To feel that having nearly half of your salary taken away is just not right?

[WinnieTheWho]

I don't earn enough to pay tax & NI but my DH has a pretty good job & salary for which he works BLOODY hard. I was horrified to work out after last pay day that for EVERY £1 he earned, he only kept 60 pence. This is due to a combination of paying very high income tax and NI, as well losing all of his personal allowance because he might get a bonus at the end of the year! It just seems that if you work hard to get paid well and you are a PAYE taxpayer, the Government & HMRC will just shaft you from all angles. It just makes me wonder why we bother? So... AM I BEING UNREASONABLE?

Well it's obviously going to depend starlight - I think shed loads suggests that you have plenty left over after all bills to comfortably buy luxuries each month without having to think about it. We are not in that position.

Line runner - no good ones though :) 'because you can afford to' just doesn't cut it.

Just to add starlight - I think evetyone's definition will probably be different but will probably boil down to 'more than what we have'.

Outraged I think you have just pinpointed what a great deal of the problem is.
You are misinformed about what low earners get.
We dont get free school meals, sure start helpers (sure start help is not means tested anyway), or easier access to social housing.
I dont know about university fees yet because my DS1 has decided not to go. He cannot face the idea of being in so much debt. Because when you grow up in a home with a low income, the idea of a large debt is terrifying and what you consider a large debt relative.

You have the same access to NHS care, schools and social services. You have the same access to public buildings and facilities.

If you chose to go private for schooling and/or medical care you are also taking advantage of the significant financial investment the tax payer has made in the doctors, nurses and teachers working for you.

There are things I am not entitled to as a low earner e.g. free school meals. However if I was to lose my job I WOULD be entitled to them, as would you.

What is the difference?

bumbleymummbley - There were no answers of which you approved, but there have been plenty of answers saying a great deal more than you suggest.

The difference, MrsDV, is that some high earners think they are more worthy, simply because they get paid more. And that lower earners are feckless scum who spend their lives dreaming up new ways of sponging off the poor hardworking higher rate taxpayers.

Not really line runner - that's pretty much all they boiled down to. Although if you think I've overlooked something then please point me towards it.

@ jinsei

Why do you need me to summarise all the good points above?

Why the bubblymummy?

I'm sorry, but I really am sick of the poor me attitude that I see from so many higher rate tax payers. If it's that tough, take a lower paid job and see if you like it any better.

Not all high earners are terrible people who tread on the poor and not all poor people are saints who need and deserve help!

While I can see where the OP is coming from I feel that she was unwise to start this post during a recession when so many people are stuggling to earn a living wage.

Saying people should leave the country if they don't like it! is not helpful as who would pay the higher taxes then.

I do despair when I read about some of the ways our government waste our taxes, and I am not refering to helping the poor and providing a health service.

I too like the idea of a single tax rate with a decent allowance to start with. It would be a lot simpler to administer.

Here is one lady who has never been rich, has known both hard times and good. I would help anyone who need's it if I have the means. But I get fed up with the politics of envy! I don't see the point; The OPs husband earning less money wouldn't make me any better off. Good Luck to him!

What makes people better off is having many public and private sector workers on low wages cleaning up their lives for them, and indeed their relatives lives.

MrsDV, I take everything you say and pretty much agree. I think we would probably need to define low earner because as much as I think the HRT threshold is too low, I also think the thresholds for other state support is too low as well.

The point I was trying (badly) to make is that low earners are likely to see more benefit from the tax they pay, even if they only get tax credits. The difference is that paying more into the system creates more expectation of something in return. If you don't pay much in, it is easier to be thankful for what you receive, even if it is the same hospital bed or state school place that someone on triple your income would get.

When you pay more in, you understandably have an expectation of something in return. In the same way that you could go to Hollister and spend a £50 on a tshirt, or spend £2.50 in Primark, you would naturally expect that you would get quality in return. Whether you deserve or are entitled to an expensive tshirt more than anyone else is irrelevant. It does NOT mean that you think people who spend £2.50 are 'feckless' or 'sponging', because that is irrelevant.

It is also worth remembering that being able to pay HRT does not mean you have an especially comfortable lifestyle. 40% tax kicks in at £34k, which is not enough to provide the sort of lifestyle where you don't have to think about what you spend.

