In my case it was the death of my wife from cancer when our son was 2 years old, leaving me as a very sad single parent with considerably reduced earning capacity but, thankfully, savings to tide me over. Life goes on though, and I find myself now a very contented man with a lovely partner, a lad who is doing very well at Oxford and a great appreciation for the preciousness of life. Most things just aren't worth getting wound up about.My experience is that adult life, if you have reasonable career progression, is a game of snakes and ladders. A few years of rising disposable income and a growing feeling of comfort, which triggers the next life move (house move, children or ramping up retirement savings) and a step down in disposable income for a few years before the curve starts turning upwards again. We all get used to this and it at least feels under our control. The trouble happens when something comes along to overturn this - a big unexpected snake. Either loss of one or both incomes, or a bout of inflation which is what's hit us all in the last year.Yes. I probably felt richest about 7-8 years ago, on a salary no more than 2/3 what I earn now - though my wife's salary plus mine was a bit more than I earn now. At that point I'd have put us certainly at 'comfortable'. We could afford anything we wanted, really, although our tastes are not particularly expensive. From a guess, my personal income put me maybe top 40% then, compared to top 20% and not far off top 10% now. But I felt much richer back then.The problem with terms like "rich" is that they tend to be bundled up with implicit value judgements, so that "rich" tends to mean "too rich" which in practical terms means "richer than me". I think it makes more sense to view things objectively with reference to the overall income distribution. So for instance someone with a household income of £120k and two children and council tax of £200/month is around the 4th percentile of the income distribution. They may well not feel "rich" relative to their perceived needs or their peers and I would never seek to denigrate their lived experience, but they are better off in income terms than 96% of the population. Mr Micauber's dictum continues to be highly relevant here of course!I'm in my 50s, have spent 30 years working hard to get there, and I'm getting closer, but am still some way off a £100k income. But I'm not moaning about that. I recognise that I'm easily in the top decile of the population. I pay lots of tax: that's appropriate.No, it places you as a higher-earner at the present moment in time. It doesn't make you "rich"..Earning more than £100k, or the equivalent of £70k, sure sounds like "rich" to me. £70k in 2021 would put you in the top 7% by income. If the top 7% in this country aren't rich, who are?The problem is that "the rich" are now considered to be anyone earning more than 100k, which, post-inflation, is probably only equivalent to 70k a few years ago.You sound like a lefty when Thatcher and Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 66% to 40%, it raised revenue.I blame Liz Truss for this polling, she has damaged the argument for tax cuts for a generation.Hang on - we pushed through a huge tax cut to the poorest in the form of raising the tax free allowance to £10k. Tax cuts are fine when they can be afforded and they give money to people who will circulate it through the economy. Tax cuts to the top who don't circulate it? Less optimal...
Fucking Lib Dem sleeper agent.
I've just been put on a K-code for FY24-25 which is a negative personal allowance- I.e. they artificially raise my income so I get to pay extra tax.
It's why I'm seriously eyeing up Canada, the US and Oz now, even though I don't want to.
"Rich" is when you have lots of assets, equity and cash so you don't need to work. My 'assets' are very modest indeed and I'd run out of cash inside 3 months if I stopped working.
Lots of people on 100k+ are simply professionals in their late 30s/early 40s who've spend 15-20 years working hard to get there and still have student loans, big mortgages and childcare costs to pay.
Most people "in their late 30s/early 40s who've spend 15-20 years working hard to get there and still have student loans, big mortgages and childcare costs to pay" aren't earning anywhere near £100k and have to make it work. It's difficult, but they manage. If you are finding it tough, what do you think the 93% or so of people earning less than you experience? Do you have any empathy for them?
The main difference since then is expenditure, with three children, mostly through the mortgage on a bigger house and the increased food costs.
Lots of idiots don't realise that many people on 30K can be better off than some on 100K who may well have far more outgoings/loans etc...Perhaps if you gave some of your excess money to me you could attain the standard of living you desire. My fees are very modest.
You're missing the point.Maybe you should just live within your means - stop buying avocado toast and such. That's the advice that always seems to come to my generation when we complain about our income being shit. Bootstraps, pull them up by, etc.Isn't the answer to marginal tax woes quite simply to salary sacrifice more into your pension ?Yes, time and time again I get this advice, but with two kids, a mortgage and big bills to pay I need the money now.
I mean the annual allowance is 60 grand a year !
It's a choice between deferring near 100% for at least 15 years (and getting nothing now) and taking a 60% haircut, but getting 40% now.
