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.

That has changed now.
UC is ridiculously low for able-bodied people of working age to get. I believe mothers have to be back at work after 1 year. Similar to a lot of working mums I know, lawyer,Dr, receptionist etc etc took a few months extra.

There is extra money IF you are disabled OR have disabled child(ren) and as has been pointed out over and over. Regardless of what Nigel next door says noone in their right mind would prefer to live a life of disability or see their child in 24hr distress for the fun of rolling over and going back to sleep in the morning.

These people don't have a benefit cap so will get more rent paid and might get such things as disabled child element and DLA. Plus PIP and ESA for themselves.

I LOVED working, I loved having money to spare and the opportunities to earn more.
I would give anything for my DS to be 'normal' and not in pain and not have had 30 Plus operations in his life. I wish he could be as carefree as other children. But he isn't.

If you ask me how we are. I'll say fine, grand - doing well.....because who the fuck wants to listen when it NEVER stops. I've been doing the same 3hr nightly routine of meds and therapy with DS since birth and it's never going to get any better.

My disease is degenerative- I could well be dead in 5 to 10 years. Its also rare so Dr's don't know much about it, which means neither do I. So you say when you meet people " ha ha better than working" when this is the 1st time you've been out in 2 months
...because there is nothing else to say.

I apologise I have been upset on here this weekend. Usually I'll scroll by. But the amount of cruel comments towards common man is just sticking out.

It's not free money, it comes at a horrible price

LeopardsRockingham · Today 17:28
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?

"Obviously some adjustments for the disabled."
Did you purposely ignore that bit just to leap to the usual dystopian scenario?
If every year the majority of societies 16 year olds knew what they were going to be responsible for in their lives and what wouldn't be available to them they would have to plan accordingly. They would pay their health insurance, they would start paying into a private pension, most would dick about less at school.
Lots of people nowadays know all their rights but have forgotten they also have responsibilities.

I don't have children but see how we should have a structure that supports parents bringing the next generation into the world and all of the costs associated with that !

Any civilised society would surely.

I didn't dick about at school I got 11 gcse grades a and b
3 as at a level
2.1 at a top 10 uni.....there was drinking involved there that was my fault

Working for a big 4 by 21.

I also had an 'undiagnosed disease'.

I spent a year in hospital at 14, 6 months at 16 and sat my a levels in hospital.

I was in and out all through uni. Luckily when studying for professional exams the flares happened then so I was 'off work' so studied in hospital.

I bought a house at 23. Worked my ass off. Was mid management by early 30s on the top end of where I should be.

Mids 30s I had a baby. He was made disabled through hospital mismanagement and my condition also became unmanageable.

Now because I'd had a lifetime of ?????? Illness how do you think I got on getting insurance? Oh yes thats right uninsurable

So I did all the right things. I studied, I didn't fuck about and I'm still ill and uninsurable.

I have some pension from when I did work and I pay some into a private pension now.....

Could be from benefits could be from my husbands job....not sure but we have no real life to enjoy so we have £50 per month to do it.

CAN YOU HEAR ME AT THE BACK......
I did everything "right" and I still live like this!

I didn't purposely miss out the "some adjustments for the disabled"

But in the eutopian era I can only assume we will be shat on from a greater height than we are now.

OP, what's the point of your post?

LeopardsRockingham
The system we have now is unsustainable, we're not far off more people taking out then the fewer people can put in. We can't keep everyone happy, something has to give before the whole system crashes down into anarchy because that will happen when the gap between rich and poor gets too big to fix. Then it really will be survival of the fittest.

Why should morality impact upon Hayley's 7 children? Why does their paternity matter?

It depends, doesn’t it? I imagine most healthy, child free adults are net contributors at well below that salary, particularly if they’re council tax payers and consumers of services and products liable for VAT. My time as a net contributor came to an abrupt end when I claimed my state pension.

They're so very few and far between and it's likely bravado to cover up the fact that they can't work.

They aren't the problem. It's the tax dodgers, corporations or the uber rich at the top of the tree.

I don’t get child benefit.
We’ll pay for any uni education presumably.
There are free dinners for all in our school for some years. So you have people earning £200k getting free dinners. I don’t agree with it, quality and quantity has gone down.

“Why do people own more than one property and rent it out to someone on housing benefit and rake it in? Who's the actual scrounger?”
^ This is why housing is in a mess. Mortgage £400 a month rent £1200. Ridiculous.

It’s both to be fair.

To let people who bash out at the poor, disabled and carers that we are not happy about the constant rhetoric.

Yes, to be fair it is both. But who is the easier target that receives all the venom. Which of these two groups could make an actual difference with their contribution to society?

With respect you cannot force adults to care for disabled family members.

You cannot force anyone to have a relationship with another in that capacity that they don't want to have. They either are willing to or they aren't.

But one way to possibly encourage it is to reward their sacrifices and recompense them. Less the £3 per hour just doesn't cut it.

Not many landlords making a profit these days. Thats why so many are selling up. So rent increases are a function of reduction in supply and the rising costs* of being a landlord. Greed doesn’t come into it these days.

*higher interest rates on mortgages, rising costs of materials and labour for maintenance and repair work, massive YOY increases in service charges for flats, paying for the initial paperwork and credit checks for a new tenant now falls to the LL, legal costs and lost rent associated with increasing difficulty evicting problem tenants, no longer able to offset the mortgage against tax.

Most landlords are just happy if rent covers the mortgages and we suck up the other costs as we are banking on the capital gains. There is very little if any monthly income. Nobody is making £800 a month on a single property!

Nobody is making £800 a month on a single property!

They’re making that and plenty more if it’s mortgage free. Only a third of rental properties are mortgaged.

No children; never received any money from the state, have private health insurance and pay tax in the 40% bracket so I would say, yes.

Or only work part time because childcare is too expensive or barely available.

The OP figures are incorrect.

Around half of all households pay no tax whatsoever. The majority of the remainder are still not net contributors as they receive more in return than they pay in tax. This includes paying for their share of public services.

A single person needs to be earning around 50k before they break even. For 2 adults the amount of course doubles. This means that any 2 adult households with less than 100k joint income are not paying their way and are in some way reliant on higher earners subsidising them.

Although people on 30k-50k salaries tend to believe they are net contributors the fact is they aren’t. If taxation was attributed fairly they should pay more.

The only group who are over taxed are those on salaries above 50k and in particular those on over 100k pay hugely disproportionate amounts of tax for little return.

A single person needs to be earning around 50k before they break even.

I’d love to know where that figure comes from because I genuinely can’t see how it’s possible. What services is a healthy, childfree person consuming that amount to £10.5 a year? No healthcare or education costs, no benefits - what are they getting?

Thanks for explaining

Quote:
"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."

Giving 16 year olds a few quid a week and telling them to pay for their own healthcare, unemployment support, housing and pension - what could possibly go wrong?

How about instead of giving 16 year olds £100 odd a week we invest the money into services that everyone can benefit from instead. So, for example, we could call the health insurance service the NHS, we could call the housing investment social housing.

Some people might be sensible and lucky and be able to self insure, work in a good job and plan for their retirement but our society currently tries to make sure even people that are not lucky with their health, don't/can't work and haven't planned for retirement are looked after to some extent.

Slipping 16 year olds a few quid to take care of themselves would be a short road to people increasingly dying of treatable illnesses like diabetes and living in tent cities.

"What kind of person takes something when they already have SO MUCH? How can they sit there and receive their £10 Christmas bonus from the DWP. What scroungers!"

Perhaps because they put so much INTO the system? Perhaps they freely give it and much more to charity?