To be irritated by this £100k a year whiner

[Viviennemary]

On Question Time tonight they were talking about subsidised childcare and the new benefits for younger children. Then a woman came on with a boo hoo sad face and said she wouldn't be getting it. So I think Fiona Bruce said because your income is £100k a year plus Then she said that it wasnt fair as there was only one wage. And their household only had one earner.

Well tough. Folk on just over £12k a year are paying tax and this cheeky woman thinks her child care should be subsidised. It made me mad.

That's not because of tax a avoidance or shady schemes it's because we have a system where if your income comes from capital gains or investments it's taxed at a lower rate than if you earn it. It's biased in favour of the wealthy

This is such an important strand of the discussion on tax that is often overlooked. While the 100K income earner and the 20K income earner battle it out, there’s people far richer with inherited wealth that are escaping it all.

The reason why it’s biased like this is likely because a lot of politicians worked come from wealthy backgrounds or are trying to make favourable connections among the rich & powerful.

👏👏👏

I would love to see your calculation of that my dear...do enlighten us please ? Just how - what am I missing?

That does all seem better.
Everyone pays in and everyone benefits.
But we’d see mass demonstrations if taxes moved in line with Swedens. I can’t imagine any Party suggesting it here.

Well said @BewitchedorBewildered

If you want to write a post you can do so without tagging / quoting onto other MN posts.
Just mentioning incase you’re not aware as your post had nothing to do with mine … No problem though

Hope that helps !

I pay extra into my pension to receive childcare. I'm not at all ashamed of it. I pay an awful lot of tax even with that taken into account. I pay it forward locally and not just to charities where I can set it against tax. I have volunteered in numerous positions throughout my life helping vulnerable in society. I still do. I have never qualified for anything and even when I was on minimum wage I never even thought to claim anything I just worked more jobs. At one time I had three. When I was without work in my 20s and struggling to even get medication I was turned down for jobseekers because I lived with a boyfriend and he was apparently meant to support me (the job centre said) but yet my friend claimed JSA legally while living with parents in high tax brackets. When my partner was made redundant I for the second time tried to get help but the calculation said we qualified for nothing despite minimal savings and me on a low income as in that tax year he had earnt a certain amount together with me on my low income which apparently meant we didn't qualify even though that money that had been earnt was gone. I have close friends on UC qualifying for all sorts of help and getting decent child support payments from exes which aren't counted, and not choosing to up their work hours as they would be worse off, using childcare funded hours to give them a break rather than to work more. One saved hundreds last month and are able to pay into a gov saving scheme where the gov pays them money as a bonus on what they save. , I don't begrudge people receiving help like UC nor am i saying people have it easy. Not at all. But I feel that it is fair that I get subsidised childcare for the small amount of hours my children are in nursery - I couldn't afford to send them more than I do. I have never tried to get out of paying more to the state before but feel childcare should be better supported.

There is increasingly bugger all
incentive for people to strive for more-in terms of income once you get to £100k. I’ve been hit with a £4k tax bill this year due to having got myself in the 100-120k black hole and that’s on top of the monthly tax whack, massive childcare costs (I’m not in the SE but do have 2 preschool kids) and living costs. Partner on a below average salary (government). I’m literally taking the holiday money I’d saved this last year, to pay this tax bill.

The only answer to avoid it in future is to go part time, so I’ll be earning less and paying less income plus I’ll be entitled to tax free childcare and childcare funding. I’ll be gaining more by working less-HOW IS THAT RIGHT?!?

It's a few years since I was gainfully employed, and I was self-employed as a freelancer, but when I became pregnant at 42, (25 years ago) the first thing my accountant said to me was "well that's half a million quid you won't earn in the next few years". I stopped working (I loved what I did) because I spent a third on the nanny, a third on the tax and I was the person running myself ragged for the change. Make child care costs tax-deductible. I could have deducted the cost of a secretary, but not a nanny. I could have created a worthwhile job for the right person, who could have had a child of her own and managed both kids.

I am sick of the double standard in telling average/lower earners to live within their means but somehow people on a very good wage are allowed to complain about things being too expensive.

This is what causes the resentment, the attitude that when people on low earnings are struggling, it's all about choices, it's all about them, personally and their failings. But someone on a higher wage? Well it's everyone else's fault, the scroungers who don't earn much have it all handed to them, the government for taxing them too much, the system, the same parameters don't apply.

