Is your household contributing net tax ?

I realise all of that. My question was how can a childless, healthy person earning £50k not be a net contributor when they’re paying £10.5k tax on their income alone. Add in VAT and various other taxes and it defies belief.

You could say the same of anyone that has a job in the public sector... it is the public money paying it.

And yes, I pay full rate council tax (minus 25% for living alone).

It was in an ONS report.

It is of course an average across all people earning at a particular rate and at all times during their life.

If you consider that every child’s education cost pretty much takes up the total allowance on its own it’s not hard to see how the average is reached.

A family with 2 school age children and both parents earning 50k each would probably consider they’re doing their bit yet their taxes would barely cover the schooling cost let alone NHS and other general infrastructure. They would also be in receipt of child benefit.

You can soon rack up a hefty NHS bill every now and then which will wipe out several years worth of tax paid, particularly when you’re older.

Of course if you have no children and are never ill in your entire life and die before drawing a state pension then the amount you need to earn on average to become a net contributor reduces but not by as much as you’d think as a lot of the other costs are fixed. These include transport, defence, social care and even interest on government debt.

If you compare our tax system with other countries with better public services you will see they achieve that by taxing middle earners more.

We have a curious situation in the UK whereby people in the 30-50k type of salary bracket often feel they pay too much tax when in fact they pay very little and nowhere near enough to support the services they expect. Politically that’s a very hard issue to resolve.

So it's public money paying it, not her

People on benefits have to pay council tax. They also pay VAT, everyone does.

I thought you said you weren't working, so how are you paying council tax? Or indeed tax on other things?

What service would I be providing? Not all NMW jobs are in the public sector.
And I pay tax already.. council tax, tax on goods and services.

Hmmm.....

well I chose to give birth to my children at home (cheapest option for NHS)
declined health visitors.
Yes my children have a GP but they are typically healthy and rarely visit a doctor more than once a year. (Yes this is "luck" to an extent, helped by a healthy life style)
My children have had a couple of NHS eye tests but don't need glasses
Me and my children have an NHS dentist
We don't qualify for child benefit.
We pay top rate tax.
We pay for our childrens school fees at an independant school. (so also pay for their school meals and milk and transport etc)

so yes, we definitley contribute more than we take out.

Bit of luck people have children, because if everyone decided not to have any children, we would have no workers, all the school and nursery staff would loose their jobs, and of course the entire human race would die out.

So no one should feel like a burden for giving birth to their children.... the workers and tax payers of tomorrow.

Yes but that would be offset against whatever tax you would be paying and you would be providing a service.

The UC I get means I am on about £5.30 an hour (if I worked, and based on a 37.5 hour week... I am LCWRA).
If I did work in a NMW job, I would get more in UC as a top up.
So I would cost the taxpayer more. Which is nuts when you think about it... but UC pays more if you work.

Winter2020 · Today 21:12
Giving 16 year olds a few quid a week and telling them to pay for their own healthcare, unemployment support, housing and pension - what could possibly go wrong?
Well I did suggest social housing, and the NHS won't be free at the point of delivery for much longer. UBI would allow the free market into the healthcare monopoly at a manageable rate and introducing real competition into housing would benefit society in the long run.
Don't you believe that people should take any responsibility for their lives? That's why the country is in a mess.

I don’t think they need to.

Any job they get will mean some kind of contribution as well as providing a service.

If I borrow £10 and pay back £5, that’s better than borrowing £10 and paying back nothing.

No, and I never will be.
I am on UC, and when I did work, it was minimum wage anyway.
According to Google, net tax payers are on £41k+... so the PP saying that more people should be forced off benefits and into work to pay "something back"...
how many of these "scroungers" are going to come off benefits and walk into a job that will pay that much?

Us too.. dh pays 55% tax. Has done most of his adult life. Done our bit.. want to save the rest for our kids and have something to show for it!

"What kind of person takes something when they already have SO MUCH? How can they sit there and receive their £10 Christmas bonus from the DWP. What scroungers!"

Perhaps because they put so much INTO the system? Perhaps they freely give it and much more to charity?

Quote:
"As the birth and death rate are roughly equal UBI is a possible. You start by giving 16 year olds the equivalent of say 10 hours a week NMW (£114) with the proviso that they will no longer be eligible for free healthcare or any other benefits such as a state pension in the future meaning they would have to take more personal responsibility for their health and retirement."

Giving 16 year olds a few quid a week and telling them to pay for their own healthcare, unemployment support, housing and pension - what could possibly go wrong?

How about instead of giving 16 year olds £100 odd a week we invest the money into services that everyone can benefit from instead. So, for example, we could call the health insurance service the NHS, we could call the housing investment social housing.

Some people might be sensible and lucky and be able to self insure, work in a good job and plan for their retirement but our society currently tries to make sure even people that are not lucky with their health, don't/can't work and haven't planned for retirement are looked after to some extent.

Slipping 16 year olds a few quid to take care of themselves would be a short road to people increasingly dying of treatable illnesses like diabetes and living in tent cities.

Thanks for explaining

A single person needs to be earning around 50k before they break even.

I’d love to know where that figure comes from because I genuinely can’t see how it’s possible. What services is a healthy, childfree person consuming that amount to £10.5 a year? No healthcare or education costs, no benefits - what are they getting?

The OP figures are incorrect.

Around half of all households pay no tax whatsoever. The majority of the remainder are still not net contributors as they receive more in return than they pay in tax. This includes paying for their share of public services.

A single person needs to be earning around 50k before they break even. For 2 adults the amount of course doubles. This means that any 2 adult households with less than 100k joint income are not paying their way and are in some way reliant on higher earners subsidising them.

Although people on 30k-50k salaries tend to believe they are net contributors the fact is they aren’t. If taxation was attributed fairly they should pay more.

The only group who are over taxed are those on salaries above 50k and in particular those on over 100k pay hugely disproportionate amounts of tax for little return.

Or only work part time because childcare is too expensive or barely available.

No children; never received any money from the state, have private health insurance and pay tax in the 40% bracket so I would say, yes.

Nobody is making £800 a month on a single property!

They’re making that and plenty more if it’s mortgage free. Only a third of rental properties are mortgaged.

Not many landlords making a profit these days. Thats why so many are selling up. So rent increases are a function of reduction in supply and the rising costs* of being a landlord. Greed doesn’t come into it these days.

*higher interest rates on mortgages, rising costs of materials and labour for maintenance and repair work, massive YOY increases in service charges for flats, paying for the initial paperwork and credit checks for a new tenant now falls to the LL, legal costs and lost rent associated with increasing difficulty evicting problem tenants, no longer able to offset the mortgage against tax.

Most landlords are just happy if rent covers the mortgages and we suck up the other costs as we are banking on the capital gains. There is very little if any monthly income. Nobody is making £800 a month on a single property!

With respect you cannot force adults to care for disabled family members.

You cannot force anyone to have a relationship with another in that capacity that they don't want to have. They either are willing to or they aren't.

But one way to possibly encourage it is to reward their sacrifices and recompense them. Less the £3 per hour just doesn't cut it.

Yes, to be fair it is both. But who is the easier target that receives all the venom. Which of these two groups could make an actual difference with their contribution to society?