To not understand how people fund their lives and feel a bit jealous?

I didn't say anything unpleasant about disabled children. Merely pointed out that often when you hear stories of families recieving thousands in benefits it's because they have multiple disabled children. Which isn't unpleasant it's the truth.

What is unpleasant is using families with disabled children in to push your false narrative that someone on 160k is worse off than someone on 30k. Which i appreciate you didn't do but my original comment was never aimed at you, yes ive seen people on other threads use one family with disabled children to try and say everyone on under 50k gets loads of "top up benefits"

Also I never said any of your comments were horseshit my original comment wasn't aimed at you so I'm not sure why you took it personally and have dedicated so many long irrelevant posts to me? Like I said I only came on here to say with 35k income we get no benefits except child benefit.

The entire point is that comparison of incomes without considering the relevant tax and benefits rates are meaningless, as the numbers I posted demonstrated. Other people clearly didn’t decide that objective reality is irrelevant, as you have, and dismiss anything longer than a few paragraphs as “an essay” (have you ever written one of those? I presume not if you think that’s what they look like).

As you know, you did make unpleasant and completely irrelevant comments about disabled children which had nothing to do with the thread. I reposted some of these twice when you denied doing so. I see that subsequently somebody reported some of your comments because some of them have now been deleted.

Perhaps instead of making nasty comments about other posters, and swearing at them repeatedly, you could try a little rational thought.

Same I do think that poster has some issues tbh theres not enough time in the day to be typing up repetitive essays on here.
I only came on here to say to say my income is 35k and I get no benefits except child benefit. Plus most stories of families getting "thousands in benefits" there is more to the story that gets conveniently left out like multiple disabled children.

Then to be hit with ten essays about tax levels and accusing me of hating disabled children 😂

Just to be clear I am not disagreeing with most of the points InPraiseOfIdleness has said. This was the post I originally responded to. All I stated was our 30k income is accurate and doesn't include top ups/social housing/rent paid/any form of UC and that plenty of households do get by on this sort of income or indeed less.

I am not commenting on tax levels, tapers etc.

I forgot for point 1), also of course the need to remove the withdrawal of the personal allowance. I also think that (like in France and many other countries) there should be an additional tax-free allowance added for each child in a household unit. Again, this will increase economic participation, increase growth, lower the welfare bill, and decrease child poverty and reduce the gender paygap and poverty of women later in life so will more than pay for itself.

I suppose my frustration is really that economic debate becomes entangled with polarised politics and therefore people adopt ever more extreme positions and become so entrenched because of their (understandable) anger at their own living standards declining that they are susceptible to politicians who are selling them fake solutions with slogans that don’t stand up to the slightest economic scrutiny. Turning the UK economy around requires an integrated programme of change with clear policy objectives like I’ve set out in my vision of how it could be achieved, with some measures that would cut unaffordable expenditure, some measures that would cost money but in vital areas where the return on that money would be many times what we spend, and most importantly measures that will increase economic growth.

Nobody minds if their tax goes up 3% if their real-terms income has gone up 10%. The first priority therefore has to be generating growth, creating the conditions where that will happen. All political parties in the UK claim this is what they want to do yet not one has even proposed the very obvious measures that would achieve this despite multiple economists having made it crystal clear to them the first steps that are required in order to do so. Reeves said pre-election that growth was her main priority, yet she has taken measures instead that obviously would have the opposite effect. It’s very disappointing as I thought with her background she might do far better, but sadly yet again we seem to have a Government captured by ideology (just like the last lot) rather than having the integrity to make decisions based on economic reality and what will actually benefit the people who live in the UK.

I wish the population would question why this is the case. These people who claim to be acting in their interests are not doing so. They are trying to create electoral advantage and stay in power by polarising opinion and creating social division, which again undermines any opportunity for growth. A disintegrating society full of resentment and hate and no concept of collective good and social conscience is never going to result in any outcome other than decline and never has, anywhere in the world at any point in history.

The only way out of this situation would be for people to be objective, take a step back, realise that everyone has been screwed over, and instead of taking that (justified) anger out on each other, press the politicians to implement evidence-based policies that will actually improve the situation.

