Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To be sick of politicians using 'fairness' as justification for tax rises?

605 replies

Itchthescratch · 21/07/2026 07:46

Fairness is completely subjective and I notice that this is often shorthand for giving more money to those that contribute the least.

Of course there will always be those that can't contribute much due to factors outside of their control, but we are kidding ourselves if we pretend that there aren't already lots of people that are scraping by doing the bare minimum (sometimes even less) and making completely irresponsible decisions knowing the state will ultimately insulate them from the consequences.

I personally know people that have had lots of children that they can't afford and can't parent properly simply because they wanted to. They are now on an incredible amount of money as the two child cap has been lifted. I know people that have stopped working because they weren't much better off than being on benefits and they couldn't be bothered with the hassle. I know young people that are already planning to stay on disability benefits their whole lives for mental health issues as they want to stay home and game.

Is it really 'fair' to charge the rest of us more to subsidise all of this?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
Nellodee · 22/07/2026 06:37

All these people who know extremely hard working high earners and lazy benefit scrounges surprise me.

I know a landlord who has semi retired at 50 and who has given his very entitled 13 year old daughter property (presumably as some kind of tax evasion). I know a woman who works 3 jobs and is likely to be doing so until she is 70, she is not rich at all.
Personally, I’d like to see the retired lazy 50 year old taxed till his pips squeak and the hard working woman receive as many breaks as possible.

concertinacornflake · 22/07/2026 06:35

Itchthescratch · 22/07/2026 06:20

These things are almost impossible to definitively prove without either admission from those abusing the system or high level surveillance which is completely impractical. The reality of distinguishing between genuine claimants and chancers is really difficult, especially when people know how to game the system. I know about these young people through their parents who are my friends and are often frustrated with the situation themselves.

Obviously you can choose to disbelieve me and believe that all of the claimants are genuine. I think the poll shows that most people though do agree with me because they also have contact with people like this in their lives. It's not a theoretical concept that needs to be proven to them through studies and research. They have seen enough evidence of it with their own two eyes.

There's academic research, it's all known, the things individuals 'believe' are often not in line with known facts.

People believe there's a lot more benefit fraud than there is.

concertinacornflake · 22/07/2026 06:33

Itchthescratch · 22/07/2026 05:54

I find it so odd that you want to challenge the concept of 'personal responsibility' as if it's some weird construct designed by the powerful to suppress the poor when in reality it liberates the poor. State dependency is bad for the individual and society and should be avoided wherever possible. You are literally putting yourself at the mercy of every electorate and every subsequent government decision. Encouragingly independence and self reliance is vital

I have literally just come from a thread where a young woman is making a profound life choice that could ultimately lead to a life of dependency on the state for herself and her future child. Many of us have faced similar crossroads before where we are conflicted between what we would ideally like to do and what is sensible and responsible. If we all opt for the latter approach then society ultimately breaks down. How many of us can take advantage of a safety net before it becomes overloaded and begins to snap under the weight of everybody?

Everyone is at the mercy of governments. Some people just have more difficulty dealing with that human vulnerability.

You didn't educate yourself, you don't employ yourself, you don't police your neighbourhood yourself, you can't operate on yourself.

You can, if fortunate, earn and accrue a bit more money to give yourself more options in tough times. Yes, and that's worth doing.

But the best protection against the human troubles people routinely face - crime, ill health, unemployment, bereavement - is a strong society.

Itchthescratch · 22/07/2026 06:20

paternosteria · 22/07/2026 06:08

I did come across this stat after reading on, sorry. But how does this prove these NEETs are taking advantage of the state? Is it not more likely that many simply cannot find employment despite enormous efforts and the remainder are genuinely disabled - we are seeing a massive decline in health as evidenced by many studies. I'm not saying people who take advantage don't exist but I do wonder if there are that many of them. Of course there will be more in disadvantaged areas where unemployment is high.

