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.

Obviously not. Their taxes pay for them they are not getting them for free.
Higher tax payers prop up the system available to all including for themselves and for lower tax or non tax payers. At the same time the higher tax payers are denied some benefits in society that lower tax payers get. As PP noted prescription charges for example. Plus for example reduced council tax.

Whilst higher earners pay, in real terms, more into the system they are vilified by many for being high earners.
We are not a communist country. If people believe we should all be the same then maybe those people should campaign for communism.

Yet, people keep harping on about the scandi school system and their higher tax system. These things dont exist in isolation. Pretty much the whole society works (men and women), everyone pays significant proportion of tax and from there flows the system they have.

This isn't pick'n'mix!

Not all lower taxpayers get those things! To get free prescriptions you have to be earning less than £8k a year.

I didn’t set a sum for lower tax payers for prescriptions but you have highlighted the issue even more.
An 8k earner pays no tax and gets them for free.

So their prescriptions are paid for, in real terms, by the taxes of others that still have to pay for theirs and still people think it’s ok to complain.

Let’s not bite the hand that feeds you.

A joint income of £100k brings in more than a single person earning £100k (as you have two tax allowances etc) plus you still get tax free childcare and 30 free hours. Those stop on a single income of 100k. That’s the whole point of this thread, shame you didn’t bother to read it.

It’s also dependent on where you live in the country. If you are paying £2000 to £2500k PER child in childcare (as is common in London) plus £1500 to £2000k to rent a basic flat, then no you won’t have a very comfortable life!

So do we deny education, healthcare and every social benefit to people who are low earners - the sick, disabled and those who, for no fault of their own, are unable to earn enough and pay enough tax to satisfy the privileged few?
And if said privileged few get their tax refunds in the guise of free childcare, what DO we do with low paid workers who can afford none of these things?
I feel as if we’re in a time-warp to Victorian attitudes where the poor, working all the hours god makes, are poor because they are lazy!

I find this thread fascinating and depressing. I have mid teen aged kids and been a single mother since they were 3 and 1 respectively.

When the kids were born I earned less than £40k and now have just broken through the £120k threshold. I have worked at a loss for several years ( all my savings from my 20s gone), no car, a week holiday abroad every two year if we were doing well

So have worked through the two tax ' cliff edges' paid full childcare from birth through to end of primary ( in various guises) and finally in the last two years, finally managed to get an eye watering mortgage in London which will run untiI am 71 ( mainly so if I drop down dead, my kids are safe), and at least now I don't need to deal with the horror of private renting ( which is getting worse). I also was able to have an aupair for several years - an option no longer available to parents.

I pay a huge amount tax ( more than my starting salary when my kids were born), and I proud to do so, as I strongly believe we should support each other as a society.

However, what I do take offence at - is the perception that once you breach £100k you are rich and your disposable income is huge - and you should somehow feel ashamed of yourself or your income. Whereas those on lower incomes ( with little or or no mortgage and/ or highish earning husbands resulting in a higher joint income) feel free to sneer at highish earning single income households. I also do not feel it is unreasonable to expect some benefit for taxes paid.

Meanwhile, as said ( and ignored ) several times on this thread, the actual asset owning wealthy are taxed at a much lower rate - IE Sunak being taxed 28% on £2.2 million (passive) income...

Apologies for the rant.

No one is saying they shouldn’t get these things
PPs are pointing out dismay and anger that whilst high earners are propping up the system, paying in more and getting back less than low earners they have to put up with lower earners or / and non workers constantly winging that it’s not fare that people earn more than them.

Yes but as a lower earner (full time on 24k) it's irritating when people tell me I get stuff for "free", not knowing much about it and just assuming. I pay full council tax, full price for prescriptions and dental care, pay for school dinners and I don't claim childcare costs as I don't need it.

You are working full time, you are paying taxes, these comments here are not about you then.

You must surely be getting Uc though if you have kids?

I don't have any issue with higher earners by the way and I think childcare should be free to all but I'm not going to spend my days being slavishly grateful. I work full time just like higher earners do, I just get paid less.

True.
plus child benefit
Note Re previous comments for earners on less than 41k.

Again my comment then does not refer to you as you have noted your thoughts on higher earners…..you have no issue.
Unfortunately you are in the minority in the country and on MN.

Such as? (I don’t think bollocks have anything to do with it)

The problem is in the UK - we want the Scandi model - the high state, universally available good services: as long as someone else pays the tax. As pp have said: virtually every person of working age works, contributes and pays significant tax. The tax base is much wider than it is here. Over here it wouldn’t work. Not enough people actively contribute and are productive.

The whaterbouterry seems pointless. There a multiple levels here. From the tax credits which kick started the working benefits as we now have. To why so many people are defeatist is in this country…”I can’t possibly…” to why we have so many disabled and sick and unable to work.

All reasons why a Scandi model can’t work here. Not enough people paying in and those small minority propping it all up are now pissed off and generally hated. This means they are less likely to pull together in a fairer society. Why should they? Over 100% marginals with kids; 70% without kids and it’s still not enough. They are just whiny entitled. Populist politics is killing the country. The Scandi model would never work because people are so bitter and angry - they wouldn’t want those who are paying for it all to have something back.

As a population whom are reliant on the state in the majority. I’d start worrying. Quite where people think all this money is coming from with an ageing population, I don’t know.

Well said Blossomtoes!

You forget the millions of people are employed by the state, not businesses, so paying higher wages means even more debt or higher taxes. I.e. NHS, schools, police & other emergency services, local council services such as libraries, waste, etc., social workers, heavily state subsidised public transport etc.

Not really a 100k is a 100k and you shouldn’t get any help. Before I had a partner which is quite a recent thing I earned 75k on my own ( I’ve now dropped hours) claimed nothing wouldn’t not dream of it.

How do you propose to make it fair? Elsewhere in this thread Blossomtoes hit the nail on the head: the emloyers who pay minimum wage are being subsidised by tax payers.

So you pay less tax as a household than a single earning household on the same income( and can share the domestic load), which affords you a great life style, but don't see where the issue is?

Like I’ve just told some other person. I’m only recently in a relationship. Before that I Earned 75k ( I’ve since dropped hours) I still think £100k is a 100k and why should you claim anything when the country is practically bankrupt and there are a lot of people on much less than that that really need help. I’m proud that I’ve never claimed anything whilst being single. I also still lived a very good life with my two boys. Thank you. Only on mumsnet could you get vilified for not scrounging off the state whilst earning 100k

Yes it is as for the reasons pp have explained. It’s not their fault you didn’t read and can’t understand the nuances.

The cost of childcare is not out of control.
The ‘free’ childcare wording is a freaking joke - thanks Tories…
I am fed up of people moaning about childcare costs - childcare providers are highly trained professionals. Very much like care workers we have been overlooked for years-I’m speaking from experience - my view and it’s a personal one is that people whinging about childcare - look after your own babies and little people!