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?

Nor do I, instinctively, but I think the figures quoted at the start of the post suggest it is. Anyway, I didn't mean it as a dig at eetracey, though I think it does read that way so apologies to her.

What I am trying to get to is the relationship between the tipping point where you pay in more than you take out, and the average family income. You can see why- if the average family in the UK receives more from the state than it pays in, it's not a very stable structure.

Have checked and apparently we have paid more than we have put in, even with our children.

Exactly as it should be IMO

OP I think the issue at the heart of your complaint is a total lack of understanding of figures. A lack of understanding of how much those on the higher threshold contribute and how little those on the lower end put in. A lot of people don't know or don't do the sums. Hence the reality that someone on 30k with some top ups may be much better off than someone on 50k.

In general I'd say huge swathes of the population have no idea how much services cost, how they and others contribute to them. A lot of people feel that they do pay in but are massively in 'debit' as it were.

I sometimes wonder if the UK govt and many people want everyone, ultimately, to take home the same amt/have the same disposable income. Would that make you happy? A socialist utopia?

There is a surprising amt of bitterness in the UK and on MN about anyone earning higher salaries, with a lot of assumptions that these people were lucky or that connections and class got them there. No sense of the sacrifice and hard work involved and no understanding whatsoever about the real level they are taxed at or the fact that they are excluded in the development of most services - generally just seen as money makers for the govt.

DH and I must be the only people in the world who have a relatively high income and have made very few sacrifices and don't work that hard. Luck got us where we are so it would be rather mean to deny others a little help.

YouAreMyFavouriteWasteOfTime

I think the point is the tax rate increases to 45% if your salary increases to over 150k.

The additional tax band has existed for many years, that is nothing new; so the fact remains that people who earn over £150K are better off this tax year than the previous year due to this change - I don't see how that is an example of how the rich are suffering.

But people "put in" much more than just money. People contribute in all sorts of ways. I don't think it's fair to castigate a low paid care worker, for example, for not "putting in" when they work hard for long hours and are basically ripped off by their employers. If they were earning more, they'd pay more tax. Perhaps the real issue here is low pay, rather than low tax contributions. Similarly, a someone caring for their family member may not be a net tax payer, but their time, effort and attention is saving the state from a significant financial burden.

People contribute so much more than shows up on a PAYE slip.

Exactly and they are probably saving the taxpayer as well.

Arisbottle DH and I must be the only people in the world who have a relatively high income and have made very few sacrifices and don't work that hard.

I don't think you are. I have had time in my life when I would have agreed with you and times when I wouldn't. which seems fairly normal.

...mind you...I still don't know what earns you a high income with little effort. do I recall correctly you are a teacher? SMT? what type of school do you work in? DP is a primary HT but works in schools that need turning around. unsurprisingly they take a lot of time and effort.

Heads I agree with your last post. carers of seriously ill/disabled people are a vastly undervalued.

So if a family on 33k are net contributors than how muchmore is this rich top 10% putting in? In that case surely losing child benefit and paying more direct tax due to likely long commutes is enough. Esp at the bottom end ie 50 to 60k.

I wonder how accurate that site is, I put in a typical wage of two teachers with all of our children and came out as net contributors - which surely can't be right.

youare yes I am a senior teacher and I do work quite hard, probably not much harder than many other people and I have 12 weeks off a year.

According to MN I am the world's laziest teacher , they all work much harder than me.

My main point is that a high wage need not mean sacrifice and intense hard work .

I did think the same. We have 3dc so i really didn't expect us to be contributing as much as they said. I know dh's salary is high but it still seemed too much.

aris My main point is that a high wage need not mean sacrifice and intense hard work .

i dont disagree with you - but you are commenting on your job, which sounds fairly different that DPs. i guess i see what you are saying as

a high wage need not mean sacrifice and intense hard work in all cases

Yes, that is what i meant .

Just as a low paid job does not mean a life of Riley .

Or need not mean , I should say

There will always be a problem because some extemely valuable jobs are underpaid. I give you- nurses, carers (paid), childcare workers... mostly jobs historically done by women and based around caring. I am about the slow take-up of the Living Wage and the fact that employers are getting a subsidy because their staff are so underpaid they have to claim HB and WTC.

