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.

You could compensate by shifting tax from individuals to corporate and consumption taxes and shifting from earnings to wealth. We have higher than the OECD's average of individual tax but lower than the OECD average for corporation tax. We also have a lower social security tax than average.

But it's all a moot point when government revenue isn't being spent in our best interests and we continue to vote to make ourselves poorer.

If you want a successful economy, the single biggest investment that guarantees a return is education. Something like £3 back for every £1 invested.

We don't have evidence based politics, we have ideologically driven politics, which currently sees publicly raised funds and assets being handed over to private companies.

But over your lifetime you will not cover the costs of your NHS healthcare and state pension unless you earn more in the future so you will be a net beneficiary. You are correct, the ignorance on this thread is breathtaking and it starts with people not understanding the difference between a net beneficiary and a net contributor.

It isn't just money, some people give a lot to society that is really important so maybe in money they are a net beneficiary but for society their contribution is worth more. So as an example someone who has worked their whole adult life as a HCA in the NHS might not have paid much tax but what they have given to the NHS is vast.

I phone a gassafe engineer on Tuesday and he offered to do the job yesterday which didn't work for me so he is coming next week.

Never said that it was all about money but I was responding to a poster who was calling other people ignorant and was so sure that she was covering her “costs” when the chances are she won’t over her lifetime.

And I was talking about being a net beneficiary/contributor in the wider sense. There's an old saying about knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

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

the majority of people claiming UC work. You know that, right?

It isn’t just healthcare and our own (historic) education etc that our taxes pay for.

We are paying for stuff like living in a country with a proper diplomatic service and such like. Loads of stuff that we never even think about. But it needs to be paid for.

@Dibblydoodahdah

''But over your lifetime you will not cover the costs of your NHS healthcare and state pension unless you earn more in the future so you will be a net beneficiary. You are correct, the ignorance on this thread is breathtaking and it starts with people not understanding the difference between a net beneficiary and a net contributor.''

Again, more nonsense.

Someone on 100k could be run over by a car tomorrow and be disabled for the rest of their life and not 'cover their costs' as you put it or decide to become a stay at home parent.

I could be run over by a bus tomorrow and never need any support in old age...

Absolutely daft to suggest that you can define a 'net contributor' throughout their life simply based on their current salary.

Plus a nurse on 25k will contribute more to our society that any accountants or lawyer on 100k as far as I am concerned.

Life is not that black and white. You are no more important than someone who works behind a supermarket till.

I would have fought that Covid had shown us that the last thing we need when things get tough is another banker or edge fund manager...society would not function without the contribution of the 'little people' you seem to imply are just a burden to everyone on high salaries.

Yes the hidden costs are phenomenal, it’s not just schools and NHS.

Not true. 40% do and that includes very part time.

The poster was specifically referring to nobody paying her “costs’ because she doesn’t claim benefits. It’s a common mistake to believe this…but she was going beyond this mistake and calling people ignorant.

You are conveniently ignoring that the poster was talking about no one paying her “costs” because she is not on benefits. She didn’t mention her contribution to society.

And I didn’t specifically link it to her current salary. I actually caveated to make reference to future earnings. So don’t call me daft.

I also never said I was more important….I actually used to work on a checkout!

Source for what? For the fact that people paying high taxes benefits the country?
Where do you think the money for public services comes from?

Slightly off topic but I don't agree with this at all. I have also worked in this type of role for a long time and I have medics in my family. No comparison whatsoever. They hold people's lives in their hands on a daily basis. There is no higher stress level than that and no deadline can even come close.

The sad thing is, the way the system works at the moment seems to punish those who have worked their way to the top, give no financial incentive for the lower earners to find work, not give enough help to those who desperately need it and actively make it difficult for parents (lets be honest here, women mainly) to return to the workplace full time. This is not a system that rewards success or give people incentives.

I agree with those above that say there should be a standard rate of income tax. Those on lower wages would still only be contributing a nominal amount cf those earning higher.
There also should be much stricter benefits rules/ government help so the money can go to those who desperately need it and cannot physically work for reasons well beyond their control. Sadly, they seem to be the subset who are always at the bottom of the pile in that regard.

So fwiw, I agree with the lady on the TV. I know very few jobs with £100K salaries that are easy. What a broken system where a parent works so hard, yet more of her money goes on care for other people’s children than is left for her own 🤷🏽‍♀️

Both Starmer and Sunak paid around 25% of their income in tax

I’m not entirely sure how that can be true of Starmer since his income is paid via PAYE. Is there any evidence of it?

Its was in the Guardian

Thank you. That’s quite misleading, isn’t it? The proceeds from the sale of an asset isn’t strictly speaking income, it’s a one off event. Obviously he’ll be paying a much higher percentage in all the other years when he doesn’t sell his mum’s donkey field.

That assumption about Capital Gains not arising from inducements or compensation for involvement in businesses is where confusion arises. If he had the opportunity to buy shares in a Labour donor's business at an agreed price and could sell those shares when the price differential was favourable, the proceeds would be a Capital Gain and taxed at a lower rate than other income.

I believe that he bought the donkey field for his mother and thought he had transferred it to her, only finding out after her death that it was still registered to him. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but it was no different to any other property investment.

Completely agree. But a one off profit isn’t really income, is it? He’s not going to sell a field every year.

Would you say the same if it was a one off bonus from your employer.

just after I joined, my company paid a bonus to people to celebrate their 25th anniversary. They don’t have one of them every year.

That was taxed as income. Why is the profit from selling an asset somehow not income?

I wouldn’t count a once in 25 years bonus as income either. Any more than I’d count an inheritance - which Starmer’s one off essentially was. I think it’s misleading.

Its not the same thing.

He was disposing of an illiquid asset (real estate).

I looked at the finances he posted and they are pretty vanilla.

HMRC most definitely count it as income.

Income is just money that you have coming in. It doesn’t have to be regular to be income.

But our tax system is designed to benefit the classes who own a lot of wealth and assets rather than those who rely on their annual income.