Why won't any political party focus or help the squeezed middle

[Winterday1991]

Off the back of another thread, has got me thinking about the next general election.

Why is there not a party that will focus on the middle earners in the squeezed south east , where both partners work full time, who are struggling juggling mortgages, cost of childcare and self fund everything and are over threshold for any help or subsidies ie child benefit, cost of living payments, free childcare via universal credit?

We are a middle/highish income family and are just so sick of paying into the system and getting nothing back! The amount of tax we pay is insane, certainly not anywhere near value for money. Labour just seem to want to focus on single parent families and those on universal credit.

Any party who focuses on the middle will surely win the election?

I imagine by the time I'm retirement age, the actual age will have risen again, and there probably won't be a state pension at all
@Housesellingnightmare you know that’s not inevitable? That campaigning for better pension rights could move that? And voting for parties that actually believe in the welfare state?

Well, if that's the case we will find out and work the optimal amount to make it worthwhile and get some UC/anything else we are legally entitled to. Why does it bother you though? We'd be claiming something we are legally entitled to and have paid loads into the system over the years. Why would't we prioritise our family and health like most people do. Nobody is obligated to work against what is best for their own personal circumstances and if the government actively allow it people will use the system to their best advantage.

@PegasusReturns we also pay road tax, council tax, stamp duty etc. if children are also in private schools then the only thing that we would use government money for is GP? As several in this bracket would also have private healthcare.

How ridiculous. You will have a dreadful shock if you do.

It doesn't bother me at all, I'm just pointing out that you're misinformed about what you can actually claim. You need to figure it out properly first.

That’s the point - they won’t. People are unable to compute just how much highest rate tax and other issues such as personal allowance losses, childcare cost. It’s absolutely insanity that you can get a £1 pay rise and be tens of thousands a year worse off. Needing a 50k pay rise to make up the shortfall yet here we are. Part time GPs all over the show.

No it isn't. I was made redundant earlier on this year so I've jumped through the unemployment hoops recently. I know exactly what happens.

I've been living on the system because I'm a lone parent on a low wage. I would rather be on a high wage, unfortunately as I was made redundant I've had to start at the bottom with a new company, but it's somewhere I can progress quickly which is what I'm hoping.

I'm not pissy at all, I actually don't care what you do. But you're spreading misinformation, and considering you don't actually claim at the moment and I do, I think I know a bit more about it than you do.

You can cut back if you need to and reduce your outgoings. You might not like doing it, but you could if you had to. Some people have already cut things to the bone, and the only way they could cut back any more would be to either starve or freeze.

In any case, do you really think that your taxes just go on subsidising people less fortunate than yourself?

How about: the armed forces, motorways, healthcare, national infrastructure, state pensions, education, child welfare, the emergency services, libraries, planning, arts funding, overseas aid, refugees, national security, street lights, refuse collection, the environment, national parks, customs..........

That’s the point - they won’t

They will. No one lives a comfortable life on benefits long term. The belief they will get their full rent paid in central London is beyond ridiculous for a start. There'll be top ups. And obligations towards the UC process in terms of looking for work etc etc. I get it - the frustration. People seemingly living great lives that you feel you pay for. And.for some families, it makes sense to have someone part time or.not working at all to avoid childcare costs or to be able to manage school pick ups etc. But the downside is savings, pension pots, career progression, ability to move house when you need to....the long term stuff. The stuff that matters if your marriage breaks down and you were the one who gave up work. The childcare years are tough - I did it on my own - but it calms down and that's when that longer term bigger picture reveals itself. Short-sightedness and lack of hindsight will hit extra hard for someone who was potentially even a middle-earner, let alone higher earner. I'm 52 - many of my friends are taking, or thinking about taking, early retirement. They can afford to. I can't - too many missed pension years on benefits and part time work.

The system doesn't help people back to work either.

Have a relative who wants to work. They could do with some advice or support but it's just a case of going online and helping yourself and then being rejected

You literally said in your last post that the requirement to work more is BS based on the fact that you were unemployed years ago. I can assure you that it's not, as a single mother of an older child who was unemployed until last month I am REQUIRED to work 35 hours minimum. Just because you knew the system a few years ago doesn't mean you know it now, it gas gotten a lot stricter. So yes, you are spreading misinformation. You don't have any recent experience claiming benefits. I'm just saying I think you will be surprised when you do.

