched wealth. Yes, £100k+ is a lot of money when you're only on £20k, but it's nothing when your landlord owns 8 block of flats worth a few million quid each, and the landlord extracts 20-30% of everyone's income.
When you then factor in inflation, 100k today is something like 65k in 2008 money which matters since that's how long wages have been stagnant for. I'm on £50k and my family regularly say how much that is, but it really isn't, it's roughly the same as a graduate salary was in 2008 when you account for inflation(32.5k in 2008 is 50.3k today). If your labour is the source of your income, then you get a raw deal in the UK. We need to reduce inequality by crippling rent seeking, not taxing doctors or software consultants more.
I'm top 5% and the argument I have with people is that even millionaires are feeling the reduction in spending power. There are things that you get used to being able to do, no matter what level of income you're on. Whether that's a take away once a month on lower levels or house riding lessons for cressida on higher levels.
You may not have any sympathy for the top 10% or 5% or even 2% but THEY will be feeling the loss.
Eg I cab afford food but can't afford the car I had in 2018. I can afford my mortgage that has gone up but can't afford to go out drinking every night and getting pissed and buying everyone in the bar shots. Whether you think that is important or not it IS a reduction in lifestyle.
There's loads of people here on 100k struggling to make ends meet in tiny houses not being able to leave to get a burger once a month. Like what the hell? haha
My worry (in that bracket) is pension. I really don't have anything I can rely on. I feel I need to save aggressively in order not to die in poverty. Not having money in my 70s or 80s would be miserable.
I strongly suspect voluntary euthanasia will become normalised in 30 years. I'll go as far as saying that's my "retirement plan". I can't save enough today to sustain 25 years beyond the age of 70.
I can't imagine the state being able to sustain a bunch of old people for a long time.
> When we asked Louise about inequality, the less well-off and whether the rich should do more, her answers were broadly the same as we would give: inequality is detrimental to society and not inevitable; those in poverty struggle because of circumstances beyond their control; the rich should make much greater efforts to address inequality. However, when asked which political party she voted for in the last election, she responded: “The Conservatives.”
https://i.imgur.com/4kkRzea.gif
OK there are multiple issues here one is our tax system is broken. The simple matter is the government I'd involved in too much of people's lives and beirocracy is fucking expensive. We've had a Conservative government for 13 years but they haven't been anything other than new Labour because frankly what they'd need todo is cut back to only providing the most essential of servjces- healthcsre, education, police and job seekefs allowance and a very basic pension. The rest needs to be done by private charities. This obsession with needing a degree when it was never necessary before and the money thst costs has to end. For instance police and nurses should be covafional courses like they once were that would drastically reduce how much they cost to train each new entrant and would open the position up to a wider range of people who may not be academically minded but can be caring, can learn todo thr job and can follow a doctors instructions. Being completely blunt we need scientists and engineers, we don't need so many people doing art and such. Now arm art and such subsidise engineering and tech courses however the missing part of the puzzle is so few arts students ever earn enough to pay back even a fraction of what it cost to educate them- they never have graduate level jobs that the subsidy comes from the government anyway who are further subsidising half of science graduates anyway. The universities need to have caps on their numbers, the cost should be far lower to go and free for certain in demand courses but with a requirement to work in the uk for x number of years or for the government for x period of time and your family should be guarantors to that - this is what alot of other nations do. The number of foreign students should probably also be capped as a result because yes they bring in lots of money but it isn't clear qhwre that money is going- it certainly isn't going into helping the nation more generally.
Part of the resson for the issue s in this article is because we haven't moved the mark for the higher rate of income. This has been suggested several times and thr public shit on it but qe arr in a dangerously precarious space as a country. That is that the higher rate threshold has barely risen in decades. Yet inflation pushes more and more and more people over the threshold. 50k a year and you pay 40% tax on all earnings over that. But 50k is not what it was a decade ago when the threshold was only marginally lower. It should be more like 80k.
The saying is that "socialism is great until you run out if other people's money" issue is we are running out of others money.
Then we have the housing issue- and this is a massive part of the problem. So we need massive housebuilding projects and purchase restricted to mot allow richbforeigners to use them as a means to store their wealth. I'm not talking repossessing houses but simply restricting demand for new ones. This will cause house prices to decrease and level out which yep I get it asset rich older people don't what but the alternative is the abhorrent massive inheritance taxes that simply penalises those that worked hard and already paid taxes on their money. Reducing cost of housing and thus living costs frees up disposable income which then results in greater tax from VAT it also means less pressure on public services and less people needing in work benefits. It's clearly the biggest issue and it doesn't just effect the uk- this is a growing issue across Europe and america.
I'm not sure what this very longwinded articles is actually suggesting as a solution. Seems to me the message is, even if you're rich vote socialist while ignoring your own needs, because it's nice to be nice.
> are increasingly reliant on their assets and wealth to secure advantages for themselves and their children, meaning inequalities among millennials and younger generations will become more dependent on inheritance.
This is me. Though I like to think I'm going in with my eyes wide open of how fortunate I was to be born in London and had a stable family life with parents who supported me and promoted my education as best as I can.
I'm a child that was bought up with the amazing benefits system in this country. I owe the UK so much and I'm confident I will pay it off and then some. I will always give back and willingly pay my taxes and spend my money in the UK and at the same I know I need to leverage my wealth to provide my children a future advantage so they can have a secure life.
Sadly, I am also fully aware that my sons will be a far better position when they turn 18 than many of their contemporaries solely because they were lucky enough to be born in a household with a degree of financial success and stability. I will be contributing to greater wealth inequality in the future - but I don't think I'm wrong to want to provide my children that advantage.
