AIBU that working people should be rewarded in the Budget?

[DistingusedSocialCommentator]

As above by way of increasing the tax threshold which has been on ice for a while.

The lower paid will benefit the most as those earning about 125k I think it is dont get any tax reliefe. 2 of the 3 children of ours pay 40% or more in tax plus NI. Therefore, the lower paid will benefit the most

We left worl in our early 50's and yet to reach state pension age.

I've read that many pensioners will soon be paying taxes as many are also being paid a few quid in private pensions they contributed to

so rather than a penny or two cut, raise the threshold of income tax

The gov must also do away with IHT but that is a different subject.

So if you agree with me, then it is I am being reasonable

Isn’t that what I literally just said? Those other countries that pay higher taxes are getting more for their money, better healthcare, childcare provision, education etc and I’m sure it would be the same here if the money was being spent appropriately. I pay plenty in taxes thank you and I’m peed off about how much I get taken off already when I’m not getting much back for that

I agree with the first bit and this is why the thresholds should be increased to help lower-earning lot

The second bit, I'm not a high earner never have been but we are financially ok and still pay at least 20% tax and we left work in our early 50's. 2 our our children pay at least 40% tax.

What needs to happen is, those that avoid tax, the big boys, the very rich and the self-employed ie cash in had, shops needs to be addressed then the big boys need to pay their fair share

I'm not paying more tax as I have not an option to pay it as we are not rich nor are we self-employed and our money/taxes are used inappropriately and billions are spent on places where it should not be spent.

The issue is you're confusing 'hard working' with paid well. Where quite often in society those working hardest are paid less.

There are people slogging their guts out on minimum wage, struggling to get by, fully planning on still working at 67.

I'd much rather they had a tax break than some dead multimillion pound estate.

I don't really understand the arguments in favour of removing IHT (and I say that as someone who would benefit from it).

Our country is already so unequal, it will only make that even worse.

I also find the idea of a society where work for most doesn't really afford them much... but then at 60+ they might inherit a load of money? This seems an odd way to organise ourselves.

Because you have chosen to be economically inactive, you are not contributing the tax that you would normally be expected to at your age. If your income is high enough to be taxable, you should pay tax on it.
I haven't got a great deal of sympathy for pensioners moaning about paying tax either. Some - such as ex-teachers or other civil servants - have very geneous pensions with fewer outgoings than most working-age families so I am unsure why the feeling persists that they should not pay tax on their income.

Nor have I and I’m one of those pensioners. It’s right and proper that we pay tax. I can see absolute no reason to abolish a tax that only affects the wealthiest 4% of the population either. Particularly since the bulk of it’s likely to have been accumulated through house price inflation and has never before been liable for tax of any kind.

The budget isn't there to "reward" people. We all need to pay towards public services.

Obviously there are lots of different views on a fair way of taxing people, but I think YABVU to say that it's unreasonable for pensioners on private pensions to have to pay tax; pension income is still income, it should be taxed as such and pensioners still use all the services (arguably even more than younger people, given likelihood of failing health and age-related benefits such as free use of public transport and free prescriptions). The whole "I've paid in all my life" attitude badly needs to be dropped; we all need to pay in our whole lives, not just when working.

Given you were able to leave work in your early 50s, I'd say you have been in a privileged position with regard to finances.

I will say that it's fair game to comment on the poor spending decisions by the government. But that is separate argument, in my view, to whether or not we should be paying taxes.

Dh left his job a few years ago after forty plus years of full time work and now has a part time job
He is taxed on his private pension and this job
He has always paid in, so all this elder bashing isn't always justified
We did receive child benefit ( when it was universal) until that was stopped as he earned just over the threshold for that at the time.
Apart from free prescriptions and the energy payments the government gave everyone in 2022, we do not receive any other help and that's how it should be, but not everyone over 60 is dosing about and pays in via taxes indirectly and directly ( vat , car taxes etc)
I'm not sure how much more some mumsnetters expect people to pay in and we have never not paid our way as we have always been paye.

Not just earners between those amounts.

Those just above most benefits (except maybe child benefit) eg earning 30k with two kids must really feel the squeeze.

You both retired early 50s, you think IHT should be abolished, at least 2 of your children are higher earners so no issues there, and you're only financially "ok"?

I'd say you're more than ok by quite some distance.

Back to your OP:

I think YABVU on IHT. On income tax - a small change would cost the treasury a lot, and they already made changes to NI didn't they? So I'm on the fence.

The tax brackets do need to increase at some point however, they keep pushing it back.

The figures are not misleading, Statista has correctly calculated the disposable income by age category of households in the U.K. for 2022 according to the official economic definition of disposable income. It is simply all income minus all taxes.

