I don't want to pay more fucking tax!

[marthainthemarket]

I am the sole earner in a family of four, earning just under 40k a year and getting probably fuck all or below inflation pay increase next year, if I am lucky enough to keep my job ( public sector and employer needing to make massive budget savings). I barely cope now.

I am so fucking angry that Labour fucked up the disability benefit cuts. Other countries don't have run away disability benefits crises because they have a proper assessment process that means they keep a lid on people getting disability benefits who don't really need them. But instead of dealing with that, they came up with a crap proposed cut that wouldn't have dealt with the actual issues and they couldn't defend.

And having fucked that up they are now raising everyone's tax. I hate them!

Except pretty much all of the suggestions would make it harder for those who required adapted cars and/or need a wheelchair in the car. It is already difficult enough and not to mention, expensive.

Those who require a bigger car due to needing adaptions/space for a wheelchair already pay more in advanced payments as well as having to pay for any adaptations they need.

The issue isn’t just “tax the rich” — it’s that no one agrees on who qualifies as rich anymore.

The “rich” seem to be anyone earning more than you, while “working people” are whoever politicians want to praise before an election.

Even Labour says they won’t raise taxes for “working people” — but who does that include? The nurse on £38k? The London couple earning £90k who can’t afford a house? The manager on £120k who’s lost child benefit and faces higher NI due to frozen thresholds?

Meanwhile, the top 10% already contribute around 60% of income tax, and the top 1% nearly a third. There simply aren’t enough “rich” people to fund everything we demand — NHS, childcare, green initiatives, defence, social care — while others insist their own taxes can’t rise.

If we truly want better public services, everyone needs to contribute more — not just the same small group being endlessly targeted. Otherwise, we’ll keep debating “fairness” while the Treasury quietly runs dry.

“If no one defines who’s rich, everyone feels poor — and the country ends up broke.”

Public spending will keep increasing because demand is constant.

The poor will keep asking for more (rightly so), the middle class will claim they already pay enough, and politicians will promise miracles funded by “someone else.”

But there is no “someone else.”

If we really want better public services, everyone — not just the top 10% — has to pay more.

Otherwise, we’ll be stuck in this British tango forever: “I want better schools, hospitals, and social care — just not with my taxes.”

We throw around middle class, upper-middle, wealthy, high earner, ultra-rich — but no one ever defines them.

In reality: The ultra-wealthy live in another galaxy (family offices, offshore trusts, art collections, private schools in Switzerland).

The “rich” professionals are the ones the tax system can actually reach — salaried, visible, PAYE.

The middle class are squeezed to bits — not rich enough to dodge tax, not poor enough to get help.

And the poorest will keep being promised more, because every party knows there are votes in compassion.

The result? Everyone thinks someone else should pay more — and politicians happily keep that ambiguity alive. Because as soon as they define “working people,” half their voter base realises they’re the ones footing the bill.

I asked my question first.

Of course a BMW isn't the only car that is big enough for a wheelchair or other mobility aids but obviously a big car is needed and on threads such as this, people always say things such as basic cars only or helpfully suggest unsafe, unsuitable cars from the past.

What is the problem with someone getting a BMW using PIP? It is only costing the claimant more in their own money as they have to put a deposit on it. The PIP they get is the same whether they get a BMW or something really cheap, or no car at all.
Surely it should be up to the PIP claimant to pick a car that properly meets their needs.
They don't even own the car. It is leased.

I think it is down to simple jealousy.

The thing with motability is most people have no objection to it in terms of people who are wheelchair users or have other physical diabilities, but the fact that it is available for some people without physical disabilities is what seems somewhat nonsensical to many.

Do you have any children?

Then why do several people always suggest small cars only or cars which are clearly unsuitable for wheelchair users on threads such as these?

The whole system needs to be reviewed.

Its not jealousy its about tackling waste and greed.

What stands out in these discussions is how quickly people jump from "tax the rich more" to "cut benefits for pensioners and the disabled," as if either group is the real issue.

Let’s look at the numbers:
The top 10% of earners already pay about 60% of income tax, and the top 1% nearly a third. So yes, they bear a significant share of the burden.

But that doesn’t mean the answer is to start targeting pensioners on fixed incomes or disabled individuals trying to survive on £900 a month.

Pensioners contributed for decades when National Insurance meant something, and most disabled people would work if they could. The fiscal gap isn’t their fault — it’s the result of governments promising Scandinavian-level services while maintaining American-level taxes.

If we want better hospitals, schools, and care, everyone needs to contribute more — not just the top earners, and definitely not by taking from those least able to defend themselves.

That’s not fairness; it’s cowardice masquerading as fiscal responsibility.

And before anyone says, “well, I’m a working person,” we should ask what that actually means.

Even Labour can’t define it: is it someone earning £35k? £80k? £120k?

If we can’t agree on who’s rich or “working,” the debate becomes a circular firing squad — high earners resent taxes, the middle class feels squeezed, and the poor are scapegoated for existing.