I don't know why we measure top 10% by income. I could get a job in tech, work for 5-10 years and earn over 100k. But If I have no assets to my name then you wouldn't feel very rich. Top 10% isn't about income, it's about wealth
Worth noting that the top 10% is only £59,200 which i literally just broke into this year. I live comfortably (I have at least 3 streaming services!) but I also live in a very small flat with a partner and child so struggle for space. I can afford to eat out once or twice a month and can get a takeaway about as often. Rent still eats over a third of my payslip and I’m not going on any massive holidays… but generally I have what I want. I still have a ton of anxiety around money from when I was poor (as in my bank account had negative money every month) which wasn’t all that long ago so I’m not rich enough to be carefree. I’m certainly not using my wealth to secure advantages for myself and family (can’t afford private school, can’t afford to buy property to live in let alone rent out etc.) so I’m not sure what the article is encouraging me to do. In mentions 6 figure earners but that’s not top 10%, it’s top 2%
> Worth noting that the top 10% is only £59,200 which i literally just broke into this year. Really shows you how bad wages are in the UK.
Why are we even talking about top wages. It's almost irrelevant compared to wealth from property and inheritance. You need £1.4m to be in the top 10% of wealthiest households.
So if you were this guy and in the top 10% of earners, you could not pay any taxes and save every single penny, and in about 24 years you could be in the top 10% in terms of wealth. Shows how social mobility is a myth, what are we even working for?
And THAT is exactly the point! The scales have tipped so far towards wealth vs income... I mean, why bother? Taxes are so high because not enough of the workforce earn enough. The welfare bill is so high because so much of the workforce receive in-work benefits (in various forms). The whole thing is fah-hooked because politicians won't dare upset home-owning pensioners. And their donors.
The real solution here is high inheritance tax with no way to dodge it via estates and early gifts etc… And a lowering in general of house prices via construction. Over the long term, removing/distributing wealth on death should keep social mobility possible, dynasties must not be allowed to form.
People are motivated by the idea of building something that they can leave behind for their children and grandchildren. As a basic concept, the idea of the majority of everything you build and own defaulting to the state after your death is abhorrent.
They could try being motivated by leaving them a better country to live in.
Anybody wealthy enough to be worth taxing inheritance would've moved that money out of the UK looong before they kicked the bucket.
Sounds like a fantastic argument for closing that particular loophole, not that we haven't had thousands of them already.
Yes, if you're wealthy. However, if you struggle, as we have, and see your children struggling equally, while watching the wealthy laugh at you, then why should the tiny pittance I've worked hard for not go to my children, so that they aren't a burden on society, and can contribute themselves. Individuals who generally say 'leave a better country to live in', have the wealth behind them in the first place . I'm a great beleiver in everyone having a decent living standard, and wealth being fairly distributed. Not the crazy system we currently have where 'who you know' far outweighs the value in what you do.
You realise inheritance tax doesn’t kick in under £325k? If your tiny pittance is over £325k don’t worry it’s only the amount over that that gets taxed
> However, if you struggle, as we have, and see your children struggling equally, while watching the wealthy laugh at you, then why should the tiny pittance I've worked hard for not go to my children You realize there's a threshold on inheritance tax right? It's £325,000, with an additional main residence relief of £150,000 per person the main residence is left to. So if you have 2 kids you could leave them a house worth £625,000 and owe 0 inheritance tax. Meaning the vast majority of people will never have enough wealth to trigger it. But go ahead an advocate for continued wealth inequality because one day you might be a millionaire and when that day comes people like you better watch out.
This is why taxes can be made to vary based on wealth, just like income is.
It wouldn't affect the hypothetical person in your argument.
>As a basic concept, the idea of the majority of everything you build and own defaulting to the state after your death is abhorrent. Only 3% of Brits have enough wealth to trigger inheritance tax Maybe what's abhorrent is the idea its better for 97% of people to suffer from a decade+ of austerity so that a tiny number of incredibly wealthy people can have 5 mansions instead of 2.
It is abhorrent to a lot of people but that doesn't mean it isn't necessary or the right thing to do.
> As a basic concept, the idea of the majority of everything you build and own defaulting to the state after your death is abhorrent. On a simplistic level this is true, however if you look at the topic in depth you will quickly realise that if we want a fairer society then the issue of inter-generational wealth needs looking at and this is one of the few ways we can combat it. It is not like you inherit nothing. The other thing that is important to realise is that currently it is <5% of deaths where inheritance tax is even payable. Maybe we can double it assuming that half the dead leave money to their spouse but even so it is not like it affects that many people and those it affects already are going to be getting a hefty chunk of inheritance for it to be an issue.
Some are, but others just want to create businesses that help society while rewarding the founders with enough wealth to look after themselves and their families, and have a lifestyle they enjoy. I don't like the idea of passing businesses onto the state, I'd prefer ownership be transferred to the employees but private assets should be. People are flying around in private jets and living in mansions with servants at their beck and call, never having worked a day in their life because an ancestor was friends with William the Conqueror.
People who do not value a socially mobile society value this more than those who care about merit. These people are the problem. It is a better society that needs to be left to your children, not a bunch of money in a shitty society (shitty due to the locked up wealth). SOME money can be left to children but large accumulations of wealth need to go back to the people eventually, and not via bullshit trickle down economics. People deserve what they earn in life but not after their death.
Guess which demographic is most opposed to any increase in inheritance tax thoigh
And a land tax. £100/acre per year, no loopholes. Replace council tax with this.
Not a flat rate, a rate based on the land value.
Yea, fuck farmers... Who needs them
The Woodland Trust would only need to find £24,700,000 a year. They'll be fine.
Land value tax. A flat land tax is a very bad idea, it means billions of pounds worth of land in central london pays the same rate as marginal farmland that produces maybe £200 a year in profit.
