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!

Because

Rente increased to match.

Sorry picture didn't load. It was just a house price graph nothing dodgy.

Maybe we need to work on getting people to accept that having fewer holidays is necessary.

Re the point about avocados, holidays aren't that cheap surely even if they're cheaper than they were? Is it really the case that a young person having 5 or 6 holidays a year, with several being international, would surely at least have a deposit by the time they were in their 30s if they cut out four a year in their twenties? I'm wondering if a lot of these are hen and stagg dos that people feel they can't miss. I do have some sympathy - if your friends don't live near you there are fewer opportunities to connect and maintaining social connections is important. But at the same time I really feel that many people have no idea of the conditions many poorer and disabled people are being forced to live in.

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/171594/economics/crisis-in-uk-private-rented-sector-why-prices-likely-to-rise/#more-171594

TLDR it probably isn't your fault.

It's not about favouring the wealthy, it's about incentivising those who pay the most in and take the least out, to keep paying in to our tax system rather than take their money elsewhere. As if they all go we as a country will be absolutely stuffed.

Yes we would be.

But that still doesn’t answer the question.

If your suggestion is to lower higher/additional rate tax to 30% as an incentive for high earners, are you proposing a uniform reduction by the relevant percentage, or that others contribute the same same and only the highest earners receive a percentage reduction?

It's way cheaper even than 30 years ago (In my head 30 years ago is the 70s but really it's 1995.) though I think it got more expensive after COVID. But also they feel more normalised/expected. So if someone who works really hard, in a top tier job that they really fought to get into is unable to afford to fly out to their friends wedding in Mexico AND have their big family holiday that feels like a terrible thing. They miss a wedding. They thought they wouldn't be struggling for money when they got to this stage in their lives Etc
And even if they did forgo all holidays they would still have a big mortgage and childcare bill. So it's not even like they can make the choice between holidays or being mortgage free. Being in that position is a huge privilege. But it doesn't feel like it. Especially if on paper they actually did far better than their parents but their parents own a big house they had fully paid the mortgage on by age 40.
ots perception not reality. But people across the board vote for parties who make their lives feel better.

@Googlygogglygoo I do agree with your point about needing to increase support for people in terrible conditions. I would pay more tax to do so personally! But even that wont sort the underlying problems which are driving a sense of grievance/not being listened to that's so common. (It seems right now like everyone feels especially put upon. Everyone feels that people like them are being ignored on favour of other older groups. Which mathmatically can't be possible)

I couldn’t agree more. I’m not particularly mad at any demographic - just sick of being targeted as the ‘problem’ demographic.

The aging population situation is a worry though, particularly as we’re living longer (or being kept alive longer)

AI will render all work obsolete and everyone will get basic income apparently. And also we will become immortal and live in space.

So you fully support our ‘living wage’ being an ACTUAL living wage then? And you support a change to laws governing absent or barely involved parents (namely men) either paying 50% of the costs of raising theif child or go to prison?

Or you just want an even greater number of children being brought up in poverty than we already have? And the knock on effects of a childhood in poverty?

Did you go to state school?? Because if you did, I’m afraid you relied on the tax payer. Do you have kids? Do they go to state school? Relying on the tax payer. Use the road systems? Relying on the tax payer…..

Can we skip the second paragraph please? Immortality, let alone in space, is deeply unappealing.

Which poster?

Im simply pointing out that there are a lot of barriers to being able to access full time work particularly as a single parent. And mang employers are still pretty po faced about women and theif caring responsibilities.

The 80/week Mrs Ivory Tower blithely suggested if one cant make ends meet is beyond ridiculous.

the difference is that pensioners cannot work anymore, with rare exceptions. Most adults of working age, even with some disabilities, can. Not in jobs they'd like, but in some jobs.

So if you're called drain (assume you're on benefits?), you don't look at maximising your own income but trying to find a way to take from another category of people.