The truth, though uncomfortable, is simple:

A fair society isn’t one where we blame those worse off. It’s one where everyone contributes fairly, and the safety net is there when people need it.
If you resent supporting today’s pensioners and disabled citizens, just wait until you need that safety net yourself — you’ll be glad it hasn’t disappeared.

I'm sorry you have depression and anxiety. But why can you work full time on something low skilled but not spend time upskilling yourself? It's been over 20 years since you've finished school.

Learn some new skills. Gain confidence. Practice in the mirror.

I'm sorry your parents also had MH issues.

@SirRaymondClench

As I said upthread if we advertise at work a full time role we get barely any applicants. They just don't want full time. It isn't minimum wage either..
If we advertise a part time role we are inundated. They actively seek it out because it's the golden ticket to get top ups

[My comment here it off topic but in response to @SirRaymondClench - I thought this was so interesting and it made me think that if this is your experience its likely to be repeated nationally. It made me wonder if this is a long term consequence of covid. That people got used to working from home which features (being honest here) a much easier life and a lot of bumming around.

I know now that I look back at what I did pre-Covid and when I was younger and think there is no way I'd do that now - getting up early every day, horrible overcrowded travel back and forth to the office every day, sometimes long distance. I just couldn't be bothered now and have lost all motivation as it seems pointless when you can have a nicer, easier life working from home or working part time. I think lots of people feel like this and have become lazy. Depending on your job of course, many people realised you can earn enough to live on working remotely with a lot of bumming around time built in so if the choice is The Old Way (commuting, present in the office, hard work in plain site) full time or The Bumming Around Part Time Way, many people are choosing the latter.

It clearly depends on your job, your skills, what you can earn part time and what is open to you - there are many jobs that would allow for this choice. ]

I'm still not understanding what is wasteful or greedy about it if the claimant is receiving the same benefit amount as they would for any other car or in cash if they didn't want or need a car but are paying more in the advanced payment from their own money?

Because not all people with motability cars require space for a wheelchair. If you don't have a physical disability then you could do fine with a small car.

Do they have to pay to tax and insure their car themselves?

PP does not owe you an explanation. She works, does not claim benefits, has explained why her life is how it is.
Life is not a race to the top.
If PP is happy with her job, then she is winning already as far as I am
concerned.

There is nothing wrong with doing a low paid job in your 40s.

Clearly some people do though. When small cars are suggested, it is usually outright because they want to overhaul the whole system and nothing about 'except for those who need wheelchairs' is usually included.

I think that is more about the fact that if the person has enough spare money to be topping up the motability funding then why on earth is the taxpayer funding them in the first place e.g rather than motability + personal cash = BMW, why not just personal cash = peugeot.

Because the PIP payment is the same regardless of that car they get, if they get a car at all.
If you took all the cars off of people who have them on Motability, it would save no money as they would still be getting the mobility element of PIP.

Yes, I have 2 children.Your probably going to tell me that I shouldn't have had them. As having children is only for the wealthy. My oldest(16), has a part time job himself while at sixth form, I'm making sure he knows how important it is to work. Hopefully he will get his qualifications and do way better than me.

You don't just get an expensive car on motability, you pay a chunk of money yourself or motability will be for a cheaper car.

Because if they don't get a car, they will get the cash anyway. The mobility element either goes towards a monthly payment for a car or in to their bank account.

PIP isn't means tested and isn't an out of work benefit.

The point I am making is that it is evident that some people don't 'need' the mobility element of PIP as they would be fully able to fund what they required without it. It comes down to whether PIP should be means tested really, like other benefits. I know it was raised previously with regard to David Cameron and the fact that despite being multi millionaires they were still eligible for disability benefits for their son. People will have different views but when belts are being tightened it is not an unreasonable question to ask

They have been assessed and have been awarded it. Car or no car, they still get that payment. No one being assessed is asked if they will spend it on a car. If they don't use the money for a car, they do not have that money taken away.

Means testing PIP wont happen. You can't means test someone's disability.

Of course you don't means test the disability, that doesn't even make sense as a sentence. You means test their wealth/income etc, just like with plenty of other things, it's not rocket science!

I think that was obvious from my description of the work shy examples and the fact I said after 6 months.

If it was work for community benefit, not private employers, then that wouldn't be an issue. Councils have many roles that could be mirrored to get people yes 'in to the habit' of going to work, learning a skill and earning their benefits. The problem needs some out of the box thinking. For example people could list their preference, they could do community benefit work alongside council direct operatives in construction & maintenance projects, extra assistance in schools/collages in lunch breaks that could lead people to gain experience in childcare or catering. Assisting in office admin to develop computer skills to get an office job. If you havnt gained experience at a younger age it can be really hard to get employers to take a chance on you. There is no work experience schemes for long term unemployed as far as I'm aware. Too many people are keen to look for negatives or offence to actually think of active ways to deal with this problem