I become more pessimistic daily that the UK population will actually do so, unfortunately, and so the decline continues.

I would:

1. Reform the tax system so that taxes are levied on a household unit basis like in pretty much every other developed country, reduce the universal credit taper rate to 40%, and make child benefit and childcare funding universal again. These measures would increase economic growth, increase overall tax revenue and reduce skills shortages. I would also strengthen our rules around transfer pricing to ensure that it is more difficult for companies to transfer revenues from UK sales to other lower tax jurisdictions. Implement ID cards to stamp out the black economy and tax evasion so that it is illegal for transactions to take place without a registered tax number being provided.

2. Replace the NHS with the kind of model used in France of Germany. For a very similar percentage of GDP these services have far superior outcomes and patient care. Subsume social care into the NHS service and raise income tax to fund this (the growth generated by 1) would be sufficient to do this in time.

3. Reform the UK’s energy pricing model so that it is not based on the price of Gas. Uncapped energy costs for businesses that are not at all representative of production costs are driving inflation and reducing output across the economy.

4. Reduce the focus on achieving net zero in a short timespan and redirect some of the money being spent on that to climate mitigation measures such as increased flood defences and investment into carbon capture technology. Implement proper strategies for food security, water security e.g. building more reservoirs. It’s utter negligence not to have done this.

5. Implement a proper industrial strategy with Government-backed loans for startup businesses, tax breaks for small businesses, investment into key technologies and areas where the UK already has significant strengths e.g. pharmaceuticals, tech, the arts, defence. Create business clusters. Strength rules to prevent large businesses being able to take over challenger startups. Have a unified source of compliance/ export support for small businesses in different sectors that could manage this administration for them to make it more viable for them to export if lacking internal expertise or resources to navigate the system.

6. Deal with the UK’s self-imposed trade barriers that are costing us 4% GDP per year and compounding. As a minimum, rejoin the single market and customs union as a matter of urgency.

7. Total reform of the dire UK education system. Half class sizes over time - education must be the number one focus of our public spending if this country is going to have any future. Far fewer people should go to university, perhaps 15-20%. This should be funded by grants not loans as it benefits everyone. Re-establish technical colleges with strong links to businesses and meaningful apprenticeships leading to qualifications and proper career routes similar to the system in Germany. Give children more options to focus on their specific talents/ interests with schools specialising in different areas while still doing core subjects from age 15 onwards. Implement a proper regulator to replace OFSTED which prosecutes Local Authorities itself for illegal behaviour rather than leaving it to individual parents to enforce the law through tribunals, and levies fines of sufficient magnitude on Local Authorities to disincentive illegal behaviour denying children access to education. Establish sufficient schools places for children with different needs so that all can learn properly. Make adult learning and retraining available again and highly subsidised if not free.

8. Reform our pension system, which is simply unsustainable as it stands. Australia had similar problems and dealt with them a couple of decades ago. We should gradually move towards something more comparable to their system for state pensions which is fiscally sustainable. We also need to address the public sector pensions which are held off balance sheet (!) and literally unpayable, with liabilities running into trillions of pounds with an ageing population and declining birth rates. Some realism about what is realistically payable will have to be accepted although many will find this unpalatable.

9. On housing I would make it much easier for people to purchase a plot of land and self-build, with Government security making it viable for mortgage lenders to lend on such projects and implement simple planning procedures for self-building and make VAT reclaimable on the building materials/ costs for the individual who is building a property to inhabit as their main residence. This would make housing cheaper because the profits of the big building companies would be removed (approximately 20% of the cost of new builds) and would hugely improve build quality.

All of this is possible and affordable in an economy if you put a rational tax system and industrial strategy in place that will create growth. Not a chance of that happening in the UK though.

I totally agree, but why is no party offering a bold plan like this? We seem locked in a cycle of thinking that increasing the tax burden on higher earners and businesses is the only way to increase revenues.

