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?

@TrashedSofa no you’re right, that’s a fair point well made. For us my DH went from £36k to £55k while I was pregnant with our first, so we never claimed child benefit but we’re also hugely better off. I appreciate people don’t often see such big jumps. I do think there should be more increments within in the tax system.

Why does it matter? And how can you know it's not them?

It's someone's money they have paid in as tax or NI.

I mean who knows whose tax goes on what to be honest? I have always worked so I imagine at some point when I was full time I paid towards various things. It doesn't nessarily matter really but as seen on this thread and other threads it is always said in a derogatory manner.

If you log in to the gov gateway it tells you an approximation of where your taxes went.

Somebody mentioned builders on here- done even get me fucking started! Why else do you think they want paying in cash?! So they can declare lower earning, not pay the right tax and continue living on other peoples taxes! There are some really scummy people in society and those that play the system (including our government) are the worst kind.

Bingo. 😂😂😂

@Beezknees yay, I won! 😏

I work in a school in a Safeguarding role. I regularly visit the homes of kids who recieve free school meals, free school uniform, free school trips, food bank vouchers to tide them over in the holidays etc. I would love to take OP and some of the posters on this thread with me some time.
I guarantee they would not want to swap places.

I genuinely think some people have no clue about the kind of conditions that some families, many of them with working parents before anyone starts, are living in.

OP, you're so bitter about your old school friend who gets a free house, like she's living in the lap of luxury. I visited a family last week in their new council house, you can literally hear the rats scurrying around in the walls, it's damp and stinks of mould, the doors and windows are so shit its freezing already and its only October. Hours on the phone being passed from pillar to post trying to get someone from the council to fix these problems has achieved nothing. This is a working single Mum, who has 2 children with SEND. I suppose I would qualify as a member of the "squeezed middle" you talk of, but funnily enough I came out of that house counting my blessings, not thinking that families like mine should be what the next Government are focused on!

You are missing the point.

If the government weren't hoarding all the wealth for the very wealthiest then there would be enough wealth for those on benefits to have a reasonable life and for those working hard to feel like they were actually getting something for all that hard work.

Every time we poke fingers at the squeezed middle instead of the Tories and the wealthy elite, we all lose. Particularly as it's generally the squeezed middle doing the jobs like teaching, nursing, social work... all of which support the poorest in society

I don't think it's necessarily builders doing this

All walks of life I should think

Yep. I live in a "free" housing association flat (that I pay rent for from my full time job plus service charges for service I don't receive) and trying to get them to do any repairs is like pulling teeth. Luckily I haven't had anything as serious as rats but I spent 3 months with no TV because of a broken satellite dish. The flush on my loo doesn't work properly and the entrance door to the building has been broken for months, which is a security hazard.

I'm not missing the point at all, I was agreeing with the point made by the previous poster that families who get that kind of help are on a very low income. Also, I don't need a lecture on the Tories hoarding wealth, thanks. I loathe this Government with every fibre of my being. It's perfectly possible to detest the Tories for the rise in poverty and erosion of services that support the most vulnerable in society and also be frustrated by people with an income of £95k bemoaning their lot in life and complaining about people who recieve benefits.

"Every time we poke fingers at the squeezed middle instead of the Tories and the wealthy elite, we all lose"

It's not poking fingers - it's saying that someone in the "squeezed middle" saying "what about me, I am struggling so terribly and nobody seems to care" needs to give their head a wobble, because much as they may feel they are having to tighten up and rethink their finances, they certainly aren't hard done by in the wider scale. Whataboutism helps no-one, and is very often encouraged by the media to do exactly what you say - distract from the government.

OP pointed the finger at themself when they tried to make being on 95k sound hard done by rather than having a bit of perspective. Everyone could be better off if the government was fit for purpose, but saying "why isn't anyone looking out for us" when you have nearly 100k in income while there are so many people so much more incredibly worse off is the epitome of tone deaf.

You’ve missed the post spectacularly. It’s people missing this point which means we will just continue to sink.

I wouldn't say I'm missing anything spectacularly, except perhaps an extra 55k of income. I got enough out of A Level and university gov & pol to understand the divide and conquer technique and the tendencies of a neo-liberal, atomised government that only seeks to serve itself and its rich cronies.

But as a PP has said, I can see and wholly object to what the government is doing at the exact same time as thinking it tone deaf and a bit rich (pardon the unintended pun) for someone to complain that their 95k won't go quite as far any more and That's What's Wrong With Politics Nowadays.

Agree. Though there is an argument that tax credits, and now UC top ups, along with minimum wage don’t incite employers to pay more. It’s become a vicious trap.

‘I can pay John NMW because he can get tax credits/UC to top up his income so he can afford to work for me’ rather than thinking. ‘I should offer John a pay rise after his probationary period to guarantee I keep a good employee. Good employees are an asset to the company’

we really need to be furious at any company that has a large percentage of staff working FT for them and needing benefit top ups whilst the company report having record profits.

I don’t entirely disagree but (1) benefits are dependent on circumstances whereas wages are not, and (2) there is a taper rate and a pay rise will generally leave employees better off if they do claim uc.

we can’t really blame employers if “Johns” wage would be fine if he has two kids but he gets a benefit too up because he has five.

we can’t really blame employers if “Johns” wage would be fine if he has two kids but he gets a benefit too up because he has five.

No, but we can blame them if they don’t pay John enough to live on as a single man

Minimum wage is barely enough for a single adult to live on, let alone children too. Therein lies the problem.

No idea what the alternative is - just pointing out that in some cases it could well be possible that UC brings income up to that of someone on a much higher salary.

But only temporarily.

For example. Take 2 single parents. Mary earns 65k and Jane earns 30k. They go back to work after maternity at the same time and put their 1 year olds in the same nursery at a cost of £1500 a month each for 3 years. Mary pays for this in full and Jane gets to claim 85% back from UC.

The children hit 4 years old and start reception. The childcare costs drop to £500 a month. Mary still pays this in full, but Jane can still claim the 85% back.

In addition, Mary and Jane have had pay rises of 5% since they had their babies, so Mary now earns 68k and Jane earns 31.5k.

Assuming Mary has a student loan and pays into a pension, she now has a take home pay of £3527 a month. Minus childcare = £3027.

Jane doesn't have a student loan but does pay into a pension, she now has a take home pay of £2015.20. Minus childcare = £1940.20.

Yes, only temporarily. Plenty of people have had a nasty shock when the top up benefit entitlement evaporated or greatly reduced as the last child aged out, and no doubt plenty more will.

Unfortunately, the cost of living crisis inevitably makes it less likely that people will be willing and able to take a longer term approach.

There is no "long-term approach"

Amount of net taxpayers [PV] < Amount of net benefit recipients [PV]

Thats why the UK is sinking.

Until more people pay tax, this will get worse due to the population ageing.

There's absolutely a longer term approach in the context I was using it. That is, the decisions people make about whether working more is worth it when children are younger. The point you're making doesn't tie in at all to what I wrote. You'd have been better making that argument as a standalone.

They need to look at the system if people are disincentivised to work full time at a slightly above average wage eg. 40K each , when their kids are young though.

My work has career breaks available so you can leave for a couple of years then come back to your role…I’d definitely try and get that rather than pay heaps for childcare if I have kids.