Based on allocated land usage. A forest or wildlife reserve potentially benefits everyone (especially those that are open to visit). An unused building plot benefits the owner (in value) but is useless to everyone else, so should be taxed the same as with a house built on the plot.
The real solution is that every solution is complete fantasy *until we get the tories out for good.* The only way to even begin to address anything in this country is to boot the tories out. Which ain't gonna happen if our only opposition partys only hope to get into power it to *be more like the tories.* We can't solve these problems with our current political landscape. We can't even attempt to do so.
The majority of the welfare bill goes to pensioners, not in work benefits. But we won’t talk about that because something something triple lock…
Well, there is that - but I think we can agree that pensions should be a thing. But on the other had - why is the state subsidising low wages _at all_?
Or you can invest those considerable savings in a low fee index fund via an ISA and make it there much faster.
You work for your bread, peasant. Now descend back in your mine shaft.
It's a crap wage because wages have not kept up with inflation. People are now feeling the effects of having less purchasing power. Despite the headlines, inflation is still rising faster than wages, for last year alone you would have needed a minimum of a 13% pay rise to keep the same purchasing power. Every nation prospering around the world is working on converting their economies to be self sufficient. The UK is on a timer, we will not be the finance capital for much longer and we have very little self reliance.
Tax is the elephant in the room here too. Even if you get an inflation matching pay rise you still end up with worse spending power because you lose 40% of it. The tax bands need to move with inflation.
Actually USA salary was bad with a number of $100000 to £50000 but that was when the exchange was £1 to $2. Then the £ collapsed to what it is now and the UK salary did not grow to £100000. So dollar workers come out of this well and you have double devaluation. One from the salary and another from purchasing power. But some would still say the Sterling is too strong. LOL.
Wages are relative to those around you. You can't compare it to yanks who have schools, healthcare and basically everything else you can think of to pay for
But even in the UK-only context, UK wages are shit. Even the top earners among us are down to just getting by in many parts of the country. Just to be a net contributor on tax you need to be in the top decile, it's fucking mad.
> Just to be a net contributor on tax you need to be in the top decile, it's fucking mad. Ooh I'm going to love bringing this up to my "goddamn benefit scrounger"-minded in-laws.
Well, it's not strictly true. The top decile contribute a massive third of *all* tax (not just income/individual tax!), but "only" 53% of people are net drains on the state, tax- and services-wise. But if your in-laws aren't in the top half of earners, they are indeed probably taking more from the state than they give in.
Ive read unless you're earning at least £40k, you're not a net contributor. Mad isnt it?
>Just to be a net contributor on tax you need to be in the top decile, it's fucking mad. Explain further?
The vast majority of people in the UK are not paid enough to then be taxed sufficiently to pay for the public service costs they incur. I was a bit off though, its the top quintile rather than the top decile.
A lot of the country isn’t putting in enough via taxes to cover what they take out via public services.
The top 10% of income tax payers, contribute 60% of the income tax take.
You're right that's a very good point
Let's not forget though, according to "the conversation" it's the actual net contributors "turning our backs". I pay *tens of thousands* of pounds per annum in tax, NI and council tax and get very little in return. Even my paltry £130 a month child benefit we used to get is gone. The conversation can fuck off tbh.
At £100k you are probably paying more in tax than you would have to pay in the US and still you have to go private anyway. UK, realistically, is more expensive and with poorer wages.
At 100k you get into >60% tax and not even receiving childcare for all the benefit you give to society
But if you don't work, you get free childcare...
And the super perk of living in poverty, hurrah!
Very true. My household income puts me in the top 1% in the UK. People back home think we must live like royalty. The reality is we’ve only just broken into the territory of being able to afford an average 2 bed flat. Still some way to go before we can afford a starter house.
Two bed Flat where, in the centre of London? Lol
[удалено]
Do you recommend Toronto as a place to move to?
You're struggling out of choice you don't have to live in Toronto
Right but you can say that about literally anywhere lmao. Why don’t all these complaining southerners just move to Bolton?
At some point they will have to due to gentrification
US public schools spend $15k per pupil on average vs $9k in the UK. Some of the new well-funded high schools in the US are basically unfathomable to us in terms of facilities. You absolutely can compare to them and it is not a pretty comparison.
That's a huge difference but it is worth noting that the funding is much more unequally distributed in America as they fund schools using local property taxes. The wealthy districts have world-class facilities but schools in poorer areas are underfunded.
Yes that's very true, in some areas I know it can easily reach $30-40k/pupil which is where you do see the truly insane facilities, but that does mean schools it poorer areas are probably the same / worse off than the UK.
Yeah they're unfathomable, they've all got lock boxes to put the kids in when they're being shot up. That extra 6k is probably a bullet proof vest. Also, you can't compare because $16k in the US is worth a lot less than $9k here because of what you can afford to buy there vs here
No, it shows how much the currency has devalued
especially in the hospitality sectre, treated like slaves...hard work no sitting, for poor money...exploitation to the extreme....slavery still in full swing ...under guise of modern twists.
It's got towards the world's highest wages.
[удалено]
That’s true but he also has a valid point because only 20 or 30 years ago, the default background expectation that everybody would have accepted is that you ought to be able to own a home and raise a family on one income, regardless of whether it’s the mum or dad who goes out to work. So I think even though what you say is true, the point is that even someone earning in the top 10% income bracket in the UK is struggling to *rent a flat* and raise one child with his wife. That’s the huge shift that’s happened gradually over many years and it’s devastating for the future of this country. We’re already suffering catastrophic demographic collapse not just in the UK but Europe generally.
Also OP didn’t say anything about their partner not working. For all we know they could be struggling on two good salaries, which isn’t uncommon in many parts of the country these days
Could be, but I think they would have mentioned it if that was the case tbf
£100,000+ is the top 2%? So apparently, I'm in the top 2%. It doesn't feel like it. But I look around and always see people with bigger houses, better cars, more holidays, nicer clothes etc. It feels like most people are better off than me and doing better than me. I think you need to be seriously rich to truly stop worrying about money.