The 30% is just an illustration. What we need to do in reality is get rid of some of the cliff edge tax thresholds, so earning more means getting more at every pay level. Like many have mentioned, earning 101k leaves people with children worse off than those on 99k, which is ridiculous. Not make people ineligible for otherwise universal benefits due to their earnings. The cost of administering this means testing is often more than it saves - this was the argument with the WFA and why they put in such an arbitrary cut off, which they then did a U turn on.

Most of my friends and my parents' friends are in their mid 70s and would never qualify for PIP - they aren't anywhere near disabled enough. The government are trying to make the PIP test what determines whether you're allowed not to work and I don't think many people realise the implications. If they raise the pension age and you can make yourself a cup of tea occasioanlly, even if not every day, leave the house once a week, do an online shop etc then you will be considered fit for work and you may be forced to continue for as long as that remains. Unless of course you're in the elite and can afford to retire without the state pension which many high earners will be. In all honesty I think they will be forced to make people work longer and if they've succeeded in putting these tough rules in place, most people will be forced to continue more or less until they drop.

But lots of people on benefits of various kinds are working. If all the working people on benefits moved to jobs where the pay was high enough not to need benefits, a lot of essential things would stop working. We need some people to do the jobs that aren't well paid. We also need carers to work for well below minimum or the NHS would collapse. And I'm not a pronatalist, but ideally you want some people to have children which also turns a lot of families into a "net drain" on the country for a few years.

Yes, this!

But some people on this thread are saying that even if you are in one of these jobs that is NMW and essential (although they can't name a single job that is essential), if you can't pay the bills then you need to work even more.
Nevermind the fact that a lot of NMW are physical in nature... and working even more is just going to fuck your body up.

Only 35% of UC claimants are working.
Proportion of Universal Credit claimants in employment in England | LG Inform

There were 7.5 million people on Universal Credit in January 2025, up from 6.4 million people on Universal Credit in January 2024
Universal Credit statistics, 29 April 2013 to 9 January 2025 - GOV.UK

There hasn't been such massive inflation in the last 12 months to explain this by rising COL. It's 1.1m people more claiming!

UC replaced 6 different benefits. Someone could be just on one element of it (such as the child one) and still be in the UC statistics.

And the level of UC claimants is going up because people are being migrated to it.

Good point

This is incorrect. This stat is about UC specifically. Another bit of stats from the same source:

23.7 million people claimed some combination of DWP benefits in August 2024 (of the 17 benefits included in these statistics). Of these:

• 13.1 million were of State Pension Age (including those in receipt of their State Pension)
• 9.9 million were of Working Age
• 750,000 were under 16 (and in receipt of DLA as a child)

It's 9.9m which claim something, incl child benefit. My post above refers to UC claimants specifically.

Interesting stats on PIP, incl assessment process
1

Link looks strange, it's Scottish Gov doc.
Number of disability benefits recipients in the UK is dramatically higher than in Denmark, France, Norway, Sweden - all comparable countries.
"This research has found that extra costs benefits are uncommon in other countries. Indeed, in a New Policy Institute report for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, MacInnes et al (2014 – emphasis added) argue that, as far as they are aware: ‘no other European or OECD country […] makes such extensive use of a cash benefit to meet the additional costs of disability.’7 As a result, the sample of countries examined was necessarily constrained – including only countries with broadly comparable benefits. To this end, this report presents an examination of assessment for disability benefits in: Denmark, France, New Zealand, Norway, and Sweden. Even in countries where extra-costs disability benefits are offered, their reach is far more limited than in Scotland/UK (see Table 2)."

I’m afraid I’m unable to work more than 37.5 hours a week in a local authority. I have a child to look after.

Off you jog.

I think if you’re working full time, there isn’t much more you can do. And I don’t think anyone would resent benefits in that case. It’s more for those not working/working very part time, and claiming, but saying other earners must work full time or it’s depriving the HMRC and not making enough of a contribution.