To think that there is no hope here?

[Taxed]

52.6% of UK individuals are reliant on the State (that is 35 million people). Only 47.4% are net contributors. How did we get here?

AIBU to think that the UK is now a declining economy that will never recover if this continues to be the case?

I am 49 and a high earner (just shy of the top 1%). My husband is also a high earner and we are thinking of leaving. We don't know where but we know we have to as the situation in the UK is getting worse not better. The only thing that is keeping us here is our son, who is still in secondary school. I am actively encouraging him to consider a future outside of the UK.

I genuinely feel that being ambitious and successful is not worth it in the UK. People hate you for it and want to see you penalised. They think that whatever you do to earn the money it must be easy and a breeze. That you are greedy and need to be made to pay for doing well. Just last week, I heard that the government might be thinking of implementing a charge, payable by high earners, to access the NHS. Everything is about taxing the already heavily taxed even more and few want to face up to the fact that this is unsustainable when you have most of your people relying on the State to live.

People complain about the immigrants but they make up a tiny proportion of 35 million.

I feel disliked for doing well and just can't see a future here and it is making me angry and sad. I believe in having a welfare state, in helping those who are in need but 52.6%? The country is on its knees when most of its people are in need. That is like a developing country not a developed and thriving economy.

Sorry for the long rant. I'm just tired, sad and have just about lost hope of enjoying life in the UK.

Where would you go?

How are you calculating that 52%? Because if it includes things like children’s free prescriptions or tax free childcare then I can understand the figure and think it doesn’t paint the picture you’ve set out.

I get a single person council tax rate. Does that make me 'reliant on the state'?

It’s bad.

DH and I are seriously considering moving to Israel. Even an active war zone seems safer and better than the UK right now for us.

😂 clueless

My DH and I both retired in our 50’s with public service pensions. Both pay tax. Are we considered reliant on the state because we have Government pensions?

We still work agency when we want to but not so much now as the general publics attitude and the violence in our sector has increased. We just live more frugally.

We are moving abroad when our DC finishes their medical degree. We’ve lived abroad before.

I don't think "they" want to penalise you for being a high earner. Perhaps you have no idea what it's like to earn an average wage or none at all? If you're in such a high earnings bracket why do you feel the need to keep it all to yourselves and why do you think you shouldn't have to pay for things? You probably have private health insurance anyway and faster access to medical treatment should you need it.

I agree. There are far too many people receiving state handouts for a myriad of reasons. But it is unsustainable unfortunately and, if we go bust, things will have to change. The government should get on with starting the process of reducing spending now. Starting with the triple lock pensions.

As regard people hating those that want to do well and penalising them for it, that's the Labour politics of envy. I pray that the Conservatives or Reform or someone(!) sorts themselves out by 2029 so we have a centre right alternative to this awful situation.

I think the post is meant to be heavily ironic.

Where is your source for these statistics? Because quite clearly 52% of working age adults are not unemployed. If, by ‘reliant on the state’ you are including things like child benefit, that’s a totally skewed statistic.

The unemployment rate in the UK is just shy of 5% (1.6 million working aged adults). Anyone else in ‘your’ figure is doing their best and needing some kind of top up to make ends meet (like the above single parent poster).

Wind your rich neck in! 🤬

Do feel free to set out your cancellations before you flounce.

It’s a sad day indeed when we assess the value of a person’s life based on their net contribution to the economy.

I would interrogate that data more thoroughly before making any decisions. In terms of ‘net contributions’ you need to calculate things like unpaid caring/child care and also public sector labour, huge amounts of which is unpaid.
If you believe that you will have a better life in a different country, of course you should go. This has happened many times throughout history and people successfully start again. Good luck.

Why should anyone else have the right to more of the OP's money? It's not the State's
Or yours. It's hers as earned by her. By working presumably.

I sympathise OP. We are advising our children to leave. You are right re the majority of working age being on benefits (52%), and if we add in pensioners and 16-17 Year olds, it means the vast MAJORITY of total voters will now be voting for tax rises on us, the minority who are net contributors.

But the 52% / 48% is just maths. Roughly half the population will be net “takers” and half will be net “contributors”. There will be slightly more takers than contributors because there is a minimum on what you can earn (0!) but no maximum.

It is also presumably based on averages. The average person costs the NHS £x per year etc. My dad has been a contributor for 40 years (high earner and now massive pension) but now has cancer and so is costing the NHS a fortune as they are attempting to cure him. If they manage to keep him alive for another 10 years though he will more than pay it back through tax on his pension.

It doesn’t surprise me one bit. We have been high earners but w kids in school and some serious ill health for 3 of us this year, I’m sure that even we (as a unit) are a drain right now. Kids always are. In my wider family (grandparents down to grandchildren), all pretty wealthy, I’d say that only 4 out of 15 are net contributors, BUT their contributions would in general pay for all of us.

How would you have it? If there are 9 people on very low incomes and 1 on a very high one, in what way is it wrong for the 1 to pay for the services for all? Esp, as is usually the case, if they depend in many ways on the cheap labour of the 9…

Yes it is sad. But if there are.more people taking out than putting in, it does become relevant to us all.

I'm sorry I had a life changing illness , can't work , and now get standard rate pip . My £73.90 a week must be an inconvenience to you .

Oh and I should add , I don't get anything else,as like you I have always worked , had paid off my mortgage , have ( diminishing ) savings so don't qualify for universal credit .

I would be a little more kinder if I were you , as the next time the " shit happens " axe falls on someone , it could be you .

I genuinely feel that being ambitious and successful is not worth it in the UK.
I agree. People who want to work hard and even get a second job are taxed heavily for it.

It is impossible to live on the majority of wages without state support. I'm apparently a higher rate tax payer and I still wouldn't be able to buy a first home on my salary if I was younger. Rent prices are even more insane. Most people don't even come close to affordability. What are people supposed to do when you could work two basic wage jobs and still not be able to afford the fundamentals of a home to live in. Claim UC as a top up because there's no choice.

For one, good luck finding somewhere with the freedom, the opportunities and the cultural life that the UK offers.

For two, not everyone remains reliant on the state all their life. I was reliant on tax credits for about 5 years when I was a single mum working FT and my kids were still in nursery and afterschool clubs. Once in secondary school, I became a net contributor, not even entitled to child benefit any longer because during that time, I managed to get promoted twice.

Many many of those in your statistics will be just I was.

A massive part of the calculation you are quoting is people who are reliant on state pension, especially older women. It doesn't necessarily indicate that they didn't contribute to the state earlier in their careers, it's just a sign of an ageing population.

Labour policies are leading to a steady (and predictable) increase in unemployment. So more people will get benefits, particularly young people who are the ones I feel sorriest for. I think reducing the voting age to 16 will backfire on Labour as a result. Young people voting Labour is not in their interests.

The majority of those people receiving state benefits are pensioners. Yes, there are far too many and they are living too long.

What do you suggest OP?