Median salary in the UK is less than £30k. If people here are complaining about taxes generally and the £100k tax bracket specifically I'll get out my tiny tiny violin. I'm sure you find it annoying that the numbers don't make sense to you but have you considered instead that in work poverty has sky rocketed over the last decade and that may be a bigger issue than whether by some quirk of accountancy if you get paid slightly less you actually get paid more?My business turns over north of £100k and yet I argue for the interests of the people on median salary and below. Why? Because I'm not a total stard. Point is though that the £100k tax ceiling is just as mental as the UC tax ceiling which prevents people from working more hours below the median.
The real problem is at the other end - a group who perhaps vote and engage rather less than the 100K volk..It is a dumb policy, if you believe in progressive taxation as I do it is nonsensical for those on incomes around 100k to pay a higher marginal tax rate than those on 200k. It's also damaging for incentives to have such high marginal tax rates. My view is that the top rate of income tax+NIC should be 50% but not above. Your lot have had a very long time to sort this out, though!Which government brought in the 100k withdrawal policy?Yeah it is annoying, I probably pay about 60-70% of my income in tax once you add up the income tax, NI, VAT, stamp duty etc etc. And for that I get crumbling and understaffed schools, doctors I can't get a appointment at, roads full of potholes, and police that are never around when kids are getting mugged in our neighbourhood. But that's what happens when you have a government that keeps making stupid decisions, from Brexit downwards. The solution is to get a government that's not venal and dumb, and stay and work hard and contribute so the country has a chance of improving. You seem to have a genuine love of your country (even though you seem to also hate some parts of it) so I am surprised you're ready to jack it all in and go somewhere else - especially when your lot have been in charge for all this time.Who isn't happy to contribute? But do you think there's no upper limit to that?.I've been in this situation for years, yet despite being a woke lefty who no doubt hates Britain I am happy to contribute to our national coffers and have no intention of leaving. PB flag shaggers please explain!The problem is that "the rich" are now considered to be anyone earning more than 100k, which, post-inflation, is probably only equivalent to 70k a few years ago.You sound like a lefty when Thatcher and Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 66% to 40%, it raised revenue.I blame Liz Truss for this polling, she has damaged the argument for tax cuts for a generation.Hang on - we pushed through a huge tax cut to the poorest in the form of raising the tax free allowance to £10k. Tax cuts are fine when they can be afforded and they give money to people who will circulate it through the economy. Tax cuts to the top who don't circulate it? Less optimal...
Fucking Lib Dem sleeper agent.
I've just been put on a K-code for FY24-25 which is a negative personal allowance- I.e. they artificially raise my income so I get to pay extra tax.
It's why I'm seriously eyeing up Canada, the US and Oz now, even though I don't want to.
When you're paying 60% or 70% effective taxation then work doesn't pay.
This isn't a partisan dig by the way, but it wasn't this one - although I do blame this one for not reversing it - and I don't have much confidence in any government of any stripe to take the tough decisions needed.
The £100K trap that Casino mentions (withdrawing personal allowance gradually) is just weird, as it leads to a 60% tax rate in the £100-£125K bracket, before dropping back to 40% thereafter. I can't see any political or economic justification for it, and I must admit that in retirement year with an income of £120K I'm considering putting £20K into my pension pot to avoid it, as that will save me £12K tax (and I can then on retirment claim back £5K tax-free from the retirement pot, as well as getting higher pension from the rest). I've always despised people who go through elaborate maneouvres to pay less tax, but this particular one seems so daft that I'm tempted..Someone earning £100k is in the top 5% of earners in the UK.The problem is that "the rich" are now considered to be anyone earning more than 100k, which, post-inflation, is probably only equivalent to 70k a few years ago.You sound like a lefty when Thatcher and Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 66% to 40%, it raised revenue.I blame Liz Truss for this polling, she has damaged the argument for tax cuts for a generation.Hang on - we pushed through a huge tax cut to the poorest in the form of raising the tax free allowance to £10k. Tax cuts are fine when they can be afforded and they give money to people who will circulate it through the economy. Tax cuts to the top who don't circulate it? Less optimal...
Fucking Lib Dem sleeper agent.
I've just been put on a K-code for FY24-25 which is a negative personal allowance- I.e. they artificially raise my income so I get to pay extra tax.
It's why I'm seriously eyeing up Canada, the US and Oz now, even though I don't want to.
This is where, I fear, the level of income on this forum being wildly out of sync with the vast majority of people leads to a huge bias against taxing and spending. Most people want more taxes on the richest people, not less.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/are-taxes-on-the-rich-too-high-or-low-in-britain
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/which-annual-income-bracket-should-be-significantly-taxed-more