Tax TAx TAX!!!!!! Fuming at our government!

[Baldylovingbeard]

please try and convince me otherwise…..

What a joke this government are!!! ( UK)

Let’s just tax everyone who earns a bit of cash!!! Oh and while we’re at it… go on have loads more children it’s ok others will pay for them!!! Cutting the 2child benefit cap! If you decide to have multiple children you should be able to afford to provide for them. NOT expect others too!!!!! If you fall on hard times and you’ve worked and contributed to paying tax than you are within your rights to claim tax this is what benefits were made for, it’s not a means to not work, have more kids….etc!

Oh and if you work really hard and want to put some money by for you later days in life…. You’ll be taxed!

My situation:
Part time work, full time mum to 1 child. I work for myself and earn around 10k this money usually pays for things our daughter needs… clothes, clubs, any treats.
Husband works long hours, his under a lot of stress with his job, he has worked his way to and earns a very good salary 100k he gets taxed 60% you do the maths on that! We live in a 3 bed around £280k so nothing crazy but live within our means. We have one car! One holiday a year! Put money into savings! Pension! our daughter goes to one after school club. My husband got kicked out of home at 16…. He has worked with no help from family or friends and I believe he has worked very hard to get to where he is now. we are generous with charity’s and try our best to help out when we can if we can!

So yes, it seems only the amount earned over 100k attract a 62% ‘tax.’ I think you previously mentioned your DH earns 100k? So you are alright then, especially since you pay no tax yourself 🤞

He earns over so I was right he does pay 60% tax!!! Any bonus he gets…. Taxes at 60%!
tax tax tax!!!!!

Only the bit between 100,101 and 125,139.

You pay just over £27,400 in tax on a salary of £100k and £42,400 on an income of 125,000.

So, in real percentages of total tax paid per gross salary:- this is 27.4% paid in tax on the £100k salary and 33.9% paid in total tax on an income of £125k.

Quote: "... and crucially not paying your own tax."

Not true though. Everyone pays tax.

The data I have is from 2021, but UK guv revenue is :

Income tax 36%
Vat 17%
Fuel, booze, ciggies 11%

So someone not working who decides to have a bottle of gin and a pack of smokes,a flutter on the gee , gees : lots of tax there.

I reckon the late Queen mum was likely a net contributor :-)

And I think this is something lots of people miss. A lot of benefits go straight back into the system. And no, I am not saying folk on benefits are smoking and drinking it away. But they pay for many things that are taxed.

Nobody can avoid tax. Even a homeless begger pays tax.

Even food is taxed indirectly. Not VAT of course, but some of what you pay goes towards the producers corporate tax.

Maybe I rushed. I was a sahm. I don't work FT, only PT now kids are grown.

No, you just don’t understand it properly!

Even though I (and many others) have explained it to you before, HE DOES NOT PAY 60% ON THE ENTIRE 100k - let me break it down for you again:

• If he has pay up to 100,000 he has a tax free allowance of 12,570 which means he will pay £0 in tax on that 12,570
• On earnings between 12,571 and 50,270 he will pay basic rate tax of 20% (£7,540)
• on earnings between 50,271 and 100,000 he will pay higher rate tax of 40% (£19,892)
• so the total tax paid (assuming no deductions for pension etc) for a £100k salary is £27,432 - hopefully your maths is good enough to see that that’s approx 27% (not 60%!)

Once salary exceeds £100k then personal allowance starts to be lost, at a rate of £1 for every £2 earned, so that by the time salary reaches £125,140, the entire personal allowance is lost. This means that ONLY FOR EARNINGS BETWEEN £100k-£125k, there is an effective tax rate of 60% (being the 40% higher rate plus an effective 20% for the loss of personal allowance.

So the facts are that even if your husband earned £125k meaning his entire personal allowance is lost, he will pay £42,515 in tax - that’s approx 34% which is a long way from 60%.