I have got to go to bed soon (wuss) but would give as an example the times as a very low paid lecturer that I helped to sort out a dissertation or final project for the son or daughter of a high income family, so that son or daughter could progress in life.

I thought the 40% rate started on income over £42,000. Which is 34,000 pluls the personal allowance. But people earning over £150,000 don't get the personal allowance. Poor souls.

Not all high earners are terrible people who tread on the poor and not all poor people are saints who need and deserve help!

No indeed. Many higher rate tax payers are entirely happy to make an appropriate contribution to society, in accordance with their means.

And a small minority of poor people are undoubtedly lazy scroungers who just don't want to work, but I wouldn't like to be in the position of choosing between the deserving and undeserving poor, would you?

A single tax rate might well be easier to administer, but I cannot see anything wrong with the basic principle that those who earn more should contribute more - proportionately more - simply because they can.

Sunshine - no, the size of your wage packet or bank balance doesn't say anything about what kind of person you are, in either direction. But the sort of people who whinge and pretend to be victims by virtue of earning a lot of money and having to pay tax on it (just like everyone else who earns far less) are not particularly appealing.

The highest marginal rate of tax is paid by people coming off benefits and going into work. Or it was last time I checked, and I doubt anything has changed dramatically in the last year or so.

I thought the 40% rate started on income over £42,000

The thresholds have changed, Mary

When you pay more in, you understandably have an expectation of something in return.

No. When I pay in, I expect the government to use that money where it is needed most. I expect to have a safety net if I ever fall on hard times. I expect the state education system to educate the next generation of doctors, teachers, electricians etc. But I am not purchasing a product or a service, I am paying into a communal pot, and I adjust my expectations accordingly.

I like the idea of a flat rate tax too. The well off would still pay a higher proportion of the their total income in tax than the less well off but it would feel fairer.

I earn a good income and I don't mind paying a reasonable amount of tax but I think it does get difficult when 50% of your income is going and yet you can't see the value for anyone. Where I live state schools are massively oversubscribed and some get very poor results, you don't know who your MW will be (and will probably not have met them) until you go into labour etc. If I was one of those parents in London without any school offers I'd be bloody asking what my taxes are being spent on.

I aree that higher earners should pay a larger proportion we just have to be carefull not to make it so high the incentive to stay and contribute to the country isn't taken away.

And Jinsei my post was about not judging people but taking each as an individual; Rich or Poor.

I suspect the OP was originally just letting off steam.

Flat rate is bollocks. That only works temporarily with a ridiculous overeliance on a warped finance sector.

Unless you earn over £100k and therefore lose your personal allowance, it's my understanding that HRT is paid on the income received over and above [personal allowance + £35k]. Can't be bothered to look up the tax bands right now but i thought you need to earn around £43k before you pay HRT. It would be nice to cut down my hours but I only pay attention to the net salary part of the payslip when we work out what options we have as a family.

Scandinavian countries pay higher benefits but those in receipt feel they owe the State to stop claiming them ASAP - the deal is the State will look after them when they most need it and they will look after the State when they can. Whereas if you feel the State and much of society provide for you only grudgingly then it's unsurprising that some people may reflect that emotion back.

I don't like all the decision in terms of government spending but I can't think of a better system. It has frequently been pointed out in this thread how expensive the SE is to live and that being a HRT payer there doesn't mean your finances aren't strained - undoubtedly but what a nightmare it must be living there on benefits/NMW. I pay more tax on the higher layers of income because more of that is 'disposble' than if I earned less, if that doesn't feel like the case that's due to the choices I've been lucky enough to be able to make.

I looked it up. And I think you have to be earning £42,450 before you pay 40% tax. I know they changed this year but I didn't pay that much attention. I don't agree with a flat rate tax. I think higher earners should pay more.

And Jinsei my post was about not judging people but taking each as an individual; Rich or Poor.

Yes, but the tax system cannot treat people as individuals without some element of judgement, can it? Of course there are generous and compassionate high earners as well as greedy grabby poor people, but what of it? I'm not trying to be funny, genuinely don't get the point that you want to make.

Just looked it up, £42,475 = Income where HRT kicks in including personal allowance for 2012-13