October budget going to be painful

[increasinglyconcerned]

Here we go..... I knew it. Labour were promising not to hike our taxes in the election campaign and here we are.... apparently they discovered £22 billion black hole in his first weeks in the role and it's not his fault.

Let me guess, those of us who earn six figures and already pay 45% will pay EVEN more and take home even less. It's the hard workers who will take the brunt. What's the point in working anymore!

I earn a little over £120k and I'm taxed the same as those earrings £500k.

Before people jump in saying they don't feel sorry for me, I work full time to support my family, as of January I will have 2 DCs in nursery, plus my mortgage and get ZERO free hours childcare, whilst they keep promising free childcare but I just pay more for everyone else to benefit.

I cannot afford to pay more taxes to fix this country and especially when so many people are getting a free ride and not paying their way, ranging from millionaires with tax havens to those claiming benefits dishonestly.

@AllPrincessAnneshorses OP wants to stay rich and not have to pay for her fellow citizens' needs.
*
Simple.

She cannot afford it? Bollocks she cannot. She doesn't want to.*

This is my point personified.

To my earlier comments in the thread, there is a consensus that the six figure earners have a bottomless pit of money.

As many have pointed out, six figures is not what is used to be, and I can confirm you are not 'rich' when living in London, with a mortgage and 2 children at nursery, so I can work full time.

I appreciate I will be better off once nursery finishes but I'm years away from that.

Livelovebehappy someone working is working and probably hard.
All jobs are not equal in skill but they are still jobs and still need to be done.

Society needs all sorts of jobs and a person working in Tesco isn't worth any less as an employee than someone at head office. You need food shopping don't you?

We need people to do all jobs, but if the Tesco workers resigned & went for better paid work, wages at Tesco would have to increase. The problem we have is too many people willing to work for very little money, as they have few qualifications & choices, and the government willing to allow employers to get away with paying peanuts because of top up benefits

my kids are teenagers. Living on your financial arse is nothing new when it comes to early years childcare.

However, it IS a short term problem whether it feels like it or not and government subsidy is a hell of a lot more generous now than it was then, whether it feels like it or not. We went at least a year taking money OUT of savings each month so I could afford to go to work and pay for childcare. The benefits of doing this have come later in life when my career didn’t stall and it’s a choice around to work or not that every single parent makes.

A choice.

You have other options but this is your considered path and that’s good. Absolutely your prerogative.

Others aren’t fortunate to have those sort of choices and that is where those of us with some money should come in if we are a civilised society - to ensure those that for whatever reason don’t have choices in health, education, housing etc have it to a decent standard and aren’t penalised for drawing a short straw in life.

If we get it right then there are wider societal benefits including a more engaged workforce, less crime and more people fit to work which brings in more tax receipts and allows the government to drop tax requirements back down

We don’t have that right yet either, mind you.

oh. And I still earn loads less than you. And live in London.

I don't abuse my spouse or my kids so that's two for two in my court.

The only way not to feel bitter OP is to look at your current situation as an investment for your future.

I have, and never will earn what you are but I've been in the situation of working FT with two children under 4 becoming a single mum with no help at all. It was very hard, exhausting, and when I realised that my friend in the same situation but on benefits was financially no worse of than I, it was heartbreaking.

20 years later and I wouldn't trade me life for hers. She now wishes she'd stick to her job and made it work.

You never know what the future will bring and indeed, you might make many sacrifices that ended up amounting to nothing, but in all likelihood, you will see the huge benefits of sticking to your paid job in a few years that will fly by. If you focus your mind on this rather than what is being taken from you despite all the sacrifices you are currently making, you will feel much more at peace with the choices you've made so far to be where you are.

@increasinglyconcerned you have over 6k monthly income... 2 kids at the same time in nursery will be a maximum of 2.5 years... that's nothing in the grand scheme of things. Or you could get a nanny, which is probably cheaper than 4k.
You earn enough money to have options.
Including building up savings before having DC to soften the blow or paying into a pension to reduce tax payments- for now.
Plus, with DC that young, I would think that there is a 2nd person either able to look after them or bringing in another wage.

Many more people are living from hand to mouth, they earn to much for top up benefits but to little to be financially comfortable. Yes they get a few hours free childcare - term time only. Most nurseries charge a top up fee so some are screwed and work for the nursery fees for a few years!
If they are lucky enough to be home owners, they have to watch the intrest rates carefully, if not (as many are) they will be at the mercy of rent increases. They are the ones who should be worried about taxes raising, because they have no options.

Ananhop that I don't disagree with. If you work you should be able to afford a standard of living off your wages alone. Totally agree.

What I disagree with is that someone working in Tesco's is unmotivated or not career driven. Because not everyone feels like climbing the ladder, or is smart enough to continue learning and developing. Some work there because the hours suit their husband's job which is long days or travel and some just like their jobs and that is no bad thing. It's ok to like your job even isn't high paying and we should stop this snobbery towards certain job roles.

