To be surprised by this ...

[corbyncatpigeons]

In another thread something surprising ‘popped up’ but has been lost in the rest of the discussion.

Jane is the head teacher of a local small school she loves her job and works many hours in and out of school. She earns 56k, of this she pays tax & NI of 16.2k resulting in a net income of 39.8k

In the school there is a really great teaching assistant … he used to be head master of another small school but took a decision to work less and now works 16 hours and is pretty disciplined at sticking to that. He earns 5.6k per year, pays no tax and receives 34.2k in benefits resulting in a net income of 39.8k

Both are single parents with three kids, they both live in three bedroom private rented houses in Chelmsford, council tax is in band D, they both pay 240 per week for childcare.

Credit to twinkle for the idea.

calleigh your friend has £2400 paid into her bank account every month ? Does she pay rent and council tax out of that ? It just sounds odd unless she has a whole massive brood of children . My friend works 16 hours a week on NMW , still has to contribute to her rent and council tax and has had her monthly income reduced with the new cuts so she will have £25 a week for food for herself and her son .

So are the figures true or not? It was me, by the way, on the other thread, who pointed out that, according to the figures Corbyn quoted, a TA could have the same income as a Head.

Not a troll or a right wing stirrer, (labour voter in fact), hold my hands up that I am possibly too quick to believe when people quote figures.

So are the figures true?

And by the way, even if they are, I have no problem with anyone getting a decent income. But systems should be less "playable" shouldn't they?

jeffsanarsehole greater proportion of tax overall - really ?

Real life example. Single mother, 1 dc, council property rent 150wk, childcare 80pw, works 16hrs week.

Will pay c34% of earnings even without taking account of the 18k benefits See bottom for calc's

Someone who earns 150k will pay 39% in income tax before taking account of any VAT

Tax credits 9k, council tax credit .5k, housing benefit 7.4, child benefit 1.1, earnings 5.6k Total net 23.6.
Non taxable outgoings, rent 7.8k, food 3.9k, childcare 4.2k Total 15.9k
Council tax is all tax .75
Leaving 6.9k ... assume this is all spent on VATable items that will be 1.15k
So total tax paid .75 council tax, 1.15k VAT, total tax = 1.9k
1.9k is

That seems an incredibly high amount for tax credits, whilst the amount they can pay out is mind boggling, I don't believe it for one second...
I believe the maximum child benefit (not childcare related) is about £65 per week and doubled if a child is disabled. So no way child tax would total anywhere near the quotes figure.

I love tinkly's contributions.

She has no problem with people who need help receiving it.

But the system should be less playable by people who don't need it, but want it.

Yes, really. The low waged pay a greater proportion of tax

Just think about every utility bill, tax on fuel, tax on food. They lose more of their income to tax as a proportion compared obviously to someone who earns much more.

Suddenly feeling a bit paranoid and sock puppeted. I'm out of here.

Jeff saying The low waged pay a greater proportion of tax again doesn't make it true.

I have given a very typical example ... and it's not true.

Pick different examples if you would like and see if the answer is different.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/tories-should-remember-poorest-pay-most-tax

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-graph-that-shows-how-the-poor-are-paying-more-than-the-rich-in-tax-10353982.html

Two links for you, it's not really in dispute anywhere

The one thing people forget about most of the benefit calculators is there are often not an accurate reflection of the impact one benefit has on another.

This can lead to very inflated or deflated predictions that have little to no resemblance to the truth.

It's why most of them come with warning about only being a guide and to utilise the services of a trained benefit advisor

Low waged people often pay a big chunk of their disposable income in tax, if you include regressive taxes like council tax, VAT and fuel duties.

And "raw" tax data, like the amounts of tax payable quoted by our friend the pigeon from CCO, is very misleading, as people on higher incomes are better able to "manage" their tax liabilities, for eg by receiving part of their income in kind or in the form of dividends, or by paying into personal pension schemes.

I work I receive tax credits

I don't receive any council tax or housing benefit

and I am not on a high wage

and I am a single mum

Jeff this is from the first article that you have linked to.

the poorest 10 per cent of households paid 45 per cent of their income in tax, compared to 34.6 per cent for the richest 10 per cent. The UK's highly redistributive welfare system ensures that the poorest are compensated: 51.5 per cent of households received more in benefits than they paid in taxes

What is your point ?

Calleigh is right - my friend and I 'earn' the same.

I think benefits are great, but as a real life scenario. My husband and I use to get 29,790.28 annually. We have 1 child. My DH worked 16 hours a day at minimum wage and I was/am a stay at home parent, and carer to my DH. We are also in receipt of benefits.

Weird that given that loads of assessors and advisors sit in offices all day looking a claim info and don't tend to see claims at that level unless some quite deserving criteria is met

I have a lot of respect for you sock, and am saying that so that you know that this is not aimed at you, but the stories I hear on Mumsnet just do not correlate with the real world I know at all.

In the real world, people I know on benefits are doing just fine, thank you very much, and before I am accused of jealousy, I'm not - although I have gone through periods in the past of feeling resentful and like a fraud I am mostly over that now.

But I have friends who I know are mostly or entirely reliant on benefits who frequently go abroad, buy expensive items and so on.

It doesn't match with the descriptions on here at all, it really doesn't.

I think I've been doing tax credits wrong. I always end up better off when I've worked more hours.

Can someone who thinks it's better to work the fewest hours possible come and explain in detail how that works?

Sorry, was away. In response to previous questions, prior to tax credits she was on income support. I can't say whether she gets the amount of tax credits the 'calculator' shows, but definitely the other benefits. We're in Scotland, do people on tax credits in England not get free dentist/optician? PDSA pay for vet treatment if on housing benefit/income support. I'm no Tory, far from it, just realistic that there's only so much in the 'pot' and I would like more of it to go to those who don't have choices rather than people like my very good friend who are choosing to exploit it.

That you didn't read all of the articles

That statement you quoted said that the poorest pay more tax.

It goes on to say that even though they're compensated through benefits "the biggest winners are still the affluent".

Bottom line - the poorest pay most tax proportionally.

Jeff, i thought that was based on the equality trust report and ONS, I can't find the direct link, but iirc, there was a bit of an issue with it

If you include benefits in tax, the bottom 10% keep 152% of their pretax income, compared to 66% got for the top 10%.

While this isn't fair and there are serious issues, this report has been debunked in the scenario you are trying to use it.