These things are almost impossible to definitively prove without either admission from those abusing the system or high level surveillance which is completely impractical. The reality of distinguishing between genuine claimants and chancers is really difficult, especially when people know how to game the system. I know about these young people through their parents who are my friends and are often frustrated with the situation themselves.

Obviously you can choose to disbelieve me and believe that all of the claimants are genuine. I think the poll shows that most people though do agree with me because they also have contact with people like this in their lives. It's not a theoretical concept that needs to be proven to them through studies and research. They have seen enough evidence of it with their own two eyes.

OP posts:
paternosteria · 22/07/2026 06:08

Itchthescratch · 22/07/2026 05:39

I listed them upthread if you can be bothered to find the post. For example 13% of young people are NEETs nationally but this rises to 20% in some areas. Around half of these people claim benefits. I'm from a deprived area so it's statistically likely that I will know a few of these young people (which I do!). I'm not some strange anomaly. I find it more bizarre that people claim to know nobody who is similar to the type of people I describe in my OP. They must be a statistical anomaly or move in small and homogenous circles.

I did come across this stat after reading on, sorry. But how does this prove these NEETs are taking advantage of the state? Is it not more likely that many simply cannot find employment despite enormous efforts and the remainder are genuinely disabled - we are seeing a massive decline in health as evidenced by many studies. I'm not saying people who take advantage don't exist but I do wonder if there are that many of them. Of course there will be more in disadvantaged areas where unemployment is high.

Itchthescratch · 22/07/2026 05:54

ClarkeandNewman · 21/07/2026 21:45

I mean people say this kind of stuff all the time. But they can never ever back it up with stats. Just anecdotes. The reason being it's a viewpoint, influenced by a particular agenda, with nothing more to back it up than if I said it's a lifestyle choice to have blue eyes.

As for "personal responsibility", I'll never understand why people are happy to parrot that phrase. It seems so obvious that it's a concept put about by the powerful within our socio economic system to shift collective responsibility, and in particular their own responsibility for our appalling economic state, onto the powerless individual. Let's face it there's got to be a reason why they keep increasing their wealth while we fight for crumbs. They normalise inequality to keep themselves at the top and tell us we're in the position we are because we choose to be.

I find it so odd that you want to challenge the concept of 'personal responsibility' as if it's some weird construct designed by the powerful to suppress the poor when in reality it liberates the poor. State dependency is bad for the individual and society and should be avoided wherever possible. You are literally putting yourself at the mercy of every electorate and every subsequent government decision. Encouragingly independence and self reliance is vital

I have literally just come from a thread where a young woman is making a profound life choice that could ultimately lead to a life of dependency on the state for herself and her future child. Many of us have faced similar crossroads before where we are conflicted between what we would ideally like to do and what is sensible and responsible. If we all opt for the latter approach then society ultimately breaks down. How many of us can take advantage of a safety net before it becomes overloaded and begins to snap under the weight of everybody?

OP posts:
Itchthescratch · 22/07/2026 05:39

paternosteria · 21/07/2026 23:39

Which statistics show this?

I listed them upthread if you can be bothered to find the post. For example 13% of young people are NEETs nationally but this rises to 20% in some areas. Around half of these people claim benefits. I'm from a deprived area so it's statistically likely that I will know a few of these young people (which I do!). I'm not some strange anomaly. I find it more bizarre that people claim to know nobody who is similar to the type of people I describe in my OP. They must be a statistical anomaly or move in small and homogenous circles.

OP posts:
paternosteria · 21/07/2026 23:39

Itchthescratch · 21/07/2026 11:32

I have seen this often. Posters that seem incredulous that people know other people that take advantage of the welfare state in this way and yet statistics prove they exist. Most of us have friends and relatives like this. Sometimes I believe that some posters believe that if they work to discredit accounts of this then the wider public might be persuaded that it's all some right wing plot. It won't work though because we literally know they exist as we experience them in our daily lives.

Which statistics show this?