What you think the definition of disposable income should be is neither here nor there as the economists set the calculation formulas that Statista follows. No one credible economist defines disposable income as income minus taxes minus childcare costs minus housing costs. Your conception is not the the economic definition or meaning of disposable income.

Barley stated in their opinion those with the most disposable income should pay the highest tax. They wrongly thought those were pensioners, when in fact it is 35-44yr olds.

“hundreds of himmilsns and more to go” “a far away country ie the Hotius”

I for one am fed up of himmilsns and hotius. Far too many for my liking.

Are you typing this with a dildo or something ?

I agree... ☝️

I think most people with an atom of sense do.

I don’t disagree with this, earners need to see better benefits all round and those on lower salaries do need more help than they are currently getting. The effective 60% tax in that range is a problem though because it disincentivises higher earners from earning more so overall, the tax revenues are probably lower than they could be.

Thanks for putting into words exactly what I was thinking. Half the OP's posts are illegible. Mind you, they must be the OP who was previously DistinguishedSocialCommenator and is now DistingusedSocialCommentator

Employers’ NI needs to be increased a lot. Much of the economic and fiscal problems we have are due to the shifting of tax burden from corporations to individuals.

Wages are artificially kept low to benefit corporate profits and thereby increase dividend income to high net worth individuals which is taxed below their earned income category tax rate.

Then businesses don’t pay enough NI to fund out of work benefits for their employees when they go under or do mass redundancies. They don’t pay enough NI to support employees disabled on the job. They don’t pay enough NI to support the NHS for all the occupational caused injuries and illnesses their employees get from working for them. They don’t pay enough NI to fund state pension to a decent standard of living for when their workers are too old to work.

Yes employees should contribute NI as well, but the bulk of it should be paid by businesses who are profiting from their labour.

The NHS etc need to look at where their allocated money goes, they're all management heavy with some very bizarre job titles that having nothing to do with making people better or whatever their field is.

You say older people pay in via VAT and car tax, does that mean you think pensioners shouldn't have to pay income tax too I.e. you think your husband should be exempt from tax on his second job?

I just really don't understand where this attitude that you shouldn't have to pay as much tax as you get older comes from. I don't think older people should pay more income tax than anyone else, but personally I don't think it's fair they pay less (through no NICs) nor that they get non-means-tested benefits. Its not like the taxes you pay earlier in life are saved up to cover state pension, health and care needs in later life...

I'm not saying older people shouldn't pay tax!
I'm just saying that bashing people who are older is rampant and a bit unfair when we pay in too, which is how it should be
Read my post before flaming

absolutely this ^^

I have tried quoting these figures before only to be shouted down how boomers are mega-rich and contribute nothing.

I worked for 40 years paying tax and NI while putting away something for my retirement - no automatic pensions then. My income PA is now £17,000 gross on which I pay tax. This is all my income and I only have 1 personal allowance to help.

I paid tax and NI during my working life to pay for your (later generations) benefits, education and health and those of your children - as well as the pensions of those who went before me. This 'net' contributor rhetoric division makes me really cross.

At times in our lives we are a 'net' contributor and then when we need it we will all become a beneficiary - that is the way a society works.

Incidentally although the top 10 % are net contributors - it is really the top 1% thst pay the most in. Not all the 10% are equal.

People who would benefit from scrapping inheritance tax:

Sunak (saving £200m+?)
Hunt (£3m+?)
Rees-Mogg (£10m+?)
etc.

People who lose out from scrapping inheritance tax:

96% of the population

(due to reduced tax take affecting public sector funding).

I did read your post.

Your comment "I'm not sure how much more some mumsnetters expect people to pay in" suggested that you thought you'd already paid in enough. If that wasn't how you meant it, then I apologise for misunderstanding an ambiguous statement.

Either way, I stand by my point that older people should be more understanding that those of working age feel aggrieved to be taxed more heavily and entitled to less benefits, made worse by the prospects that as we age we will be entitled to less (worsening public services and likelihood of further increases in state pension age). As PPs have mentioned, housing and child-rearing costs are a high burden for those in their 20s/30s/40s and these burdens typically do decrease with age, so it's no wonder those of working age are feeling more and more squeezed.

I'd happily pay more tax to help get the country back on its feet.
I can't be the only one?

@IWouldRatherBeOnHoliday

I don't think some older people quite appreciate what the combination of childcare and mortgage looks like for people at the moment (as most won't have either to pay!).

An average mortgage plus and average childcare place could easily swallow up 100% of two average full time salaries.

Not luxury holidays, not electronics, not cars on finance - a mortgage on a modest house and a single child.