Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think we are ALL assisted by the tax payer in some way

169 replies

CordeliaStarling · 29/08/2012 16:31

Im fed up of hearing people moaning about families who they perceive to get too much aid from 'the taxpayer'

I can't believe there is a single person in the UK who doesn't receive any kind of help or use a service that is funded by the tax payer.

OP posts:
CelticOlympian · 30/08/2012 13:43

No they wouldn't. So ultimately none would be paid that much. And corporate taxes could be increased to get the money out of companies that they are now not using to pay their senior execs.

I couldn't say I've thought through the detail, just think that there ought to be a limit on earnings. It's utterly ridiculous that people can earn millions each year and others can't feed their kids.

Maybe it could be done better by limiting the amount of wealth that can be inherited, so making IHT 100% above a certain limit?

TalHotBrunette · 30/08/2012 13:45

The fact that tax credits even exist is admitting that wages aren't high enough to cover living costs isn't it? People can't live on their (sonetimes full-time) wages without government help. Surely that's a problem.

msnaughty · 30/08/2012 13:47

i wonder if tax credits give employs a reason not to bother with a proper/good wage as they know they will get top-up so the company can save money in wages

GhostShip · 30/08/2012 13:49

I have a partner and I'm under 25. Our finances are separate. I've worked from being 16.
yet I can't get tax credits because I'm too young. But someone who starts work at 25 can claim.

Pekka · 30/08/2012 13:54

You're right OP, if you even walk down a public road, you will have benefited from taxation. I think the point is some people get too much aid as you mention in your OP. But then some people get too little, so I guess it evens it all out.

msnaughty · 30/08/2012 13:56

ghostship if its known that you are living together i don't 'think' you can do finances seperate. i might have misunderstood though

wordfactory · 30/08/2012 13:56

celtic you really haven't thought it through.

You're assuming that a job is finite and that one does the same amount if work whatever, whereas the reality is that many of us have to work more hours or sell more of our goods and services or make more profit for each pound.

garlicnuts · 30/08/2012 14:01

Surely there can't be anyone who pays nothing in? Who never buys anything with VAT or excise duties, never paid stamp duty or inheritance tax, any income tax, NI or council tax throughout their life?

garlicnuts · 30/08/2012 14:04

celtic you really haven't thought ... many of us have to work more hours or sell more

Er, wordfactory, if your extra work was bringing your personal earnings above £500k, there would be a strong argument for spending more time with friends & family instead!

CelticOlympian · 30/08/2012 14:04

And wordfactory you're assuming that the wage you earn is down entirely to your own hard work and nothing to do with how fortunate you are. I accept that some people work harder than others, but that's a tiny amount of it. Someone doing minimum wage work might work the same hours but they don't get anything like the rewards.

NumericalMum · 30/08/2012 14:10

And I am sure they don't have the same amount of stress or outgoings (university fees, professional qualifications etc) either.

Although let's be honest - nobody earning over £500k would declare it in the UK if they would be taxed 100%. They would move offshore. Pointless idea.

mindosa · 30/08/2012 14:12

Celtic So where is the incentive for entrepreneurship if you are taxing 100% after 500k.
I'm sorry but I have to say that that is one of the most ridiculous arguments I ever heard.
Why are there so many people who hate wealth? Not everyone with money was born with a silver spoon in their mouths. Yes there may be elements of luck but why penalise success to such an extent.

CelticOlympian · 30/08/2012 14:14

I disagree about the levels of stress.

I think there is plenty of leeway between minimum wage and £500k to compensate for the rest.

It might be a pointless idea in a practical sense. But in my ideal world noone is allowed to earn that much. Why should they?

twofingerstoGideon · 30/08/2012 14:20

Why are there so many people who hate wealth? Not everyone with money was born with a silver spoon in their mouths. Yes there may be elements of luck but why penalise success to such an extent.

I don't hate wealth, but I hate inequality.

GhostShip · 30/08/2012 14:21

msnaughty it's single until married isn't it? I don't live with him officially anyway, sleep here most nights like.

I hate the argument that people are paid what they're worth. That isn't the case at all. People are saying that they earn more because of extra stress and such... Sorry but look at carers and people like that. I was a carer and it was honestly so stressful physically and emotionally. I'm now going to be training to be a midwife which first I have to do 5 years of education and then my wage will only be 21k. I'll come home without about 1,300 a month. How does that work out right?
Yet a bank manager can be on 500k plus.