We would get approx 85-90% of our rent paid. The upsides would be more free time while our kids are young, better health, no childcare costs as one of us would be around to look after the kids, no commuting costs (paid out of after-tax salary) etc. It's not all about money, mostly it's to improve our quality of life and with regards to pensions etc, by the time we are old I doubt we will get any pension and if there is a pension system it will probably be means tested so if you've saved any money you won't get it.

The huge issue is - nowadays people can’t afford to think long term. Especially when housing costs are high and income taxation is the highest it’s ever been. It’s the short sightedness of these issues which will cause the collapse of the state. Rather than encourage the highest contributors - we clip their wings. Choosing instead, to get further into debt each year to pay the highest state dependency on record. Alarm bells are already ringing about the sustainability of this from many official sources.

Just emigrate and avoid dealing with the issue.

500,000 people leave the UK every year (mostly higher earners who pay the most tax)

And circa 1m people move in (mostly lower earners or in receipt of benefits).

Lower earners have 1.8 children for every child that a higher earner has. Though frankly UK demographics are so appalling that any children should be welcomed. 2050 looks like a total nightmare for anyone who wants a pension or is a low earner - the working age population to those out of work (school/pension/sick/feckless) will halve proportionally compared to today eg not enough workers to pay decent levels of benefit/pensions.

Eventually the UK will be so poor that all those people asking for a handout won't be able to get anything and everyone will be on benefits.

Get out while you can

If you punish people for working harder (by taxing them at 40/45/60%) and withdrawing the only benefits they are entitled to (child benefit), then they are going to change their behaviour. This is basic human psychology.

Most immigrants work for the NHS/care homes or are students/graduates who studied at UK university. Higher education is our second most productive industry after financial services. This is why we can't cut immigration plus have an ageing society to boot.

I really couldn’t give a flying monkeys if you want to give up work and be a couch potato, quite frankly. It’s not my business. I will always challenge those who think a person on a £50-60k salary is “worse off” than someone on UC. A single parent with multiple children who are severely disabled probably had a significant income from benefits - and rightly so. The average ”don’t want to work while my kids are young” 2 parent families are not receiving what you suggest they are! 😂 It is goady nonsense and you are categorically wrong.

I was a sahm for 10 years by choice (without any benefits). Dh earns well and I don’t technically have to work but I love my job and I’m happy to work full time to earn more money for my family. I don’t know a single person that has given up work in favour of claiming benefits and the few people I know on UC have a job so I don’t understand why you think the system actively discourages work.

You seem to think that I should have strong feelings about your choices and those of others but why should I? It has no impact on my life at all so why should I care other than to be happy that you are making the choice that best suits your individual circumstances?

Let me ask you this, do you sincerely believe that if everyone stopped claiming benefits tomorrow, the government would immediately reduce taxes? Would they put that leftover money into worthy causes such as protecting children, education or the NHS? I don’t think they would so I would far rather the money be spent supporting those who need it for whatever reason.

I would urge you to stop buying into this divisive nonsense and put your time and thoughts into your own family and be happy. Don’t waste your precious energy worrying about what everyone else is doing. Most are only doing their best and they don’t deserve your vitriol.

The biggest expenditure of the state is on NHS and pensions (for the public sector as well as state)..not the benefits bill.

It's a shift because we have an ageing population and the Tories rely on the gray vote..the most important thing to the older people is the NHS and state pension (50% of boomers pensions entitlement). We are also on £120k combined and in our 30s. It's not the poor that is the cost, it's the old. At the same time politically impossible to slash pensions. The only solution is economic growth so we can pay all of this.

To be fair alot of them will have paid in for a long time (May have left school at 16 or even 14 etc

It's a great point about people being in less of a position to think long term.

When this point is made on MN, a common response from people who don't approve is that a person who acts to keep their eligible income below a certain level is going to be worse off in the long term, or similar. Maybe. Maybe not, in this labour market. But either way, more people are just not in a position take that longer term view now because of the cost of living crisis.

@lavender2023

Economic growth is the only solution? Oh, I’ve got bad news for you.