If you still can’t understand it then I can’t help you, but do stop trying to convince people he’s paying 60% on everything he earns.

I just re read this. It was 1.5years ago… my youngest is 3

Well yes of course. I was careful not to use “economically inactive,” because if you’re buying anything at all you’re not inactive.

I don’t know about you, but I think the country could do with that 36% having more contributors to it. Might even push the percentage up. Surely we can all accept that the economy might be in better condition if less people opted out of paying meaningful employment tax.

It’s like a business. Value in, value you out. If you’re not putting in income tax, your “value in” is naturally limited.

That’s what I was trying to say!

Tax and NI combined (if my calculations are correct 😬):

100k pays 31%
110k pays 34%
120k pays 36.5%
125k pays 37.5

None of these anywhere near 60%, as argued by OP

OP, if you simply stated your DH pays a higher (60-62%) rate on a relatively small part of his income over 100k, if he is lucky enough to get a bonus, then we’d be agreeing with you. Doesn’t sound quite so dramatic though.

But, continuing to state that he pays 60% tax on 100k income is incorrect.

I feel sad that we (including me) go descend into insults and being catty. And being so nosey about people's finances.

Is this aimed at everyone not working or contributing or just the op and part time people with young dc?

Everyone. I believe that every one of working age, who is capable of work, should.

By capable I don’t mean childcare, or convenience. I mean if you aren’t disabled, retired, on maternity leave, otherwise somehow literally unable to work - then I believe you should be.

Of course it’s “worse” if you’re relying on the state to be out of work. But it might lighten the load on everyone else, if more people were putting in.

It makes my head spin :-)

I am not an economist in any shape or form, and I see your point re increasing income tax revenue, but I'm not sure I agree.

Yes, it would drive government to increase wages and employment, But the economists don't agree if full employment is good or bad. They say it causes inflation. They also say the " sweet spot" is between 4 and 5% unemployment.

My head is spinning faster now :-)

As we have a labour guv, what I would like to see them do is lower the hemorrhaging of public spending to shareholders.

Why does government use profit driven companies to provide public services. The profit they make is mostly lost to the system.

I would prefer to see the VAT portion increased, with a progressive vat system.

Std stuff, staples at low vat. Luxury goods, higher vat.

That would be an interesting thread for sure. " The Hermes bag I want is now 35% VAT rated !!!!!"

You do need job creation for this. There’s plenty of young people struggling. The focus should be on jobs and then people will be economically active.

I work in the education sector and could fill some vacancies 8 times over, people don’t want them. They go to overseas candidates because they will, and then people complain about that.

In OP’s case, she did say she could work full time but chooses not to. That’s one example of the kind of opting out that I’m talking about. If you can work, and contribute, you should.

And you certainly shouldn’t be complaining about tax levels if you’re opting out of paying it!

The hypocrisy in your posts bewilders me.

If your husband up and left you, you would join the 'lazy scrounging British'.
You're in a fortunate position where you can make the choice to stay home without needing welfare support. And then you have a moan about your husband paying his share of tax (which you massively misunderstand).
From attempting to read some of your replies, it seems to me that you'd be incapable of securing a well paid FT position because your communication skills and grammar are appalling. Get off your high horse🙄

She'd get money from the divorce. And even so. If the worst happened (why are we assuming it would) OP would need temporary support yes.

But I assume after she'd come up with a plan to actually be self sufficient in the end. Yes temporary support and then being self sufficient

I have two children, a single parent, and work full time. I think you need to stop feeling sorry for yourself. Your husband has an extremely good wage. Fair play to him for working for what he’s got, but you’re really not as hard done by as you think.

As many other people also need temporary support because they also do not have a £100k owning husband to pay for everything for them.

Others need support for a lot longer, because unlike OP, who has one child, they have several children or a disabled child who requires full time care from them.

Others are doing their best, but they struggle with understanding basic information, like how tax works, so it's very hard for them to find any kind of job paying enough to sustain themselves, poor loves.

