The country doesn't need high earners per se, it needs people that contribute effectively. There are plenty of "high earners" that are parasites, contributing little and extracting much. It all makes much more sense once you realise that governments spend before they tax and so what really matters is real resources.
> There are plenty of "high earners" that are parasites, contributing little and extracting much.
No, not at all.
There may be a few (0.01%) rich people that don't contribute much, but high __earners__ are paying extremely high amounts of taxes with nothing in return.
The "parasites", as you call them, are low-income workers that get the extreme majority of benefits while essentially contributing nothing.
The middle-class is being drained. The downfall of the UK will be inevitable once the top 10% realizes that they're better of in literally any other country.
You misunderstand. For a sovereign country, tax money is not what a country (in general) or the state (in particular) needs. This is apparent when you note that tax is destroyed on collection (that is, it reduces the balance sheet measure of issued money). A monetarily sovereign state can create whatever money it needs on demand, which any 10 year old will point out when asking why the gov can't just buy whatever it wants.
The purpose of tax in this context is to reduce the propensity to consume by the payer (allowing the state to purchase it). Since the wealthy have a lower marginal propensity to consume, tax from them is worth less per unit.
Moreover, the value of someone is their contribution. As I said, there are plenty of people with lots of money that contribute little in real terms and still live lavish lifestyles. The best that can be said of tax in that context is that they might be living slightly less lavish lifestyles than otherwise, but it certainly doesn't make them more useful.
The point of what I'm saying is that you have very little power with your wallet. You do have power when you leave to remove your skills, which should doubtless be of concern, but people in general have an out-of-date understanding of their financial use to a country (which includes the politicians, so your rhetoric still carries some weight).
Assuming the country wants to import goods and services, then they are going to need to be able to sell goods and services. The desirability of the goods and services the country is selling can be roughly indicated by the population's purchasing power.
If more and more people are earning less, then that is not a good sign for the desirability of the country's goods and services.
No, the import ability of a country is indicated by the ability of the country to balance it's imports with exports, which are either real exports or are financial assets.
There most certainly is not a one to one correspondence of stuff to money.
