to think that 6000 per month is excessive for the government to take off my pay for tax?

[tootaxed]

Surely there should be a maximum limit that each person has to pay as tax? Six grand per month in tax is just excessive imo. And that is before NI contributions etc. If the government set a maximum tax limit they would take more care over how they spent their central funds. And I wouldn't have to work so many hours away from my DCs only to have 72 bloody grand a year taken off my income to fund their mis-spending.

"Of course she is talking in percentage terms and conveniently choses to ignore (1) that the figure of £29420 is eight times larger than £3564 and (2) the poor households get lots of benefits and child tax credits etc."

Aren't %'s more relevant. The average salary of the top bracket is over 10 times larger than the average salary of the bottm bracket according to your figures. And they're paying a higher proportions of their income in tax.

I'm failing to see how that system is unfair to the top earners.

There is a problem with Claire's tax rate figures, or possibly we are misunderstanding them.

I was working in Turkey in 2000 (at the time of this survey) and paying 40% tax on my income, AND social security charges on top.

And as for France, tax rate on the highest bracket is close to 50%.

CoteDAzur they include employers social security contributions so I guess the equivalent to our national insurance contributions, is that why they don't make sense? Sorry, I have no idea how accurate they are, they're from the OECD and I posted the link. Apologies if I've posted duff info.

I just thought it was interesting that in every income bracket examined the UK was low in comparison to the rest of Europe (except Ireland and Switzerland). I for one, as a higher rate taxpayer, am quite happy to contribute my share and don't believe higher earners pay too much.

Claire - It makes less sense, actually.

Excluding employers' contribution, tax rate for the higher bracket should be at least 40%. I was nowhere near among the highest earners in the country.

Also, I would be very surprised if UK has higher taxes for the very rich, as quite a few famous French have left France for the UK (papers talk about endlessly).

I think (not sure) top tax rates are 40% both in France and in UK, but the social charges are much higher in France, so you are left with less disposable income.

Quattrocento - yes of course I was talking percentages - but if you can't see that 40% of 10K hurts as much, if not more, than 35% of 100k then I guess we might as well all go home.

Also yes, poor people do get benefits but the figures given are for gross household income, not earnings, so they presumably include those benefits.

Quattrocento
Although it is true that there are some areas in the NHS that have got more expensive (doctor's salaries is a case in point), none of this can be blamed on the mostly hardworking frontline staff in the NHS. They were all centralised reforms masterminded by the Department Of Health.

When the Tories left office in 1997, there were 18 month waits for operations, and rationing of healthcare was commonplace. At various points in time, waiting lists would be 'closed'. I was told umpteen times that my wisdom teeth needed removing but that they couldn't refer me because there was nowhere that would take me onto a waiting list.

I remember waiting 8 weeks once for an appointment with a GP.

Today you can get to see your GP within 48 hours, you will wait for a minimum of 4 hours in A&E. If you need expensive drugs you will get them.

Yes, in an imperfect world the improvement is not perfect, and has not been achieved without significant additional investment. But I can see a huge difference since Labour came to power and since they have invested more.

I also see hospitals with equipment and with new infrastructure. A lot of improvement has happened over the past 10 years

When the tories were in power, the NHS was in better shape. For example a lot of maternity units, children wards and A and E have been closed down.

I never had to wait 8 weeks to see a GP. That is clearly ridiculous and I have no idea which part of the country you are in.

The problem with targets to be seen is that you might be seen by the consultant within X weeks, but then you have to wait longer for treatment. I think that labour targets have damaged the NHS.

Labour may have invested more, but are there more nurses? Why is it that there are so many nurses on the dole and dirty hospital wards? Why is it that a lot of newly trained doctors cannot get jobs in the UK?

Why are so many hospitals being closed or downgraded? Or has labour chosen to invest in labour strongholds and not bother about the services in conservative consituencies?

Whatever the state of the NHS you cannot blame the tories. Labour have had more than a decade in power.

reallytired -

the tories were the ones who started "contracting out" of hospital cleaning. they were also the ones who closed down ward after ward where the average occupancy rate was lower than a certain level, which caused chaos in several winter seasons in the 90s, don't you remember?

the nhs is not worse than it was in 1996, although since it does a lot more work now, it may be worse than it was in the 80s.

my GP surgery is excellent btw. I always get an appointment within a week and they are generally very helpful.

my gp practice is excellent, i can always get an appt within 48 hrs, usually the same day. and we have an 8.30 turn up clinic for under-5s

the only time i used the health service in the 80s was to have my wisdom teeth out - i had 4 days in hospital for something which now you'd be out in a day - in terms of recovery etc I think it's better now

tootaxed - I take it you are not a nurse, fire fighter, teacher or doing something worthwhile then??? Just a thought......

