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.

no we aren't. DH and I work but we are one of these fitly couple who popped out two disabled children who are on DLA and PIP. Shame on us.

Net tax contribution is such an unhelpful way of looking at things.

Including school costs in it ignores the benefit society gets from an educated population. And even if you did include it, it should surely be under the child's net contribution, to be offset against their future tax. Ditto university - especially the way you've lumped it all together. The costs of training people we need (healthcare staff, teachers, many more people with important skills), aren't costs to society. There'd be a much bigger cost if we didn't have them.

And many people pay not much tax because they don't earn much, but their contribution to society is more than financial (an obvious example would be a nurse but there are plenty more).

A simple example is you paying £100 in tax, but receiving £400 in childcare, child benefit, free school holidays meals, schooling ect.

Yet people will call a disabled person who works and receives PIP or a person who works full time and claims universal credit a scroungers?!

Most people who benefitted from the property boom are now retired. Are you proposing to take pensions away from people who are currently retired?

Or just prevent people who have worked for 40 years and have a couple of ISAs from relying on the state pension?

To be a net taxpayer the ONS has said that you need to earn over £40k. This is a good salary but hardly wild riches.

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

Direct taxation on income is only one contribution to society. The vast majority of people contribute a great amount to society.

All those who work in profit-generating businesses contribute to the profit that is generated - whether those businesses are paying a fair tax contribution to the country is a separate question.

Also a secondary teacher who educates a pupil who goes on to become a high earner has contributed to that.

I think it is disgusting to assess human contribution only in terms of direct cash in/cash out. It is a right-wing political position, I have no time for it.

Yes, I would take state pensions away from rich people who are retired.

''@Neveralonewithaclone They're determined to shout about how every penny of their millions is so well deserved. Being a supermarket worker is every bit as hard as being a banker.''

Exactly.

You would have thought after Covid and the lockdowns that people would accept that society, especially when times are tough, does not need another hedge fund manager or banker...

Instead to function it needs the people who deliver and sell food, who work in hospitals and care homes, teachers, basically all the essential workers that might not earn the highest salaries but keep things from falling apart.

Many higher earners from bankers to wealthy politicians and professional landlords are parasites: they might pay higher tax (although most of the time they find legal ways to pay as little as possible...) but contribute sod all to society and don't work any harder than anyone else.

No shame at all. I'm glad your family are getting help.

My issue is with people being awful to others and not realising they aren't the net contributors they think they are.. recent awful threads where people have said their hard earned taxes pays for scrounging disabled people...well that's not necessarily true, they (the taxpaying poster) also cost the taxpayer money, so keep things in perspective

I think we will have to wait until we are both dead to work out if our household contributed more that we used.

But at this point if time it seems unlikey, even though we have a higher rate tax payer in the house and both work.

It a depends a bit if the children are my cost or their own.

I find the idea that you are either a contributer or not on any given year a bit odd. Surely most people have points where they use public services/welfare directly and parts where they arent really using them much and people forget the value of indirect benefits.

It's the supermarket worker who deserves to be paid more. We would all starve if the shelves weren't constantly restocked. A massive shake up of the economy is needed.

UBI needs to be brought in.

Absolutely self-defeating. You would undermine the social contract underpinning NI.

Taxing wealth is worth considering, but if you remove the universality of the state pension you will destroy it.

Dismantling the welfare state will not result in any improvement in society.

I agree. But as I said in my first post there have been a number of awful threads where people have called disabled people/children burdens/spongers/scroungers and that they should be grateful for the hard working tax payers ect.

I wanted to highlight most households are not net contributers in tax terms, so maybe people need to rein in their rhetoric

@Startingagainandagain you've demonstrated you know what shop workers do but you really have no understanding of what bankers do.

Why do multimillionaires want an extra £400pm?

Do you get a medal if you do contribute?

Are they paid more than shop workers? Do they demonstrate a sense of entitlement and superiority for having an admin role?

It's the supermarket worker who deserves to be paid more. We would all starve if the shelves weren't constantly restocked. A massive shake up of the economy is needed.

UBI needs to be brought in. I am a huge fan of UBI and know it would really help.

I mean UBI has been disastrous everywhere it has been trialled, but yes, feel free to send our country further down the plug hole.

Why would any high earning person want to pay much more in tax to fund many more people to choose not to work?

If you dismantle the pension system, do you think that will benefit lower income people?

Please try not to be naive. What you propose would destroy the political consensus around pensions which would result in all pensions being removed.

Look at who votes in elections.

We also all starve if noone was growing and transporting the food as well.

choose

You've just demonstrated what you really think.

Is the economy working brilliantly at present is it?🤔

UBI might not have worked well elsewhere doesn't mean it couldn't work well here in the UK.

It would give those a chance to start up businesses or study without worrying about paying bills at the same time. Would give more flexibility and cut out all the beurocracy with the benefits system. Would save a fortune.

@Pingufireengine governments like projects, especially 'shiny' ones. They are easily persuaded by glamorous projects. They want to be associated with the glamour, be photographed next to it. This means they think less critically about glamorous projects.

An awful lot of our politicians are not well educated or experienced in practical matters. They are easily bamboozled by sponsors of expensive projects using any sort of technical language. They don't want to look stupid so don't ask questions.

Social care, mental health services, preventative medicine all lack glamour. They also lack a definable outcome. They cost but the savings are seen at a societal level.

I thought the trials of UBI had been fairly successful? There is cultural resistance to the concept.

They cost less than benefits so should not lead to higher taxation.

We're going to have to look at this once automation really kicks in, we will have to figure out how to tax robots and distribute the money.

Agreed.