ClarkeandNewman · 21/07/2026 22:17

Pheasantsfeather · 21/07/2026 22:08

One where you get out of life what effort you put in. One where those who absolutely genuinely cannot support themselves through no fault of their own and despite best efforts, get more support than they do now as there are fewer scroungers taking from those who genuinely need state money to live a good way of life.

I want lots of provision for adults with learning disabilities to work in whatever way they can/ volunteer/ have paid for activities in the day so they lead a happy purposeful life. I know two adults in this situation dying to have a little job or volunteer but there isn't the support for them to do it. Access to work scheme support to actually be available for people with visual impairment or cerebral palsy. However currently that money isn't there because Kelly and Jayden have 5 kids and he's too anxious to work and she's got fibromyalgia so they all live off the state.

Edited

Excuse my language but that's bollocks. Kelly and Jayden (your class prejudice is showing, why not Edward and Harriet?) are not responsible for the political choice not to provide support for people with learning disability.

Shall we also not play disability divide and rule either? Your examples of anxiety and fibromyalgia are pure fodder.

InWithPeaceOutWithStress · 21/07/2026 22:09

VanessaFence · 21/07/2026 17:17

I'm currently the highest paid person in my company but there have been many times when I've been the lowest (or even not paid myself at all). I work 60+ hours a week and the only holiday I've had this year was a week off in April (and even then I had my laptop with me). I'm taking today off as I worked on Sunday and until 11pm last night.

I've never said I'm crippled by taxation, I've said multiple times in this thread that I'm happy to pay the tax due. However, many business owners have really struggled with the increases in minimum wage, employer NIC etc. (fortunately we can absorb it but ultimately what that means is it comes out of my pay).

Part of the reason people like me do this to themselves (and there are many days when I wish I'd never quit my day job!) is the pride in building something and creating jobs. So I find it extremely annoying when people talk about business owners as if they're freeloaders or tax dodgers.

You’re arguing with a point I made to a different poster. My comment was in response to something they said. These sorts of arguments on mumsnet are so stupid.

Pheasantsfeather · 21/07/2026 22:08

CurlewKate · 21/07/2026 07:58

I suppose it depends what sort of a society we want to live in.

One where you get out of life what effort you put in. One where those who absolutely genuinely cannot support themselves through no fault of their own and despite best efforts, get more support than they do now as there are fewer scroungers taking from those who genuinely need state money to live a good way of life.

I want lots of provision for adults with learning disabilities to work in whatever way they can/ volunteer/ have paid for activities in the day so they lead a happy purposeful life. I know two adults in this situation dying to have a little job or volunteer but there isn't the support for them to do it. Access to work scheme support to actually be available for people with visual impairment or cerebral palsy. However currently that money isn't there because Kelly and Jayden have 5 kids and he's too anxious to work and she's got fibromyalgia so they all live off the state.

ClarkeandNewman · 21/07/2026 22:04

newdaynewchapter · 21/07/2026 21:40

Hilarious - we live in a society where my husband and I get up every morning and go to work and my neighbour does not but earns more than us combined on benefits. Constantly told we are mugs. That is not the society I want to live in.

You're echoing George Osborne's incredibly ideological speech of 2012 where he tried to make people angry about their neighbours blinds being down in the morning. It was written specifically to gain support for "austerity", the policy of slashing public services and dismantling the welfare state. The coalition govt had to do something to address the crisis within capitalism caused by the global financial crash, otherwise the very economic foundations of late stage capitalism would collapse and jeopardise the position of the powerful. So they fooled people into believing that they were the problem, or more accurately the scrounger next door was. Worked out well for the dominant classes, I mean look at us now. Barely a functioning health service and everyone is blamed for being disabled!

It's almost beyond belief that some of us are still spouting the same crap after all these years eh? Practically word for word.

Andshesoffatatrot · 21/07/2026 22:01

VanessaFence · 21/07/2026 17:17

I'm currently the highest paid person in my company but there have been many times when I've been the lowest (or even not paid myself at all). I work 60+ hours a week and the only holiday I've had this year was a week off in April (and even then I had my laptop with me). I'm taking today off as I worked on Sunday and until 11pm last night.