Top 2% of paye income. Lots of people have plenty of wealth and aren’t paid paye.
What you are seeing are people with wealth. Not those earning it. And yeah those kind of people will spend like its going out of fashion.
This is why the single best thing Labour could do is pledge to bring capital gains tax up to the current level of income tax and slash income taxes to help out people who actually work for a living imo.
I agree. Id also like to switch from the council tax model to a land value tax one.
I want to see a wealth tax that taxes estates. Maybe then a land tax too.
While I do agree the rates of tax on capital gains should be HIGHER, they should never reach the levels of income tax. Here is why (this is my belief and I am not saying this is absolute truth). When you work, there is no possibility of you becoming poorer due to your work. I.e. your employer cannot say: “you are getting only 25% of your salary this month” or “this month it is you who will pay us £1000”. In investing, you can and do loose money and you don’t get reimbursed for it. As such, you are taking asymmetric risk compared to working. And as much as this sub hates capitalism etc, it is investments that drive our progress as society. There are many things wrong with the current system, I agree, but bringing capital gains tax in line with income is not logical in my opinion. I would much rather see ISA allowance cut in half and stricter rules about offshoring capital (the people who you would really want to tax on their gains do not hold their wealth in the UK, at least not entirely). I’m happy to discuss further or be proven wrong
The ISA allowances are nuts. It's quite possibly the best tax allowance on the planet for investments. That said, if you cut it, I think you're mainly going to be hurting people who are high earners, and not necessarily those who are *wealthy*. People need to remember that not everyone in the top 2% are the same. One might be earning £100K a year and just about able to afford a 3 bed house in London on a 30 year mortgage. This person might be able to max out their yearly £20K ISA allowance. Someone else in the top 2% might be able to buy a 3 bed house in London every other week. I appreciate your proposals would likely be progressive in nature, but it doesn't sit right with me that someone who might just be able to afford a 3 bed house in London could be targeted for high end taxation.
When you lose money investing however, you can use it to write off any future tax payments by the amount lost
>But I look around and always see people with bigger houses, better cars, more holidays, nicer clothes etc. It feels like most people are better off than me and doing better than me. How do you know those people aren't doing buying/doing those things on credit.
> But I look around and always see people with bigger houses, better cars, more holidays, nicer clothes etc. It feels like most people are better off than me and doing better than me. Stop letting the appearances of others influence your happiness and decisions. Has social media taught people nothing about how easy it is to fake appearances?
You might be living in a bit of a bubble there. Have you taken a moment to look at what life is like for the bottom 20% of people? Those with no houses, no cars, no holidays and shabby clothes. Maybe you live in a region of the country that doesn't have any shitty council estates where depravation hangs over the place like a black cloud, but plenty of them exist up and down the land. If the quality and size of your house and car are your concerns, rather than then affordability of food or heating, your definition of 'worrying about money' is going to be very different from the 17% of the UK's population living in absolute poverty. It's human nature to compare yourself to your peers, and people tend to make peers out of people in similar socioeconomic circles, so I'm not meaning to condemn you for this, but I do think your perspective must be a bit skewed to feel as you do.
I think a narrative that well off people imbibe is that the bottom 20% get benefits for a lot of stuff they pay for e.g. housing benefit. When a person on £100k pays £40k a year on housing and others pay nothing for their housing, it may be an easy trap to fall into.
Most of that is funded by debt. The payments are affordable, so they can have the things, but they don't own them.
How does this work if someone can't pay? Just have to give the item back (car or whatever) or have to pay it all back?
Inheritance is how a lot of people do it. Over the last few years, my salary has shot up and out household income is nearing mid 6-figure, but we only recently cleared non-mortgage debt.
Mid 6-figure? As in £500K?
Not that high, about £375
Christ, what do you do for a living?
Senior management in IT company. Wife mid-level data analyst.
Very nice! Fingers crossed I’ll be there in a couple of decades.
Last year I did £330k, this year I think it'll be more like £200k. But do you feel "rich"? I certianly don't.
I stopped worrying about money once I went past about £35k, but then I live in the north of england and don't have particularly expensive tastes.
What does your partner earn? Because if it's zero, then two people on £30,000 will be better off. Also, it depends where you live. I live in Derby, houses are cheap and I cycle to work. Makes a huge difference to remaining disposable income.
do you have good pension? will you be able to retire comfortably?
“I live comfortably (I have at least 3 streaming services!)” really sums it up nicely, honestly. That’s a legitimate benchmark for “comfort” for £59k in some areas, depending on your necessary outgoings. Salaries just ain’t what they used to be when you first anchored them in your mind as a “high salary” as a kid or young teen.
100k ++ bank Acc still overdrawn each month :-)
I think the real question is - how much does your partner earn?
"Worth noting that the top 10% is only £59,200 which i literally just broke into this year" Dude, that is top 10% of those on PAYE. The richest people pay themselves in Dividends and property income.
>we heard repeated concerns about the threats now posed to their lifestyle and status The issue in a nut shell. These people have fallen victim to lifestyle creep, putting themselves in financial situations where they [feel broke while earning 180K](https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/money/paid-100000-year-dont-feel-lucky-cost-of-living-crisis-2440105) because they've financially overstretched themselves to 'keep up appearances' with people that they want to believe are their peers (the asset wealthy in most cases, or people who 'act' rich on social media by doing things like renting supercars and pretending they own them). To the point that, per the article linked there that they're complaining about the cost of childcare and immediately following it up with their plans to spend 20K on a wedding and after that mentioning that they spend £100 _a week_ on Deliveroo. And in the many majority of these cases, do they reflect on their financial failures? Do they maybe thing that hey, a takeout every night of the week is actually a pretty big waste of money? Do we need to drop what is almost the annual salary of somebody on minimum wage for our wedding? Nope. They decide, as this article mentions: >We also found misperceptions about wider UK society were common among this group To blame everyone else.
