To be annoyed/hurt by my good friend and think high earners should be willing to pay more ?

[whatislife]

i have been lurking on MN for a long time and never posted. Decided to join today and thought I'd mark the occasion with a rant.
I got in an argument with my friend (2 days ago) and the anger re-appeared when she sent me a text this morning. This doesn't really matter though.

The argument started when she made a snarky comment about an old friend of ours (not very close to be honest). The woman had been complaining about money and started ranting about high earners, tax and all sorts. My friend , a very high earner (think 6 figures), kept quiet the whole while and then started talking about it to me. This is where she said something along the lines of 'No one forced her to messed around at school and screw her life up. Im not going to feel bad because I worked hard' and 'why should I pay more tax when I already pay a ridiculous amount and she doesn't pay any'. These comments really angered me because I am also a low earner and rely on benefits - she knows this ! So we got into an argument about tax and benefits (silly i know but personal comments were also made).

My question is ; AIBU to think my close friend (and high earners in general) should realise how lucky she is and be willing to pay more tax so people like me can also have a normal life?

sparechange Section 106 contributions or "Community Infrastructure Levys" aren't bribes! What a ridiculous comment. It is the government's preferred method of collecting money from developers.

Bribes in all but name. Its hardly a level playing field. I'd like to see the s.106 levies properly challenged in court at EU level under Articles 101 and 102. Try getting planning permission as a small developer or individual and the amount of developer's contribution will be cited in support of a decision in favour of the latter.

If it is being spent on 'useless sports centres', that is entirely the fault of the local council, who decide where the money gets spent.

So in the year 2015, we should have got round to establishing far greater local government accountability and transparency as to what is done with this money.

As an aside, some councils are sitting on 106 reserves running into tens and sometimes hundreds of millions of pounds, which could be used to build or improve council housing, or build community infrastructure, but isn't being spent.

Again, you have to question where its going (or gone) and how much of it went under the table.

Certainly, increasing self build is one way to tackle house price affordability. Its also one way in which most of those countries quoted with higher tax rates than the UK can still provide people with aspiration. Self build can be much cheaper than buying an equivalent house in a large development. It provides the individual with much better value for money and can be architecturally more pleasing.

Screamers: s106 payments only apply to developments of more than a certain size, usually 10 houses or more so are not the reason small developers don't get to build. What is more of an issue is the lack of allocated land for development or the ability to buy a site on spec and wait until it gets planning.

A simple answer to part of the planning point is to say that planning permissions will not be renewed - use it within 3 years or lose it.

Grazia I had to reopen the thread, despite it cutting into my reading the FT treat time to see how insulted I should be. The alternative to inheriting or marrying well or working hard is make a pile and then retire but I will grant you that is a lot harder if you marry a useless waste of space. I respect the honesty of your assertions because every time the old SAHM/WOHM debate gets raised it is a view held to various degrees by those on both sides.

I was just scanning the suffragette thread and raise your insult with "do you work in a call centre".

Hamish I mean that the whole planning system in this country, based on zoning, and all of the features which have been added to it piecemeal, are not necessarily producing a particularly happy result.

A simple answer to part of the planning point is to say that planning permissions will not be renewed - use it within 3 years or lose it.

A very good idea, but that still wouldn't be enough to stop land banking I suspect - developers would simply re-apply in a different way.

I'd like to see a quota of all new builds being self build. And other ways of making self build easier.

I certainly support more rights for citizens to buy to self build - I would give a right to buy public land in cities which is unused. People don't want to buy cheap land in NW Scotland. They need rights to build and homes near cities where there are jobs i.e. London etc.

If any high earners on here want to pay more tax they could choose not to accept ax relief on pension contributions. They could ensure no savings from a higher earner spouse are put into the name of the lower earner. They could give extra money to the state -it is possible to do that. Someone left their fortune to reduce the national debt. The issue on the latter was whether the bequest was to the Government of the day - i.e. the Tory party or in effect HMRC. The words was not very clear. Alternatively those who would like to pay more tax can always send the money my way and I promise to spend it wisely.

Scremersford, given you don't seem willing to read anything I've posted (I assume that's your reason for misquoting and misrepresentation of what I've said despite directly quoting it in your posts, particularly on academic ability and disability) and your determination to play the person, not the argument, in a series of very lengthy rants, I'll bow out of further discussion with you. I wish you well.

I certainly support more rights for citizens to buy to self build - I would give a right to buy public land in cities which is unused. People don't want to buy cheap land in NW Scotland. They need rights to build and homes near cities where there are jobs i.e. London etc

I do agree with this - coming from a country with a strong self-build culture and a less restrictive planning system, I find the English/British system bewildering in its determination to concentrate the ability to build in the hands of large companies building huge identikit developments, thus stifling smaller entrepreneurs as well as those who'd just like to build their own place.

I wouldn't leave it as just a right to buy unused public land though - if land is being wasted in areas of huge demand, there should be penalties regardless of who owns it.

If you think people cannot see through that, then your time will be well employed to go and have another think.

Scremersford, if you actually think everyone else here cannot see through what you're doing, you are wrong. Bore off, dear. It's embarrassing.

Someone left their fortune to reduce the national debt

Seriously??? Good grief .....

Unfortunately there is not that much cheap land in the NW Scotland and even the crofting community right to buy is of questionable economic benefit.

I agree with the point about sorting out the problem in cities. From an environmental stand point it makes much more sense for us all to live in urban environments rather than being spread all over the landscape (Green Party agree).

Also it perplexes me somewhat that the education spend per child in my LA is £2,500 against over £10,000 in rural Scotland. This is replicated in healthcare and most other public services.

