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?

I am talking about those earning the top 10% of income.

At far as I am awafe tbey do pay for their residental care. My mil downsized so she could afford it. Even my mum who had virtually no savings and only a state pension paid for her care. Non residential

The only way world be for means tested healthcare. Either that or healthcare will be chargeable to everyone in 3 years time anyway

Which according to your post op is those earning over £50k

Greenie The top 10% is a deceptive number, because the range of salaries is so wide. People at the bottom end - as my friend's experience shows - have very similar net incomes to people on benefits.

People at the top of that scale will be earning millions. You really can't compare.

If you're looking at the modal average within that 10% segment though, I'd say most people have struggled because of inflation in living costs without inflation in wages.

Private education and private healthcare fees have risen astronomically in the last few years, so clearly this is an area where many higher income families have cut back altogether, but it's an invisible cut unless you work in those sorts of sectors.

Moomin corporation tax has not been cut for small companies.

Moomin but that corporation tax is what comes off your gross earning, so it still 'counts' in terms of how much tax you pay overall.

DH and I run our own business. We don't pay anything like as much personal tax as we would if we were PAYE, but 20% corporation tax comes off straight away before we even start to think about paying ourselves.

Arbitrary there was quite an interesting article some months ago in the DT about how the countries who abolished IHT some time ago (Australia comes to mind) have actually done better, because passing money down the generations actually fosters independence from the state, self sufficiency and entrepreneurship.

Personally, I think IHT is utterly immoral. And my long-past days when I did economics at college tells me that the more people are taxed, the less is actually taken by the state from taxation, as it is worth your while to look for ways around it.

.... but I am only on page 3 of this thread and people may have already mentioned this.

Whilst my heart will never bleed for someone who has to take their kids out of private school or can't quite afford to send them there, it is notable how much pressure there is on state school places and especially free church schools in affluent parts of London.

Before the recession hit, a lot of these kids would have gone private. I'm often surprised by how many people I meet in well-paid roles who have sent their children to state school when they themselves went to a private/public school. They can't all be doing so because they believe in a socialist education.

It's a big risk to take, private school, when jobs are uncertain and you probably don't have masses of equity in your house to tide you over if the worst happens.

I would love to know the stats on how much overcrowding is due to that and how much to the increased birth rate.

FFS.

It's always the same on here.

We get no benefits and pay shit loads of tax and yet you want more?

Were you one of the people clapping that silly bint on question time last night paying for everything with the increase in tax on bankers bonuses??

DH would love them to bring that in as his employer will just increase his salary greatly which means it goes from something he may get to something he will be guaranteed and mean his pension will be fab.

He pays more tax than a lot of people earn but you still want more!!

We haven't lost anything because we've never had anything other than CB and that went on a Direct Debit straight to Barnardos anyway.

DH is being taxed more heavily as he doesn't get a tax free allowance and earns over £150k. I think he pays at least 50% of everything he earns in tax and NI.

We don't bash poor people, and I don't know anyone who does other than on MN

Equally don't think we deserve to be bashed. We're just minding our own business, paying into the system and overall must be taking out a lot less, as have private health etc etc.

I don't really see the need for anyone to bash anyone else tbh.

Good on OP for admitting they're being Unreasonable.

Thing is, top 10% covers quite a variety, saying you go for £50k as the bottom of the top 10% and go upwards. You're putting say, a family with a single earner in the same bracket as Roman Abramovich and the Queen. They're not really going to have the same level of wealth, and have access to the same services.

For e.g., a lot of people earning £50k and the area are above would be professionals employed by someone else, so all their tax would be done through PAYE. There's no scope for "creative accounting" if that's how your tax is paid. I work in a large organisation, and the only people I know of who are in a position to use loopholes etc., are people being hired in as part time consultations (so experts in their field, big revenue earners who can push back and say "I'll only work for you if you employ my company"). Most others don't have that option.

Moderately That is an excellent question. Mates of mine who work in private schools in London have told me that the slack is taken up with foreign pupils. Often it's the parents' companies paying the fees through a relocation package. But lots of private schools outside the capital are in real trouble because of falling pupil numbers.

