To really resent the amount of tax we pay.

[KettleBelles]

I hate it, we pay a vast amount of tax to live in a country where we can't see a GP for a fortnight, feel criminalised every time we go to an airport, pay even more tax again to drive a car on inadequate and over crowded roads. Get squashed on crowded transport which is filthy and unreliable, where criminals seem to always be on the beneficial side of human rights.

I can't be the only one who feels like this?

Carers benefit shouldn't be taxable.

The tax break from putting money in your pension is available to everybody, regardless of tax band, it is just more beneficial the more tax you pay. Between 100k and 120k in the marginal 62% tax band you might as well put the whole £20k in a pension, for the cost of the £ 7.6k you would actually have kept after tax. But that is subject to an annual allowance, which is being reduced year on year. And the fundamental point is to get the relief you have to lock your money away until retirement, which means you don't actually get it now which might be an issue if your salary has gotten you a massive mortgage!

Of course in 40 years time when we reach pension age, it will be a good job if you did put some money in a pension pot, because our taxes are paying for the pensions in payment now, not making a provision for the future, and I doubt there will be much of a state pension when we get there.

I resent my tax going to fund special savings accounts for pensioners. They should be open to all. People of any age can be affected by low interest rates.

$500 = c. £300 = £150 per child. Each child will require one pair of school shoes, one pair of sports shoes for school (of whatever variety) and one pair of non-school shoes. That's £50 each. And they're probably going to need to have two pairs during the year as their feet grow (which happens a lot when they're younger) so that's £25 per pair. Very easy to end up paying that amount of money per pair of shoes.

I think our education system is actually pretty poor with huge classes and too many substandard schools.

I am very happy to pay tax but I think to suggest we get value for money is inaccurate.

It is difficult when you see the amount of tax you pay written down (and I say this as a 50% tax payer)- and it is easier to say i have paid xx in tax but only got yy in services. But its not about the direct services- my tax contribute to the services that everyone gets and enable provisions for evryone- and I want to live in a society where everyone has access to certain things.
I don't think its perfect - I wouldn't single out tax avoidance schemes primarily- unearned income/inheritance /inefficiency in government - i really loathe the fact that the government sold national monopolistic services to the private sector so now I have to pay a huge amount in for example train fares where the benefit (eg profit) goes into the hands of a few investors.

At the moment though we are in a difficult place - we feel like we are paying a lot and the services don't feel commensurate. But thats really because we have no idea what provision of the best quality services would cost.

As for other countries- I think the US system is dreadful- many rich people I know pay less tax proprtionally than poorer people as the tax system allow so many deductions- so if you live in an expensive area and pay more local taxes (to fund very good schools) this is tax deductible- friends said it was a no brainer- they moved to expensive enclaves as it was a better way of paying for good schools than private education

And lets not forget, while children's shoes are damned expensive, so is actually working - all the stupid officey-smart clothes I have to wear, the make up I have to buy, the stupid uncomfortable officey shoes I can't wait to kick off at night, the travel, the magazines to read at lunchtime and overpriced sandwiches you spend your money on just to help get you through the day, the expensive hair cuts you would happily do without unless seen in public, etc., all just for the privilege of working and being told you are "crass" by posters such as JackShit for daring to raise your head above the parapet and notice it isn't actually that good a life.

Don't you think lower-paid workers have those expenses too, Chandler? They might not buy the magazines and overpriced sandwiches (because they can't afford them), but they still have to pay for travel and buy the boring black trousers and skirts, officey shoes, tights, handbag etc. They won't be buying from the same labels you are, but it's still a similar proportion of their income.

(Re children's shoes - £25 would be a bargain! Last pair from Clarks were £36 for my 4yo).

I'm struggling to recall what the price of children's shoes has to do with anything at all anyway . Anyone who has children has to buy children's shoes, its a cost of having a child.

I wouldn't mind paying my tax if I had any confidence at all that it were being used wisely.
As it is I'd rather let a 10 year old loose with my credit cards!

Atticus - my point was that most single people, myself included, have no idea just how expensive it is to have a child or children. I used the example of shoes but I could use the example of clothes, laundry, heating or food.

chandler - you must be single. As a working parent, the only reason I have a descent hair cut and nice clothes is because DHs income pays for it. After daycare I am left with about $800 a month. I only eat lunch out if it's with clients. I am one of the fortunate ones who can afford to work with 2 preschool DC.

Taxes for families are nuts and I like the concept of there being two different allowances for married couples and head of household (single parents). Makes much more sense.

Biwi - Actually for my kids they go up a size every 3 months so it's four pairs of shoes a year plus wellies and snow boots. The 3 year old plays soccer in her regular shoes. I am not buying more shoes!

