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.

Nearly 10% of the U.K. working population has never had a job, I wouldn’t consider that a tiny percentage.

That's bollox, the rates were 10-50% ICT with tax being progressive between £375 and £2500. "purchase tax" was principally 10% ( although higher bands on some items upto 50%) rather than vat being 20%. The NI burden was much lower with many options outs. Employers ni was lower.

But this is also some of the government insanity, some better off families could offer housing to there staff but again this is highly taxed, making it not worth doing.

Yes our household income is a lot higher. But I used it earn a lot more and am old so bought a house when it didn’t cost as much and am mortgage free.

But these things are exactly what higher earners get too... 'free'!

So you’re moaning that you earn £12k and don’t get benefits, but your spouse/household members top up that income… on top of having no housing costs.

You aren’t “living” on a £12k wage at all.

I completely agree with you!

With a situation like that with one high earner, the lower earner (usually the woman) is almost forced to be SAHM or go part time as childcare costs more than she can earn. It's a very damaging policy.

I think you have missed the point. It would seem reasonable that those that pay so much tax get atleast some benefit from it.

Norway has high taxes for example but it's more if a cap and floor system. So more you pay in the more you are entitled to. This makes people more willing to pay tax as they get better benefits, pensions etc if they pay more tax. Generally they also pay more in than they get out.

However it also stabilises society, it's been pointed out if someone has 100k (60k) after tax of income they also have similar size commitments. If they are made redundant, sickness disability this can be very corrosive and costly for society. I'm not saying that they should get all there salary but 60% for a 3 months, 50 for next 3 months

This could also be the case for private schools, and healthcare. Where there is an entitlement to the basics and you can choose to top this up. This would bring revenue generating activities to public services. Schools are like this in Norway and Finland. UK effectively makes it all one or the other. I believe that this lets politicians and to a lesser extent schools off the hook. If the difference is more gradual it's easier for schools to campaign for more funding to get closer to the state+ option.

I didn't see the question time so I don't know her exact response. Just relying on on your commentary really so here goes:

IMO yes it's unfair as households earning more than her can get subsidised childcare as two people on say 80K each having a kid (who'd earn close to 100k net of tax combined) can get subsidised childcare but a household that earns 60k net of tax won't be subsidised (single income of 100k like her household).
Whoever thought out the policy clearly didn't think very hard about it and the ridiculousness of it should be pointed out. I also don't think that just because people earn more that they don't have their own stresses and individual circumstances which may make their earnings still not enough. A lot of unknown factors here like what's the mortgage like/how much are they paying on rent, are they supporting anyone else like elderly parent's maybe. Just so much more to someone's life and their circumstances than just their income. Bit simplistic to assume they're ungrateful and whiny because they earn that much.

No doubt though that, although someone on 12k doesn't pay tax, that there are such low earners out there and they must have it extremely hard in these times especially. I see it in people's faces just walking the street. Some people look like they're ready to snap because they're been stretched so thin. We do really need to be more kind to each other.

How many of those are disabled?

About 10%

Your comments about who earns £12k are judgemental and insulting.

Some people earn £12k because they choose to be teaching assistants and spend their days teaching the next generation to read and write and managing behaviour.

Previously a systems architect in a global firm. Graduate. Very clever. Chose a job which was fulfilling and involved working with people. He's very, very good at it.

I think the real point is pretty basic. Until the government decides to tax wealth properly (which it won't because it would hammer people with paid off mortgages - particularly pensioners) it needs to maximise income tax take.

Having perverse incentives for people who could earn over 100k to reduce their working days, supplement their pensions, buy salary sacrifice electric cars etc to avoid being hit with a huge increase in tax for going over that threshold is stupid lazy politics.

Education for profit doesn't exist for schools in Finland. Those schools which are privately run provide the same curriculum and are publically funded. Everyone is entitled to the same education.

As for stabilising society, it's a fact that the most stable are the most equal - in terms of income/wealth distribution & opportunity.

Private education in the UK simply entrenches inequality. They're completely different models. Unlike in Finland, private schools in the UK can keep their profits.

I think it's down to incompetence in senior civil service and governmental levels.

I'm pretty sure that no one thought of the consequences/implications of the £50k threshold for child benefit and £100k threshold for childcare being based on individual income rather than "household" income as used for benefits. Just different governmental departments not talking to eachother and not bothering to check implications against other factors. I.e. benefits system is normally "household" income, but tax system is normally individual income. Some pillocks in government started to mix the two without understanding the consequences. I.e. child benefit is a benefit, but is repaid if necessary via the tax system!

