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.

Agree Riven, that there seems to be a connection between more money and atrophy of community spirit.

"there seems to be a connection between more money and atrophy of community spirit"

Well the thing is, I am frankly too busy working to be making casseroles for my next door neighbours. It's just the way life is. So yes there may well be a connection between more money and atrophy of community spirit, but it's not to do with selfishness, it's to do with busyness.

I don't see what's wrong with saying just as well some people are prepared to work very hard to generate tax to pay for the disabled and those on benefits. When we get to a position of not enough workers such as when most of us are old and the birthrate remains low there will be a huge problem in not enough tax generated. That's one reason retirement age has moved up to 65 and is going up to 67.

(FF, I have never said you should put their disabled child in care. I just said I understood the position of some people who do).

I thought people paying huge amounts of tax got an accountant to sort it out and minimise it as much as possible? Couldn't an accountant save you some money in the long run?

hmm, what pisses me off is knowing that my DH is paying 40% tax to support kids at DCs grammar via £30 a week ema, most of these kids have NO NEED for it! they play the system and it really pisses me off! I can sort of sympathise... (but think putting 6k instead of 40% was tacky imo)

Just an observation but ime the very wealthy often underestimate the role of good luck in their situation and they tend to look at the poor as largely feckless and deserving of it. Not ALL but it is common among the highly privileged.

An awful lot of the very wealthy work very hard and certainly deserve to benefit from their hard work.

But also there is a massive establishment in this country that start way ahead of everyone else in terms of privilege. It's impossible to underestimate what that means in terms of a person's potential to succeed.

Of course some people are unlucky and turn it around, some are unlucky and don't. But I tend to think, I've been massively lucky and I look at those in extrememe financial difficulty and think 'there but for the grace of god'.

The tax system is unfair of course. It's clear that the non doms should pay far more (as if they'd notice it!) and the lowest paid should pay less. IMO.

Gosh, is this still going?

Agree about community spirit, I just physically can't do anything for my community, I'm either at work, getting to work or spending time with dh/my children. There's barely enough time for friends, let alone voluntary work.

and I'm not wealthy but do pay 40% tax.

ipanemagirl - you're absolutely right. I earn enough to pay 40% (but nowhere near what the OP does) but I went to a private school, was encouraged at home and am deeply middle class. And fairly bright. That's a combination which enables me to do pretty much what I want in life. Millions are not so lucky. And the fact that we have a greater number of people living in poverty in the UK than in many other countries appals me far, far more than the fact that some people have to pay 6k a month in income tax.

YOu make people work for benefits or you increase the incentive to work and I don't think tax should start until you earn about £10k a year.

As for accountants I suspect the original poster is an employee so she will have her tax and NI taken straight off her pay by the employer. I suggest above she looked at whether she could set herself up in business, contract her services out to various clients etc or receive some pay by way of shares but that may not be possible.

A lot of non doms (most) are fairly poor immigrants actually, many are lecturers. The whole non dom thing won't touch the people it was intended to touch but is just another huge own goal by labour.

As for some people being born luckier, into money, the right class etc that's true as are some people born very good looking and clever or just hard workers and they do well too. We are not all the same at birth and that feeds through in our lives.

There are some people who make their own bad luck. Ie. Inspite of extensive sex education they fail to use contraception when having sex with someone they don't know that well.

"And the fact that we have a greater number of people living in poverty in the UK than in many other countries appals me far, far more than the fact that some people have to pay 6k a month in income tax. "

That is absolute bollox and you know it. Go to somewhere like Darfur, Somalia or Iraq. Or go to a developing country like India, South Africa, Peru, Nepal or almost anywhere in Africa.

What is scandelous is the way that Britain merilessly exploits poor countries. I saw a school shirt at Woolworths for £2.99. Someone had to pick the cotton, weave it, sew the shirt. I expect Woolworths and at least one other middle man has taken most of the profit.

How much money do you think makers of the shirt and the cotton get. How many hours a week do they have to work? I am sure that they have less money and a poorer standard of life than those on benefits in the UK.

A lot more than if they tried to sell their labour just to the local market I suppose.

If we are moving into times of higher prices it is possible there might be more of a mood in the country for tax cuts but at the moment there isn't so it would be a vote loser for either party. I know people who've chosen to work less or work half the year because they can't be bothered to pay so much tax. (Of course they're never people with mortgages and children to support)

A you say, the school shirt costs 2.99 because the people who run Woolworths can get away with charging 2.99. I expect if Woolworths could get British workers to work for those wages they would. Do you think we live in a country where we can buy a shirt for 2.99 because we all work really hard and deserve our relative wealth, or are we just incredibly lucky that we weren't born in Darfur? As you say, the person who owns Woolworths is exploiting the poor person who made the shirt.

reallytired - it isn't bollocks. What I meant to write was that we have a far higher rate of poverty than most other Western countries and it's increasing. We have 13 million people living in poverty according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation - about 22%. I agree that we exploit other countries but I really think we need to sort out our own backyard. Don't you?

As to your point about the school shirt for 2.99 - I agree that it's scarily cheap. But a different discussion tbh.

