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.

Us too.. dh pays 55% tax. Has done most of his adult life. Done our bit.. want to save the rest for our kids and have something to show for it!

No, and I never will be.
I am on UC, and when I did work, it was minimum wage anyway.
According to Google, net tax payers are on £41k+... so the PP saying that more people should be forced off benefits and into work to pay "something back"...
how many of these "scroungers" are going to come off benefits and walk into a job that will pay that much?

I don’t think they need to.

Any job they get will mean some kind of contribution as well as providing a service.

If I borrow £10 and pay back £5, that’s better than borrowing £10 and paying back nothing.

Winter2020 · Today 21:12
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?
Well I did suggest social housing, and the NHS won't be free at the point of delivery for much longer. UBI would allow the free market into the healthcare monopoly at a manageable rate and introducing real competition into housing would benefit society in the long run.
Don't you believe that people should take any responsibility for their lives? That's why the country is in a mess.

The UC I get means I am on about £5.30 an hour (if I worked, and based on a 37.5 hour week... I am LCWRA).
If I did work in a NMW job, I would get more in UC as a top up.
So I would cost the taxpayer more. Which is nuts when you think about it... but UC pays more if you work.

Yes but that would be offset against whatever tax you would be paying and you would be providing a service.

Hmmm.....

well I chose to give birth to my children at home (cheapest option for NHS)
declined health visitors.
Yes my children have a GP but they are typically healthy and rarely visit a doctor more than once a year. (Yes this is "luck" to an extent, helped by a healthy life style)
My children have had a couple of NHS eye tests but don't need glasses
Me and my children have an NHS dentist
We don't qualify for child benefit.
We pay top rate tax.
We pay for our childrens school fees at an independant school. (so also pay for their school meals and milk and transport etc)

so yes, we definitley contribute more than we take out.

Bit of luck people have children, because if everyone decided not to have any children, we would have no workers, all the school and nursery staff would loose their jobs, and of course the entire human race would die out.

So no one should feel like a burden for giving birth to their children.... the workers and tax payers of tomorrow.

What service would I be providing? Not all NMW jobs are in the public sector.
And I pay tax already.. council tax, tax on goods and services.

I thought you said you weren't working, so how are you paying council tax? Or indeed tax on other things?

People on benefits have to pay council tax. They also pay VAT, everyone does.

So it's public money paying it, not her

It was in an ONS report.

It is of course an average across all people earning at a particular rate and at all times during their life.

If you consider that every child’s education cost pretty much takes up the total allowance on its own it’s not hard to see how the average is reached.

A family with 2 school age children and both parents earning 50k each would probably consider they’re doing their bit yet their taxes would barely cover the schooling cost let alone NHS and other general infrastructure. They would also be in receipt of child benefit.

You can soon rack up a hefty NHS bill every now and then which will wipe out several years worth of tax paid, particularly when you’re older.

Of course if you have no children and are never ill in your entire life and die before drawing a state pension then the amount you need to earn on average to become a net contributor reduces but not by as much as you’d think as a lot of the other costs are fixed. These include transport, defence, social care and even interest on government debt.

If you compare our tax system with other countries with better public services you will see they achieve that by taxing middle earners more.

We have a curious situation in the UK whereby people in the 30-50k type of salary bracket often feel they pay too much tax when in fact they pay very little and nowhere near enough to support the services they expect. Politically that’s a very hard issue to resolve.

You could say the same of anyone that has a job in the public sector... it is the public money paying it.

And yes, I pay full rate council tax (minus 25% for living alone).

I realise all of that. My question was how can a childless, healthy person earning £50k not be a net contributor when they’re paying £10.5k tax on their income alone. Add in VAT and various other taxes and it defies belief.

The top 1% pay around 1/3rd of all income tax so not hard to see how most of the remaining 99% are not paying an average share.

Well no because they’re working.

I understand you want to defend your position but it just isn’t the same and you need to acknowledge that

But children being a tax expense is a temporary situation. They are future tax contributors. Many after the age of 22 and up to the age of 67.
You could say all of it is paid back.

We’re not talking about average shares. We’re talking about being a net contributor.

Only if they earn reasonable salaries themselves otherwise it’s a double whammy.

If you don’t pay the average amount of tax then by definition you are not a net contributor assuming you create average cost to the state over your lifetime as tax paid and spent is a zero sum for government.

With the top 1% paying such huge amounts it means that a lot of people won’t be paying above the average and in turn will not be net contributors.

In theory if top rate taxes get too high you could end up in a scenario where the top 1% are the only people who pay more than an average share and thus are net contributors.

As it stands it is around 20% of people who are net contributors. The other 80% are all subsidised to some degree or another by the 20%.

If you don’t pay the average amount of tax then by definition you are not a net contributor

There’s no logic to that. Net contribution isn’t just dependent on what you put in, the other side of the equation is what you take out. In many cases that’s virtually nothing.

It's hard to quantify what you take out because we all benefit as a society from educating our young, ensuring we have an adequate police force, health care for everyone and so on.

I’ve clearly stated it is based on average take out over an average lifetime.

Of course there will be a significant number of differences not only from person to person but also during a single person’s lifetime.

If you have no children the amount will be lower. If you have severe medical issues later in life the amount will be higher. The list is endless.

As I mentioned earlier some of the biggest costs are items that are beneficial to all such as defence, public order and safety and transport.

The bottom line is if you don’t average around 50k lifetime salary per person or 100k for a 2 parent family it is likely that you are costing the country more than you contribute over your lifetime.

The current political narrative is to demonise higher earners as being selfish when in fact they are pretty much the only group of people who are not selfish from a tax perspective.

This is why things such as VAT on schools fees, lifetime pension contributions limits and the suggestion pension contributions may revert to basic rate tax relief are all really bad ideas. If the top 1% get fed and decide they don’t want to prop up the economy anymore then the country goes bust.

This whole right wing money in money out equation is ridiculous as it is not grounded in human society.

I don't give it any credence, anyone who buys into it is missing the point of human society.

So many low paid people benefit society in so many amazing and complicated ways.

It is both stupid and soulless to measure human contribution in cash.

'So it's public money paying it, not her'

'You could say the same of anyone that has a job in the public sector... it is the public money paying it.
*
And yes, I pay full rate council tax (minus 25% for living alone)*'

Absolutely not the same at all. Someone working in the public sector earns money which becomes theirs** in return for the work they are contributing within the public sector.