To think that there is no hope here?

Why? Do you think someone who is self-made will have had that come easy with no work?

Pensioners and children, and then people earning under £60k.

@Taxed I think you're referring to these statistics, is that right?
https://www.adamsmith.org/state-reliance-index

Interesting that almost half of the 52% are those receiving state pension, which is double the number of those receiving universal credit/unemployed. It's not very clear what they mean by reliance, I need to have a further look into the study and methodology.

Lol, having read some of your responses on this thread, I sense irony is lost on you.

the figures are from the Office for National Statistics and separately the Adam Smith Institute.

Why don’t you break them down for us- this is your thread after all. I think to maintain any credibility you have to set out what your 52% includes. That’s what people are asking you to clarify (and saying do your own research isn’t an answer for people who might only have 2/3 minutes in their day to make a contribution to this thread).

My heart hurts for them, every day they have to wake up and carry the burden of being rich on their poor broken shoulders.

I've said who I think should get help in this thread already.

There needs to be a viable centre right party if not the Conservatives. I'm voting as women died for us to be able to vote. And I'm not voting for a left wing party . So currently if not the Tories there's only one alternative.

Focus on me rather than the real problem because focusing on me will make the problem go away, presumably

Well, you posted about your problem, so thems the breaks.

I think many are living in La La Land if the think the UK is the great UK of yester years
And no-one, absolutely no-one has suggested this. Seriously, stop making shit up.

The door is that way >>>>>>>>>>>

😂

Why shouldn't she complain? It's her money. She's worked for it. It's not her fault that Labour are increasing the liability to the taxpayer every day they are in office.

Where did you see this? And did they define what they mean by “reliant on”? That is genuinely a shocking number.

So who is allowed to get help under your rules? People caring for disabled family? People who've lost their job through no fault of their own? People in low income who need top ups? Or someone else
Don't vote the Tories back in FFS. A big part of the reason our current government is so shit is because the Tories fucked over normal people for 14 years ( and no I didn't vote Labour).
Of course if you have money you'll want the Tories back so they look after you and keep screwing the poor.

Yes, of course it bothers me. And yes, I do think you're morally suspect for 'pointing this out' from a position of huge privilege and self interest. You are concerned about the economy only in so far as you want even greater wealth than you already have. There's a tone of blame for those less fortunate than you and a self congratulatory note that does indeed suggest you think you are superior. Most people reliant on the state are too old to work, too ill to work, have disabilities or are carers, or are paid below the living wage. My suggestion would be to reduce the gap between the highest and lowest earners for a start, so that those at the bottom of the salary scale didn't need to rely on UC top ups. You'd earn less, but it would make a huge difference to the welfare bill.

So you want to move somewhere where there aren't as many pensioners because people die much younger and/or work until they're pushing 80??

Ok...

I think it is concerning. I'm an average earner and no economist but I'm baffled as to how we've got here. How have we ended up in a situation where people are working but cannot earn enough to pay for what is essentially a basic lifestyle (somewhere to live, paying their bills, food, a once a year holiday etc.) without state funded top ups.

This graph is US statistics but I bet similar is true of the UK. The gap between CEO salary and the average worker salary has increased massively over the years the graph is from 2009 but CEO pay has risen by about 1085% since 1978 compared with around 24% increase for an average worker. Of course CEOs have been and will always be paid more, rightly. But it's the gap between the two that's the issue for me.

So the government has had to step in to support people. I've no idea what the solution is, but in my simplistic view of things, it's not sustainable to be paying the high earners so so much more over time - the imbalance ruins things for everyone.

No wonder people think "why bother?" when people are getting taxed more and more and seeing services cut everywhere.

For me, it's not about the individuals experiencing hardship or ill health - that is absolutely what the welfare state is for. It's about the ever increasing disparity.

And it's such a short sighted view - the economy can't grow if the majority haven't got any money to spend.

Pay teachers, nurses, police officers, bin men, care workers etc more. We need more of them. And proper training.

Pay NHS managers, very well paid train drivers that don't want reforms, council workers earning over £100,000 (or anyone in the public sector earning more than the PM) less. I'm sure there's a few more to add to both lists.

