Is your household contributing net tax ?

[Pingufireengine]

Following on from the awful disabled people are a drain on society threads...

For those that have children, have you considered this?

Roughly 55-60% of all households aren't net contributors to tax.

That's not to say the households that don't make a net contribution are in receipt of benefits.

Having children entails the following:

(This is per child)

Maternity care on NHS/midwifes,
Birth/delivery £3000-10000,
Post Delivery Care,
Health Visitors,
Statutory Maternity Leave,
Free prescriptions during pregnancy and after birth for 1 year,
Child gets free eye tests, glasses, prescriptions, dentist until 16/18
Child benefit until 16-20
Free nursery hours £2000-7000 per
Free School Milk £30-40
Free school meals: £400-500
School is £7,690 per
Sixth form/college/higher education £4,843

Student loans for university £30,000-50,000+

Yes the loans are paid back, but the initial offset is footed by taxpayers. And around 27% of full-time undergraduates starting in 2022/23 will repay them in full. They forecast that after the 2022 reforms this would increase to 61% among new students from 2023/24.

So instead of looking to blame those who are disabled for being a drain, look elsewhere, and better yet, instead of the disabled, pensioners, the working poor...we should look towards those are govern us, avoid tax.

The UK pension is the lowest in Europe, our wages are low and have stagnanted, working rights and conditions have eroded.

The UK looks asset rich, but it's only a small number who are generating huge wealth for themselves. There are parts of the UK poorer than the poorest parts of Poland. In fact, Poland is predicted to be wealthier per person than the UK in just a few years.

Maternity care is awful, the NHS is broken and on its knees, social care is non existent.

We've had austerity for 14 years, then Brexit, then COVID. Our country is in desperate need of investment into our creeking infrastructure.

😂 OK.

You’re saying ‘household’. What if in one family, one parent is a high earner and the other parent stays home by choice. But that one parent who works determines the fact that the ‘household’ pays tax - the other parent won’t get shamed by everyone even though they don’t work. What if another family with a single parent, that person cannot work due to disability - therefore not being able to contribute towards tax for their ‘household’. That person will be shamed because they don’t contribute.

This is what people mean when they say disability discrimination and discrimination against single parent households. Don’t you dare shame people when most people have no other choice than to not work.

School meals are not free for all children. I don't think free meds and prescription for kids cost the NHS that much compared to say older people or in fact people with disabilities. I think kids having access to free healthcare is great, but sadly these days it's impossible to get an appointment even for kids. We had to go private last year after not been able to be seen during winter when my kids had a horrible chest infection, they hadn't been sick in years and in fact, not been seen by a GP since before COVID.

You provide your own child care or you pay someone to do it for you. There should be no shame in either decision. However, parents who work in home looking after their children are shamed all the time.

@Neveralonewithaclone @Vettrianofan

You don't think there are people who have done both types of work out there who might be able to offer insight.

I think that the minimum wage should be much higher and that we should close the multiple of salary paid to bosses over workers, but I have done waitress/supermarket/cleaning jobs (student) and City jobs and the City jobs are more stressful and demanding - you cannot clock off and your work is your life, with the threat of the sack hanging over you continuously. The challenge for the lower paid is more about the stresses of keeping the roof over their head and having little margin for bad luck or illness - it's the pay and conditions rather than the job.

Infants receive free school meals so the first 3 years

As the birth and death rate are roughly equal UBI is a possible. You start by giving 16 year olds the equivalent of say 10 hours a week NMW (£114) with the proviso that they will no longer be eligible for free healthcare or any other benefits such as a state pension in the future meaning they would have to take more personal responsibility for their health and retirement. Obviously some adjustments for the disabled. Alongside that, basic state housing. Build a lot of 1 person flats and basic terraced houses spread out equality over the 8,483 electoral wards of the UK, keep the weekly rent at no more that the equivalent of 5 hours NMW this would introduce real competition to the housing market.
Thirdly a flat 20% tax rate for everyone and all businesses, get rid of all the loopholes. Do business here pay 20% here. The main complaint about UBI is people will sit at home or work less. I disagree, UBI will allow people who want to do a simple worthwhile job like nursing or working in a shop the wiggle room to do it and not be too stressed and if you want to work hard and have a big shiny car and big house you can. Going to work should pay enough for a decent standard of living without government subsidies. By phasing it in slowly year by year eventually the need for so many people processing all the different subsidies will reduce and the markets such as housing and employment will have time to change to take into account less taxpayers money coming to them.