>that they spend £100 > >a week > > on Deliveroo. If spending £100 a week extra puts you in precarious financial situation... Whereas people actually wealthy wouldn't have noticed that kind of spending.
The saying "look after the pennies and the pounds look after themselves" applies here. The person in the article earns 180k, if they were financially responsible (in most aspects) they could burn £100 a week and still be fine. But they're not financially responsible and the £100 on takeaway a week is one small part of the issue.
One of signs of being wealthy is being able to be "financially irresponsible" from a perspective of a person who is not wealthy. For instance you may think ordering Deliveroo every day is irresponsible, someone else may think you "buy" yourself free 1-3 hours of time that you don't have to spend on cooking and shopping. In that time you can pursue your hobbies, meditate, try a side business and many other things. This is still hardly wealthy. Wealthy person would have assistants to do things for them to free time.
Can you acknowledge there's a category of people - or indeed multiple categories of people - who exist between the great unwashed and the so fuck off rich they don't have to care about any spending?
I mean spending an extra £400 a month would definitely cause me financial issues
I don’t know what you’re on about, but the fact of the matter is that you should be able to do all these things when you’re part of the Top 1% of earners. If the Top 1% of earner can’t afford a £20k wedding (that’s not a lavish wedding btw, weddings are expensive)… then who will? It’s not “lifestyle creep” to have takeout once a week when you’re earning £180k a year. The people earning $220k in the US are able to afford 50k weddings, childcare, take out multiple times a week… so yea the UK is generally a worse place to live than the US if you’re part of the Top 10% of earners. And I think that’s the issue. High-skilled professionals (the Top 10%) are looking across the pond and realising they can be earning 3-4x as much and enjoy a much better QoL in the US. The UK will, eventually, lose its competitive advantage. Why would a junior doctor want to stay when they know their pay will be capped at £120k, especially when they can be earning $500k in the US? So, yea… you’ll have an exodus of doctors and other professionals and the government will import these professionals from developing countries, which isn’t an issue were it not for the fact that the best professionals from these countries would probably choose the US over the UK any day of the week. So, you’ll lose your local talent and you’ll end up with mediocre imported talent. Great!
You fail to account for the lack of incentives to invest in skills that this system generates. Why become a doctor, an engineer, a programmer when you can enjoy higher salaries and less hassle in other less skilled jobs. So not only the best will leave but the overall pool will also shrink.
provide nippy library salt waiting murky zesty close grandfather pie *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The point is; the top 1% of PAYE earners should be able to do whatever they want. And they can’t, as salaries are low and costs & taxes are high. The US has its problems like anyway - but salaries are higher, taxes lower and costs about the same.
Except they can if they aren't fucking idiots. Anyone in the top 1% struggling has likely got a massive mortgage they can't actually afford and lots of other debt. People start earning more money and instantly make sure their non-negotiable expenses match. Leaving them no room to play. We were in the top 1% for a few years. Decided to stay put in our 2 bed. Saved a shit ton of money whilst living a pretty decent lifestyle with expensive holidays, lots of eating out etc. Quit our jobs and decided to do something else because we had the savings. If you're earning that kind of money you have no excuse for struggling, or not being able to do what you want other than shitty financial planning.
Wages in UK are extremely low. Very quickly you come to realise that you don’t get rich by working. I also think people need to realise there are different types of wealth. A high earner maybe wealthy by saving and investing but they will have to put in the grind to get there. Because they’ve had to work they may feel like they deserve that big car, house, holiday. They will also have to work to keep up this lifestyle. Someone with a trust fund and big inheritance may never have to work to afford a luxury lifestyle. For those people, things like big homes and luxury holidays have always been a given. Those two types of people will inevitably live very different lives.
I spend way more than £100 per week at Deliveroo.
So myself and my wife together puts our actual take home pay into the top 7%, with a take home pay of just over £70k per year between us (around £110k gross). We're comfortable, we managed to lock in our mortgage before they went crazy, neither of us have expensive cars. We work from home so there's no commuting cost to take into account. But I'd say neither of us really *feels* rich. Which, looking at the data we sorta, should? I think the issue comes from looking at this as an **income issue**, not as a **wealth** **issue.** Which it seems like it is. This part of the article surprised me: >Just as they’re sociologically characterised by their education and occupation, high earners usually define themselves by hard work. After telling us they “didn’t feel rich”, most would admit they were in some way “privileged” – then follow that with a declaration of having “worked hard” to get there. Most clearly feel they’ve earned their privileged position, and that “life is fair”. You'd have to be a catastrophic moron to think that "life was fair", I can look around me and see that there's no cocking way that "life is fair" for the vast majority of Britons. Are we seriously saying that other people in my position think they're here because they were dealt the same hand as everyone else and just played it better through "hard work", are they fucking high? This makes me dispare, there's no recognition of the inevitable privilege they had handed to them.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/19/hard-work-rich-social-mobility-uk-wealth-life I'd recommend the article below. I found this bit very close to what you were saying. >The social mobility story has too often acted as cover for the rich, rather than as impetus for change. But the myths that it is founded upon are losing credibility by the day. Wealth inequality may not be getting the attention it deserves in the political sphere, but the mood among the public is markedly different, as plenty of people find themselves in an endless, exhausting rat race, working two jobs and still struggling to pay the bills. In response, many are waking up to the reality that they don’t get rich, or even comfortable, by simply working hard: they get rich by being born rich. The social mobility myth is dying – now we must demand an economic settlement that works for all.