And you’re absolutely right in your assessment. That is the corrosive effect on ambition and hard work that these distortions have. The social contract requires that these higher earners will pay a higher percentage of their income in tax than low or average earners (I’ve never met one yet who resents doing so) but also that there is a financial reward for them also in terms of increased lifestyle. If you erode that to the point where it’s negligible or even negative - or young people starting out on the road see that it is in doubt that even if they study hard and do all of these extra qualifications and take on the extra debt that involves and work the crazy hours for promotions they may not end up any better off after all as a result - then it’s not surprising that many people are rethinking that work/ life balance and declining promotions, cutting working hours, moving abroad, or simply deciding not to make that extra effort at all.

But if enough people do that then who’s going to pay the bills? We have an extremely unstable tax system because it is so redistributive it’s become extremely reliant on a very small percentage of higher PAYE earners. As others have pointed out, due to lax enforcement those working in trades pay nowhere near what they should; tax evasion from such people is rife. The actually wealthy who have capital should pay much more but it’s simply not feasible to do without international cooperation. So what happens? Everyone gets poorer, skills shortages, brain drain.

It’s particularly damaging to the UK economy to have this happening at this level because as you say it undermines all the messages from schools and parents telling their children to work and study hard and then rewards will come because teenagers and young adults aren’t stupid and they can see that this is no longer the case.

It is also, though, as I said, having a similar effect around the £50-£80k income bracket due to the fiscal drag on the higher rate tax threshold (which would be over £120k now if uprated with inflation) and the withdrawal of child benefit.

And a similar impact for those provided with universal credit who have a 55% taper rate, alongside 20% income tax if they work a sufficient amount.

It should be obvious to anybody with even a basic understanding of human psychology why this would strangle an economy and remove all motivation from people to work more, if the benefit to their own family is reduced to such a low level (or even negative in some cases!).

HMRC data shows bunching of earnings just below each threshold so the economic effect of these policies is clear and indisputable.

The cliff-edges have to go for us to have a chance of economic recovery. A sensible Government would take the very obvious steps that are within their power to take tomorrow and see the effect within months. We do need infrastructure projects etc but these will take many years and in some cases decades to have an effect and the results are not fully within Government control. Tax and benefits policy is, and they can change this overnight.

A Government that genuinely wanted growth would immediately cut the universal credit taper rate to 40%, make childcare funding universal again, make child benefit universal again, and scrap the withdrawal of the personal allowance. Robust independent economic research has shown that these measures would increase overall tax revenue within a short period of time, cut administration costs, reduce the gender pay gap, increase economic participation, increase growth, increase productivity, reduce skills shortages (and therefore also reduce the need for immigration) and cut the welfare bill.

The question that voters should be asking of the Government is why they are not doing this?

Wow, who are you?! Really sobering facts there. And when I take this info in conjunction with that if another poster who talked about hidden untaxable income said , it really made me think. It kind of looks like a reverse if everything I ever held to be true: going to uni will just saddle you with debt and lock you in a taxable job, whereas getting a trade means you earn quicker, with no debt, and are beyond the taxman's reaches...

Indeed, thanks for trying @InPraiseOfIdleness but I fear it’s a bit like trying to explain architecture to a dog

Wow, who are you?! Really sobering facts there. And when I take this info in conjunction with that if another poster who talked about hidden untaxable income said , it really made me think. It kind of looks like a reverse if everything I ever held to be true: going to uni will just saddle you with debt and lock you in a taxable job, whereas getting a trade means you earn quicker, with no debt, and are beyond the taxman's reaches...

I think this is what people do not understand.

Many people will see a salary that is several times theirs and multiply up the net pay assuming it is the same. It isn’t.

Let’s compare a lone parent earning £180,000 to a couple earning the average UK salary each. Let’s assume each family has two young children to support.

£180,000 salary is a net pay of £8,932 per month assuming no student loan repayments (unlikely for those earning at this level) and no pension contributions (which would be irresponsible). Factoring in a 15% pension contribution and a student loan on Plan 2, net pay is £6,549.

Someone earning this amount will have no personal allowance, no tax free childcare, 15 funded hours for each child withdrawn, no child benefit. The average cost of a full time nursery place in England is now £239 per week (after deducting the universal 15 funded hours) so this is £12,425 per year or £1,035 per month, per child. For two children, £2,070. So the lone parent’s net pay is now £4,479. Bear in mind also that nursery costs are significantly higher in more expensive areas - at least 50% higher than average and sometimes more, so the net income after tax and childcare is likely far lower than this in reality as the childcare costs in expensive areas where there are good jobs are much higher.