A job is a job. But I do agree wages should be better in these roles so that benefits aren't the top up that's currently needed.

I was talking about people on benefits in general not the ones you "know".

Do you think people who are physically and mentally capable of working, and choose not to, have a right to have a home and family paid for by the state?

I don't. I'd rather see that money put to literally anything else. I literally know these people and have for 20 years. You must be extremely naive, sheltered, or never been around a scheme.

Do you think someone who has grifted their way into the job of a prime minister for five minutes, and made everyone in the country poorer to the tune of thousands should have an annual income higher than an average benefit payment for life?

I don’t. I would rather see that money put to literally anything else.

The whole idea of top-up benefits was so that people didn't end up staying on benefits because it gave them more than being in a job. Before they were brought in there was largely agreement that this was a sensible move.

Of course then many people decided that either the "top-up benefit" was making people lazy about getting extra hours or was allowing employers to get away with paying too little.

I actually don't have a problem with people being "selfish" about not paying tax - it's not like anyone is going to say "yippee, I'll be paying money". But how come people still think you can live a life of old riley on benefits when we see stories like this:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jul/25/families-affected-by-two-child-benefit-limit-more-likely-to-skip-meals#:~:text=Families%20hit%20by%20the%20two,children%

I think it's the same scenario as not liking inheritance tax - people are reluctant to admit that any of their financial well-being has to be 100% down to their own merit, rather than having an element of luck.

My partner and I are financially comfortable - and we have been sensible with our money - but an awful lot of it is due to being born at the right time and being able to have an affordable property and to build up some pension rights. If we'd been born twenty years later we couldn't have achieved this.

To the pp your earnings are their's and endless

No, and the two are not mutually exclusive.

This is an example of "whataboutism". Now we can be adults here and accept that not every person earning over £100k is an evil greedy capitalist, and not every person on benefits is a genuinely deserving person but that would require a bit of nuance.

I've answered yours so answer mine. Do you think people who are physically and mentally capable of working, who then choose not to work, have a right to a home and family paid for by the state?

Are you referring to me? Hahahaha. Quite comfortable through my own and DPs efforts, thanks. I have no interest whatever in that person's money.
I do have an interest in the welfare of the country.

It was an entirely valid point as you said you would LITERALLY prefer the money going anywhere else. This is somewhere else.

And no I believe people need to be supported properly to find work if they can work.

by the way, those who have a home paid for by their family and choose not to work also add nothing to the economy.

Yes. Of course you are championing someone else paying up more.

My personal thought is that it’s not an easy question to answer as if they have no children what they can claim benefits wise while not working wouldn’t fund a home in many areas. It would fund a room in a cheap shared house. If they go on to have children and they can claim a greater amount than they can as individuals then I’d think the key consideration is what their children need.
I feel like measures to try and get more people working with a stick approach are liable to be most punitive for the majority, who are claiming benefits out of necessity rather than choice & that the minority who cheat the system in some way or another or choose not to work would find other ways to do the same &/or might well decide it’s easier to shift to some criminal enterprise vs working. I also feel it’s just not the fault of whatever children people have that their parents are unable or unwilling to work for whatever reason & they’d be the ones to suffer the most if benefits were not available.

Plus UC does not cover the entire rent so people often have to make up the shortfall out of the rest of the benefits.

Unnecessarily rude response. Her point is clear - can’t you read?

Disagree.

Those who are independently wealthy and choose not to work are not a net drain on the economy. Independently wealthy people have wealth to spend and invest, and they do. And that's a whole other question about taxing wealth and resources.

Your unemployed person in a council flat is a drain. They do not contribute, have no investments, take out every month more than what they will ever pay in.

You can't compare the two. It's like comparing a SAHM married to a HNWI to a teenage mum on a scheme. Like, yeah they both don't work so they can take care of their kids - but one of them does it on her own family bill, and the teenage bird is doing it on our tab.

If they are just bankrolled to get by by their family they aren’t adding anything. Their parents are.

They can still be a “drain” (horrible word) on resources if they use any council or state run resources at all.

This group are small. But so is your feckless group in reality.

So you've identified the "problem" now whats your solution?

what would you do with this scrounging woman? how would you make her work? how would she access childcare? what would she do and how would she get to this job?

Living cheaply in shared housing is what plenty of individuals have to do. Pretty much anyone who has ever moved to a major city or has had some type of further education has lived in a shared housing situation. I did for many years while I established my career. Then had children after establishing my career in a stable relationship. I didn't get to my first flat and think "well this is crap, I better have a kid and start claiming benefits".

Honestly, it just sounds incredibly entitled -especially given the high tax rate I pay because I made good choices and other people haven't.