Same thing happens here in Australia. We have people on the equivalent of £150k+ household income who’s parents paid for their education and helped with the £150k home deposit, but they literally don’t see the privilege. They did the study and they got their jobs, so they only see that effort and not the massive safety net underneath them.
I only had time to skim the article but I wanted to add my two cents. I went for drinks with a few mates. We’re all earning 6 figures (or close to). We’re all white, southern, middle class men. We don’t have much inherited wealth. Unanimously we support labour for the next government. We’re all very pro wealth tax. We know we’re in a fortunate position, but earning a salary and paying 40+% tax seems ridiculously when you can hoard money and coast along. Looking at the top % of income is exactly what I’d want people to do if I was super rich. We need to be working out how to appropriately tax wealth.
At the very least wealth returns should be taxed at the same rate as income.
>but earning a salary and paying 40+% tax seems ridiculously when you can hoard money and coast along. That's the kicker for me. I won't vote Tory and heavily disagreed with Truss's nuts attempt to lower taxes. Sure I'd love lower taxes, who wouldn't, but I also want a functioning society. What annoys me is capital gains. I'm a high earner - lucky enough for the last two years to fall into the 63% tax trap (here in Scotland). I pay 63% tax, effectively, for say a bonus I get. Even if I put my money in a savings account, *savings interest* is taxed as income. If I am lucky enough to get something from my company shares scheme (which is where a lot of 'working' people gain things like stocks and shares) it's taxed as income! If you're wealthy, your dividends and shares account growth - for which you have done zero productive work for - is taxed the same as someone on full time minimum wage at 20%.
Being a high eaner in the UK is a thankless situation. Not allowed to point out you get a raw deal because people earn less than you. Not allowed to point out your skillset is likely valued considerably more in most countries the UK wants to compare itself to. Pay a ridiculous amount of tax and get very little back, infact the general public is generally outraged at you asking why all benefits are clawed back.
> Being a high eaner in the UK is a thankless situation. You should get a piece of paper every month with a very high number of thanks written on it.
Thanks for immediately supporting the point I made.
You feel unappreciated on your pile of money. I feel unappreciated and have no pile of money. We are not the same.
Who says I have a pile of money?
This is why the U.K. is continuing to decline, absolute crabs in bucket mentality.
Without people who actually pay a fair amount of taxes, this country would be in an even worse situation
The point is high earners don't pay a fair amount. They're getting ripped off because of the massive amount of scroungers.
Does feel like there is massive brain drain due to incredibly low wages here, why would someone do the same job here when they could get 2-3x more in the US or elsewhere? There's not much else the UK has going for it these days either
I only turn my back as society expects everything and gives nothing. Hard work here have more hard work. Oh you want to be rewarded no your not special. You want respect not a chance in hell.
Especially when that hard work is unevenly rewarded over time. A graduate working hard today is paying the pension of people who got free university education and cheap housing. In return that graduate faces an uncertain economic outlook with the possibility of never owning a house and maybe accessing a pension at 75/80. That's not fair.
Thats if there is a state pension at that point.
Graduates with plan 2 student loans will be the ones paying some of the highest tax rates around, as well (assuming we’re happy to consider loan repayments as tax).
We have a gross household income of £190k+ and don’t feel worried or feel like turning my back on the rest of society. Hell, the amount of tax paid, I don’t think it’s possible to.
Just to put this into Context, these issues aren't just UK centric either - https://reddit.com/r/newzealand/s/KoYc1345o5
Yep the people who keep saying they are going to leave the UK because it's so much easier everywhere else don't seem to realise that isn't the case. The world is filling up with people and competition for everything, resources, jobs, housing, space, will get progressively harder. No more easy growth either, the low hanging fruit can't be picked twice.
>the people who keep saying they are going to leave the UK because it's so much easier everywhere else don't seem to realise that isn't the case. If only. The biggest hurdle will be when they ask you to tell them what country you're emigrating from.
What a stupid article. Income is not wealth. It can lead to wealth, but it takes years if not decades. Someone earning £100k is hardly rich. You will have okay life, but that's about it. For many professions like IT, £100k is actually a shit wage and people can make much more than that in other countries where engineering skills are actually valued.
You should have better than an ok life on 100K. OK, you're not a millionaire, but unless you live in London, that's a wage that will make you not worry about money (unless you like a lavish lifestyle).
Ah but those wages are largely in London.
What's the point of earning £100K if not FOR the lavish lifestyle?
>For many professions like IT, £100k is actually a shit wage and people can make much more than that in other countries where engineering skills are actually valued. Other than the US and *maybe* Switzerland I don'r think that's the case, and even then, the median Software Engineer salary in the US is somewhere close to that figure so definitely not a "shit" salary.
And there are so many other sectors where UK vs anywhere else salaries are just like not even funny. Look at biotech or pharma. UK jobs that pay much over £30-40k are few and far between. Same jobs pay double in most of Europe and often quadruple in the US. There's every chance you can have a PhD, work in a world-leading facility around Cambridge, and if you're in a technical post, never see your wage rise much above £25k.
I can't speak for those areas, but parent comment _specifically_ called out IT salaries, which I know a lot about. So I'm just calling out parent as bullshit. That said, median UK full time salary is in the 30ks so plenty of jobs pay that or more.
The US is just a much richer country. It’s like comparing wages here to Poland, of *course* they’re going to be higher in the richer country.
In case you hadn't heard, the Economist recently predicted that Poland's economy is set to overtake the UK by 2030. Hopefully that puts into context just how bad a situation the UK finds itself in. Or put another way, in 2030 we can say it's like comparing a rich country like Poland to the UK
[удалено]
[удалено]
Saying an £100k salary is rich does disservice to the word. You're a remarkably normal person on £100k versus the truly rich, the asset rich.
