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.

People can put up to 60k per year in a pension
which would get £15k tax back.
is it more likely a worker getting paid £12k would max out their pension or a higher earner
for 2 kids people might get say 3k tax credits on a 30k wage.

obviously there is a need for pt work but ideally it would be taken by those that need to. And can support themselves via another higher earner.

23% of kids w ith fsm suggests noone working full time in those homes

yes putting in pension isnt cash they can spend but still is avoiding tax and getti ng 25% added to it.

i actually think more women owrking PT in high paod roles wpuld be good.

gives more people the experience of those higher level jobs to get promoted from.
spreads out the wealth so fewer on low wages. 2 families on 25k better than 1 on 50k etc. As long as its still enough to live on.

Be careful, in line with Justpontificating's policing of the thread, you may be stepping into irrelevant to the thread territory with this post! Pitting against each other whilst not scrutinising the very wealthy, not suspicious at all!

Most people earning 12K are not the sole earner in their household- they are usually part-time workers or people in low paid jobs who have a partner who earns higher than them. Therefore they will not be claiming lots of benefits and their partner is likely to be paying tax and council tax for the services they use.

Has anyone else checked what the OP spouts in her other threads? They've even earned a spot on another forum listing the most hated Mumsnet posters for being apparently racist.

Something tells me anyone with a counter opinion or even overwhelming facts that defend the woman they're mocking will fall on deaf ears. Just here for the fallout and trouble stirring.

I'm always so surprised at how blinkered rich people are to their 'lot' Vs the average person. I shouldn't lose out because xyz. Except you already have far more than most so perhaps count your blessings instead of whining about wanting more.

YABU it’s clear the way the tax works for single earners over 100k is unfair vs a joint income of 100k. So what’s the problem in that person pointing it out?

Someone earning that much is also paying a marginal tax rate of 62% vs 20% if you’re just earning over 12k. So yup at some point it must feel like you’re just funding a system you’re not even getting anything out of!

Be mindful.
my contracted job I’m on just over 12k. I’m on £25 an hour in an extremely skilled job but the job is extremely part time. I train a job role that quite frankly life would be a lot less safe without.
I took the job so I didn’t have to pay for childcare because my hours work around my dps. (Who is only on 35k full time)
be mindful before all 12k earners are clubbed together - we aren’t all non skilled who couldn’t be bothered at school,

The difference between my job and a 100k job is night and day when it comes to pressure ,responsibility and hours

I’m a high earner but when my son was a baby not so much. As I climbed through the payscale I lost any entitlement. At one point the tax system meant that I got a 5k pay rise and took home 300 pm less. A tax expert called Dan Neidle did a piece on marginal tax and worked out that someone on £100k can pay 90% tax on some earnings.

the system actually discourages women from reaching their earning potential, that is the real problem

Same old arguments being recycled by clearly resentful lower earners and the older crowd.

I see that nothing changes.

What has changed over the last 40 years in the UK is the % of households that are net tax recepients (they receive more in services than they pay in tax).

That went from 41% in 1980s to 53% in 2022.

46% of working households are net tax recepients
89% of pensioner households are net tax recipients.

The UKs tax structure is incredibly narrow and was higly dependent on a very productive London tax core to fund the rest of the country.

Thats gone now. Brexit destroyed that.

So now the lower earners are getting poorer (which they were told would happen) so feel increasingly resentful towards the higher earners (who are now shouldering an even larger tax burden as they are effectively subsidising the old and the lower income folks heavily).

So we are now effectively in a country dominated by the tyranny of the increasingly unproductive majority, that is now mostly looking to extract from the shrinking number of higher income productive folks.

This is why the country is deteriorating and getting visibly poorer. Economic activity is being reduced as marginal taxes have gotten too high for the higher earners.

The lower income folks were warned about Brexit. And now they are being warned about the UKs tax structure being a serious risk.

Worth stating: once you are trapped in a stagflationary spiral (low to zero real growth and higher inflation) and the demographics are deteriorating (ageing population and lower dependency ratios), there really is no escape at the societal level.

Everybody will be poorer in the aggregate sense, but there will be a brain drain of the young and wealthier folks, with the lower income folks getting much, much poorer.

We are seeing the initial stages of this scenario play out right now in the UK.

Having most public spending covered by a minority of productive workers actually leaves the country in a very vulnerable position. Before Brexit the country was plugged into a joint international economy; now those avenues are removed we should protect our productive core, not milk it to extinction. It's time to return to fair levels of tax for everyone.

