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.

Why would high earners go if you shifted the burden away from individual taxation?

This was true for migrants from the Huguenots, Jewish refugees before and after WW2, Poles and Ukrainians after WW2, Asians expelled from Africa, Vietnamese and an array of others. Freedom of movement created temporary arrivals pursuing their own economic interests and whose children might be born and educated at State expense without any expectation of becoming future UK taxpayers.
Those committed to building their lives in the UK are usually an asset to the nation, irrespective of their race, colour or creed, those making their money here with a view moving it and themselves elsewhere less so - even if their antecedents have been here for many generations. The current system seems to support the latter at the expense of the former.

Totally disagree with you OP, the system isn’t fair. A couple who both earn just under £100k can get free childcare and tax free childcare but a household on a single income just over the threshold can’t? How is that right? It should be based on total household income and not on individual income. And I’m sorry but if you are earning £12k a year, you are not paying any tax as that comes within the personal allowance amount.

I think childcare should be subsidised at any income. The way we means test everything is so stingy and discouraging for higher earners.

It's not a crime to get a good job and earn money.

Also it's all about your outgoings. You could be on £100k and by no means rich.

You weren’t interested in listening to the perspective from the other side. You waited until you had someone agree with you. So your post was pointless. You are being very unreasonable. Why should people that better themselves and work hard to get to a good living wage, subsidise for people for various reasons on a lower income. And I’ve never been on a job that pays higher than £16k a year btw. And even though I could claim, I don’t. Too many people expecting free handouts. When did everyone stop taking responsibility for their own situation! I’m 34 and had my first child a year ago. I wanted that to happen long before, but guess what, I waited until I could afford it and not have to rely on others.

Agree with everyone saying that pay doesn't reflect what you have left over at the end of the month after expenses, even living frugally.
but sorry, most people earning under 20k a year it is not because of their moral failing or laziness or any other personal failings most of the time. It is because of low pay. These jobs need to be done, the business need them to be done and many of us use the services of people earning low pay on a daily basis. You are not subsidizing low earners with your taxes. You are subsidizing the employers. They are the ones benefitting the most.

We're not France and I wasn't suggesting we should. Although now I think about it, I remember McDonnell proposed a one off tax on the wealthiest 10% in the UK of 20%. It would have raised 4 trillion.

It might seem brutal, leaving them with just 16 trillion (they own 43% of all the wealth in the UK) but unlike austerity, it wouldn't kill thousands.

So I googled a random year and picked up this from Starmers 20/21 tax year.
Another property bought, this time for his sister.

If France won’t hang around for it I don’t think we’d get a better result

What is your suggestion?

As others have said there’s inequities. Where in some countries benefits are based in household income here it often means a solo earner is taxed way more than a dual income household making them better off.

I do remember when Chancellor Lawson brought upper rate income tax./NI down to 40% and capital gains tax to 40% i.e. same rate (CGT after allowing for inflation which is only fair) and that tax simplicity was very good. It also meant there was no incentive to make income into capital to save tax. Since then things aer worse, upper rate taxes are much higher and CGT more complex - 28% not allowing for inflation (no indexation these days which is a bad change) and only 10% for £1m of sale of a business (had been £10m and before that had been zero) so it's been up and down and quite a mess.

It is just very complex an very unfair. My advice to women h as always been yes there are these awful cliff edges as you come off benefits, as you lose child benefits, as you lose the single person allowance etc but if you are a higher earner just keep going because ultimately the cliff edge disappears and you are well over it all with your 15 free hours for childcare, no single person allowance and upper tax NI rate of 47% (plus 9% for student loan if you have one). If you have chances of promotion take them even if you end up for a year or two worse off with higher pay.

That’s looking at things slightly differently.
The single person with no children may not have kids but will rely on those kids when they are adults and the single person is no longer working. Just as the single persons payments will now pay into childrens education, the nhs etc

How much that single person pays into the system is not just to look after them but the whole population. The figure of 41k is averaged out amongst the whole working age population.

