This may be unpopular - but what about the squeezed middle?

[AndroidUsername]

They are talking about raising taxes on the average person now. Which will really effect lower middle class families who are already feeling the pinch due to increases in cost of food, gas and electic, increasing childcare costs and rent or morgage increases. They are going to increase pensions and benefits with inflation but lots of middle class earners are not having their wages increased with inflation but will now have their taxes increased. What about help for the middle class, especially lower middle class and working class who earn slightly to much to qualify for any help but will now stuggle with all these increases.

Your opinion, entitled as you are to it, doesn’t change the outcome. Wealth taxes don’t work. Hollande also thought it was a different time post 2008 financial crash and he needed to introduce these taxes. And it didn’t work. Macron reversed it for a reason, and he’s not exactly a right wing ideologue. There is always a need for higher taxation, but there’s no point doing it if you actually lose revenue. That’s not smart.

I suspect t anything macron did was ideology driven

We've handed out trillions in furlough for all regardless of wealth, people like the Beckhams and the Sunaks claimed it, support loans for the super wealthy too. We are making the same mistake with energy support

The administrative cost of working out who is/isn’t eligible for energy support would, I would hazard a guess, be far greater than just giving everyone £400. Same, I suspect, with furlough if you tried to put some kind of cap on it. And it’s precisely because of this that we have the unfair situation of households with 2 people earning £98k each being able to claim child benefit but a household with one person earning £60k being excluded. It’s just easier, more cost-effective, from an administrative perspective.

Multinational corporations make their tax affairs so opaque, they get to negotiate what they are willing to pay in tax with HMRC, because it would be far too difficult and time consuming for the underfunded HMRC to wade through the paperwork and work out the truth. Tax legislation therefore picks on the low hanging fruit, instead: there’s nothing easier than taking money out of someone’s salary before they’ve even been paid (and it’s nice and easy to work out how much tax income you’ll make from it, too); or going through the tax return of an individual with nice, simple tax affairs, looking for their mistakes and and misdemeanours, then punishing them for said mistakes and misdemeanours. Meanwhile, a blind eye is turned to the billions of pounds being siphoned away by the more sophisticated operations of big business. This will only get worse as cutbacks to government spending make government departments even more astonishingly inefficient than they already are. Efficiency and effectiveness are never achieved through starvation. We will therefore increasingly be at the mercy of the whims of those too big to pay tax unless they want to, which they generally don’t.

As for tax avoidance versus tax evasion - there is legitimate, straightforward tax avoidance, like saving money in an ISA that is, in fact, encouraged by Government in order to encourage people to have savings; there is using your financial and political muscle to lobby and cajole and direct what ends up in tax legislation so as to suit your own ends, which is mainly open to super-wealthy party donors and big business, although accounting bodies representing SMEs do their best to be heard; and there is finding unintended loopholes in tax legislation, or unintended/unexpected uses for legitimate ways of structuring a business and exploiting them until they are closed, which is tax evasion in all but name. Obviously, the wealthy can afford to pay tax advisers to exploit the system in ways that are technically legal but morally bankrupt, and also make sure it is too difficult and expensive to unpick what they have done. That sort of corruption is not open to the less well off.

The result is, there is an awful lot of wealth swilling about in the world, but mostly in private hands which are clearly not making good use of it, as the world is in a bit of a mess! Buying up private islands, blasting your rockets into space, playing at being a President, manipulating world markets for personal financial gain, buying up Twitter for vast sums - so much for private individuals and corporations making the best use of money! Seems more like an effort to destroy the planet and then try to escape it, leaving the rest of humanity behind.

as a two adult household, your ability to earn a second income is greatly improved on that of a single parent.

Yes a two parent household that earns a second income is greatly improved than that of a single parent, that is stating the obvious though isn't it?

Not sure really what your point is other than, you're a single parent and because I'm not I shouldn't be allowed in your view to say we might struggle with no help because in your opinion it's a luxury for me to have a partner who works and co-parents because you don't.

My original comment was absolutely NOTHING to do with single parent's you have just taken it upon yourself to lecture me about how lucky you think I am and tell me I have no right to comment. Jeez...

It frustrates me no end to read posts like yours, arguing that being a SAHM is the only sensible option.

I didn't say being a SAHM was the only option, I said that the system is broken as there is no incentive to go back to work when the majority if not all of at least one parent's earnings go on childcare costs for those who are not eligible for any help towards childcare.

have been single for the last 13 years and have managed to teach full time, exam mark twice a year, tutor in the evenings and run holiday clubs in the summer. All without family support, I might add, and a fairly lacking in responsibility ex.

Good for you! Again not sure what you demonstrating this is trying to achieve, as it still doesn't mean my opinion isn't valid that families with two working parent's will be hit hard and struggle in current times. I haven't anywhere said single parents won't I just didn't mention them in my post...but you have made it all about your personal circumstances.

the current situation is dire for everyone. But unfortunately, to get through this, there is a need for some people to recognise that the government can’t do it all for us. We’re going to have to maximise our income and spend it on boring stuff like electric. That’s all the much more difficult when, like me, you’ve been at maximum capacity for years already

Oh I thought the current situation in your eyes was only dire for single parents.

Can I join on on who has ot worse a trump most with.

People who still pay taxes but have no recourse to public funds when shit hits the fan?

FFS. Never said that. You simply are unable to accept there is more you could be doing to help yourself.

Why don't they work?