Pretty much exactly what mumblechum said except my CB went to the hardship fund for students at my old college, and that amount still does even though I'm no longer getting CB.

I really dislike the assumption that anyone in the top 10% (which as others have pointed out is a huge bracket covering millions of pounds difference between the person at the top and the person at the bottom) is always looking to game the system and reduce their tax.

I know I'm in a better position than an awful lot of people and I'm happy to pay a relatively high amount of tax as I believe it's the fair and right thing to do to try to create a decent society.

I don't claim the tax relief on the charitable contributions I make each year, nor for example do I claim back the costs of my courses and registration that I need the sports coaching I do in my free time as if I claim those from the club there's less money to buy kit for the kids, subsidise the transport to matches, keep their subs down etc. What more would you like me to do?

RocknRoll my DH is self-employed and an expert in his field and he volunteers at CAB for one afternoon a week. He refuses to claim back his travel expenses (he takes the bus, so about £7 a week) for the same sorts of reasons as you.

It does not sound like much granted, but he reasons that CAB needs that more than he does.

It isn't unreasonable to expect the very richest people in society to pay large sums in taxation, though. They don't.

Did you know that James Dyson and JK Rowling pay the highest tax of anyone living in the UK?

Now look on the Sunday Times Rich List and see how far down the list they are.

I don't know where these creative accountants are I earn £57K last year self employed I lost £24k in tax and NI still a decent amount to take home I know, but when you consider that three years ago My earnings were £61K and I paid £14k tax that shows you what has happened to the taxation of self employed people earning 50 to 100K.

Lost child benefit. Already pay higher rate tax. Don't have a pot to piss in once mortgage bills paid. Most months use cc.squeeze. We are not rich

Private school here, had 6 children starting in reception this year

Your 6? :)

Our local private school, the only school in the area rated outstanding is begging for enrolments.

wish we could afford it

thesaurusgirl no it's not unreasonable to expect that. However, the vast majority at the lower end of higher rate tax do pay in full what is asked of them and as has been said many times on this thread are, in general, net contributors.

Maggietess but IHT is a tax on your children's acquisition of the money (like capital gains tax); it is only taken out of the estate at death because it it much easier to administer and less easy to dodge.

Why should a chunk of unearned money coming from one's parents' estate be different in principle to capital gains tax on any other chunk of unearned money, for example through stock market gains or increases in property values?

Gifts are also subject to tax over certain amounts. And you would not be able to sell your house to your children for 10k if the taxman deemed it worth 300k. Why should chunks of money be treated differently because it is from deceased parents, apart from just feeling that you want it to be? I'd like to have my salary without paying PAYE on it, but I don't get to.

Well, this man (and his family) were very rich . . . .

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1124784/Property-tycoon-Van-Morrisons-brother-law-shoots-losing-millions-troubled-Irish-bank.html

Thesaurusgirl - that's not as surprising as it seems, JK Rowling and James Dyson both are currently earning their money and will be paying tax on that now, however look at those on the rich list, how much is money they are currently earning or money they inherited/earned a long time ago and have been living off the interest (which they'll pay tax on) - we don't re-tax lump sums in bank accounts each year, just what's added to it. In a similar way, I live in a house that's worth £500k, my mortgage on it is around £200k so on the face of it I'm 'worth' £300k (plus my tiny savings). However, I'm not going to be taxed on that while I'm living in it. I paid stamp duty when I moved into it, but I've not been taxed on the house since. If I rented it out, I'd be taxed on the rental income, but not on the value of the asset. But for the "rich list" calculations, I'd be classed as being worth £300k, it would look like I wasn't paying my full tax. Scale that up and it's not all "creative accounting", but just people owning stuff that's worth a lot, JK Rowling and James Dyson are selling stuff that adds up to a lot.

If poeple stopped buying the Harry Potter books, JK Rowling's place in the rich list would stay the same, but the amount of tax she paid would fall dramatically...