I've never said I'm crippled by taxation, I've said multiple times in this thread that I'm happy to pay the tax due. However, many business owners have really struggled with the increases in minimum wage, employer NIC etc. (fortunately we can absorb it but ultimately what that means is it comes out of my pay).

Part of the reason people like me do this to themselves (and there are many days when I wish I'd never quit my day job!) is the pride in building something and creating jobs. So I find it extremely annoying when people talk about business owners as if they're freeloaders or tax dodgers.

I agree, I pay more tax now than when I was employed. I’d love to hear what these loopholes are. Not a penny goes through my company that isn’t taxed now, or in the future. It’s changed a lot compared to 20 years ago, rightly so in some cases, but now enough to deter people taking the leap.

ClarkeandNewman · 21/07/2026 21:45

DollyPinkdaydream2 · 21/07/2026 17:22

One where hard work is rewarded and people understand that the benefits system should exist as a safety net and not a lifestyle, where saving is not penalised and where personal responsibility is encouraged. A million miles from where we currently are it would seem…

I mean people say this kind of stuff all the time. But they can never ever back it up with stats. Just anecdotes. The reason being it's a viewpoint, influenced by a particular agenda, with nothing more to back it up than if I said it's a lifestyle choice to have blue eyes.

As for "personal responsibility", I'll never understand why people are happy to parrot that phrase. It seems so obvious that it's a concept put about by the powerful within our socio economic system to shift collective responsibility, and in particular their own responsibility for our appalling economic state, onto the powerless individual. Let's face it there's got to be a reason why they keep increasing their wealth while we fight for crumbs. They normalise inequality to keep themselves at the top and tell us we're in the position we are because we choose to be.

XenoBitch · 21/07/2026 21:43

newdaynewchapter · 21/07/2026 21:40

Hilarious - we live in a society where my husband and I get up every morning and go to work and my neighbour does not but earns more than us combined on benefits. Constantly told we are mugs. That is not the society I want to live in.

Not mugs, but gullible. No single person is claiming enough in benefits that is more than two people working. Benefits are not that generous.

XenoBitch · 21/07/2026 21:42

TheCompactPussycat · 21/07/2026 21:38

Indeed there aren't. And many of the lower-paid, minimum-wage jobs fall within the realms of precarious employment.

Take my recent graduate for example. He is taking a year out to save for his Masters. He found a retail job. 16 hours a week. He'd rather work full-time but it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. Every week he is given his rota. Sometimes he gets his contracted 16 hours, sometimes more. What is absolutely consistent is the inconsistency. The hours and days he works change every week - he can be rota'd to work on any day of the week, and at any time between 8am and 8pm. It would be impossible to work a second job to increase his earnings because what other employer is going to employ someone who has no idea of their availability.

As it happens he has been promoted and now has more hours and more pay. But had he not been living with his generous parents and was needing to support himself or a family, he would be needing support from the state. Not because he's feckless or lazy but because that sort of precarious employment is commonplace.

Absolutely! There is a thread running on here where OP has a adult child who has a zero hour contract job, and gets 2 hours work a week. No one can live on that, and like you said, you are expected to be available for more hours if they come up.

newdaynewchapter · 21/07/2026 21:40

CurlewKate · 21/07/2026 07:58

I suppose it depends what sort of a society we want to live in.

Hilarious - we live in a society where my husband and I get up every morning and go to work and my neighbour does not but earns more than us combined on benefits. Constantly told we are mugs. That is not the society I want to live in.

TheCompactPussycat · 21/07/2026 21:38

XenoBitch · 21/07/2026 16:28

It is not defeatist to say that not everyone is going to be employed. There are not enough jobs out there.

Indeed there aren't. And many of the lower-paid, minimum-wage jobs fall within the realms of precarious employment.