High earners are quite happy to use the services provided by low earners, but don't want to pay more for those services and don't want to support them through taxation either. Seemingly they would like them to provide the services and then just vanish until they're needed again to serve the better portion of society. I think there's a disconnect that society, including high earners, rely on and want the services that low earners provide.

The resentment runs both ways, the low earners are quite often providing services that are relied upon and resented for being low earners and needing taxation from 'hard working' high earners to support that.

The high earners are resented for being high earners and not paying more tax, and complaining about the tax they do pay and where it goes and the lifestyle impact.

Both I think, are being shafted.

This is always only ever viewed as financial contributions, talking about 'net contributers' but there is a bigger picture where the work people do, for their low wage, means children and elderly people get looked after, shops are open, you have places to go to enjoy yourself, the bins are emptied and there's a dinner lady and TA at school...... Their contribution is not financial but it is valid, because life would be very different without those roles. If you remove the bottom of the pyramid, the whole thing collapses. Those at the bottom are just as important as those at the top for making it all work.

All that said I do think the system for childcare and the £100k cut off is unfair, and yes it should be changed, absolutely. But it should apply across the board, no one, no matter what they earn, should be coming out with less money for working more or getting a promotion. It happens from the lowest earner to the highest in some form. And people should not be needing top ups when they work full-time no matter what they do.

Just change the tax so childcare is deductible, preferably from household income, rather than being regarded as a luxury personal service for women.

I don't understand why childcare isn't treated similarly to a student loan. I.e. rather than having to pay it at the time you can choose to pay it back over time, say a 10 year period, proportionate to your families earnings. Although I'm not sure it should be written off like a student loan is.

This would surely improve many families lives and increase the number of parents able to go back to work sooner, improving women's role in the workforce and overall contribution to the economy?

Has this ever been considered or should I put my application for becoming the next PM in now?? Haha!

Same 🤣 I await their workings with bated breath. I'm pretty sure that poster hasn't heard of the tax-free allowance...

improving women's role in the workforce and overall contribution to the economy?

And the minimum wage earners who look after the children?

How about woman are allowed a career break and look after their own children for the first 3 years?

I actually despair at the logic...😂but we may be surprised yet !!!

As people have said, all these things that are based on one income only don’t always work out to be the fairest. We earn about 80k gross between us but because one of us earns just over 50k we have started to lose some of our child benefit. But a family with a combined income of 99k would still get all theirs if both earn just below £50k.

Agree.
Just as there is no incentive to save.
A friend was made redundant and after a short period of benefits was then denied a penny as he had savings.
Those with no savings (despite working and having a good income ) don’t have to pay for care homes, etc etc whilst those who have saved have to pay. Plus care homes use that money to top up what the Govn pay for those that don’t.
I appreciate a lot don’t have enough to save, but many do and don’t because they are constantly penalised. I can understand people feeling resentful because of this.

Successive Govns have discouraged saving and earning more. No wonder it’s all such a mess.

It’s a good thought but you would need a company to take on board that initial debt as nurseries wouldn’t be able to afford it.

There's lots of criticism on here of part-time workers. But those people working part time are fulfilling vital roles in society. They are your local school crossing patrol, your children's lunchtime staff, school cleaners and their TAs, the local library staff, the barmaid in your local pub, your cleaning lady, the pre-school teacher, the coffee shop waiter at your local park etc.etc.

Not all jobs can be full time, not everyone can work full time for various reasons. Part-time workers are rarely lazy and without those working part-time society really would struggle!

I thought it was basically the government who paid the universities via a quango?

So the nurseries get paid immediately by the government then people pay it back over time according to their earnings.

You sound quite clueless and delusional by saying people on 12k income pay taxes, UK's tax free allowance is £12570. Stop bashing higher rate tax payers, they are subsidising your whole life by working their arses off.

Of course it’s a choice on an individual level, but if many people decide not to have kids it does affect the society as whole, very much so.

Yes, but their net contributions tend to exceed what they take out of the system.

If anyone is clueless It's you. If you actually read my post I said people earning just over £12k a year are taxed.

You are delusional because you think people earning just over 12k are contributing enough tax to even pay for supporting themselves and their children in terms of schools, roads, public services, healthcare etc. They are being subsidised by the higher earners, else its impossible for the current welfare state to work.