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?

The only really serious anomaly mentioned is above £100k. most people will never have to be concerned about that. For the vast majority, earning more is beneficial. We do have the highest tax burden for a long, long time though. Tories. They need to go.

I agree OP

The middle are emigrating for this exact reason

Uk just chews them up takes their sweat and taxes, punishes them at every turn... then shouts down any complaints by calling them privileged

It's a joke

Better not to work in the UK

Blame whoever invented tax credits.

The 50k-60k one is huge also. Especially for those in it as that will mean the difference between taking home the same as someone working less hours. It really does. Been in that threshold and now the higher, higher tax. The 100k one is serious though because of the people actively staying under it when they could be paying more. Everything over 100k now goes into pensions for many between 100k -150k. The government could be getting 45% of that but they don’t because of marginals. Most of which were implemented by the Tory party. However, Labour’s policy will make this work vs dropping a days even more of an issue with their policy meaning even less tax.

Blame whoever invented tax credits.

Wasn't that Tony Blair's government?

No.

We also have the £50k to £60k child benefit tax trap.

People in that band go from 40% marginal to over 60% marginal if they have children.

And over £100k:

Loss of tax free amount
Loss of free childcare subsidy

You can actually pay an 80% marginal rate if you are in the £100-120k/band.

So what do people do?

They stop trying to work harder and put away as much as they can into their pension to fall below the £50k and £100k amounts.

Or they even refuse promotions for higher pay.

Thats why its imperative that the UK fixes its tax structure. It is decimating the economy long-term as it kills aspiration.

Nobody will work harder for longer if they only get back 20-50% of their efforts.

Seems like they are short sighted then. But I’ve been a professional all my life (teaching) and never earned even £50k, so maybe I see it differently.

Not short sighted - they know. The chancellor commissioned a report on this issue and was told. The issue is the electorate is short sighted as evidenced by this thread. If the government tried to do something about it they would be accused of giving tax breaks to the rich. It wouldn’t win votes despite there being more to go around. The British don’t understand the concept of taxing everyone fairly - more to go around like elsewhere. There is an expectation that a few pay taxes for all. This mindset is literally crippling the economy.

Its amazing that you don't see the irony in your comment.

You cannot afford to have children because you get zero help in return for your taxes. This happens even at £40k/year.

That is the primary reason why the UKs fertility has dropped off a cliff. We send far too much tax to the unproductive (old and working age) vs not enough to invest in the productive (childcare, education, infrastructure).

There is a price for that: economic stagnation

And this effect is accelerating now as the population is getting older and sicker.

The point is that people will make their own value judgements about whether it's worth any extra effort to earn more in that situation. And they won't be taking into account how others feel about it.

This is an issue because due to inflation and fiscal drag, the numbers of people in this position are going to increase. That potentially has a wider impact.

Seriously life is too short. I am sure you can make it work to have a child with your income.

That’s because it would be giving tax breaks to - not the rich maybe, - the well off. Only around 20% of workers earn £50k or more. Maybe that’s the problem. If more did then there would be more choices.

Nope . It's not a race to the bottom . We need to stop pitting against each other. The crime is the way the really wealthy are creaming off all the fat. But people like you are too busy jabbing fingers at people earning slightly more to stop and notice that.

It's not the people struggling to pay a mortgage you need to be mad at. It's the people sitting on vast property portfolios and hiking up rents, and the people and companies hiding their money off shore to avoid paying tax.

All the time we are angry at each other the govt are laughing.

People on two 40kish incomes aren't raking it in, not unless they have inherited wealth behind them so they don't have a hefty mortgage to pay

The police wouldn't help me when I was raped. The CMS won't help me because he lives with his mum now and does cash in hand work so there's nowhere to take money from. If you think I'm going to personally beg my rapist for child support then you're on another planet.

Absolutely agree with @TheThinkingGoblin why do people think its ok to call someone a cunt for having a different view point? It's the typical left attitude re politics 'look you stupid cunt, stop thinking about you and your family and prioritise others, you're a fucking idiot and need to do what I want'.

