Anyone else lost a bit of ambition now they’ve been taxed to the brink?

[Peasontoastt]

I used to be extremely ambitious and was really eager to reach some sort of financial security. As a consequence, I’m in what’s considered a highly paid career, I work hard and it took me many years to train.

Just as I paid off my student loan (which took many years), I then had a baby and returned to work to be stuck with the childcare dilemma. I struggled through that phase and have come out the other side but being taxed so much, no child benefit, still paying for nursery even though dd has ‘free’ hours now. It’s likely that savings are going to be bashed next, so what’s the point in even putting anything aside when there’s likely going to be a 4K cap on ISAs.

I used to feel so ambitious and of course I know money isn’t everything, not by a long shot. But having worked my way up the ladder and with huge responsibilities only to feel penalised financially for doing so…what is the point? Yes I have more financial security than someone claiming benefits but equally, I am not being flippant when I say a few years of resting and being at home and being frugal is starting to seem so much more attractive. Has anyone else started feeling this way? I feel taken the piss out of by every financial angle!

@Gagcaa
Crikey you can’t think of any? Perhaps your highly paid husband can think of some if you can’t. I was talking about roles rather than individuals, if that helps. But I get you - you think people in jobs society and companies need but don’t happen to command big wages should just work two or more jobs to make ends meet. Which many already do. I disagree.

I think salary differential could be better, especially for those on waaayyy more than 100k, do they really need so much when even a modest drop would help reduce government subsidies and increase the salaries of those who contribute to making money for them (who I bet they can’t do without)?

Is that genuine? You really can't think of anyone who is not paid well but is also essential? Fucking hell.

No on should have to work more than 40 hours to make ends meet. A work life balance is vital. We work to live, not live to work

Actually, seeing the above IFS paper, motivated me to look up the 2025 figures from the government. 7.5 m people are in receipt of universal credit. Almost two thirds of these are not in any type of work. Only 1.4 m of these are in work with no requirements, which I understand covers those that earn the 18 hour living wage equivalent, or are on maternity etc.

So this is a huge number of people in receipt of benefits and either not working or working minimally

Do you reckon all those on NMW are needed and that If benefits weren’t available those lowest salaries would go up? I find it wrong that the CEOs golf days or whatever are effectively being subsidised from the public purse, which is effectively what’s happening here.

Do you have dependants?

No, I don’t think they would.

Payment from other sources, like benefits, don’t come into our salary discussions. It’s not even something we consider. They’re also in roles that (from a business perspective) are more replaceable.

That doesn’t mean that the work they do isn’t valuable to us, because it is, but those vacancies can be filled multiple times over by others on NMW.

Where staff have been in real difficulty, I have submitted pay reviews for them, or looked at ways they can pick up extra responsibilities to earn more.

One of them, for example, is moving into a role in September that has a commission element where hers doesn’t now, which gives her the opportunity to build her earnings somewhat.

But I don’t envisage external factors such as childcare costs, UC top ups etc, coming into our salary structure as some sort of widespread change.

Yeah we have DC.

Do you think you could be a single parent and manage to work 80 hours a week?

Would you like to correct your post?

So you are being bankrolled by your DH.
Some people do not have a high earning DH so rely on benefits.
You are no different to people who do that. You are just putting your hand out to someone else.

But again, this is not the same. As a family unit they earn enough to support themselves and to be net contributors.

Someone in receipt of benefits is a net beneficiary.

Theres no point conflating these two things - they’re completely different in the context of the discussion

The welfare class now have the PM hostage via their representatives in parliament. Outrageously, they have accepted that there will not even be a slight saving on welfare payments, this despite every man and his dog knowing there's widespread abuse and fraud.

The only reason they won't tackle benefit abuse is because the people who benefit from it won't vote for them otherwise.

Money for votes.

Now it's almost certain more money will be taken from other people to finance this via the tax system.

PP works PT, is bankrolled by her DH, and is telling people that work full time on NMW that they can't be essential as she can't think of anything essential that pays poorly... that they should just get another job if they are struggling to live.
It is hypocritical. Ivory tower, and all that.

What kind of person is not paid very well but is essential? I can't think of anyone?

If they all went on strike you’d be able to think of plenty.

But the proposals were not about tackling benefit fraud... it was about reducing benefits and eligibility for the people who need it.
Fraud should always be tackled.

I realise that - the net result is the same.

An illuminating graphic for you all.

I don't rely on the state at all. This is a family decision. I worked for a few years but then when my eldest was born I stayed at home to raise my lovely DC and I now work PT.

I've been with DH for a very long time. He's been through very tough times, but he worked very very hard. I feel DH deserves to be rewarded for the fruits of his labour.

I've always told my DC to work hard at school, to study well at university and for them to have long term goals as to what they want to do in life.

Agree

Indeed 😮 May I ask the source?

If you had no DH, could you afford to work part time? Would you be getting a UC top up?

It just seems really hypocritical of you to tell people on NMW to work even more... when you do not have to because of your DH.

It seems only a financial disaster and IMF bailout situation will catalyse a turnaround in this country's attitude towards public finances and government spending.

No number of warnings, comparisons to history or headlines seem to change anything. The fact the Labour party couldn't even remove £5bn from a £200bn+ welfare bill over 5 years the other day was all the evidence you needed to see.

Further tax rises and more welfare announcements will accelerate this eventuality which is perhaps a good thing…

Wouldn’t it be lovely if HMRC collected just a fraction of the tax evaded and avoided while also fining the culprits?

Thank you. My DH works a lot more than 40 hours a week. Often works weekends and has calls with people all around the globe.

He even had to work on our family holiday this summer. Got pulled into multiple meetings and just had to go back to the laptop.

Closing tax loopholes would raise 7bn.

means testing state pension (50%) of the welfare bill, winter fuel payment, automatic free bus passes, would add more money.