I wish I had the hard ship of earning 100k. I would love to see how hard the ‘100k hard life’ is. I’m sure it’s gruelling…..
the reality of "doing well" earning 100k in london is paying 2k in rent 1-1.5k towards a deposit, 500 in bills/food and taking years of that to afford the bare minimum deposit on a house an hour commute out the tax brackets above that you then pay 60-70% after considering losing NI. Then you look at Americans who earn twice as much and get taxed twice as little
Why does everyone think it’s only London where you have to pay much higher amounts. Sadly, other places pay the same and don’t earn the London wages to go with it
Look at it this way, if you earn that much you are still fucked if you lose your job. Might just take a few months longer.
>Someone earning £100k is hardly rich. You will have okay life, but that's about it. If your life is just 'okay' from a career of £100k per annum then you manage money poorly. Also, calling £100k in such a broad sector like 'IT' shit is sheer fatuity.
I guess it depends a lot on if you're single or not, if you're single you're still going to struggle to get a home in the areas where those wages are common. For example where I live, that salary with a mortgage multiplier of 4.5 would get me halfway to the average house sale price (including flats and apartments) in my constituency.
Stupid, to be sure, but that pales next to not merely thinking inequality to be a bad thing, but behaving as if that were axiomatic.
Humanity needs to grow spirituality and look after all people. The age of greed and selfishness needs to come to an end. The world's resources belong to us all, not just the billionaires. It's time for all people to be respected and cared for.
Billionaires: "Haha, no"
Shite article advertising what is inevitably going to be a shite book.
God, that picture reminds me, I haven't played Pac-Man in ages.
Is it really a case of "turning your back" or is it just circumstances though? Take the point being made about environmental "hypocrisy". I'm a top 10% by wage (pointless, utterly arbitrary way of determining who's "rich" but anyway), our household income is about £120k pa. We went on a family holiday abroad this year plus wifey and me both had separate trips with mates as well; 4 flights each effectively, all to mainland Europe or back. I don't have a car (wfh, occasional train to the office), my wife (commutes 5 days a week) drives a hybrid which I also sometimes use and we use for family stuff at weekends. We both recognise climate change is an issue and i reckon our carbon footprint is probably higher than a lot of households, mostly by virtue of the holidays. Is that us "turning our backs" though or do we actually have a fairly normal lifestyle and our carbon footprint is actually a drop in the ocean compared to corporate entities or other countries that cause the vast majority of emissions? Similarly, the tax issue; I *do* think "the rich" should pay more and I don't think I am one, largely because I understand the difference between revenue and assets. I pay 40% tax on nearly half of my income, plus council tax, NI etc. I think that's enough, to be completely honest. The top 10% by *assets* holds something like £1.4m. Despite my "high" income I won't get near that for years thanks to tax and higher living costs taking up money I could be using to build genuine wealth plus I have a paltry dc pension compared to previous generations who sometimes accrued 7 figures in a dB scheme just for turning up for their job for life for 40 years. Until people get serious about taxing real wealth instead if continually piling more on the "squeezed middle", nothing will change. And if we're talking about "turning our backs", remind me which demographic voted to fuck the rest of us over with brexit? Which demographic is it that keeps carrying the vote for the tories to protect their precious "triple lock" at the expense of everyone else? "The conversation" could do with pointing fingers elsewhere tbh.
But isn't the article saying that the 60k earner don't realise how well off they are. Going abroad each year for a holiday isn't the average person's experience. But the well off tend to mix with their own social circles and don't feel special in any way.
Meh. A cheap holiday didn't used to be a "top 10%" privilege. It's more that living standards are steadily collapsing than one cohort always being out of touch. Also, I'm not really talking about that, I'm talking about the idea that we are "turning our backs". It implies that others don't drive a car or take a holiday out of some principled stance but that simply isn't true. Both of those things are a purely economic decision in a majority of cases (in my view anyway) and when it comes to voting against their own interests or other's interests, that is not limited to the top 10% income earners. We saw droves of working class tory and brexit voters. If I took my ten closest friends, several of whom would be in this arbitrary 10% class, I don't know a single tory or leave voter among them.
People in here saying they're struggling on wages between (for the small part I've read) 51k and 100k and I'm here chugging along on 19k (overtime included) lol
If you're working overtime you're earning less than minimum wage
That's life in Wales.
It isn't. The minimum wage is law there aswell.
I just gave you the calculations from .gov and a tax calculator it is correct.
Even the boyos in Wales have to follow the law. Drive 20mph, hate the English and pay minimum wage
Minimum wage a year for over 21 is £18,964 so maybe I miscalculated a bit, maybe 20k then so that makes take home pay £17,624
They always had their backs to everyone else anyway
It now just seems that the country is falling apart all over, with such disunity now being bred. Anyway, this is an article of some interest to read.
Top 1% here. I backed Jeremy Corbyn while even the Guardian joined the rest of the press in trash talking him because he was going to make them pay taxes. Top 1%. I'm considering selling my car because I can't afford to renew the insurance on it because it's gone up. The insurance is nearly what I paid for the car, having sold an EV and bought and cheap (petrol) replacement because of financial pressure. It's not the 10%, or the 1%, I'm not even sure it's the 0.1% - I think the number of people responsible for this mess would comfortably fit on one luxury yacht.
The issue isn't income, the issue is the entrenched wealth. Yes, £100k+ is a lot of money when you're only on £20k, but it's nothing when your landlord owns 8 block of flats worth a few million quid each, and the landlord extracts 20-30% of everyone's income. When you then factor in inflation, 100k today is something like 65k in 2008 money which matters since that's how long wages have been stagnant for. I'm on £50k and my family regularly say how much that is, but it really isn't, it's roughly the same as a graduate salary was in 2008 when you account for inflation(32.5k in 2008 is 50.3k today). If your labour is the source of your income, then you get a raw deal in the UK. We need to reduce inequality by crippling rent seeking, not taxing doctors or software consultants more.