Sorry, meant to quote the poster that said taxing the wealthy doesn't work

That doesn't just happen going from £15k to £49k, the cut off must be very low. I'm on £22k and paying over £900 a year for the college bus for DS, never had subsidised school costs. I don't get free dental. I'm getting the £650 cost of living payment so that's something.

@MinervaTerrathorn I'm not sure what the cut off is, they make it very hard to find out! The free bus was to do with our tax credit entitlement, not our actual income.

I don't regret it as ultimately when the dc have grown up and it's just me and DH we will be in a far better position now. But I was expecting a big leap in actual money in our pocket for the difference in salary, and that has not happened!

If your DC go to uni I'm pretty sure you'll get the full whack on 22k if that's any saving grace

Here are the criteria for free dental treatment, and here are the criteria for free prescriptions. There are the specific rules for those on UC here.

Free transport to college will be LA specific. Support with school trips etc. will be related to pupil premium which is for anyone eligible for FSM or has been eligible in the previous 6 years.

And here is how you are assessed for student loans.

It's all very low then, £935 a month income if on UC with a child. DS is not PP as I have worked full time since moving to the UK. If you work full time on a low income then it seems there is no additional help besides UC/tax credit top ups.

If you don’t automatically qualify for free prescriptions etc. but you have a low income and have limited savings/capital you can complete a HC1 form and may be eligible for full help with health costs or partial help towards costs.

That's good to know if I ever need it. My only medical cost right now is a yearly dental check up (maybe not even that as my dentist has suspended check ups for adult NHS patients). I was just pointing out that there doesn't seem to be any additional help for a full time working parent.

@bercan not all older people are well off like your aunt, I was a low earner but saved hard, retired at 64 living off a small works pension and savings just waiting for my state pension which I will then be taxed on as my income will be £15k. I have never received benefit and won't get pension credit, my partner earns £16k and we live within our means which I think is part of the problem with younger people who don't (his children in their 30s very much don't!) We paid into the tax system according to what we earned which is the same as today so I dont know where 'we didn't pay enough' comes from sorry if you didn't say this but posters on this thread are being ageist. I personally didn't have any luxuries growing up (house with no heating) or go on foreign holidays, I didn't own a car until I was in my late 20s, however I worked hard and paid taxes/NI and I'm damn well looking forward to my state pension (there won't be inheritance tax when I pop off!) so please don't group all older people in the same bracket.

so please don't group all older people in the same bracket.

This needs highlighting because I see it a lot. Lots and lots of older people are not rich. The ‘ok boomer’ phrase started in my own country by a childish MP with no life experience, includes people like my mother there who has no home and lives in shared accommodation. I think it’s disgraceful to blame that generation. Mistakes are often made without it being the fault of anyone. We have to try and move forward together.

@Ivepaidmytaxes and @WahineToa I agree with you completely. The attacks on ‘boomers’ are set up by the establishment. It’s no different to them whipping up resentment against immigrants with the aim to get the electorate to blame anyone, but them for problems. Only a small percentage of pensioners are well off with paid off mortgages. Most are on very modest, or at best moderate incomes, with rent to pay, or like me, and still expensive mortgage due to divorce in mid life. The them and us issue is really the establishment vs the rest of us. The triple lock is needed because a) the British state pension is pathetically low when compared other wealthy nations and b) beyond a certain age, people can’t just go out and get a job or work overtime, so it’s a fixed low income.

Only a small percentage of pensioners are well off with paid off mortgages.

I wouldn’t call 75% a ‘small percentage’.

Source:

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/ageing/articles/livinglonger/changesinhousingtenureovertime

So your ans is to keep taxing those on PAYE and keep cutting public services... and the billionaires and super rich corporations pay little in comparison?

We are not France, France already has fairly high tax rates... which apparently do work, we have some way to go.

Funny that after WW2 we did in fact tax the super rich far far more, a policy that was kept in place for over 30 years... why was that then? btw i'm not advocating 99% tax rates for anyone.

But clearly, given the huge increase in billionaires and millionaires in this country in recent years... its not the tax system thats holding them is it?

NB. 720k millionaires in UK 2015... 2.4m millionaires in uk 2021/22 & 177 billionaires, combined wealth 653bn.... All in it together....

But clearly, given the huge increase in billionaires and millionaires in this country in recent years... its not the tax system thats holding them is it?

I didn’t know this. What industries or occupations do we know? I just wonder if we as consumers perhaps have some kind of say in who has the money in the world. I can only really think of people like Jeff Bezos, so I don’t use Amazon anymore even though it was really convenient. I haven’t bought high street clothing in awhile. What could we do differently do you all think? Spending wise. Anything? Nothing significant enough?

When we look at the wealth in the UK that has grown up in the last 15 years or so, then combine that with increased poverty levels, foodbank use and low wage growth.... its beyond belief that some people still believe in "trickle down economics" and low taxes for the super rich.

No i think we all need (as a nation) to vote differently, if we don't buy from A, we'll buy from B and make them the new Amazons etc.

But that wont happen, i'm fully expecting a Tory win in 2024, regardless of the 'polls right now.

Yes I think once Christmas is over retail will really feel it, lots more small businesses closing.

No i think we all need (as a nation) to vote differently, if we don't buy from A, we'll buy from B and make them the new Amazons etc.

Are they the only options? Just a few big global companies and nowhere else to shop? What would Labour do differently that would prevent billionaires? They aren’t going to raise minimum wage, they’ve already said. For me that, and us shopping and living differently, are better solutions that penalty taxes.