Net contributor or Burden on the state?

[Whyareblokesonhere]

Am I being unreasonable to think that the vast majority of us don't believe we are 'burdens' on public money.

I earn reasonable money, around £65k per year, I assumed that would make me a net contributor, after all I seem to be paying tax left right and center, however whilst it's not actually an easy calculation, I realised today that I'm most likely a burden, mostly due to have several children.

Not a big user of anything medical aside from birth but that must skew things significantly. Two car household and household income of around £80k.

So very likely that I'm actually a burden, changes my perspective somewhat.

So AIBU to think most of us assume incorrectly that we are net contributors?

Also interested as to whether you think you are or aren't? Obviously MN is the land of ultra wealthy as we all know so not a scientific study by any stretch!

I’m a burden. Most of us are. Some more than others. But it’s us being a ‘burden’ (aka low paid) that makes other people ‘not a burden’ (very high earners). It does make me grateful however for the services I do receive, and I don’t think high earners should be taxed any more than they are at the moment.

I'm definitely a net contributor. Paid hundreds of thousands in tax over the years, no kids, rarely used the NHS, never claimed any benefits etc. Bit frustrating really when I see how much everyone else takes.

Absolutely but the expectations of the average MNer about what should be ‘free’ goes wayyyy beyond this.

It's a good question.
I think, bar health issues, we would probably be net contributors as our household income is well over £100k. But two children have chronic health conditions and so do I, so I expect we cost the NHs a fair bit

That said, we both work in the public sector so could use our skills to earn double or triple in the private sector, so we "contribute" in less quantifiable ways too.

And without the treatment and care from the NHS I would be bed bound and unable to work. So would be claiming benefits rather than contributing to society both through my work and my volunteering

This narrow way of measuring contribution is nonsense. I contribute in direct taxes, by purchasing and by generating surplus value through my labour.

Beyond the financial I contribute to the strength of the nation.

I agree (and we are definitely not burdens.
the majority of people contribute in meaningful ways, and the majority of people do don’t can’t

we just need to wheedle out those who fall into neither camp.

I was previously a contributor now probably verging on burden and my DC will be - this sounds awful but it is because they both have severe learning disabilities so unlikely to be able to work or live independently. We receive DLA for both and they both take medication regularly.

fullfact.org/economy/are-half-british-households-burden-state/

This is old but it gives some interesting data on the topic. I imagine that in today's climate a lot more people are reliant on the state since wages are no longer adequate.

It's worth bearing in mind that it's not as simple as saying "well I have private health care so I am definitely not a burden".

We all benefit from the security that our police and armed services give us. We all benefit from funds spent on roads and other infrastructure. Lots of government money supported broadband rollout for example. We also benefit from Council services such as waste disposal, and that is not just your weekly bin collection, it's the local recycling centres, and removal of fly tipping etc etc.

There's also the matter of your education. Do you argue that your parents taxes paid for that and you pay for your children's, or do you look at is as part of your lifetime contribution? What about at the end when you need social care? You might start work at 20, retire at 60, but live into your 90s. Can you say for sure that your taxes will cover everything you use in your old age? Even if you pay for private care, there will still be an element of public service involvement. Your care provider will be monitored by the CQC for example.

I expect that there are many people on here who think they are net contributors and would be shocked to learn that the reality is something different. You probably have to be a higher rate tax payer your entire life to actually cover everything.

In fact I think it is disgusting to describe almost any citizen (law abiding) as a burden.

Total Tory attitude, completely missing the point of society being a complex ecosystem.

I think it would be better to rephrase this as either being a net contributor, or not being a net contributor. and that will only really apply to money anyway.

The word 'burden' in itself is horribly negative. There are people who contribute little in the way of taxes, but they are full time carer for a family member.. so they are preventing their loved one being a "burden" because they are caring for them at home.

Were you intentionally being goady or are you just rude generally?

It's hard to work it out isn't it? Our household income is high, somewhere around double the OPs. But I have three kids. One had a stay in ICU last year. We have private healthcare but use a mix of NHS and private. And who knows, we could lose it all one day and end up needing loads of support/care.

That said, surely lots of corporate tax is collected from revenue generated by all of our spending, so a good proportion of the UC some people receive will end up back in gov't coffers?

I don't mind my tax money going to support others one iota. That's what living in a society means.

Just education alone for 2 kids must be a significant amount?

I am probably a net contributor but may not always be. You’re extremely welcome to take my life limiting health conditions that are a financial burden to the NHS.

I get your point OP but surely it was very obvious to you that having two children would make you a net burden unless you're earning mega bucks.

I am most definitely a net contributor but I'm sure the day will come when I'm a burden too.

Whichever way we look at it I think the bottom line is that there are not enough contributors to keep up with the costs which is why the government are trying to encourage retired people back to work. People are living longer, many have made little provision for care if they need it, many many pensioners relying on benefits extra to state pension.

This attitude is strange. Reduces all of human life to just money. Very empty approach.

I would say I was a contributor. 4 children. Worked mostly full time for 44 years.
No serious illnesses, moderate NHS user and I have also raised 4 people who are now taxpayers themselves 😀😀

@thatshowirolllandchips it costs the state £7k a year to educate a child. Based on an income of 45k, your annual tax won’t even cover educating both of your children:

Contributor. However it’s worth bearing in mind how things change as one ages- one can be a significant contributor while working but receive a great deal as a pensioner (especially healthcare- many people receive very little before retirement age but a great deal in the last years of life). Better to think less in terms of “them and us” and more in terms of “us now and us in future”.

This only takes into account direct taxation. A family generates work for teachers, carers, more shopping etc. This then generates contributions from those people.

Contributor - DP on highest tax rate and I am on high, no kids, barely use NHS (any treatment/diagnosis for autoimmune illness/tests/meds/IVF/therapy all private, rarely use A&E or GP and I miscarry at home mostly).

I think financially, I definitely fall into the 'burden' camp, though in other ways I've probably 'paid in' more than those who pay in tax a month what I earn - and some of them wouldn't be able to do those jobs and earn that money if it weren't for me (and so many others) doing my (former) job.

But you're only worth anything if it's to do with money, until there's no one left to do the low paying but essential to society work and the important people who pay in more financially suddenly realise that there's no one to look after granny and they'll have to do it themselves and forgo the large salary and kudos that goes with it.

I'm so sick of people who contribute so much in human terms being written off as burdens because their contribution isn't considered financial enough and everything has to be about money and scroungers.

This, times a million. And it’s of benefit to the country to have a population that’s supported and healthy.

And there are other ways to be a burden to society than using services. Landlords who keep their mouldy flats in a state of disrepair, causing ill health to their tenants. Business who don’t pay enough for their staff to live on. And so on

But to go along with the thought experiment, I’ll say that we adopted our DC, so while having kids is ‘burdensome’, we’ve in fact saved the state hundreds of thousands in direct costs of foster care till they’re of age and the indirect costs of the generally poor outcomes for care leavers.

I am bit confused. I thought this is about financial overal contribution. Afaik most people are not net contributors over their lifetime.
It's nothing to do with being good or bad person. That's whole different debate about being positive contribution to society, not treasury.