Question time man top 5 percent.

[refraction]

Did anyone see the man on QT asking about tax?

Apparently he doesn't even think he is in the top 50 percent of earners.

All doctors earn more apparently and solicitors.

How out of touch with reality?

He didn't come across well and very out of touch.

sorry that's some free hours from 2, i think benefits towards childcare costs are regardless of age.

Some low earners are entitled to help with childcare though from the age of 2

How low do your earnings have to be to qualify though? I'm guessing they must be pretty low? We have an income that many on mumsnet would see as low earnings, although in reality it is above UK average. But not huge by any means. We were never entitled to help with childcare or anything, and even if someone on a lower income gets help, they still don't have as much disposable income as we do, so we're still better off. I suppose there is a cut off point somewhere where X person gets help and Y person earns £100 a year more so they don't, but neither of those people are going to be high earners.

You can get free hours for 2yr olds if you are on tax credits & you're income is under 16k. In order to qualify for tax credits towards childcare it varies depending on childcare costs but you need to work 16 hours & I think the limit is £210 a week towards childcare for 2 kids

Lower earners do usually get more help with childcare than higher earners, even if they don't qualify for the free hours at 2. They don't get all costs covered, but they're much less likely to be paying the full whack. It may however be a higher proportion of their income.

But parents of children across all income brackets sometimes make a calculation that even when they don't actively lose money by working, the amount they come out with after childcare costs isn't worth it. That certainly includes lower earners since they're particularly likely to need to consider the impact on top up benefits: this is what I meant before about how there are bottlenecks and disincentives to work less at the lower as well as the higher end.

We're pretty middle income and I've done it myself. Once I'd passed the threshold where everything I earn was subject to NI, 20% tax and student loan repayments to the private company SLC flogged mine too, the profit to the household after paying for the childcare I would no longer be around to do wasn't worth missing the time with the DC. DH was part time for a while too, for the same reason.

I just did a calculation based on a single income of £30,000 with two children paying £300 per week in childcare costs.

Wages: £1981
Tax Credits: £508
Childcare Tax Credits: £597
Child Benefit: £147

Total: £3233

When you compare this to the take home of the £80k, £4500... yes it's a big difference but it's not HUGE considering that person is actually earning well over two times the amount of person one.

Basically my point is whether you're on £30k, £60k, £80k, you're already being taxed appropriately by the PAYE system, and if you're on the lower end with high childcare costs you're being helped appropriately by the tax credits system.

I think Labour should either A) just come out and say they are raising PAYE taxes across the board as they did in Scotland (well, £25k+ in Scotland) without spinning it as a tax on the "super-rich" and "the people who are getting away without paying tax" as they did on the QT episode...

Or B) actually go after the super rich. These people are not paying PAYE. Their money is in assets, trust funds, big ltd companies etc.

Either way I think they're going after the wrong people.

It is depressing that any proposal to increase taxes is described as 'going after', 'picking on' etc. It's implied that only people who are 'the problem' should be taxed. (These are all quotes from this thread)

Public services are underfunded. That is something we all need to address, and we would all benefit from it being addressed. This is not about picking on people.

But they are "going after". They're singling out a small section of society. Some people agree with tax increases (I am one of them), but some people do not. Some people want a small state.

By "going after" a small majority of the population (5% of earners, which is an even smaller percentage of the population) they're ensuring they don't lose too many votes from the people who don't want increased taxes, because it won't affect them.

I'd rather they just had the balls to say that funding services correctly is a priority for them, and they'll be changing 20% tax to 21% tax. Rather than this divide and conquer bullshit. We were "all in this together" when it came to austerity so why can't we be "all in this together" when it comes to paying higher taxes?

If they want to take votes from the tories they need to do something different, rather than this "rich/ poor" divide rhetoric. We're all workers. We all benefit from public services. They should be promoting the things they could do with that extra 1%. Like free higher education, a better funded NHS etc, everyone in Scotland is well aware of the benefits. Labour should step up their game.

By "going after" a small majority of the population (5% of earners, which is an even smaller percentage of the population) they're ensuring they don't lose too many votes from the people who don't want increased taxes, because it won't affect them.

Do you honestly think that’s the only reason why? When there are increasing numbers of working people living in poverty, relying on food banks, becoming homeless, relying on tax credits etc?

You're conveniently ignored the other proposed tax changes. The increase to CT, limits on CT reliefs, the end to entrepreneurs relief (which many of the super wealthy benefit from).... They aren't proposing to raise just one tax on one type of person.

The victim mentality on show here is unbelievable.

We were "all in this together" when it came to austerity so why can't we be "all in this together" when it comes to paying higher taxes?

Is this a joke? We certainly were not 'all in this together' when it came to austerity. The poor and vulnerable have borne the vast majority of the effects.

And 'all in it together' was a Tory slogan, not a labour one anyway. Why the fuck would labour be expected to adhere to a Tory slogan? 'All in it together' was a cynical attempt by the Tories to mask the facr that the cuts and policies pursued were ideological, and targeted the very worst off in society.

I haven't read all posts, so might have already been raised but... it's one think taxing those who earn a good wage, even when it a large number of cases, those are people no different to those earning a lot less, but who have made sacrifices all along to be where they are when others have opted for immediate gratification.

However, how is it reasonable to want to make things more even, but removing the 2 children limit for tax credits, when those the party wants to take more out of are those who already are making the choice to remain at two children because they can't afford to have more.

I find this utterly insulting. It's not about equality any longer, it's about the poorer entitled to make choices that makes their life more fulffiling when those who support have to make the sacrifices those on low income don't want to make.

Just for this decision, I would rather move aborad than vote for Labour.

those are people no different to those earning a lot less, but who have made sacrifices all along to be where they are when others have opted for immediate gratification

This is the biggest pile of bullshit.....