Shoes really are not relevant to this discussion in any way (and btw the government does not want to encourage people to have even more children in any event)

No they would rather import people from developing countries as it helps keep those people down and it pays for our pensions!

The shoes came into play as I was trying to illustrate why there should be breaks for families. It is relevant in that raising a family is expensive if your goal is to raise DC to become productive members of society. Sure I could pop out another 5 or 6 kids but I wouldn't have the time to raise them properly. I sure can afford it though, in part because we don't pay taxes in the UK.

ok

Its your choice to bring children into this overpopulated world, I don't think its up to the tax payer to contribute 500 a year towards shoes.

Id like to spend 500 a year on shoes, but I can't afford to.

Now this is interesting. I pay tax through self assessment and have a breakdown from my online account of how my tax is spent.

Welfare - 24.52%
Health - 18.87%
Education - 13.15%
State pensions - 12.12%
National debt interest - 7%
Criminal justice - 4.4%
Transport - 2.95%
Business industry - 2.74%
Government administration - 2.05%
Culture (sports, libraries, museums) - 1.69%
Environment - 1.66%
Housing and utilities (e.g. street lighting) - 1.64%
Oversees aid - 1.15%
contribution to the EU budget - 0.75%

Where do the armed forces feature in that list? Surely our tax goes on that too, does it not? I may be wrong here (obviously! ) but I always thought our taxes paid for them.

not sure perhaps within criminal justice?

Or perhaps this is personalised to me and they think I'd rather see my personal contribution spent on other things

But shoes and handbags weren't on that list

No wonder your spending 500 a year on shoes if you shop at Clark's. Overpriced stuff and doesn't have the same quality since they closed their UK factories IMO.

A single person has to have many shoes to go on nights out, milano blahniks aren't cheap either! They should get more help to buy shoes, so they can meet someone and reproduce.

To be honest (and I've not read the whole tread) the amount of times I'm taxed on the salary I earn annoys me...
I guess in the tax claiming there are winners and losers.. and I feel sometimes I'm paying tax for the rest of the world to have any easy time on as I am entitled to nothing.

I know I'm gonna get flamed for that comment but I can understand why some people feel they get less out then put in xxx

I'd love a rebate at the end of the year for services I didn't use !

But a lot of the things I'm (currently) not getting out of the system - well, I'm quite glad I'm not ill enough to be needing medical, nor have I had any accident or been broken into or had a fire that requires me to use the emergency services, and I'm in a job, so I don't need benefits. I'm glad all those things are there if I need them, but I'd still prefer to remain not in need of them. And I don't know I won't need them at some point in the future, and I might not be in a position to pay taxes then, so I can't see why I shouldn't pay now. It's all swings and roundabouts.

I resent the amount of tax I pay. It's not enough. Quite honestly, I would rather pay an extra £100+ a month in tax and have fewer potholes, easier access to healthcare, a local library that wasn't threatened with closure and, most of all, the knowledge that there would be a secure social safety net in place if I was unlucky enough to lose my job.

Hello Kettlebelles, this might have been covered, I only read your first message

"I'm not telling you how much tax we actually pay but in the US the percentage would be way lower. It's quite tempting."

I lived in Chicago and paid significantly more income tax there, earning the same income, than in the UK. HMRC actually refunded a significant amount for the first and last year where parts of the year had earnings in one and then the other country. Also, in the US, tax credits/deductions will be included in your return whereas in the UK many people receive in work benefits but would not consider this effectively a deduction from their income tax.

In the US I found above a certain income (and therefore a certain lifestyle) the cost of living is less than in the UK. However vegetables and utilities were much more expensive, the cost of accommodation starts higher than the UK at the lower end but then gets relatively cheaper. So, if you're not rich you pay a significantly higher proportion of your income, on most necessities, than in the UK.

I really loved living in the US but would not stay long term.

If you are young (and will not age), childless (and will not have children), healthy (and invincible), have no use for the justice system (and never will) and have a high income (that is guaranteed for life) then go for it.

If you do decide to stay in the UK then doing research, voting, campaigning and maybe paying a bit more tax is probably more likely to get you what you're looking for.

I pay a huge amount of tax and DH pays even more.

I don't resent the amount - even though we use fairly little in the way of public services - because I strongly believe in a welfare state to support those who need extra help, free education and free healthcare (as well as various other less glamorous public services like roads and bins).

I do resent however the sheer waste that happens through sloppy administration, new 'initiatives' every five minutes, and fraud/tax evasion. I also think wages should be taxed less and income from property, inheritance, gambling and other unearned income should be taxed more.