@titbumwillypoo I agree that UBI doesn't have to mean people will just work less or not work at all. In fact the current systems probably encourage that more.... people game the system by deliberately working less hours, keeping themselves 'under employed' and then getting topped up with UC so there's very little incentive to work harder/longer.

The basic principle needs to be that work pays. People need to be tangibly better off by working more hours, or working in tougher more demanding jobs, than those who work less.

I think there's a lot to be said for UBI, ensuring everyone has the absolute basics but incentivising people to earn if they want any more than that.

The problem comes is that you are saying people can have the money if the sort their own healthcare and retirement out

What happens if they don't are you willing to say sorry you haven't sorted your healthcare so we will not help you so you can die?

This may work in parts of the world but not here.

I don't see an issue if the government provides funded hours either as well as the parent paying.

Laughable that people are describing the various children benefits as a 'drain' when yhoer children will grow up to be workers? Do you think adults just appear fully grown and fully qualified ready for work on employer's doorsteps one morning?

They do at the moment, thats why government and big businesses love migration.

Do you mean the ones imported from the third world who are deeply traumatised and/ or raised with values fundamentally incompatible with our society? Great, what could go wrong

I don't think the government are that fussed where they come from as they serve the purpose you have identified, no need to spend money on education etc

As a child you are a net-recipient, as an adult most will be net-contributors, and as a pensioner you will again be a net-recipient. Your average over your whole life is a more useful measure. Education should not be attributed to the parents, it's a cost that the child "owes" and will repay as an adult.

Most adults aren’t net contributors. A PP mentioned that 40k was the starting point for a net contribution and only 25% of people earn that much.

Definitely net contributors now, mid fifties both working full time, don't claim anything.
We have had periods where we were likely not net contributors - children in education ( although 2 born abroad). Never claimed anything other than very minimal childcare costs, both have always worked.

LiquoriceAllsort2
What happens if they don't are you willing to say sorry you haven't sorted your healthcare so we will not help you so you can die?
To a degree why not? Do you think the government should cover everything, do you think people should take no personal responsivity for anything? UBI would eventually lead to a fairer society. In the current system it makes no sense for someone to be able to get more housing benefit for a squat in London then a family in Newcastle, it just skews the market. It makes no sense to have UC top ups for working people as it just allows businesses to not pay a decent wage. It makes no sense that council tax is based on 1991 prices as that has led to massive inequality in society.
Finally it makes no sense to have tens of thousands of staff just processing all the different claims when UBI would cut the amount needed to a couple of thousand.

This will never happen now in this country, though I expect the pendulum to swing a lot further your way than it is now as the reality of lack of government funds start to bite.

I have no issue with that either. Its just not true that a disabled single parent would be shamed but a married /civil partnered or single able bodied person would staying at home would not be.

But they’re not greedy spongers are they? We need people in low paid work. Do you want your parcels delivered? Do you want to be served in shops? Would want somebody to wipe your bum if you were elderly and incapable?

There’s a world of moral and financial difference between somebody working 38 hours on the NMW and Hayley who has decided that with 7 children by 4 different men she ‘would love to work, but can’t’.

This is spot on. The uncomfortable truth that lots of people want to avoid. Especially because a lot of the higher rate tax payers at the top of the pyramid are quite mobile.

It’s not that the people working for NMW need to increase their contributions, it’s that many of the 1 in 6 adults who aren’t working need to get back to work and stop making excuses.

So in this brave new world

What happens to children who are born with disabilities that are 1/uninsurable and 2/the cost of their health care will always be above the £114 of UBI they are going to get at 16.
When they turn up at hospital the day of their 16th birthday are they too expensive to run?

Or do we just put them down the day they were born to save money?

If I can't afford my hospital treatment will I have to pay for them to euthanize me?

@LeopardsRockingham
No one has suggested that

There just needs to be a middle ground where personal responsibility and support are better balanced than they currently are. It's ludicrous to have a society which almost incentivises people to game the system: Work part time and get UC top up rather than work full time for marginally more/ Deliberately remain under employed because there's little incentive to maximise your earning