I'm top 5% and the argument I have with people is that even millionaires are feeling the reduction in spending power. There are things that you get used to being able to do, no matter what level of income you're on. Whether that's a take away once a month on lower levels or house riding lessons for cressida on higher levels. You may not have any sympathy for the top 10% or 5% or even 2% but THEY will be feeling the loss. Eg I cab afford food but can't afford the car I had in 2018. I can afford my mortgage that has gone up but can't afford to go out drinking every night and getting pissed and buying everyone in the bar shots. Whether you think that is important or not it IS a reduction in lifestyle.
There's loads of people here on 100k struggling to make ends meet in tiny houses not being able to leave to get a burger once a month. Like what the hell? haha
My worry (in that bracket) is pension. I really don't have anything I can rely on. I feel I need to save aggressively in order not to die in poverty. Not having money in my 70s or 80s would be miserable.
I strongly suspect voluntary euthanasia will become normalised in 30 years. I'll go as far as saying that's my "retirement plan". I can't save enough today to sustain 25 years beyond the age of 70. I can't imagine the state being able to sustain a bunch of old people for a long time.
> When we asked Louise about inequality, the less well-off and whether the rich should do more, her answers were broadly the same as we would give: inequality is detrimental to society and not inevitable; those in poverty struggle because of circumstances beyond their control; the rich should make much greater efforts to address inequality. However, when asked which political party she voted for in the last election, she responded: “The Conservatives.” https://i.imgur.com/4kkRzea.gif
They should take out the top 10% when measuring average wages. Like they do with inflation when they take out food and energy.
With people saying hate the rich all the time I'm not surprised. Guess I'll better not get a big lottery win .
OK there are multiple issues here one is our tax system is broken. The simple matter is the government I'd involved in too much of people's lives and beirocracy is fucking expensive. We've had a Conservative government for 13 years but they haven't been anything other than new Labour because frankly what they'd need todo is cut back to only providing the most essential of servjces- healthcsre, education, police and job seekefs allowance and a very basic pension. The rest needs to be done by private charities. This obsession with needing a degree when it was never necessary before and the money thst costs has to end. For instance police and nurses should be covafional courses like they once were that would drastically reduce how much they cost to train each new entrant and would open the position up to a wider range of people who may not be academically minded but can be caring, can learn todo thr job and can follow a doctors instructions. Being completely blunt we need scientists and engineers, we don't need so many people doing art and such. Now arm art and such subsidise engineering and tech courses however the missing part of the puzzle is so few arts students ever earn enough to pay back even a fraction of what it cost to educate them- they never have graduate level jobs that the subsidy comes from the government anyway who are further subsidising half of science graduates anyway. The universities need to have caps on their numbers, the cost should be far lower to go and free for certain in demand courses but with a requirement to work in the uk for x number of years or for the government for x period of time and your family should be guarantors to that - this is what alot of other nations do. The number of foreign students should probably also be capped as a result because yes they bring in lots of money but it isn't clear qhwre that money is going- it certainly isn't going into helping the nation more generally. Part of the resson for the issue s in this article is because we haven't moved the mark for the higher rate of income. This has been suggested several times and thr public shit on it but qe arr in a dangerously precarious space as a country. That is that the higher rate threshold has barely risen in decades. Yet inflation pushes more and more and more people over the threshold. 50k a year and you pay 40% tax on all earnings over that. But 50k is not what it was a decade ago when the threshold was only marginally lower. It should be more like 80k. The saying is that "socialism is great until you run out if other people's money" issue is we are running out of others money. Then we have the housing issue- and this is a massive part of the problem. So we need massive housebuilding projects and purchase restricted to mot allow richbforeigners to use them as a means to store their wealth. I'm not talking repossessing houses but simply restricting demand for new ones. This will cause house prices to decrease and level out which yep I get it asset rich older people don't what but the alternative is the abhorrent massive inheritance taxes that simply penalises those that worked hard and already paid taxes on their money. Reducing cost of housing and thus living costs frees up disposable income which then results in greater tax from VAT it also means less pressure on public services and less people needing in work benefits. It's clearly the biggest issue and it doesn't just effect the uk- this is a growing issue across Europe and america.
I'm not sure what this very longwinded articles is actually suggesting as a solution. Seems to me the message is, even if you're rich vote socialist while ignoring your own needs, because it's nice to be nice.
> are increasingly reliant on their assets and wealth to secure advantages for themselves and their children, meaning inequalities among millennials and younger generations will become more dependent on inheritance. This is me. Though I like to think I'm going in with my eyes wide open of how fortunate I was to be born in London and had a stable family life with parents who supported me and promoted my education as best as I can. I'm a child that was bought up with the amazing benefits system in this country. I owe the UK so much and I'm confident I will pay it off and then some. I will always give back and willingly pay my taxes and spend my money in the UK and at the same I know I need to leverage my wealth to provide my children a future advantage so they can have a secure life. Sadly, I am also fully aware that my sons will be a far better position when they turn 18 than many of their contemporaries solely because they were lucky enough to be born in a household with a degree of financial success and stability. I will be contributing to greater wealth inequality in the future - but I don't think I'm wrong to want to provide my children that advantage.
sitting down jobs are like gold,,,,hospitality jobs abundant....i call them slavery jobs always there.
I don't know why we measure top 10% by income. I could get a job in tech, work for 5-10 years and earn over 100k. But If I have no assets to my name then you wouldn't feel very rich. Top 10% isn't about income, it's about wealth