If we are all in this together, what cuts have the rich suffered?

[Grennie]

I know mumsnetters seem to be better off than average. So just want to point out that in 2012 the mean national average wage is £29,900. The median was £20,000. And only 10% of people earned £50,500 or above.

So what cuts have this 10% of people suffered?

Child benefit lost
Loss of personal allowance from £100k
Increase of tax rate to 45% if salary over £150k
Childcare vouchers capped at approx half previous amount

So those over £50k but under £100k have only lost child benefit? A drop in the ocean compared to poor people.

There's been a 15% rise in the cost of Andrex toilet rolls.

I've had to buy a cheaper brand of cavier. Tastes the same but I feel a bit dirty eating it ;)

Let em buy Lidl.

Not sure what more they could lose as they don't get any benefits in the first place?

but over 50K pay lots of tax and don't actually ask for anything..

tend to have private health insurance and (some) private education for the kids., and anything that is means tested disqualifies them... and their wives/husbands/partners even if they earn nothing....

Why the keenness to "cut" things that people aren't given anyhow?

Grennie what do you think they should lose?

Reduced council tax on second homes, higher inheritance tax for example.

mijas - That must be so traumatising!! Could you ask your nanny to spoon it into a jar of more expensive caviar?

What is there to lose?

People in that income bracket don't 'get' anything in the first place, expect access to health and education which many don't use because they pay for private health and/or schooling.

And with the tax increases and removal of the NI cap, people in the £50-100k bracket are paying 50% tax on that portion of their income.

OP - at the risk of pointing out the obvious - the rich were not entitled to a whole range of benefits to start with, so you can't suffer the loss of something you never had in the first place. This group of people didn't benefit from the welfare state particularly, so changes to it don't really effect them.

Income tax has gone up for the very rich, those in the middle between being average and rich (the £50k-£100k band) will have lost some of hteir spending power through increased VAT, but generally, these people aren't as effected by government policy because they aren't as reliant on government for their income in the first place.

I'd just like to point out that people earning over £50k pay loads of tax and get NO benefits. So I know who's being hit the most!

Inheritance tax is immoral anyway. All the assets will have already been taxed at least once at source.

40% of your earnings is quite a lot of tax to pay.

What should be cut for higher rate taxpayers?

What about paying for their residential care when needed?

Not everyone on £50,000 has a second home you know!

Do you not think inheritance tax is high enough anyway?!

But by the time they need residential care it may not accurately reflect their financial situation by then so you are potentially throwing people in to poverty.

Grennie

'Rich' people haven't lost much as they don't take much, but they have as a pp said lost child benefit, personal allowance etc.

At what threshold would you introduce a higher inheritance tax rate? It's already 40% so the more you have when you die the more you pay, bear in mind it's often on assets which have being bought during a persons lifetime using money on which they were already taxed.

Also earning a £100k doesn't make you 'Rich' in the south east and London when you factor in housing.

This may be controversial but the "rich" pay for their own lifestyle and don't rely on the government. What more do you expect them to do? They already pay half of their earnings as tax, surely that is enough?

People who earn 50K aren't rich! Nor are those on £100K actually. They pay high taxes, lose personal allowances, don't get any tax credits etc. and slog away just the rest of workers.

Well said foxy.

People already have to pay for residential care

You cannot say to someone who is earning £60k now, 'in 35 years time you will have to pay for all your care needs because you have earned a higher than average salary'.

People lose their jobs for all kinds of reasons. People suffer health problems, support relatives, donate large amounts to charity, make poor investments - all of which will have an impact on what their financial situation will be in retirement.
Current income in no indicator of actual wealth.

Isn't residential care means-tested already? According to NHS website anyone with capital over about £25k has to pay?

In London £50k barely buys a first home never mind a second!

Oh earns £110 k. a good salary. It may surprise you to note that after tax, and an enormous amount of insurance, (he's a surgeon), as we get no benefits whatsoever (we agree with this), and pays his nurses a bonus out of his own money, we have LESS disposable income than my step brother who earns 20k and gets every benefit under the sun.