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.

Only on mumsnet can you get vilified for NOT claiming

I didn’t say tax free, did I? I said free. No mention of tax.

So did I, but it wasn’t £2500 per month because I don’t live in London. It was £1k per month, although the same nursery is now £1400 per month. I never said that you didn’t pay childcare, I said that some people have to pay more than others because of where they live. So, yes, some people can live comfortably on £75k, others can’t. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?!!!

Well I did say tax free childcare because that was the whole point of this thread: i.e. the ability to claim the tax free childcare and additional 15 free hours stops at £100k.

I haven't missed your point at all, you've missed mine, you are deriding the idea of a fairer system, posters referring to the Scandi system by suggesting that it wouldn't work here as not enough people want to work, you are looking at a symptom of the wealth inequality in the UK but for some reason want to evade discussions on the cause, why are so many people stuck in this poverty trap, why do low earners pay more indirect tax proportionality to their income than the wealthy. I agree the £100,000 is not rich but these arguments are there to pit against each other as it benefits those who are sitting pretty on stacks of money, with their passive incomes rising whilst the rest of us argue about whether we are rich on 100000! The trouble on an anonymous forum who knows what the interests of the posters are, they may very well be those who are wealthy not wanting the limelight on them - who knows ..

Except that millions of people who are "low paid" or on NMW are employed by the taxpayer via the public sector, quangos, etc.

The problem, I think, centres around the use of the verb ‘sponging’….

That’s entirely different to the taxpayer subsidising a profit making employer.

Punish those who wotk hard.

Childcare costs are awful and tend to hit career parents worse as they need more hours.

I love that the new scheme differentiates between those who do and don't work.

£100k isn't that much income that you don't notice the childcare fees. It's a good income but not rich.

So you want a higher NMW for workers in private businesses and a lower NMW for public sector/quangos? Otherwise, the higher wages for public sector workers has to come from taxpayers?? I don't think a two tier system of NMW is a particularly good option nor is it viable!

I doubt it seeing as that’s the first time I used that word. But surely gaining from the government when you are clearly in the top 4% of earners could be put down as ‘sponging’.

I didn’t say that. You just made it up. I want a higher minimum wage for everyone. The amount public sector workers cost tax payers would remain exactly the same. The difference would be the money would be in wage packets not paid as benefits.

But then your nursery fees will have to increase along with the increase in staff wages.

No. Nursery owners will have to reduce their profits.

They don’t make much. Quite a few nurseries around here have closed. The rate the government pays them doesn’t cover their expenses.

https://www.cypnow.co.uk/news/article/nursery-closures-increase-by-half-in-one-year

Very few nursery owners make a profit.

Higher staff costs will mean that more nurseries close which will increase costs again. This is likely to force one parent out of the workforce which will reduce tax take further.

The cause of wealth inequality is democracy and everyones right to earn more, work more and improve their wealth if they chose to do so.
Thats democracy.

If everyone is only required to earn the same amount, if everyone lost the ability through work to improve their lot then the country falls apart.
No doctor is going to be doing 48hr shifts, or working nights for the same pay as someone on a 9-5 Mon- Friday and weekends off with no stress. Nor will business owners working 7days a week put up with the same salary as their employees when they are taking on board the stress of owning the company and working all hours.

There will always be some who earn more than others. We don’t all chose the same path,
We are a democracy.

Yes, like it did with the Furlough scheme, unparalleled transfer of capital from the public to the private sector. Billionaire's getting richer, whilst the government justify further cuts to public services (in line with their ideological persuasions and desire to further justify privatising public services and enabling their friends to make even more money).

It’s a horrible word to use.
Everyone has a right to benefit from the system
Including those that pay more into it.
Its not sponging

I think you'll find that's capitalism but that's not to say capitalism isn't part of a democratic system. The problem is not people earning more than others, it is the vast, vast differences now in the very wealthy (10 million plus) not your Doctors, lawyers etc. I am unsure where you got that idea from, the post you quoted literally has me spelling out 100000 is not that much. Maybe you are being obtuse, don't know.

The private sector was absolutely hammered by sectors closing

The public sector demanded it for safety

Did you not notice the cries from retail, arts, airline, hospitality to open?

And the opposite from public sector

You must have noticed businesses damaged and ruined livelihoods. No one can be that unaware of who got hit

Of course they don’t. People seem bit out of touch

You’re right it’s capitalism
Not being optuse
( Thought of the first jobs that came to mind, however I would say that doctors do earn more than £100,000 once they are consultants and work very unreasonable hours including being on call. )

back to the point
The vastly wealthy also pay vastly more in real terms into the system.
The concern for all Governments is that the more they tax those that prop up the system ( and im including the vastly wealthy here ) the more those very people and businesses will just move elsewhere.
That’s a dangerous game to play and requires careful juggling and cannot be dictated by people just wanting everyone to be equal because ‘ it’s not fair’.

No, you're always better off on UC, so paying more wages to low paid public sector workers would increase their take home pay by more than their loss in UC, so it would cost the taxpayers more. It's not "revenue neutral" as you claim at all!