has tootaxed ever came back to this thread?

if not, I suspect its all a wind up

Debnia - tt is a global supply chain manager (from memory and a previous post). she has bee on throughout this discussion to say that she doesnt care if she upsets people earning less than her (think you have to go back to page 19 or 20 for the comment).

reallytired - as an underpaid/overworked nurse who loves her job, the NHS is always there when you need it ie life or death emergencies. GPs are more overworked now than ever yet i have been seen 3 times with week for my DS whose been unwell. each time i phoned at 8.30am and was seen by 11am. how is this an example of the nhs being in poor shape. however it would be in even better shape if we werent paying huge salaries to the managers brought in to reorganise the workers. a case of too many chiefs and not enough indians.

yes the tories were the ones contracting out domicially services within the nhs but much of this has to do with hospitals being private/public partnerships so the NHS doesnt own the building or the right to choose who it employees. having said that our ward cleaners are fantastic and you cannot fault their cleanliness. the main problem with hospital infection is visitors sitting on beds, too many of them and generally treating it as a hotel.

yep have just checked and TT's post is on page 20 and i quote

"I do think that I am taxed too much and that income tax should be capped - prob at around £50,00 per person per annum. If that offends some of you lower wage earners, so be it!"

OH DEAR GOD, STILL????

The UK has lower taxes than many places because as someone said much higher up we have almost a flat tax system here 20% and 40%. I am very grateful for that given I remember the 66% and higher years and nkow people who mvoe here from France to pay lower English taxes. BUT I still think it's too high and there should be this element that once you've paid your due, paid your £50k a year or whatever you have done your bit and don't pay more on top of that. Anyway there will be no demand for that so it's like flogging a dead horse.

Spokette, I am aware that tootaxed said that she rarely sees her dcs. Loads of men, many of them partners of mnetters, work all hours as well and hardly see their dcs. She may have decided having the money to support her current circumstances is more important to her family's overall wellbeing than her seeing her dcs more often. I see OP as being selfless, rather than selfish.

On the other topic I agree with this post
"BTW, lots of people have perfectly healthy relatonships with their dcs despite not seeing them as much as they would like.

Your choice, her choice. She does not want to have to pay so much taxes, even if she is coming at it as a rant. I can understand that."

I've worked quite hard today. We were doing something until after mid night last night and I had a lot of travelling today and very very short notice but it's part of the deal and like all fathers and many mothers you balance on a day to day basis your family and work. It's when the balance isn't feeling right for that couple that ther'es a problem but there isn't any great big book of rightness which says every parent must spend X hours a day with a child in order to be doing the right thing.

Xenia, yes its all about flexibility and having to adapt at v short notice - have just gone back to work and had bank holiday weekend entirely ruined by wanky client - but dh drove me to and from work with baby in back and made it seem like an outing not a ruination of the weekend. Btw do you need an associate?

That sounds as if it worked well.
(I never said what I did - I might be an unemployed lorry driver from Hull)

(On my last post "Spokette, I am aware".. that was supposed to be in quotes as it's from above, someone else's and I was agreeing with it).

Everyone has to work out their own balance but I thin kif you like the work and people and find it intrinsically interesting then that has an impact too on our reaction when you need suddenly to work fairly extreme hours. A lot of higher earners and people who are successful in lots of things who carry on working are doing it because they like it and many could afford to retire but don't.

If you can find high paid work that you love and can combine with children that's the best option and I have been very lucky that over the last 23 years as a mother and counting I have found that holy grail.

Poor people, lower earners or whatever we want to call them always go on about yes but they're happy and yet you can earn a fortune and be happy too. It's more fun to earn a lot and be happy than be poor and happy or poor and unhappy.

Xenia I know what you do, and am in awe at how you have managed to make it all work for you. I really feel like you are holding the torch in a way. Anyway, if you are in the market for an associate, please let me know.

oopsy, Xenia, you've forgotten from your equation that you can also earn a lot and be unhappy, right?

"It's more fun to earn a lot and be happy than be poor and happy"

Is it? Why?

It is very sexist to call working in careers ilke as a surgeon or MP or businessman is "working like men". Most clever ambitious adults who like their work and want to get on whatever their gender do work hard. If you want to be good at anything you work hard at it. Some will work too hard - I mentioned my sister's middle management male clients who are under too much stress for example and some people get stressed from sitting at home not being able to decide whether to go to the park or the library. Hard work is something a lot of women and men thrive on. The original poster clearly has a lot on her plate but just because she's female doesn't mean she shouldn't support a husband, children and herself alone. Plenty of men do that and some women. It's not unusual burden but 100 hours a week is a lot (althougn not a lot for a man or woman at home with a small baby alone).