Hartnett, an ex HMRC chief tried to justify his departments' incompetence by citing the sheer size of the tax statute and saying no one could possibly know and understand it all! What a cop out!! It's their bloody job to understand it and it's not as if it's just one bloke on his own. HMRC and the Treasury have a small army of staff, so there should be people who know their own separate bits of it and then actually communicate and liaise with others!!

A new cock up occurred just this last week. HMRC decided to change the benefit in kind tax rules on crew cab pickups which they thought, correctly, was a tax fiddle as they're taxed as vans (cheaper benefit in kind tax), than cars. Made big announcements, clearly spent a lot of time changing the rules, setting up transitional arrangements, etc., Then a couple of days ago, the Government vetoed it and said the old rules would continue, i.e. a low tax perk!! Sunak only did that to avoid criticism from genuine business users of pick ups such as farmers!! You'd have thought that someone within the Treasury would have flagged it up and stopped HMRC making such a big policy change without consulting government?

When you see this kind of fiasco, you start to realise that there's still no "joined up" thinking within the government nor the governmental/civil service departments. You start to realise that no one actually thought through the £50k and £100k thresholds and clearly didn't consult with other departments affected. There should be proper due diligence etc for all such changes, but clearly HMRC just ran roughshod over procedure. What's the betting no one in HMRC will get disciplined for such a mammoth cock up - they'll probably get promoted!

You can also understand how, during covid, we ended up with the covid support scheme fiascos that left over 3 million innocents excluded but at the same time allowed fraudsters to claim billions in grants/loans to which they weren't entitled and which the govt will never recover - all because of the same lack of joined up thinking, lack of proper due diligence, etc.

@BestBadger

Unlike in Finland, private schools in the UK can keep their profits.

Many, if not most, private schools in the UK are registered charities, so don't make "profits".

Yes that was incorrect

Labour was going to change it, but u turned

Literally every public service you can think of.

But they don’t get them for free so they? As they pay huge amounts of tax. Someone on 12k will pay no tax so they are really getting those things for free

Ok. Eton is allowed to keep its 1billion not profit, from investments made from income. Or its £562m in cash savings at the end of 2022.

I didn’t give an exhaustive list of every reason someone earns £12k (and not sure any are judgemental) but I will add well qualified architect who chose a different path to the list. The point remains the same - that if you earn £12k you are reliant on others to pay for the benefits of the public sector they enjoy. And if you say ‘they paid £100s of thousands in tax previously so they have more than paid their way’ - well that is exactly the point isn’t it? That we need people to more than pay their way to subsidise those that don’t. This is not judgemental. It is a fact. A judgement would be ‘that is not fair’.

At no point did I say anything about fairness. Other than stating the tax system should not discourage working and perhaps (I have not reread all my posts) that access to public services should be limited by what you pay into the system. I am guessing most people would agree with that but currently it seems unfair that access to one specific public service (early years child care) is not accessible if you earn too much. Would you be happy restricting health care or education for people who earn too much?

It still means they’ve made a choice. To stop contributing towards society in a monetary way. Taking a term-time only, part-time job. The choice means they will be financially reliant on other tax payers which he once was. Imagine if everyone decided to take a part-time job and earn less on the ticket of those paying in?

The tax system does discourage working.

Low pay means you get the higher benefits, childcare, healthcare, etc

Many people purposefully dropped their hours when they realized they could in fact claim benefits to subsidize their salaries - in a lot of cases they earned ‘more’ by working less - and people have jumped on this fact in their thousands.

The minimum pay + benefits has kept many workers on low salaries.

They are in a trap and can’t get out - without minimum pay and benefits they would have to move up get a decent pay rise and afford the things they need on their own salaries. This is how it worked for centuries. Minimum pay hasn’t bridged the gap - it’s widened it.

It doesn't discourage working. As a long term claimant, with UC the more you earn the better off you are. You don't get more for working less. You don't get any "healthcare" help either unless you don't work at all or work incredibly limited hours.

Healthcare is already restricted for those that earn too much, in terms of prescription charges.

Did you really mean access to public services should be limited by what you can afford to pay?

Are you imagining low earners being excluded from parks, libraries and museums and only getting their bins emptied quarterly?