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!

Even if money is the only factor under consideration, direct tax is not the only contribution. You also contribute through VAT, for example.

I had a conversation with a friend a while back, on a related topic. We don’t live in the UK, but there will be some crossover.

She had heard it on the news that men contributed more than women, but GP that is only true if you consider money to be the only contribution you can make to society l

My ex has contributed far more money than I have, but I’ve raised three children, who will be the ones working and supporting my generation when we get old.

The population in the country I live in is gradually aging and there are fewer children being born. The government here recognizes that parents make a huge contribution to the country and therefore help them financially, much more than in the UK.

Do you look after any aging relatives? You’re saving the state money if you help an elderly patient leave hospital so they’re not blocking beds.

I used to be a big contributor but then I became an adoptive parent. My elder DD is blind and has autism and ADHD, among other disabilities. My younger DD has just been diagnosed with autism and ADHD. I am a registered carer for my elder daughter but I am also responsible for looking after my very elderly mother who is housebound and has zero mobility. Honestly, I would rather go to work. Oh, and I am saving the State a huge amount of money as it costs circa £4K a week to keep a child in care.

I am a net contributor. I pay well into six figures in income tax every year, have private healthcare for the whole family and my DC are at private school. I have a pathological loathing of the idea of being dependent on anyone - including the state.

Paid tax on a small income for thirty years.
In that time I've had 2 DC delivered and cared for by NHS and educated free for 7 years in state schools.

So even though I'm pretty healthy and have only ever needed basic stuff from GP, I think overall so far I'm a burden, though DC might end up rich and paying the state back.

I'm not sure children's education should be taken into account as being part of the parent's calculation for burden vs contributor. Surely this would be part of each child's own calculation? If you look at it year by year, most people are probably burdens when in education, contributors while working then burdens again once retired. The whole life calculation would be more telling, I expect.

I work part time and so am not a high earner any more so am probably not a net contributor at the moment. However, I don't get any benefits, haven't needed any medical treatment recently and do pay tax. I suppose I'm using funded facilities like parks, libraries and museums though.

Definitely net contributor, I paid £65k in tax and NI in the last tax year.

I have private healthcare (including GP) and couldn't have kids so no births, free nursery hours or schooling to come out of the pot for me

The idea of being a burden or not is absurd.

This is our country, we are all citizens and we are worth more than our salaries.

For a start, too many people are massively underpaid and too many have hoarded a shit ton of cash. On that basis alone, I dispute the “net burden” argument.

It’s weird to me. We all benefit from state funded things - some may be less obvious than others.

I’m not sure if children make you more of a burden. The country needs the population to reproduce and make the next generation of tax payers. If there aren’t enough young people to pay for the old people it all falls apart.

I know some countries like Hungary are really encouraging families to have more children. IIRC if a woman has 4 or more children she is exempt from paying income tax there for the rest of her life. So that must work out for them as a huge net contribution in making more citizens!

Fairly sure I’m a net contributor. High household income, no children, private healthcare and dental etc., lucky to not have ever needed any form of benefits (so far).

I’m a massive burden. Single parent with 3 kids, claim benefits ( also work 30+ hours a week). One of my kids has long term health issue that has probably cost the NHS a fair bit over the years.
I’m pretty sure that my family is less of a financial burden than an MP though.

I imagine we break even:

household income of 100k

lucky enough that have never claimed benefits or UC/child benefit

1 car

but

2 children, 1 c-section which probably cost the NHS a lot.

Both kids at state school

husband has a couple of minor health issues managed by medication (NHS)

Surely having 2 dc isn't a burden though as it's replacing you and your partner, and they will contribute to the economy and pay taxes etc? Id see it as any more than 2dc is a burden (I have 3 dc so not judging others). My rationale for my demographic irresponsibility is that my dc and I are highly educated and earn a lot, so don't receive any childcare subsidies etc (we're in Australia), and they'll hopefully do the same. I'm generally left leaning but this makes me sound decidedly tory..

This. The question makes me very uncomfortable because society relies on a huge amount of work being done for free especially by middle aged women doing unpaid carer work, volunteering and fundraising so state schools can function, etc.

My grandad worked for 30 years then drew a state pension for 40+ years. Was he a burden? Or did fighting in the war cancel that out somehow?

I thought of myself and dp as contributors for years. Then we had a child with health issues that involved a highly monitored pregnancy, a very specialist delivery, a stay in NICU and special care, minor surgeries and a host of other interventions up until a major surgery. I dread to think what that cost, but he is totally grand now. Then we had a second DC. We do use a private school, but ai think given the enormous cost of my PFB, we are probably not the contributors I always imagined anymore.

@DonutsAreNotLunch MPs being a big burden? Is that because of their big expenses? Which actually pay for their staff? So- probably 5 peoples wages?

my DH is an MP. Yes he earns £84k. And pays his taxes. As so I. He gave up a better paid job to do this. To try and make peoples lives better. So now, he has a lower income than he had, and lives away from home for 4 days a week.

overall we’re probably a burden because we use the NHS, and kids at state schools.
if we went private (to reduce that state burden) you’d shout at us for not using the state provision.

I think I am a contributor. 40% tax payer most of my working life until 5 years ago, now much lower nhs salary. No children, never been unemployed therefore never claimed any allowance, I use the nhs every three years for a cervical smear and last year I had a drs appointment for hrt, ah that May now make me a burden as I only pay the prescription charge on my patches rather than the total cost whatever that might be. Of course I was educated foc for 14 years but my taxes as an adult should counteract that. I will of course, if I live long enough hopefully get my state pension at 68. I have a private pension that will hopefully let me cut down my working days per week when I’m 55 because quite frankly I am knackered.

I don't think I used to be a burden. I had 3 DC and got child benefit but never claimed any other benefits ever and always worked full time and paid tax and DH too. Now I have poor health so several prescriptions which I get free as have thyroid problems and mobility issues, and although I still work full time self employed I now claim PIP. I wish I did not have too and had better health. My dh cares for me but as he still works full time he does not claim Carers allowance. We will be selling a btl house in April and will be paying a lot of Capital Gains Tax.

I don’t like the word “burden” here. Makes it sound unwanted or an imposition.

As a society we have agreed to pool resources to benefit the whole and as such we all have a right (but perhaps not a need) to receive support from that pool. It’s actually beautiful that we do this, and I think we should do it even more.

Nobody is a burden.

Surely having 2 dc isn't a burden though as it's replacing you and your partner, and they will contribute to the economy and pay taxes etc?

what if they emigrate?

I have no children. Never been a high earner. Took early retirement after 40 years of paying tax, but not yet claiming state pension. Use NHS for routine stuff and my thyroid. Burden probably.

I would imagine most individuals are 'burdens' but that's fine, tax is also collected from businesses and other transactions. It doesn't mean those that are contributors are supporting all the others!

But its not just financial, is it, taking on caring roles in the family, doing voluntry work, looking after your health, supporting British charities and businesses etc it would be very difficult to calculate the worth of some of this

That’s what people like to think. Net beneficiaries are not adding anything to the system other than being vessels for recycling other people money. If they didn’t exist, the system would find another way to move money around the economy. And productivity would be higher as cheap labour would be replaced by automation.

The worrying thing is that the number of net contributors is shrinking. As is the number of wealthy people in this country. What we are starting to be left with is the more and more net recipients, fighting over less and less of other people’s contribution. It’s what happens when you take more and more from net contributors without them getting anything in return.

Your world must be a sad place to live in