Unpaid contributions- I quite agree. Again, usually caring for children, the disabled or adults. I don't see any useful point in forcing all family carers to get a job outside the home, and having paid carers replacing them, just to make it look as if everyone is working harder and putting more in financially.

OP - we are not all in this together, make no mistake about that. The rich will continue to get richer and the poor poorer.

I don't understand the posters who argue that the rich put more in and take less out - sorry, but they take more out in wages to start off with, where do most of these wages comes from? it is still from the same pot as everything else usually. They don't receive benefits because they don't need them.

How about paying everyone a decent liveable wage and then there would be no need for the handouts. And if the books don't add up then tax the rich more. It is the only fair solution to anything.

There is nothing wrong with a socialist utopia, it has to better than what we have now. It seems the richer people get the greedier they get and I for one won't miss them when they clear off to live in another country (not that they will really).

People do realise that JSA is £71 a week.

All those on 100k+ who have less disposable income than JSA recipients, there is something clearly amiss in your outgoings.

on MN you quite regularly get people saying SAHMs should go back to work to contribute to the economy - if they work and employ someone else to do the job of taking care of their kids (a job the SAHM wants to do!) , it means 2 people are working and contributing to the economy....

(as devil's advocate) does the same not apply to carers...

it bugs me - it really does, that our role as carers for children/family/others is seen as a DRAIN on the economy!

Working in an unwanted job, in order to pay someone else to do the "job" I want to do really does seem daft...

looknow - I soooooooooo agree!!

People on the median and average wages appear to be in a similar boat until you start to account for individual circumstances - on min wage but living with a partner on higher wage, or living at home rent free or no kids and large savings, no mortgage. It is the same for the 'rich' - the top 10% income includes many families that are not going to consider themselves well off let alone rich. They may be able to cover their living expenses and not be reliant on pay day loans or insecure housing. But the bottom of the top 10% have little in common with the millionaires.

Define rich.

If you are able to move your tax affairs abroad, employ an accountant and domestic staff then most likely you are not being adversely affected by the cuts. But a family just over the HRT lower limit will have lost child benefit, are affected by cuts to public services, may well be employed in the public sector so job security and wage levels have been dropping. They may not be destitute but that does make them immune. But divisive cutting is a great way to create resentment and focus peoples attention on the wrong 'enemy' the Tories are really good at this.

Made I went back to work and employ a carer for my disabled DCs. That is partly as I can now (finally!) earn more than it costs me to pay for care; but mainly because I saw what it did to my mother to be a lifelong carer, and she strongly encouraged me to get back to work after a few years.

In her generation, females were never likely to have the earning power to work and employ someone else out of their salary. My carer works just out of school hours, and takes home around £9k. That costs me £13k after her tax and both sets of NI. I have to earn nearly £26k to have £13k in my hand. It is very inefficient for me, but it gives the Treasury a lot of money from both sets of tax and NI, and also means I and my carer have pension schemes that will take the weight off public provision in the future. So I can see why they like this kind of inflation.

Am I creating wealth? I guess, a bit. My carer has found her salary very useful, and she has a better pension that she would have had. And the Treasury has had quite a lot of money to spend that would not have been generated otherwise.

Is the job I do more socially useful than my carer's job? Clearly not- and anyway, I do it myself as soon as I get home....

I don't understand the posters who argue that the rich put more in and take less out - sorry, but they take more out in wages to start off with, where do most of these wages comes from? it is still from the same pot as everything else usually. They don't receive benefits because they don't need them.

Wow - do people really think this way? That salaries all come from the same pot and that we are all just taking money out of some big government money pit, funded by the government money tree? And for that reason people on higher salaries are taking more from the tree and therefore deserve less? Wow, just wow.

That last post is breathtaking! Happybubblebrain where exactly is this pot that we all take our wages from? Last time I looked, my wages came from a Swiss investment bank, and my DH from a Scandinavian oil company. Surely they're different pots?
Am I missing something happybubblebrain or is your view of the world really that removed from reality?

How about paying everyone a decent liveable wage and then there would be no need for the handouts. And if the books don't add up then tax the rich more. It is the only fair solution to anything.

Happybubblebrain suppose The Rich get pissed off with this and take their riches elsewhere? Then what?