Then we can see where we stand. And who is worth taxpayer money and who isn't.

There are a lot of jobs that pay barely above minimum wage. I refuse to believe high earners are working 5,6,7 times as hard. With the high cost of housing, top up benefits are often needed. Even teachers and nurses are only on about 30k. I doubt your jobs is more important than those. It's easy for the rich to moan hut I bet they use all these services that are kept going by the low paid.

I think you're referring to these statistics, is that right?
https://www.adamsmith.org/state-reliance-index

Interesting that almost half of the 52% are those receiving state pension, which is double the number of those receiving universal credit/unemployed. It's not very clear what they mean by reliance, I need to have a further look into the study and methodology.

@Taxed The makeup of those statistics is hugely important. There will be childless single people on relatively good wages but not necessarily higher rate who are net contributors. Equally, a two parent family with one higher rate taxpayer and on SAHP but multiple state-educated children, even more so if at least one family member requires a lot of NHS care, will not be net contributors. I'm a higher rate payer with no children. Most years I would imagine DH (also higher rate) and I probably are net contributors. But this year, the gynae treatment I've had probably cost the NHS more than I payed in tax and I am hugely thankful for it (private wasn't an option). So let's hope you and your family don't end up needing hugely expensive cancer treatment; there's a reason people go bankrupt in the US from healthcare. We were supposed to move there and out healthcare plan (bearing in mind we are two healthy individuals who look after ourselves) would have been £850 a month.

@Taxed I never claimed child benefits for that reason (knew I’d end up paying them back I didn’t need it for tax credits as I was always in work but just on mat leave). That could have been an option for you. Were you really not already doing a self- assessment anyway though- with a high income surely you have investment income you have to declare?

And honestly if you think things are better in the US you are completely mad. You do realise that everyone pays for healthcare there- and even if they do they have to fight with insurance companies to get the right (as opposed to the cheapest) treatment AFTER paying through the nose. Would you fancy a system akin to claiming after a car accident every time you need an X-ray.

Oh and if your son gets someone pregnant, depending on where you are, he might end up having to support the baby because getting an abortion is off limits.

Plus economic, racial and political unrest like nothing we have (eventually all the MAGA movement are going to realise that things haven’t improved under trump and god help them then).

52% of adults are reliant on the state because of an aging population and because wages are low, and people are under employed - because they cannot afford to be in full time work because of child care costs/unavailability, because if medical issues, because they are carers, etc. UC is facilitating low wages because I guess the gov believes that businesses can't afford to pay an actual cost of living wage or it would push up inflation. I'm not an economist but I guess someone has worked it out...

It's all very well moaning about people being net beneficiaries but I think very few people actively choose to be poor. Complex situations leave people unable to earn more; some poorly paid jobs are vital. People can't magically put themselves in a higher tax bracket.

I'm going to guess the OP might be an immigrant from what she's said about always having been a net contributor (most UK people would get some help along the way even if it's free prescriptions or a student council tax discount). And that doesn't mean she's not allowed an opinion on the country she's made her home, but it does put a bit of a different spin on her plans to up and leave.

OP, do you object to paying tax and the rest of your argument is a smokescreen to justify wanting to move elsewhere to avoid it? You only pay the highest rate if you are high earning, and you say yourself your earnings are in the highest bracket. Don’t you think it’s fair you pay the tax? Isn’t it right that if you are fortunate enough to be extremely comfortable you can afford the tax to improve the lot of the infirm, old and children? You don’t suggest that the tax is particularly onerous, just that you object to paying it.

Seems to be a run of these poor hard done by high earners just lately. Perhaps we could have a whip round for you. It must be awful having so much wealth and actually having to contribute something to society.

This is the result of deliberate policy when Gordon Brown was chancellor to make the majority of people welfare dependant and fearful of a Tory government. It backfired spectacularly and we had 14 years of Tory rule during which they entrenched this approach. The result is not just welfare dependency. It is suppressed wages that have failed to keep track with our international competitors and an ever increasing tax burden on the bet contributors. It was financially illiterate, but deliberate.