And in other news the front page of the Herald informs me GHA has had to apply for a court order to temporarily evict 7 neighbouring residents to prevent them disrupting the demolition of the derelict Red Road tower blocks. They were originally scheduled for demolition as a symbol of Glasgow's urban renewal during the Commonwealth Games opening ceremony.

I wholeheartedly support changes to the planning regulations to prevent this sort of NIMBYism.

Don't get me started on the bloody Commonwealth Games, howabout. Getting rid of half of Dalmarnock and replacing it with 'better' alternatives for housing and recreation which local people could scarcely afford, if at all. The whole thing was an insult: so many units and schools for children with additional support needs closed down in the years immediately before (and still going on) and yet we could afford a velodrome?

I really don't know enough about budgets etc but the council could afford the games while cutting vital services? It was all for show.

Compared to London there is an awful lot of cheap land in NW Scotland or rural Scotland in general anyway
www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-43492303.html half an acre with planning permission £15,000.

There is a plot in my area for sale with permission to build. It's £1,000,000.

"Treasury figures show that most of the money given since April – more than £897,000 – is in the form of bequests

The 11 contributions range from 78p to £520,000 and total £898,539.80.

Members of the public have donated almost £900,000 to the government so far this financial year to help pay off the national debt or boost public spending, figures from the Treasury show.

Clearly the 11 contributions, ranging from 78p to £520,000 and totalling £898,539.80, are a drop in the ocean of Britain's £1.2 trillion national debt, which chancellor George Osborne announced last week was set to be £18bn lower than forecast in March. But it is the highest amount since £1.08m was given in 2010.

The figures, supplied under a freedom of information request, showed that most of the money donated since April – more than £897,000 – was in the form of bequests. Gifts and unclassified payments add up to £604.48."

Maidofstars - Have you always had private medicine and education? Roads and railways? Police and fire services?

These are services, not benefits. There is a massive difference.

Been on the market for over a year Grazia and that really is the middle of nowhere with no services, so I guess it depends on your definition of cheap. Actually is plenty of property being built where I live in the central belt and a decent family home can be had for £150k. Mind you there is a nice house DH has his eye on for £900k. I told him I didn't fancy maintaining all the wood panelling.

All DHs family live in the South East. Still family homes on the tube line for £300k near them.

I do get that there is a market failure problem with central London housing but it is a concern when government policy for the whole country is being set on the basis of this small area and related pockets.

Another one following this post with interest. To the OP YABU.

Agree with the posters who said there is a lot of jealously on this thread. Also agree with whoever said that IHT should be abolished. It's double taxation - plain and simple.

Don't even get me started on University fees and double taxation.

And before anyone asks I am a higher rate tax payer and although I do not mind paying a proportion of my salary to the state I really resent paying 40%. If I had to pay more I would seriously look at leaving.

Completely agree with you about university fees. I think the fact that a graduate teacher is looking at paying an additional 9% tax on earnings above approx £20k for throughout their working life is absolutely ridiculous - I am not a teacher. Once you take into account NI this gives a marginal rate above 40% and that is definitely too high for that income level imo and in comparison to the 40% earnings level for non graduates.

Abolishing IHT makes no sense if the benefits system continues to penalise those who have a savings cushion throughout their lives - you can't take it with you and if my dc need support I would rather give it when they are young than when I die and they are hopefully too old to benefit from it.

For those worried about IHT do make plans not to pay it. If you give your money away to the children and live 7 years which that Hampstead star man in his 70s is whose home is worth £15m and his daughter will get the proceedings and then live 7 years no IHT is paid.

The £1m v £20k plots of land to build near my house v Scotland do illustrate the differences. However I certainly agree that we cannot determine the whole of UK policy. I also agree you can buy houses around £500k near me in outer London zone 5. Here is a 3 bed for £350k although it's ex local authority so not exactly top of the range - www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-54154046.html

I don't think there is a lot of jealousy on this thread, there may be a few people

Maybe my defenition of "lot" and "jealousy" is different

I don't believe HR tax payers should necessarily pay more but i believe that thinking that they should doesn't automatically mean that they are jealous

I believe that luck can play a part in some peoples earnings

OP YABU.

I can't be bothered to read the whole thread, as it seems to have derailed somewhat.
I was going to post when it was first started, but I had a meeting to rush into.

I don't think that it's fair that higher earners pay higher taxes, because being a higher earner doesn't mean that you use more of the resources that the taxes go towards.
That being said, I don't see why low earners don't pay tax (until £9 ish grand) as they still use the resources.
A flat rate, in my opinion should be paid by all at 20%- Not less for low earners, or more for higher earners. If you work you pay. No exceptions.

Members of the public have donated almost £900,000 to the government so far this financial year

Jeez

Still, let's look on the bright side - with government control of spending being so sensible, their generosity might just about pay for a box of paperclips

That is a difficult issue. 3% of people pay tax in India. In the UK hardly anyone used to (but that was largely because most people lived in absolute poverty unimaginable today).

Do people buy into the state and behave better if they pay some tax so they feel part of it? Are the Tories right to remove so many people from tax altogether as the personal allowance gets higher and higher? Or do we want mroe people paying less tax all round?

I certainly support the current policy - no point in giving people housing benefit and tax credits and then taking tax and NI from them. It's an utterly pointless movement of money that just makes non jobs for civil servants and increases all our tax bills.

If the single person tax allowance were the minimum wage that might work.

I've often wondered about having a single universal payment to everyone over 18 in the UK in place of state pension, housing benefit and all other benefits whether you are in work or not so is you do work you are not losing benefit entitlement. It would however encourage those who are total dossers and never done a day's work in their life though to keep on being idle.

Unreasonablebetty - I also like the idea of a flat rate of tax - everyone paying the same percentage but if you earn more, you're paying more. I do agree with the higher tax-free allowance though - to help out those who aren't earning as much.