The average UK full time salary as of 2024 was £37,430. Again, with a 15% pension contribution net pay is £2,165. So for a couple both earning average UK salary and making decent pension contributions their net income is £4,330. However, this couple will receive child benefit of £2,252 per year (£188 per month) tax free as well. They also receive an additional 15 funded hours per child at nursery which means they’ll only pay £127 per week per child for nursery care, and this is reduced by 20% through tax free childcare to £102 equating to £881 per month for both children. Their net income after tax and childcare is £3,637.

The difference in net income after tax and childcare costs between the couple with two children both earning the average UK full time salary and a lone parent earning £180,000 is, on average per the above, £4,479 - £3,637 = £842.

Yet people assume this person must be super rich, taking extravagant holidays, having children in private school (not a chance on that salary!) or mismanaging their money if they are finding things financially challenging.

Given that most people earning £180,000 per year will be living in very expensive areas of the country and having to pay very high mortgages or rents. If they move further away childcare would be impossible and commuting costs would take up most of the additional money, anyway. In 2024, the average monthly mortgage payment for a home in greater London was £2,340 (and that figure is skewed by people who bought a long, long time ago and therefore have very low mortgages now, so for a family with young children the real figure is likely much higher, but let’s go with this lower estimate for the illustration).

The lone parent’s net income after this average mortgage payment for an average kind of home is therefore £3,637 - £2,340 = £1,297. That is what they have left from their £180,000 salary after tax, childcare and housing costs (if they are lucky). From this they must pay Council Tax, utilities, commuting costs, food, clothing, insurance, house maintenance etc.

Hardly a life of luxury.

Meanwhile the couple can live anywhere in the country, where there is much cheaper housing and childcare is less expensive, even food in the shops is cheaper. The average UK mortgage payment across the UK is £1,441. So after their tax, childcare and mortgage payment they can have £3,637 - £1,441 = £2,196 left for their Council tax, utilities, commuting costs (likely lower as they can work locally given they only need to earn the average salary to achieve this standard of living), food, clothing, insurance, house maintenance etc.

It is therefore very apparent that a couple both earning average UK salaries are likely to be vastly better off than a lone parent earning £180,000 per year, with almost twice as much disposable income left after tax, childcare and housing costs.

The biggest problem with these discussions is that many people just do not seem to comprehend how redistributive the UK system is already, and how much is is absolutely hammering those who earn these higher salaries by means-testing all family support and taxing them marginal rates than in some income brackets exceed 100% when you factor in student loans and childcare funding withdrawal.

Then there is the fact that the couple might be able to work their hours around each other so that they don’t need full time nursery for their children, or even any nursery at all if they work opposite shifts. Meanwhile, the lone parent is trying to do everything they do in 48 hours in 24 hours, paying way more in tax and being left with less disposable income than them despite earning a gross salary of 2.5 what the couple earn combined. And anybody who thinks that earning that kind of money doesn’t come with huge demands, stress and sacrifices and a lack of time for home is kidding themselves, yet this person is expected to sacrifice their time with their children (who only have one parent) to keep paying these extortionate rates of tax to help other families who have two parents and twice as much time to split between earning and caring, yet told they shouldn’t access the childcare funding etc. that they pay for themselves.

I think there is an immense amount of financial illiteracy and people simply do not comprehend how much higher earners pay in tax and assume it’s a similar proportion to what they pay from their salaries. It isn’t.

Two minimum wage earners working full time, also with two young children will earn £25,397 each so £50,794 in total. If we include a 15% pension contributions for each of them as well but no student loan - since you don’t need a degree to get a minimum wage job - their net pay is £1,563 each so £3,126 per month.