Smc, I didn't say that the tories were greedy and selfish - you made those associations.

What I said was that I think they are more concerned with the rich and privileged than the poor. I can't help feeling that I'm back in the Thatcher years with some of the political points of view being put across here - mainly the seeming antipathy to those on benefits.

I can see how that seems more justifiable now in a period of high employment, but it's still not a great attitude. (May not be your point of view - I don't know.)

What is poverty? How do you define it?

The UK does not have 13 million people starving to death. Those 13 million people are not without clean water, electricity, health care and education.

Supposely my son's school is in an area of high social deprivation with about a third of children on free school dinners. Yet these children all have clothes, they have enough to eat and roof over their heads even if it is temporary accomodation.

There are clearly some mumsnetters on benefits who can't be doing that badly as they have access to a computer and the internet.

Should someone on a low income be taxed to death to pay for people on benefits to enjoy lots of luxuries. My low income job pays about 12K a year and I have to pay tax. (I work 37 hours a week term time only.) I lose a signifant percentage of my pay packet to tax and NI.

If I was paid more then everyone's tax would rise and entrapenurs would just go abroad and set up companies in Bulgaria. Or inflation would go mad and any pay rise would be meaningless.

Absolute poverty is defined as a daily income of $1-2 per day. That applies to hardly anyone in the UK (although, as you say, it does apply to many millions of people in developing countries). Relative poverty, which is the kind of poverty people mean when talking about those in developed countries, is defined as an income that is less than half of the average.

reallytired, I think you're quite right to say that on a low income, you probably pay too much tax. As I said below, the tax burden on the low-waged has increased over the last 30 years or so, while the tax burden on the rich has decreased. This is because central governments have cut progressive income tax to generate good headlines, and made up the shortfall with indirect taxes (such as VAT) that are disproportionately hard on the low-waged.

Reallytired, Mumsnet is a real eyeopener.

I would argue that the reason you earn a low wage is that you are doing a job traditionally performed by women and women traditionally haven't had to support a family and have put up with low wages. Your wage says nothing about the value of your job.

I am stunned that you do not value your work more. As an accountant I have worked for entrepreneurs who did things like think up gimmicks to sell more monster munch. I suppose you could argue that sales of said monster munch benefited the people that made the monster munch, but to be honest I think monster munch could vanish off the planet tomorrow, whereas you do a really important job. I think you could be paid more and the owners of the company I worked for would get by with a slightly less expensive porsche and maybe just the one very expensive house. I don't think they woud be hot tailing it to the nearest tax haven, because there isn't much of demand for long distance monster munch marketing.

The owner of the porsche might also have to worry slightly less about having his car stolen if children are given a real opportunity to participate in society, and for me expecting children to live in overcrowded temporary accomodation with a leaky roof and graffiti on the walls doesn't do this. I feel that if all children have the minimum benefits that I would like to give to my children - and those benefits go beyond just ensuring that they aren't naked and starving, my life is better.

Well put, MP. And at 'long distance monster munch marketing'.

Hi PW!

Another reason why you aren't very well paid Reallytired;

People who buy Monster Munch don't need it, but they will pay a price for the Monster Munch that will give the Monster Munch company a healthy profit.

People who need care for disabled children do really need that care, but usually won't have the money to pay for everything they need. I don't think we will see a 'Virgin Children's Hospital' in the near future. (Well I suppose I will give Richard Branson some credit and maybe he will endow some money, but he won't expect to see a profit and he won't be starting a chain).

People who want to make money use their resources to make more money, not to benefit society. The tax system goes some way to redressing this balance.

I said benefit claimants as there have been a couple of people suggesting that they should be working - I think someone said they should be 'forced to retrain' (regardless I guess of whether their profession 'suited their abilities'), and I kind of assumed that Xenia was talking about the unemployed when she said spoke of people sitting on the sofa all day eating chips.

However, yes, what I really meant was that there have been quite a lot of put-downs generally aimed at people that are not on a high wage; from their not being intelligent and wanting to work hard enough, to not having the EQ not to 'thump their kids'.

I'd be happy accept that you want to work for a fairer society - would make me less worried at the outcome of the next election.

thanks policywonk, a regular dose of the facts is a good thing for all such debates!

Anyone who thinks we've got welfare all wrong in this country should try being old, poor or sick in the USA. I worked on a voluntary basis in an American hospital in my 20s and I am so so so so glad that I live here and not there. For a significant proportion of the population, their insurance doesn't cover what they need it to. Or they can't afford the insurance, or they're uninsurable. Frightening.

I agree we have perhaps gone too far in this country in terms of welfare/incentives. But I don't know how you change that, it seems that welfare systems can either be too soft or too hard, there doesn't seem to be a compassionate alternative to either extreme.

Re sex education. All social groups can be pathetic about this. I was the PSHE link Parent Governor and we set up a big presentation with the Borough rep for PHSE and there were all her resources spread out to show how we start in reception talking about feelings and then lead up to more biology etc by the end of primary school. We advertised it really well. Not one parent came. Not one. 3 teachers, 2 governors.