Lol.

You are utterly delusional.

There is no "small number of hours" that means you lose benefits. That was tax credits. UC is completely different and doesn't work that way, it's calculated on earnings not hours worked, and the more you earn the more UC you get to keep, it tapers off at a rate of 70p per £ earned or something like that.

Tell us what your take home pay is with statutory pension payments only then. Our household income is £33k salary plus child benefit. Not entitled to uc. Pension payments are statutory minimum. Our net income is just over £2,200 a month for two adults and two teenagers. Not entitled to uc.
It's funny how some high earners wrongly think uc is so generous

If they are working and able to claim benefits then that suggests that they aren't paid well, maybe you should be addressing that rather than slagging them off.

Think about it this way. Someone earns 50k today and they get a 20% payrise because of a promotion. They will pay 40% tax and 2% NI on almost all that amount taking it down to £5,800. Then they will lose their child benefit for their 2 children. They are now down to £3,275. If they have a student loan repayment to come off, which many younger people in that income bracket will then their take home pay is down to around £3k.

So for a promotion with extra responsibility their net gain in take home pay would be £2,850. So they only actually get to keep 28.5%. You could argue student load repayment isn’t same as tax but given how much younger people have borrowed it basically is.

I’m just recently in that bracket and while I fully appreciate I’m fortunate to have that income and don’t consider us to be squeezed I most likely will put anything over 50k into my pension at least the next couple of years because losing 60% of it vs keeping 100% in savings when we have enough income to be able to choose it seems like a no brainier to save it.

They are paid well above market rate for their roles. I know because we market test regularly. I don't set the salaries though. If they worked full time it would be a good salary.

I'm not slagging them off, it's the system that's flawed.

Just to add none of that is remotely suggesting that a Family on 60-100k income would be better off on benefits. It can simultaneously be true that people on 60-100k are significantly better off than those on benefits (& a lot of those not on benefits) and be true that the U.K. taxation set up in combination with child benefit/tax free childcare/personal allowance structure is pretty stupid and not driving behaviour that is most beneficial to the country. It’s really an ideological driven set up and if the people the government have commissioned to investigate have concluded it’s actually reducing overall tax revenue seems it’s better for everyone to change it. If you have more revenue overall you can spend more on things like funding for childcare, dentists/healthcare generally, social care etc. I don’t think people are stupid or incapable of understanding different ideas but they just can’t get past that it’s a lot of money so surely people don’t need more. They aren’t wrong. People on higher incomes don’t need more but they will earn it and it’s better for everyone if the incentives will encourage them to spend/invest it after tax be shoving it in pensions. You also ideally don’t want loads of people with in demand skills working part time, which many are saying they do specifically due to the way tax is structured

You dont actually need to be a higher rate tax payer to feel demotivated by tax.I have more than one job. So in job one I use all my tax free allowance, this means my other jobs are taxed across the whole salary. So 20%, 12% NI and 5.5% compulsory pension for that role. No student loan here. So when ever I take on a new job I keep 62.5% of it. Same with overtime. So if you are a lowish earner asked to do overtime or take on a second job, it can feel not worth doing a few hours for £7 or £8 take home. Especially if it means extra childcare or you end up buying ready meals because you did a long day.

When you have one job, because some is tax free, you dont really notice it in the same way.

So i totally get taking child benefit away, taking the tax free allowance away and taxing at 40% must mean people really have to think will this improve my life if i do this.

I dont think its the same as being poor though.

You definitely don't need to be a higher rate taxpayer to feel demotivated by tax/the intersection of tax and other benefits.

People are faced with making calculations like these at a wide variety of points on the income spectrum. It might be about 40% possibly combined with CB withdrawal, it might be about going over the personal allowance threshold, it might be about losing the personal allowance, it might be about losing access to free school meals. Same underlying rationale.