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.

The biggest issue is the fact that full time work for far too many people doesn’t provide them with enough money to pay all their bills or have a decent enough standard of living. So the government tops up people’s wages with tax credits. Which is madness.

I don’t blame anyone for claiming what they can but until there is a proper living wage, and yes more for people living in the SE, I don’t see how things will ever change. But then you have businesses claiming they can’t possibly afford to pay any one more than a measly £12 an hour, which is approx £2000 a month. Which would have been fine 10 or 15 years ago but it definitely isn’t now. Unless you live in a very cheap part of the country.

So until work pays, there is little motivation to increase hours or move up the career ladder. Because as soon as you get a decent income it’s heavily taxed so people try to avoid falling into the high income tax bracket. And therefore relying on the government to fill the gaps is the easier option.

We are a country full of people that expect government help.. I think it’s an important part of civil society but I also think there is a danger of dependency and an expectation that others should have to be the ones to bear the brunt of any redress that’s needed, and this is usually anyone but me. As we saw with the push back about winter fuel and Pip.

I don't think OP would be in the top 1% of earners if she had spent her working life sitting on her backside waiting for everything to come to her!!

Well said, @Iclyn.

Im so sorry you’re in that position though - I am too, but fortunately have my DH’s (private) pension to help out with the costs of living.
Best wishes to you for a decent day today x

Don't let facts get in the way of a good moan!! 😂

No wonder @Taxed didn't want to share their source!

She absolutely could. Earning money is not the same as being paid.

I was talking to a group of people lately, some of whom were from South American countries and I was bemoaning something similar. They pointed out to me the massive rise in social insecurity and particularly crime in countries where there is no safety net. If we had a harsher system, you wouldn't necessarily get what you want. There may be some lazy people who want to play the system. They wouldn't automatically become net contributors if the system changed.

'Centre Right' 🙄

The private sector workers fund them though. TBF.

I am aware but the way we speak about it matters.
The birth rate shows men and women are not spending their lives having children.

Oh, we know why you won't break the stats down. Because doing so will demonstrate you are peddling bullshit.

Well, not extreme right is what I mean! But not left wing.

And benefits by their work.

Public sector workers pay tax.

And the private sector benefits from much of their labour (for example we employ graduates.)

The private sector is also subsidised in the form of universal credits so the public sector subsidises low wages in the private sector.

How many more of these benefit bashing threads are we going to get?

Yes but the private sector pays for the public sector.

Unless you know the posters circumstances your answer is spectacularly clueless - and rather crass, if I’m honest.

I knew it would be the Adam Smith stats that included all public sector workers 🤣

OP, if you had posted “shall we abolish the NHS and kill off pensioners?” you would have had your arse handed to you.

Yes but the public sector does not generate wealth. The private sector does.

I'm not complaining about it btw. Just trying to work out the 52%.

Well OP is sitting on his/her backside posting lies on SM. Perhaps that pays well?

And the public sector pays tax too.

It doesn't generate wealth though. It spends wealth.

I think her answer was crass too 🤷‍♀️

Using education as an example, the public sector generates wealth.

Not one you would appear to acknowledge, but there it is.

Figures about the proportion of people who are net contributors are pretty meaningless without a breakdown by age. The average person is far more likely to be a net contributor at working age (when they have a higher income and so pay less tax, and less likely to have significant health issues) and far less likely in old age (when they will likely have a lower income and greater need for healthcare and other services.

Feeling frustrated about being a net contributor at age 49 therefore misses the point - most people at that age will be. Similarly the vast majority of the very elderly will be recipients, not because they're work-shy bastards but because these figures are a snapshot of contributing/receiving at a given point in time. Most of us will have points in life when we are net contributors and points in life when we are net recipients. That goes for higher earners as well (and things like PMI are misleading here- you're far more likely to have this when you are working age which is also the point at which you're least likely to need it. Not many 90yos in BUPA.)

All of that said, the UK does have substantial problems with productivity and reliance on state support among working age people, which need to be addressed (especially given the birth rate and ageing population). They're just not really captured in OP's figures.