AIBU to think the £100k tax trap is unfair?

One thing I never see discussed is the impact it has on households where one partner earns above the 100k and the other significantly below. I’d be inttrested on if anyone had any data regarding that.

My partner earns above 100k, we don’t qualify for any childcare (other than the universal hours over 3), no child benefit etc.

We live in an expensive part of north London (only sayung re mortgage costs) and have 2 children nursery age. I’m not complaning that we can’t access free childcare and know we’re in a privliged position.

However the high nursery costs in my area have made me consider leaving my lower paying ( significantly below 100k, nhs position) job. Because I earn less than the costs to send my 2 children to nursery.

With my husbands wage we can afford it, but from a personal standpoint I feel like I am paying to work and would rather be with my kids

The tax free allowance isn't a life jacket

And who exactly is the smug person sitting safely in the lifeboat? Why does that fringe group deserve your ire, but the person sitting in a lifeboat with their rent paid taking benefits when they could be working doesn't? What about the millions of people trying to earn more than minimum wage and improve their lives? Should they not bother, because you have made a moral judgement about what salary is enough?

You choose where you live. I didn’t say businesses could claim VAT back on all their costs, I said they could set the VAT they pay out against it. Which means paying less VAT. I’ve noticed a tendency around here recently that challenging misinformation leads to being told you don’t understand. Unfortunately for purveyors of inaccuracy, I do understand and will continue to challenge those who attempt to pull the wool over others’ eyes.

Thank you, I know exactly what PIP is for, I’m just not sure why it’s not means tested like other benefits. Yes, having a disability can lead to increased costs but children aren’t exactly free either? The view is taken that you earn enough to cover that cost so I can’t understand why it isn’t the same for PIP.

Child benefit and childcare subsidy should be universal.

ETA: stare pension should remain universal, not become means tested.

Why is the UK tax code all about punishing hard work and success

It’s really unfair. Especially as a 2 adult family could earn £99,999 each before being penalised!

I’m the only earner and have to be careful with bonuses. I normally put extra into my pension to keep under 100k.

Government should not demand sacrifices from one group of working people while declaring the benefits it promises another group beyond meaningful reform.

Reform welfare. Attack fraud and error. Cut procurement waste and duplicated bureaucracy. Demand genuine improvements in public-sector productivity. Then attack the other side of the balance sheet: build energy security, infrastructure and R&D, commercialise British IP and accumulate productive national assets capable of generating returns for future generations.

Hardworking private-sector taxpayers are not an unlimited ATM for an unreformed state. If the triple lock is on the table, £1.4tn of unfunded public-sector pension promises, extravagant senior payouts, welfare, waste and inefficiency belong on that table too.

Stop continually reaching into the pockets of people who work, save, invest and provide for themselves while shielding vastly expensive promises elsewhere. It isn’t sustainable. It isn’t equitable. And it isn’t fair.

Enough is enough.

It's Labour - the politics of spite, hate and envy. They want everyone dragged down to the lowest common denominator for the sake of "fairness". If that means everyone is poor, everyone gets a crap education, everyone gets crap healthcare, it's fine by them because everyone is equal! Utterly bonkers.

People talk about meritocracy and applaud people for what they've achieved, but they ignore the lived reality for a lot of people. It's fine to talk about merit and achievement, but for some people that's just not a possibility because they're disabled and physically unable to work. And disability is one minority that you don't have to be born into. You can become disabled at any point in your life. Crudely, you could be hit by a bus tomorrow, become disabled, not be able to work, and all of a sudden you wouldn't be a "hard working" member of society anymore. You'd be disabled and reliant on welfare. So what would happen then? What happens to people's ideas ideas of meritocracy then?

It's Labour - the politics of spite, hate and envy. They want everyone dragged down to the lowest common denominator for the sake of "fairness". If that means everyone is poor, everyone gets a crap education, everyone gets crap healthcare, it's fine by them because everyone is equal! Utterly bonkers.

People talk about meritocracy and applaud people for what they've achieved, but they ignore the lived reality for a lot of people. It's fine to talk about merit and achievement, but for some people that's just not a possibility because they're disabled and physically unable to work. And disability is one minority that you don't have to be born into. You can become disabled at any point in your life. Crudely, you could be hit by a bus tomorrow, become disabled, not be able to work, and all of a sudden you wouldn't be a "hard working" member of society anymore. You'd be disabled and reliant on welfare. So what would happen then? What happens to people's ideas ideas of meritocracy then?

So what is the alternative? What system would you put in place?

I’d be fine as I have insurance that pays my salary if I become too disabled to work, as a heck of a lot of other people do. You can insure against the financial impact of becoming disabled very easily.

That's a separate question, though. The point being made wasn't “what should the welfare system look like?” It was questioning the idea that someone's entitlement to support should be based on whether they're a “hardworking” person. If you believe the meritocracy argument and that work and "success" equates "reward", then what happens when someone who has worked all their life becomes disabled tomorrow? Are they suddenly no longer deserving because they can no longer demonstrate their “merit”? That's the question being asked. You need to answer that before jumping to asking what system I'd design.

It's not a separate question. What people "deserve" is irrelevant if you can't say where that support should be coming from.
If not a meritocracy, then what?

The people working and paying taxes?

Ok. I'll leave you be. I honestly hope you don't suffer the pain of disability. All the best.

And what about if your child was born with a severe disability? I hope, of course, this doesn't happen.