Rich Poor Double Standards

[MardyBum99]

So it’s OK for a national newspaper to give advice about legally avoiding tax on £100k, but any time a poor person claims what they’re legally entitled to in welfare support it’s framed as scrounging, gaming the system or somehow immoral. Funny how 'playing by the rules' only seems respectable when you’ve already got money.

www.thetimes.com/article/552b3f61-533a-4e4c-bc3b-00377e6bcd50?shareToken=28d531a54e79604cbacffe4a6350c27e

Because it’s about people keeping more of the money they earn rather than how to maximise the free money the states gives to you. Surely you can see the difference?

But welfare recipients still pay into the system with their taxes. Why is it free money the state gives them when they've also paid tax in the first place whether that's VAT, NICS, income tax etc?

Because those on 100k pay more tax than them?!

It's capitalism. The rich keep their money and benefit off the labour power of the poor, while the poor all but starve because they can't earn much over minimum wage.

That’s unlikely to be the case for people earning just over £100k. Most will be doctors / accountants/ lawyers etc on PAYE selling their own labour.

someone earning £100k on the nose with a student loan & a masters loan with just 5% pension contribution earns £4.5k/ month. To sustain a family that isn’t huge

Welfare recipients take out of the system. Those who engage in tax avoidance want to keep more of the money they spend 37 hours a week earning. Also a lot of these tax avoidance methods hinge on investments which means that money is going to help other people.

This.

And this.

Because there's nothing wrong with using legal rules to keep your own money. It's very different to maximising handouts given by other people.

It is simultaneously true that people earning £100k are not "the rich", and also that people in need should receive benefits (and in fact, most claimants are working people as the government has to subsidise low salaries)

They aren’t contributing more than they get though are they.

On 100% it is possible to have a more than 100% tax rate when the withdrawal of tax free childcare is taken into account. You don’t think that’s a leetle bit wrong

This.

At least a third of UC claimants are in work. So they are already paying into the system. Plus they pay via VAT on things they buy.

Literally everyone takes out of the system if they use universal services such as schools, parks or libraries. Not to mention free childcare hours, child benefit etc. Why are only welfare claimants taking out of the system? And why is it presumed they haven't already paid in at least as much as they're claiming back, whether that's through previous employment or purchasing things with VAT?

The link is about people who have a spare £100k to invest. Not necessarily earning £100k.

A few years back, if you had kids you had to be earning more than £100k Pa to
be a net contributor, so the chances of anyone claiming UC paying enough via VAT to cover their costs is unlikely

But they might be? Why do people always assume welfare claimants haven't previously paid into the system?

A friend of mine previously on £130k + was made redundant 18 mths ago. Now has zero and has had to start claiming benefits. Paid lots in, starting to take some out.

I agree the cliff edge at £100k is a disincentive for high earners with children that creates a negative in Vs out scenario. But this isn't about those earning £100k. If you read the article it's people who have £100k to shelter from the tax man and that is lauded, nay encouraged by a national newspaper. One that also demonises those who claim welfare.

I agree. But I do also want to point out the article is about shielding £100k cash e.g. through inheritance from the tax man rather than someone earning £100k e.g. through PAYE.

Money makes money and the rich close ranks to protect themselves. That's understandable. What's ludicrous is the lickspittles defending them. Chances are they're never going to be rich - very few are, statistically. But these chumps believe the bullshit - that all you have to do is work hard, that rich people are the same as poor people except they just happen to have money, all the pseudo- moralistic nonsense that protects the UK class system, monarchy, landowners and so on.

"Perhaps you’ve.....realised that you have too much money sitting in cash"

Can't say I've ever experienced this problem
😂

So that means at least 66% of UC claimants aren't in work. There's roughly 8M people receiving UC, the population of London, which means 5.28M people who aren't working. You say 'they pay via VAT' like they're unique to this, as if they're doing us a favor. Lets say someone gets £100 a month on universal credit and they spend it on vatable goods that's £20 of VAT they've generated and £100 taken out of someone else's pay.

Now yes you're right in that everyone at some point takes out of the system and quite frankly that's how the system should operate: everyone should benefit from a system they've paid into. That said typically most people pay more than they take out. Welfare is supposed to be a temporary tool to help people get back on their feet. It is not supposed to subsidise someone's life indefinetly.

You appear to be ridiculously jealous OP. I thought the article would be about some kind of obscure tax avoidance scheme, but no, it's mainly bog standard advice that's found in places like Money Saving Expert, who addresses the mass market. Put the maximum into ISAs and increase your own and your spouse's pension contributions, hardly outrageous and perfectly sensible.

Whatever you're trying to claim, people who receive benefits, as a whole, are net takers. Ok some of them work, but most do not. If they do work, by the fact they're on benefits, means they have low salaries and therefore pay low tax.

I think it's much more disgraceful that the amount of benefit fraud is so high and, having read threads on here about that, it seems that huge numbers of people don't care at all about that and wouldn't report someone who told them to their face that they were fiddling the system. I think that we should go back to the days when I was younger( I'm early sixties) when to have to be on benefits was something shameful and only for emergencies, and hopefully temporary, rather than something that in some demographics is an alternative lifestyle choice to working.

So no, a bit of perfectly normal financial advice isn't wrongly lauding and applauding people who have got some money to invest. It's hardly telling people to set up complicated offshore trusts in the Cayman Islands.

I paid £65k in tax this year, I pay that amount most years. I’ve got £50k in premium bonds and max out my ISA every year. I’m paying VAT on DC’s school fees. I get no personal tax allowance, no personal savings allowance. If I can shield a bit of my savings from paying even more tax, damn right I’m going to do it. I’ve paid my fair share.

Especially if they have two children in full time nursery and not eligible for funded hours, that’s £4000 a month in nursery fees

but any time a poor person claims what they’re legally entitled to in welfare support it’s framed as scrounging, gaming the system or somehow immoral.

Except this statement isn’t true. It’s only framed as gaming the system when people work fewer hours than they could and claim
benefits instead.

You know the answer to this- they are catering to their desired readership. They want their readers to be the types of people with this dilemma or who could have this dilemma through a friend or family member’s situation.