To be fed up with the amount of tax / ni I pay

[Elephantstone1]

although my salary looks decent from the outside. I’m beginning to get really fed up with the amount of tax / ni I pay.

so on £60k end up coming out with just around £3k per month from £5k after all taxes (including council tax) have been paid.

we’re not entitled to any help that others may get

my commute costs about £400 a month, but I’ve already paid tax on that money, so i have to earn about £600 a month to pay for it.

i know I’m lucky to be on a decent salary. Just with the col increasing, I’m getting a bit fed up

What we can do is make pensioners pay more in because of their healthcare costs.

You mean those pensioners who have already bourne the healthcare costs of two previous generations of pensioners? Those pensioners who, if they’ve got the money, are already paying for their own age related surgeries like hip or knee replacements or cataract removal?

Both of you are right, which is why we have a problem. This is especially so if the 60k earner is of the generation who were too young to benefit from cheaper housing or free university- 60k if your mortgage is paid off, no DC at home or student debt and you've a good pension waiting for you probably is a pretty nice gig, but increasingly those earners won't fall into this category.

A few of us have explained to you various times on here what the facts are as it pertains to generational spending.

If do not understand the facts, I will not engage with you further because my time is simply more valuable than that.

Enabling your kind of "views" is the reason the UK is in such a mess. Nobody seems to want to tackle the serious problems now because its always "emotions" over " facts" now.

@jenandberrys a 6m paid mat leave would be funded by the employer though, not the government. And would mean that statutory mat leave wouldn’t be claimed for those 6 months.

Re keeping the money that you’ve earned - are you self employed out of interest? I get the mindset of not wanting to hand tax over when it’s not withheld at source and you have to physically part with the cash. I feel it’s different as a salaried employee.

I will not engage with you further because my time is simply more valuable than that.

Thank Christ for that.

Thousands of pounds in benefits of course! Or rather that is what people believe. I work part time (weekends so I can do the school run, cover school holidays etc). DP works full time. We own our own home (mortgage NOT paid off). We have one child.

We were due to earn £25k between us last year so got a small amount of child tax credits (£45 a month).We took every bit of overtime offered to both of us. Not unheard of for us to do 11/12 hour days. This meant we took our combined earnings up to £30k. We now owe hmrc for a overpayment as £30k is seen as too high an income for help apart from child benefit. My dp pays more than this in tax.

For some reason though there are lots of people who would assume we would get lots of help on our income which isn't true.

No not self employed, though have at various points had to fill in tax returns in addition to PAYE.

Employers reclaim a portion of mat pay from the govt so of course it is a benefit. If employers wished to fund mat pay wholly from their own pocket then great. It's the govt mat subsidies that I object to.

OF course, some of the most generous employers when it comes to maternity pay is in the public sector, such as the NHS, so it's still the taxpayer funding it!

Well the taxpayer funds doctors salaries but it would be stretch to consider that 'benefits'

Yes, but "above average" =/= loads. Especially when average isn't really enough.

@jenandberrys so if you object to the gov paying back a percentage of stat mat leave are you suggesting that the employer needs to cover the full cost? What happens if they can’t cover mat leave plus mat cover?

It’s nothing to do with the average or “loads”. The fact is that someone with a salary of £60k earns more money than three quarters of the population.

So?

Then mat leave would be unpaid, because it is clearly absurd to pay two people to do a job when one of them isn't actually doing the job. It's not rocket science.

I agree OP, think that taxes on middle earners are far too high. The higher rate tax band should be at least 70k by now.

The problem is that middle earners are having to support lower earners who are not paid enough to live on. Companies like Amazon make billions in profit, while their workers are being supported by the state. Nobody who works full time should be claiming any kind of benefit. We are essentially paying for these businesses to increase their profit margins.

I think that if a business earns over a certain amount, then they should be forced to pay their workers enough to live on, without any top up from state benefits. State benefits should only kick in if the business isn't profitable.

That would have an interesting impact on the size of the working age population in years to come

I agree OP, think that taxes on middle earners are far too high. The higher rate tax band should be at least 70k by now.

Sounds like it could get worse. When other people say ‘tax the rich’ and policies aimed at £60k plus are being touted. Then it’s going to get tougher. Not you but apparently what is being proposed.

What are you basing that on? There is not a correlation between birth rates and maternity pay

How on Earth can that system work? You'd have people earning more for doing the same job, just because they were working for a larger employer. How would small employers ever find any staff?

I think it's a reasonable idea and could be implemented by companies declaring their profits, the government tracking the benefits bill in worker supplements per company and then taking it out of their profits as an additional tax. However, the greedy b**stards who run companies would then just find a way of not making any 'profits', e.g. 'investing' in property in the Cayman Islands or paying themselves much larger bonuses.

@Badbadbunny

That's why I said that earnings should only be topped up by state benefits if the business is unprofitable.

Why should taxpayers pay for businesses to make a profit? They need to pay their staff enough to live on.

@Rocket1982

Yes, bonuses should also be capped, or no allowed, unless each and every employee in the organisation is earning enough to live on without state benefits.

Lots of businesses can't afford to, so would have to close down thus causing more unemployment and less tax revenue. It'd be mostly smaller/private businesses closing down, so that means even more empty properties in town centres etc.

The businesses who could afford to pay more would undoubtedly increase their prices to pay for it, thus fuelling inflation. Obviously, with fewer smaller/private businesses in competition, they'd be able to increase prices more easily!

As a single parent I’d likely get some top up universal credit.

Pretty much this!!!