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.

When people look at personal tax returns what are they arguing for?

What tax rates do they want

If you do not understand what a net taxpayer is, then stop commenting.

Getting a bit tired of people on here being unable to separate the emotional over the factual.

Show us the numbers. There has been too much pie in the sky thinking in the UK lately, and thats another thing that needs to be curtailed.

There has been too much pie in the sky thinking in the UK lately, and thats another thing that needs to be curtailed.

That’s bit too Orwellian for my taste.

Getting a bit tired of people on here being unable to separate the emotional over the factual.

Show us the numbers

yep

And here we see the dunning kruger effect in full force.

Not to single you out as the most ungrateful commenter on this thread or anything, but it occurs to me that your child will be receipt of 30 hour funding from September. At that point, your £260 will double to £520, and you will still be in receipt of UC, albeit perhaps £10 or £20 less per month. Let’s say your UC is reduced to £500 per month. Your nursery fees from September will be £1040 - £520 = £520. Your contribution will be a massive £20 per month towards the care those lovely ‘ladies’ are providing for the most precious thing in your life.

And I bet you begrudge every last penny.

What are you even on about? My original comment on this thread was in response to a woman boo-hooing about how hard done to she and her partner were because they have to live on a lowly £150k in London and, shock, have to pay living costs.

I then remarked that you were wrong to suggest that everyone on UC pays just £100pm towards there childcare as this is demonstrably wrong by my own lived experience as I pay £510pm (with UC picking up the remaining £530). I have not bemoaned how much I pay on here at all or ever on MN and yet you’re like a mongrel
with a bone that won’t let go of a point that I never even made. I don’t think you’re the full ticket.

Also, you’re completely wrong. Again! My child will be entitled to 15 hours in September, 30 from September ‘25. I very much expect that by that point I won’t be entitled to UC at all as my childcare bill will be so low (about £500pm) and so at that time I’ll switch to tax free childcare vouchers.

Seriously get a life and a bloody brain.

@BouncingJAS ''If you do not understand what a net taxpayer is, then stop commenting.''

The definition of "net contributors" refers to people living in households paying more in direct and indirect taxes than they receive in cash benefits, benefits-in-kind and government services.

It does not use a crystal ball to look into the future to forecast whether the person will be a burden on the state and need more money that it contributed in tax while working. It looks at the contribution that is made now.

This describes me as someone who does not depend on any help from the state.

But keep digging...

This.

No, your point was that I don’t understand how UC works, and I most certainly do.

The point of the thread is that the woman on £100k (I’m pretty sure it wasn’t £150k) pays in the region of 2 grand a month for her nursery fees and receives no help. People on UC, on the other hand, pay £20 - £500 a month. When I pointed this out, you said I was stupid. You keep saying this, but in your comment below, you have basically agreed that your childcare bill will be basically nothing when you are in receipt of 30 hour funding. Which was my point to start with.

Really, it’s not a good look to call people stupid. Not when you are so clearly driven by envy and greed. It makes you look small.

I can only imagine how long it takes you to pay your nursery bill each month.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Stay healthy, hun ✌️

Do you have a source for this? I have been trying to find an accurate source for how much the working population would need pay in tax for the government to be able to cover its costs. I know it has not been particularly good at that in the last few decades.

Am not sure where the £41k per taxpayer came from, but for households it is roughly £55k/year.

ONS looks at the effects of taxes and benefits

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/theeffectsoftaxesandbenefitsonhouseholdincome/latest

Cant shift to wealth if the high earners/wealthy are chased away, can you?

France tried a wealth tax it didn’t work. They lost revenue

Universal ‘free’ childcare for all would not work in this country. People were outraged when the ratios for 2 year olds were increased to 5:1; there’s no way they would accept the 12:1 ratios (or thereabouts) that would be necessary to make it affordable. Childcare would cost the government about five times more than education - it would be ridiculous.

Thank you. That's really useful. I was curious to see how much each member of the available working population would have to pay in tax for there not to be a deficit.

How do we define wealth anyway? It seems to me that often when people talk about wealth they don't want to be fair they want to punish.

My math isn’t great but I think with all these figures surely it depends on what you claim and how many are in your household?

It can’t be 41K for everyone eg, a 2 parent household with 2 state educated children with a salary of 35K coming in and receiving child benefit (and possibly other benefits) must be very different from a single person with no dependents earning 35K.

Well obviously it's an average (mentioned earlier on the thread), yes it's much higher than you would think isn't it ?

When I said nurses I should have included all medical staff, as like I said I don’t know how they do it. I cannot even begin to fathom it.

Children become tax paying adults.
These adults pay towards our state pensions.

It's a necessity to create children to fund our pension, not a choice.

It's unsustainable to expect immigrants to contribute in taxes to fund state pensions.
The 8 million + immigrants that have come to the UK will eventually become old and the young will need to support them.

I am fortunate to be a high earner, so I'm not moaning and I recognise everyone's in different positions. And I solo parent twin toddlers. I appreciate everyone has different earnings, but paying for two 2yo children for childcare on one salary, plus house, bills etc... I'm in debt each month and heavily reliant on credit card. If I earned less right now I'd be in a better financial position; as I'd be eligible for lots of childcare benefits. That said, I recognise that once we're past nursery age (a while yet) and they start school, my salary should go back to being a benefit - so like I said, not moaning but for a twin mum, a solo parent, and earning over the threshold, finances are not a joy!

I can understand your lack of sympathy but she will be paying a huge amount of tax and we need to keep women in the workplace. I am not in favour of people getting the allowance if they don't work (single) or both work for a couple.

As a family with 1 high earner as I’m part time, i think it’s unfair. As others have said it should be done on family Income. I know a couple who are both on 80k so they take £160k combined and gets all the childcare benefits. We on the other hand earn £120k combined and don’t get the free 30hrs or the tax benefits. We earn 40k less than them ! Doesn’t make any sense !