Well, from personal experience of being widowed with 2 children:

• life insurance not available to many with severe/chronic/multiple medical conditions
• life insurance (even if deceased had it) not paid out in certain circumstances of death
• surviving as the only parent and earner is an absolute crock of shit financially (not to mention emotionally), as the vast majority of costs are the same as many families share between 2 incomes
• add in being a higher earner in a bloody hard job in NHS and the effective black-hole of income loss above £100, plus people like the OP assuming incorrectly we are rich whingers … soul-destroying

HTH

Yep. Which is why I'll never work full time after kids (expecting my first), at least in the pre-school years. Save on tax, save on childcare, keep my entitlement to free nursery hours and spend 4 days a week with my baby. No brainer.

And that type of decision, while perfectly economically rational, is also precisely what is driving the country poorer (less people working = less tax revenue and more people receiving tax benefits, which materially reduces productivity).

Not blaming you here. Its the UKs tax structure that has been created by the Tories since 2010 that is the real problem. Work simply doesn't pay when you have children and are a high earner.

These distortions need to be eliminated, but its mostly the lower earners and the old blocking these changes now.

And it absolutely has to stop or else the country will simply trend poorer due to lower fertility rates and demographics (ageing society).

Agree. And as someone who has never voted Tory and didn't vote Brexit, I'm totally detached from the current state of the UK economy. Instead, I'm focusing on what benefits me and my family. There's nothing I can do about people voting for harebrained schemes and foolish politicians.

I was head of a legal team. Part time not allowed, as the job required too much. I asked for YEARS. Never allowed. Worked 60-80 hours a week.

City jobs at a senior level (which mine was) require total dedication, as in, literally working all night if there’s a deadline. Finish work at 6am, sleep for an hour, sort the kids out for school / nursery, take a load of pro plus and start again. Not every day of course, but often enough. Plus regularly working 12 hour days, catching up at weekends etc. And for those saying it’s not more stressful than other jobs, maybe not compared to nurses (I don’t know how they do it), but compared to a lot of jobs, damned right it’s more stressful.

It's odd that UC payments aren't affected by CMS payments. A handful of mums I know get large CMS payments (which are untaxed), but still get as much UC if they didn't get those CMS payments. Makes them quite well off, but I appreciate it's only for a short time.

Basically, I would vote for two decent years of maternity leave and Universal child benefit and support for childcare.

The country needs children. So many people at present are choosing just to have one or none because of the costs. There is an ever dwindling number of future tax payers to support older people and the welfare state.

We also need less income tax on everyone (working is hard!) and tax wealth and inheritance.

The previous system where child maintenance was taken into account for UC was much worse.

UC is the resident parent’s household income. If it’s reduced because of maintenance, the children don’t really see any benefit from their NRP’s contribution. And if the NRP misses or reduces payments (which is very common), the RP just goes without.

In your previous post you said you’ve relied on the welfare state for 15 years, so you’re getting something by your own admission 🤷🏻‍♀️

I'm guessing they're not just using income tax in their calculations. VAT revenue for the government is about the same as National Insurance. If you add other indirect taxes (10% of total tax revenue) you get to 27% of total tax revenue. Income tax is 28% of total revenue.

So, as a % of earnings it may be that someone on 12k is contributing more.

Or, they may be alluding to the fact that many on low wages are providing the services; childcare, social care etc that allow the rest of us to earn more.

100% agree with this. My husband and I are getting really fed up of this resentment from low earners and also the govt taking our hard earned cash.
Between us we pay a six figure tax bill. We are seriously thinking of leaving the country and taking our earning potential elsewhere. If we do that those on low income whining that high income earners earn too much will lose over £100k of tax contributions into the govt pot. There’s no incentive to work hard in this country!

But she said they only have one wage. If they were to both work they would be on even more money to go towards childcare costs. People are quite rightly calling her out because she has the option of being a stay at home parent on a very comfortable income. Childcare costs are for 3 years, then its back to being incredibly well off with all the privilege that brings.

22k bonus. 8k after tax and NI. 68% marginal. 40% PAYE, NI and loss of personal allowance. 12k loss of funded child care. 22k bonus cost 4K and made us poorer.

We now have an accountant to stop us ever being in this position again. Also looking at emigrating. Net result tens of thousands of tax revenue gone.

Just to be told we are rich and don’t pay enough. We are whiners. F off.

Yep, it's not odd at all that maintenance isn't taken into account when calculating benefits. The reason we do it like that is because we tried the other way and it was a failure.

You need a child maintenance system that's actually reliable in order to withdraw access to benefits on the basis of maintenance income. We don't have one of those.