But then again the main reason people become midwives and nurses is because people care. And that's why the wage is low. Because they know people will do it.

GhostShip · 30/08/2012 14:24

And it works out well for the government to keep the poor poor and the rich rich. Poorer people are more likely to do the jobs they don't want to do. So can be paid less. Which keeps them poor. And the cycle carries on and on.

CakeMeIAmYours · 30/08/2012 14:25

In the Market Economy, wages are largely determined by elasticity of supply of labour, not usefulness to society. History is littered with examples of communist-style set ups where all jobs are considered to be equal in their worth. Every single one of them has failed. What does that tell you?

There is also a big difference between 'working hard' which I have no doubt a min wage worker does and 'working clever'. By that I mean being strategic, innovative, having vision and taking calculated risks.

I just hate this argument that runs along the lines of: 'That person has more than me, therefore the state should take what they have and give it to me'. Nobody would have the cheek to knock on the door of a big house down the road and demand that the occupants hand over half of all their money, just because. I really don't see why an arms length version of this (via the state) is any less shameful for those involved.

How about the have nots take a good look at what makes the wealthy successful and try to emulate it rather than trying to drag them down to their level?

100% marginal rate above £500k??? I actually don't know where to start with that one.

CelticOlympian · 30/08/2012 14:27

I don't hate wealth. I am wealthy. Not anywhere near 50p tax rate wealthy, but wealthy nonetheless!

DH and I are wealthy because we're lucky. Yes we work hard, yes we have postgrad qualifications, but a great big chunk of it is luck. We're in the 40% tax band, I consider that we are fortunate to be in it and I'd rather pay more than see vital benefits cut. We're not all in this together, our bills have gone up but we're not struggling.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos · 30/08/2012 14:28

The argument that people on benefits pay tax because they pay VAT is ridiculous.

They aren't paying that VAT, because they didn't earn their money. The taxpayer is just paying that money back to itself via whatever product the benefit claimant chooses to buy.

It would be like me saying I bought a BMW because that's what my cleaner bought with her wages. Complete bollocks.

GhostShip · 30/08/2012 14:29

I can see where you're coming from, but I'm sure there are people 'working hard' who would love the opportunity and would excel in 'working clever'. But are stuck in a substandard job because they have no other choice.

I don't think we should take more away from the rich, not at all. But should be giving more to the poor. Giving more opportunities. Wage increases that match living expense increases would be a massive help.

garlicnuts · 30/08/2012 14:31

'working clever'. By that I mean being strategic, innovative, having vision and taking calculated risks.

Uh-huh, so you're worth more because you're superior? Do you not think the paramedic who will attend your road accident is clever? Moreover, would you rather there was no-one with brains to attend you, as they'd all gone off to start to launch innovative enterprises?

CakeMeIAmYours · 30/08/2012 14:32

But then again the main reason people become midwives and nurses is because people care. And that's why the wage is low. Because they know people will do it.

That's not quite true. The reason the wage rate is low is mainly due to monopsonic nature of the health care sector. There is only one main demander of labour (the NHS) so they can set the price (wage) at whatever they like.

Its the same as the situation where there is only one supplier of a good/labour (a monopoly) and they can also set the price at whatever they like.

GhostShip · 30/08/2012 14:35

Cakeme - Yes and once they've set that wage, people will still work for it because they care. So thats why it's low. Because they can get away with it. It's playing on people's emotions. People don't have to work for it. But they chose to usually because they're passionate.

MrsBethel · 30/08/2012 14:36

GhostShip Thu 30-Aug-12 14:29:31
"I don't think we should take more away from the rich, not at all. But should be giving more to the poor. Giving more opportunities. Wage increases that match living expense increases would be a massive help."

IMO we have to take more from the rich to pay for all that.

PAYE and NI are high enough already. If they go any higher and they may actually reduce the tax take. Why? Because people who use the well-established loopholes to avoid the PAYE system pay fuck all tax. Push up PAYE and more will do it.

The rich have almost all got limited companies to funnel their earnings through. Even Ken Livingston was doing it for fuck's sake!

Close the loopholes. Instantly the tax bill of the top 1% will quadruple.

OddBoots · 30/08/2012 14:37

People earning £500k+ can do so a range of ways from the ethical and socially responsible to the corrupt and exploitative with various shares in between.

I have no problem with people earning that much but I would like to see a greater incentive to do so the ethical way - how that could be achieved I don't really know though as when corruption creeps in it does so within the most powerful sections of society.