If we run these figures through a benefit calculator (the £2,116 gross earnings each before tax and NI, and the £317 per month each pension contribution), and add the average greater London rent of £2,026 per month and the Council Tax Band for an average UK property, it states that this couple will receive £522 per week i.e. £2,262 per month in universal credit. Their net income is now £3,126 + £2,262 = £5,388. They then pay their rent of £2,062 so have £3,276 left after tax and housing costs, plus universal credit. They will also receive £43.30 of child benefit per week, like the couple on average wages who have a mortgage property but in a cheaper part of the UK. This is £188 per month, so they have £3,276 + £188 = £3,464 left to fund childcare, food and other living expenses. Also, because they claim universal credit, 85% of their childcare costs are funded through universal credit, so it costs them next to nothing. They are therefore very significantly better off after tax and childcare than the lone parent working crazy hours to earn £180,000 to try to provide their children with a decent life. And they have 48 hours per day to take a leisurely approach to work and home life, two parents available to juggle home life and spend time with the children, and have more disposable income than the person who has sacrificed an enormous amount to train and work crazy hours to earn the £180k salary. Those kinds of jobs don’t just fall into people’s laps randomly.

Yet all the time we see these posts saying that people earning those amounts must be living immensely wealthy lifestyle. I bet they haven’t done the above calculations and realised that actually a couple on minimum wage in London would have far more disposable income.

At some point people will need to realise why all the people in these earnings brackets are emigrating, cutting their working hours, or retiring early (depending on age). A cash cow will stop producing milk if you milk it dry. If there’s no incentive to work any more (and indeed your net income will go down if you do so with marginal tax rates for people with children in some brackets exceeding 100%) then who would do this? There’s a difference between being socially minded and a total mug.

There’s a good argument for taxing the super-wealthy more morally, but it’s incredibly difficult to do without actually causing more economic damage without international cooperation, which will not happen. The people who are not wealthy, but work incredibly hard and have become moderately successful have been carrying this country for nearly two decades now but have nothing left to give and are giving up or shipping out.

What the UK population needs to realise is that the difference between the tax systems in other countries that have the service levels they covet and the UK system is not that what they deem to be “the rich” pay more (the rich, have capital, they don’t work for income). The difference is that in other northern European countries the low and middle earners pay a far higher percentage of income in income tax. People in the £75k- £150k salary ranges in the UK in particular pay some of the very highest tax rates in the entire world for that earnings level. You can’t get more from them now, as the above demonstrates. So the choices that at some point people will have to face are 1) accept a much lower level of services in the UK; or 2) everyone paying a much higher rate of tax, including low and middle earners (an increase of probably around 8% to make things comparable with other European countries with better standards of living).

But nobody wants to hear that. And nobody’s interested in maths. So we’ll carry on with the population squabbling amongst themselves and ignoring the large, grey animal with a big bottom and oversized ears and just hoping it goes away until even more painful decisions have to be made down the line when the national debt becomes unserviceable and all of our talents and ambitious young people have left.

We don't earn as much but apparently we are in the top tier of earners. We have nice holidays but that is it in terms of lavish luxuries, 9 year old car, no designer brands, no iPhones, no meals out unless on holiday, no takeaways, 1 trip a year to the theatre or a concert, etc. A day out involves transport, entry tickets and a picnic from tesco (or M&S!) etc yet I see families on days out spending seemingly without thought in the gift shops and in the cafes etc and just don't understand how we are considered very high earners. I am happy with my life so I am not complaining but I do wonder how other people afford to be frivolous in their spending when we can't.

My conclusion is that it is because we are both employed rather than self employed. So everything we earn is taxed (heavily), nothing is hidden from the tax man. I think that the income declared by many people running their own companies or self employed is just the tip of their income iceberg. If you only declare half of your income then you have effectively just doubled the half you didn't declare as you don't lose half of it to tax. So the lifestyle of a £100k family who are PAYE can be achieved at a much lower declared income level if it is not all properly taxed.

I think there must be a huge number of people appearing with much lower income in the stats of household income levels, who are actually,secretly much richer. They are just paying considerably less tax than they should be because otherwise it really doesnt make any sense.

A lot of the people who come on here and say "we've got a 30k household income and we have 2 holidays a year and a 3 bed semi in the south east" are eother talking shite or not giving the full picture.
They are typically leaving out that:

• they receive benefit top ups which hugely boost their post tax income
• the house is a social home
• the rent is paid by UC
• They are mortgage free
• they have no children still home/no childcare costs
• they live in the "south east" but in a much cheaper/deprived area (eg jaywick is technically in the south east!!)