It's a fantastic salary but there is a ridiculous situation where you are far better off earning £99,999.00 pa than £100k +! Between £100k and £125k you pay the equivalent of @ 60/70% tax on every £1 earned plus lose the childcare concession - take home is subsequently significantly less than someone earning less. Ridiculed and entirely unfair scenario also damaging for the tax purse as people simply ensure they work less hours / pay more into their pension to avoid this tax trap.

as others have said it’s very unfairly based on individual income instead of household - you could have two 99k earners eligible but a single income household is not. regardless of higher income level, childcare in the UK is expensive and very hard on many people.

Separate to this, it puts women at a disadvantage as it is often men who are higher earners in household, but women in control and in need of childcare to push forward at work.

Pushing for more accessible, quality childcare is a need, many european countries are miles ahead. focus on that instead of complaining that people earn more.

The problem is that many women have been lost to the workplace or do not work full time. I say women because it does tend to be women that lose out after children are born unfortunately.

If the Govn want to get women back and working full time, which they do, they only offer the full 30hours that do that.

There is another angle to this that without access to low paid workers then the economy would automate alot of these jobs. You are seeing some of this. For example checkouts, there is alot of griping and moaning about this by some groups.

The same could be said of housing benefits. Some of these benefits might be part of the root of the problem rather than the solution to it.

With reduced access to low paid workers then pay would in many cases go up especially in cities like London. These government induced market distortions have also driven up house prices and rents.

Setting a universal national framework for housing funding would lead to many lower paid people and jobs departing the south and big cities and relocating and revitalising the midlands and the north. I doubt that a political party of any hue would advocate for a let's say £400pcm base + £100/person.

£100k for one family in London or the south east isn’t that much to live on. It’s all relative. I bet they have to budget and slow at end of month.
I think we have a problem with wages in this country full stop, they’re not enough for people to meet their housing needs and live on.

So by your logic, the only people who should be having kids are those who are being subsidised by the state… ?!

@leafybrew Then private schools may have to stop giving bursaries to less fortunate children.

I get why you have little patience but there are a couple of bonkers issues with earning over £100k. One is the childcare thing where you penalise a single parent. The other is the loss of the personal allowance over £100k. I run my own business and with the tax of 40% plus loss of personal allowance which adds another effective 20% tax and then national insurance, I’m getting close to having 70% of my income deducted. The result of that is I pile it all into my pension so I get it back which means less tax to help those earning smaller amounts and less spending in the economy. Economically therefore it only benefits me which is bonkers. Problem is that it looks bad politically to change it.

This woman is actually paying so much in taxes that she is subsidising the childcare for those who cant be bothered to make more than £12K a year. So you should be more respectful towards people who pay your way. The money doesn’t fall from magic “government money tree” - it comes from taxes, and majority of people in the UK take out of the system MORE than they put it, with the exception of these high earners. People making just over 100K are taxed to the nines, there is effectively 60% tax rate on 100-125K amount(!) and on top of that childcare isn’t subsidised. However with COL and costs of childcare and property prices £100K doesn’t go very far.

the government should have made it universal. Otherwise it will encourage the high earners (again, the ones who contribute more than they take out) to go part time or to move elsewhere, and they will lose the revenues.

and if you are jealous of someone making 100K, why don’t you retrain and start earning that?

Agree %100! This country is generous when it comes to benefits and subsidies. Many countries have zero to fall back on.

I’m not sure I agree. If she were to quit her job and go onto benefits and get her housing and everything else paid for by the government, that would be way more expensive on the tax payer than subsidising some of her childcare costs. Being a single mother and working full time is incredibly tough if you have no help. I am not on £100k (I wish!), I’m on £50k roughly per year as a single mum to a toddler and I work full time. I am going more and more into debt each month because of the cost of childcare (about £1k every month), and I live in a very reasonable area in the UK and work from home 4 days a week so don’t have to pay much on commuting costs. If I lived in London and my salary was £100k, I bet I’d be in a similar situation as housing, childcare, and everything else is WAY more expensive in Ldn. So I don’t think it’s so black and white.

It’s a stupid way of collecting the tax, that means you effectively earn negative money between 100 k and 104 k, so people desperately try not to go into that area.

I am in the bracket. I don’t object to paying sensible, well thought-out taxes that are a proportion of your income. This is to appease idiots who complain about “elites”.