So had someone who did a nursing degree opted for instant gratification? Or a teacher? Social worker? There are many, many jobs which require commitment, skill, university level study and postgraduate qualifications but do not pay more than £80k a year.

How about a person unable to work due to health issues? A single parent who isn't able to access highly paid work around childcare responsibilities? Or someone doing skilled but not well paid manual work, such as a joiner? Yeah, they're all just layabouts who can't be arsed to work hard and delay gratification, aren't they?

I can't post what I'd like to, as it'd be deleted.

those are people no different to those earning a lot less, but who have made sacrifices all along to be where they are when others have opted for immediate gratification.

You cannot seriously believe this? You think people on low incomes would earn over £80k themselves if they’d had more discipline?

This idea that only high earners work hard and make sacrifices is a pernicious myth, and I instantly lose respect for anyone who suggests it. It says a lot about a person's character when they come out with that sort of shite.

A lot of people are on low incomes precisely because they have made sacrifices in life, not because they are unwilling to make sacrifices. People who have taken on caring duties, or chosen a career path such as nursing or youth work because they want to contribute to society in that way.

I don't begrudge people on good salaries that salary, but to label everyone else as opting for immediate gratification or being unwilling to make sacrifices is short sighted and really quite a cruel thing to say.

Actually, on thinking about the people I know personally who earn really big salaries, they've actually done the opposite of making sacrifices. They have opted to single mindedly pursue their own career interests, in a field that they find stimulating and rewarding as well as financially rewarding. They have worked abroad for weeks or months at a time, leaving their partner at home doing the school runs and homeworks, and their elderly parents being cared for by their siblings. I don't mean that as a criticism, they were perfectly entitled to make those choices, but the sacrifices were actually made by those around them, not by them.

“it's one think taxing those who earn a good wage, even when it a large number of cases, those are people no different to those earning a lot less, but who have made sacrifices all along to be where they are when others have opted for immediate gratification.”

Immediate gratification? Doctors, lawyers, teachers... not how I’d have chosen to have described their career path tbh.

This is not true if you have to pay for childcare which is not deductible for tax purposes in order to work

It might not be true at that moment but it will become true once your kids don’t need childcare any more. It’s only really a big burden for most people until they go to school and then stops completely when they reach high school.

“Instant gratification” pmsl yes tell a 16 year old girl who’s had to leave school and go out to work in a shop to help pay her keep because her family don’t have much money that she just didn’t make enough sacrifices to deserve earning more.

What a crock of shit some people write

How about a person unable to work due to health issues? A single parent who isn't able to access highly paid work around childcare responsibilities? Or someone doing skilled but not well paid manual work, such as a joiner? Yeah, they're all just layabouts who can't be arsed to work hard and delay gratification, aren't they?

And there goes the assumption that people earning well can't possibly be one of those. I fell into one of these categories, as do many people I know.

I'm not earning £80K but I've done ok. I didn't when I was mid 20. At that time, I earned a Grand £600 a month doing an intership. No benefits, no financial help. I went from there. I became a single mum with no help at all, but continued to work FT, even though I wasn't entitled to tax credits and in the end of the month, I was hardly better off than if I'd opted to claim benefits.

Two teachers working FT will earn £80K after years. They just won't to start with. Two nurses will be close to it. The joiner could also end up doing very well by building his business.

When you decide to have 3 children or more, you are putting yourself in a position of vulnerability, not just because of the number of children, but the longer you limit yourself to not being able to work FT. Everyone is entitled to have as many children as they want, but deciding to have as many as it makes you happy and then complaining that you are not in as good a position as those who chose to stop at two and go back to work FT is ludicrous.

Some people are lucky to be where they are, some people are way they are because of pure poor luck, but in the vast majority of cases, people are where the choices they've made has taken them, happily or not.

those are people no different to those earning a lot less, but who have made sacrifices all along to be where they are when others have opted for immediate gratification

Try telling my stepdaughter on £24k that she didn’t make any sacrifices and opted for instant gratification to get her nursing masters degree.

This isnt about taxing household income though, is it? What two teachers or two nurses earn is totally irrelevant to your point. And the fact that a joiner can do well is also irrelevant. I didn't assume that no-one in those groups earn £80k, but the cast, vast majority don't, as is evidenced by the statistics.

The point is that your claim that people earning under £80k are in that position because they want immediate gratification is complete and utter bollocks. And offensive bollocks at that.

“Two teachers working FT will earn £80K after years. They just won't to start with. Two nurses will be close to it.”

They’re not getting taxed more though...

This idea that only high earners work hard and make sacrifices is a pernicious myth
Who said 'only'? It's about the type of sacrifices and when they are made. It's big sacrifices as much as the cummulation of small sacrifices. It's start very early, those who are 16 and are already working weekend jobs to gain experience and start saving money, and those in the same situation who prefer sleeping later, want to be able to watch the football, and who just can't be bothered.

In the end, if two people on low income work FT, commit to their job whilst looking for opportunity for advancement over the years, the chances of them being on £80K jointly or there about in their 40s/50s is not that unlikely.

Two people on low income, with one out of work for some time, who opt to have more than 2 children, who don't look at opportunity for advancement will indeed be much less likely to end up earning £80K.

Earning £80K doesn't have to be an aim in itself. Many families much prefer to have a nice family life with a number of children. I don't blame them, it makes them rich in a different way, but only few people have it all, let alone through pure luck only.

“In the end, if two people on low income work FT, commit to their job whilst looking for opportunity for advancement over the years, the chances of them being on £80K jointly or there about in their 40s/50s is not that unlikely.”

And they’re still not getting taxed more...