Advanced search

to find this government's treament of middle- income earners offensive but in no way surprising

(33 Posts)
LuluJakey1 Sun 05-Jul-15 16:27:55

Anyone with an income over £30,000 as a couple will hae to pay full market rental value on social housing. (£40,000 in London) BBC described these people as 'big earners'

I don't disagree with the principal but I find offensive the constant hammering of low-middle income earners.

The wealth of the rich is increasing at a faster rate than ever. Why are they not contributing more of that wealth?

I earn between £40-50,000 and pay 40% income tax - it is ridiculous. 45,000 is not wealthy. It is not poor but surely I sould be paying less tax than someone on £95,000

Jen1610 Sun 05-Jul-15 16:53:38

You do pay less tax. 40k would be about 6k in tax and 90k would pay about 25k in tax. You mean you should be paying a smaller %?

The rent I agree with 100%.

It isn't just the low earning middle class though. people on disability could potentially lose £30 a week. and they are cutting tax credits massively. Their will be a lot more people going to food banks sadly.

RepeatAdNauseum Sun 05-Jul-15 16:58:56

These issues aren't really that connected.

If you earn £30,000, you should contribute market rates if you live in social housing. We are really, really short of social housing, and we are really, really short of public money. If you're living in social housing and earning a decent wage, you should contribute the market rate. It can fund further social housing.

Then there is tax paid on income, which as Jen said, someone on 90k will pay far more than you do.

When the Government is stripping benefits from the disabled and families, how can they justify not charging people with good incomes for their housing?

EastMidsMummy Sun 05-Jul-15 17:00:36

The £30,000 = rich thing is ludicrous. Average earnings are something like £26,500. So two people earning £15,000 each are rich???

LuluJakey1 Sun 05-Jul-15 17:49:31

Jen is right, my point is about what the government classes as high income earners. My view is someone earning 45,000 should not be a high income earner. That rate should start at 65,000+. It is pathetic how as costs of living have risen, that threshold has hardly changed in a long time.

As I said, I agree people who can afford it should not have housing costs subsidised but two people earning 15,000 each don't strike me as well off. There needs to be more social housing available. Housing is a huge issue. Housing benefit costs are so high because the government sold off social housing and are now paying private landlords housing benefit.

The Tories hate the idea of any kind of welfare responsibility- having to provide decent support for the most vulnerable. It will be interesting to see where Osborne has found the rest of his 12 billion of welfare cuts he says he has identified.

LuluJakey1 Sun 05-Jul-15 17:52:27

I could regard all of this as fairer, if I saw the government making the wealthy pay extra to their share in reducing the deficit, but I don't see that at all.

Purplepoodle Sun 05-Jul-15 17:54:51

I do have issues with social housing amd earnings. I know couple in North paying £300 ish a month for 3 bed and he owns his own restaurant and they have 2 flash cars and posh hols every year. Know it's probably a small minority but if u earn enough u should pay more rent on social housing

morethanpotatoprints Sun 05-Jul-15 17:56:04

The answer is simple. We have a conservative government and it's what they do.
I'm not referring to you here OP, but people voted for them thinking that they wouldn't be affected by their policies.
If you are poor, or mc you are doomed.

Duckdeamon Sun 05-Jul-15 17:57:03

It is weaselly and divisive of politicians to speak about anyone earning above the median or £30k as though they are really well off.

Salaries have been falling relative to living costs. there are fewer well-paid jobs. Economists talk about the labour markets "hollowing out". This is likely to continue eg with the automation of many, many roles by computers, robots etc.

LuluJakey1 Sun 05-Jul-15 19:45:51

Purple, but remember housing in cheaper in thenorth. You can buy a 3 bedroomed house for 125,00 and less in lots of areas, so the rent wouldbe cheaper. And if you rent, you never own the house so should not be paying the cost of a mortgage on it.

I voted Labour- I live in the north-east. DH and I have a 3 bedroomed large semi in a lovely area with a big garden that we have paid the mortgage off on- we are 36.

I understand this is wha Tory governments do. I am just appalled that so may ordinary workng people voted for them- all over the country outside of the north- east.

I don't disput benefits have got out of hand and we can not afford a welfare state the way it runs at the moment. I just think the rich need to contribute more to reducing the deficit too.

workingdilemma Sun 05-Jul-15 20:02:49

I don't think there should be any 'benefits' other than a safety net and for those who are totally incapable of supporting themselves by disability or circumstance.

30K though is a ridiculous sum to be classing as a high earner - regardless of what the studies may show, to me that is a realistic before tax living wage for a single person in any south east city. I dread to think about a family on that without any form of top up (which as I've said, they shouldn't actually get). But wages are so low relative to the cost of living now thanks to house price inflation.

The problem with this sort of language is it pits these relatively moderate earners against the poorest in society - and it disenfranchises both groups. The 30 - 50k earner in the South East doesn't feel like they are getting anywhere compared to the cost of a house - all we have to aspire to is spending our lifetime earnings on a 1 bed flat these days. It's destroying aspiration.

I deliberately chose to go part time because of this. There is no point earning 40k + for a full time job, because it doesn't get you any further then say 50-60% of that in a part time one anymore. And no, I don't act as a conduit to corporations or landlords in that I don't get any state subsidy for doing that.

morethanpotatoprints Sun 05-Jul-15 20:11:53


People voted for them because they thought they would be ok and that DC was just after the work shy and as he said workers would be fine etc. They fell for the divide and conquer ploy and the deserving and undeserving poor and thought "I'm alright Jack".

The government just move the goal posts all the time. Tax credits are now defined as benefits. Now, 30k is supposed to be a fortune whereas a few weeks ago it was just enough for most people to live on.