Take my recent graduate for example. He is taking a year out to save for his Masters. He found a retail job. 16 hours a week. He'd rather work full-time but it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. Every week he is given his rota. Sometimes he gets his contracted 16 hours, sometimes more. What is absolutely consistent is the inconsistency. The hours and days he works change every week - he can be rota'd to work on any day of the week, and at any time between 8am and 8pm. It would be impossible to work a second job to increase his earnings because what other employer is going to employ someone who has no idea of their availability.

As it happens he has been promoted and now has more hours and more pay. But had he not been living with his generous parents and was needing to support himself or a family, he would be needing support from the state. Not because he's feckless or lazy but because that sort of precarious employment is commonplace.

Andshesoffatatrot · 21/07/2026 21:29

randomchap · 21/07/2026 20:50

They aren't dodging tax. By being cash only they can launder money easily.

Money laundering is not only tax dodging, it’s often crime too. They are not mutually exclusive.

Mrstawnyowl · 21/07/2026 21:13

illbeyourperfectmrs · 21/07/2026 08:01

As my mum would say, it’s better than a poke in the eye with a blunt stick!

As did my mum. 😀

Itchthescratch · 21/07/2026 21:03

Megifer · 21/07/2026 16:42

"That wasnt what was said"

Then you go on to repeat the comment you apparently didnt say, and confirm you said it.

Im surprised you're trying to claim you cant see how distasteful that comment was in this context.

We've also had - the more kids people have the higher chance one will be disabled so they will get more benefits
This was your paraphrasing which implies I believe that people are having more children so that they can have a disabled one and receive more benefits. I don't think this nor did I ever insinuate it.

I wanted to clarify my point and to reiterate the facts on this matter. Almost half of households subject to the two child cap have a household member with a disability. This isn't massively surprising considering the stats around the prevelance of disability. These households won't be subject to the benefit cap and will often be receiving benefits in the magnitude of those quoted in the newspaper when the two child cap was lifted.

OP posts:
Itchthescratch · 21/07/2026 20:59

SleeplessInWherever · 21/07/2026 16:50

The difficulty is that when you “just say something” on a thread that is about the welfare bill, it is loaded - whether that’s intentional or not.

You may not have particularly strong views on disability benefit, and they may not be relevant to the discussion you’re treating to have, but as the thread is about taxation and benefits, it is relevant.

Mentioning disability as part of a wider conversation on benefits does imply that you’re involving them in the cost based discussion.

It is inevitably a part of all discussions on welfare but it would be completely disingenuous to allow another poster's comment to stand that lifting the two child cap was basically irrelevant to most because of the wider benefit cap. This just isn't true as the vast majority of households have an exemption from the cap and most exemptions are due to disability.

So removing the two child cap meant the lots of families could claim a lot more money. So the families I referred in my OP could indeed take home tens of thousands of pounds more each year. I wasn't being misleading or omitting important facts as was implied.

OP posts:
randomchap · 21/07/2026 20:50

PropertyD · 21/07/2026 20:05

Quite. We have 24 barbers shop in my nearest large town. Most take cash only. Ditto nail bars. Raid and raid again. Yet they are still here, still taking cash only

They aren't dodging tax. By being cash only they can launder money easily.

DontrockthecaravanGeoffrey · 21/07/2026 20:25

Laurmolonlabe · 21/07/2026 20:23

You tax their assets, which are in the UK- why do people assume income tax is the only kind of tax?

Did you mean to quote me?

Laurmolonlabe · 21/07/2026 20:23

DontrockthecaravanGeoffrey · 21/07/2026 15:47

You at 14.48 today.

"We have around 150 billionaires in the UK. Of those, most only have £1 billion. Very few people are hoarding billions in the UK. We lost 20 of them in the past 4 years so the number of billionaires is dropping quote significantly. What happens if they leave?"

You tax their assets, which are in the UK- why do people assume income tax is the only kind of tax?

Swipe left for the next trending thread