They might work full time but still need to be topped up by UC.

Any many people who claim UC are using it as a temporary solution to extortionate childcare fees, wanting to be home with their children in the early years (hugely beneficial might I add), being made redundant and retraining, searching for a new job, death of a loved one, illness or disability. There is a whole array of reasons why people rely on the benefit system. While a number of people have no intention of working and exploiting the system, demonising a whole demographic for the few is short-sighted. Let's not forget that many low income jobs are valuable and necessary, and people may work but spend the entirety of their lives receiving additional financial support.

OP can't be angry that the budget impacts her household income, it impacts everyone. If she is feeling hard done by, she can always increase her hours and boost the economy by paying her share of income tax.

I’ve been a SAHM for all of my SEN kid’s lives, but in doing so I have facilitated my DH’s career advancement and increased salary - we have no local family so he needed to know I could be solely responsible for the kids so he could leave at 6am, get home often after 8 and travel as needed. He would not have been able to do his job had we juggled my old one (in the city) or got some basic lesser-paid job locally. For MH reasons, I would have loved the outlet but ended up home schooling for a period so would have struggled to keep a job anyway.

However, indirectly I have contributed to his being able to earn a salary that has led to 200-300k tax payments each year. I did do a bit of PT childminding for a few years to generate some income, but not enough to pay tax… but it paid unexpected private school fees, which in turn paid teachers and other support staff salaries, plus whatever taxes the school paid each year. I also hired tradesmen to build loft extensions, decorate, renovate the bathrooms/kitchen - and unlike many here did not pay ‘cash’ and ensured VAT was added and paid by us on every bill. I was also an unpaid, part-time foster parent to two boys for 4 years in that time, providing them stability, safety and a second home. Then there was the guides and scouts troops I ran.

So, no, to the PP who thinks every person is socially obligated to go out to work, I’d say stuff that. The Exchequer and local tradesmen would have been far worse off if I’d done that. I’ve added far more value to my local community and to the lives of my children and foster boys by being a lazy, SAH shirker.

That was aimed at me, I’m the PP you refer to.

Children with disabilities do make it impossible for some to work. Your average parent isn’t getting up at 2am every day for years on end, they’re not attending 658 meetings with various services, filling in endless paperwork, getting kicked in the head at 5am, learning how to peg feed, or how to use a hoist. They’re able to run the hoover round without their 14 year old losing their mind.

I work, and have a severely autistic child. But I’m able to do that because of the flexibility of my employer and because frankly I put myself through it when really we could (and maybe should) not work.

I do however class the carers of disabled children as, for the most part, unable to work. Part of the vulnerable areas of society that often need welfare to survive. Part of the group of people that should be funded by tax payers, and should be taking from the “pot” that non tax payers should be contributing to.

So no, not stuff that, because I wasn’t talking about you.

It’s fine it’s a household situation. Tax impacts her too.

But how do you know that other SAHM or voluntarily not working individuals aren’t dealing with stuff - serious stuff - and do they have to satisfy your criteria to be given permission or a pass? What if they are DV victims or carrying the load so their DH can work in rapid response/high pressured/unpredictable roles. Am thinking about friends who are/or are married to coppers, military personnel, NHS staff with little control over their shift rotas and/or on call.

Raising my kids has been tough - genuinely expected one of my DCs to be dead by their 18th birthday (they expressed this to CAMHS) - but they are now in a top uni with the other heading the same way, both are ASD/ADHD with additional co-morbid conditions.

The main lesson I have learned through interacting with other parents, other SAHPs is that you cannot possibly conceive the struggles or the reasons why many chose not to work. The reasons a couple organises their family life around one parent not working are multiple and complex. They have absolutely NO obligation to work and pay taxes - or justify their decision to do so, especially if they are not claiming benefits.

Agree

there is always going to be some people playing the system

just enjoy yourself if you don’t have to love on benefits