Those who voted conservative earning this sort of money were fools, they were warned. I have no sympathy for anyone facing a hard time who voted conservative, except all those who have been unfortunate to lose their job, become ill etc.

Purplepoodle Sun 05-Jul-15 20:26:43

If you rent privately exactly same house on same estate its £500 a month. I do think that private tends should be capped

workingdilemma Sun 05-Jul-15 20:32:16

I think people are beginning to get it now. Before the election I'd said to my friends that this election was a warm up. The demographics aren't quite there yet for people to get really frustrated, but give it 5, or 10 years, and when you have then 30-40 year olds who are getting nowhere on the treadmill of life, earning what sounds good - 40-50k, but finding they can't afford any home, let alone one to bring up a family in, and you have a recipe for disaster.

We already have this now - friends in their early thirties who pooh pooed me a year or two ago when I mentioned that high house prices aren't a social good, but a massive problem are now looking to buy their first home, earning 50k and finding that a 1 bed flat is out of their price range are beginning to understand the issues. They aren't laughing at me any more, now they are getting angry. And they only have a fraction of an idea what's coming....

The ridiculous promises made by governments and firms on their pensions to the golden generations - crazy final salary schemes that are in effect ponzi's or had no economic validity that came before are going to become seriously divisive issues. This is an ignored issue by everyone now....just wait.

AyeAmarok Sun 05-Jul-15 20:32:40

Haven't RTFT, I figured there was no point discussing the issue with someone who says:

I earn between £40-50,000 and pay 40% income tax - it is ridiculous. 45,000 is not wealthy. It is not poor but surely I sould be paying less tax than someone on £95,000

Seriously, how did you get to a stage where you were earning 50k being this hard of thinking? hmm

workingdilemma Sun 05-Jul-15 20:43:11

I would rather tax was lower for everyone - rich or poor, seeing as we have very few actual infrastructure projects now, and those that are are being costed by people who know how to exploit the lack of numeracy skills of the purse holder.

A huge proportion appears to be on vanity projects, corporate subsidies and pensions. The health service and education are exceptions - those should be costed properly - which they are not and us paying tax for that is fine. Though the education system is a large part of the problem.....

I'd rather no-one contributed to any of the other things. People should be taught to make sure their old age is catered for themselves- and paid enough that they can save for it. That's impossible though with our debt money system.

fastdaytears Sun 05-Jul-15 21:46:38

Lulu you know you're only paying 40% on the (very small) top slice of your income right? Your overall income tax rate is a lot lower than that. If you were earning £90k you'd pay 40% on much more of your income. So I don't understand your issue at all.

fastdaytears Sun 05-Jul-15 21:54:14

But other than that, I agree that the well off need to be contributing more and don't begrudge my tax rate for a second. It just seems that people always think it's the people who earn a bit more than them that should be taxed more. £45k as an individual is plenty enough to be paying higher rate tax.
The original question about the social housing rent though I think I need to actually educate myself about as I don't know what the difference will be for families. £30k as a joint income is not a lot so hard to understand why it's being described as "big". Maybe we should all just hope the BBC chap misread his autocue.

LittleBearPad Sun 05-Jul-15 21:58:20

You only pay 40% on about £3k, so £1,200.

Anyway you have no mortgage to pay and earn £45k. My sympathy isn't huge I'm afraid.

Raveismyera Sun 05-Jul-15 22:02:58

Do you realise income tax is progressive?

TTWK Sun 05-Jul-15 22:09:01

Mumsnet economics says that £30K a year is stinking rich, and you probably have a yacht in Monaco and a Lamborghini.

According to the other thread running on the same subject, MN is a place frequented by the super rich on £30K a year who are so divorced from reality that we don't even realise that £30K a year is an extraordinarily high salary!

Anyway, enough of this, the peacocks on the west lawn need feeding.

Stickerrocks Sun 05-Jul-15 22:11:21

On a salary of approx £43k p.a. you are in the top 10% income bracket in the country, therefore you are technically comfortably wealth off compared to most. There is a good argument that basic rate tax payers should not be subsidising housing for people earning more than them.

Stickerrocks Sun 05-Jul-15 22:12:18

Well off, not wealth off. Sorry.

IssyStark Sun 05-Jul-15 22:12:33

They are Tories who are now unfettered by the Lib Dems and they are going for it. They won the argument after the Crash because Labour were in too much disarray to point out their ballast lies: we had not run out of money.

The whole change from social security to welfare is a linguistic pointer to what they were going to do. Most of our 'welfare' is paid on pensions, and a sizeable amount on housing benefit for the working poor which goes straight into the pockets of landlords.

Getting the slightly better off to pay more in rent in social housing is not going to help, but to provides a useful whipping boy. What they really need to do to bring the housing benefit bill down is not to extend right to buy to HA, bring in rent caps and strengthen tenants rights, allow Councils to buy back stock which has been sold on after right to buy and is rented (rather than owner occupied), to name but a few things.

They are out to destroy everything that Thatcher didn't get to. They are stealthily privatising all aspects of British life: the Royal Mail has already gone and they are working on the schools and the NHS. They are even gunning for the BBC, I mean, why should the BBC fund pensioner's licences fees? It wasn't their decision, it was a political bribe and as such should be met from general taxation imho.

Jen1610 Sun 05-Jul-15 22:18:47

Also in response to your comment about two people earning 15k each isn't much.

Two people earning 15k each would actually be paying less tax per household than one person earning 30k living alone.

So they should be able to afford rent fine. To be completely honest I feel anyone that lives in social housing these day's is lucky as it's so hard to get. And takes away the worry that a lot of renters face that their landlord could decide to sell up at any time. People earning 30k in most parts of the country wouldn't be entitled to housing benefit in a private rent therefore why shouldn't those in social housing pay the market value that earn the same.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now