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.

To generate future wealth.

Yes and the public service workers help the country function that in turn helps the private workers do their jobs.

Private workers don’t live in isolation and need society just as much as anyone else. They are not special money making people who are superior to public service workers.

The public sector pays taxes and UC which subsidises the private sector.

Taxation funds public services. By definition.

It doesn't generate actual money though. The public sector (wages etc) s paid for by the private sector. So needs to live within it's means or at least within the amount of wealth that the private sector can generate.

If you got rid of the private sector, what do you think would happen to all the public sector services that people provide?

Actually come to think of it we have a few examples in history of that happening.

Where do you think you’re going to go that doesn’t have the same moaning talking points? Most places have a social system that needs to be paid in to. If you want to go to a country like the UAE for low taxes then you’re sacrificing your rights for money. Stop worrying what people are thinking about you. You’re very well off, just enjoy your life and if you don’t earn enough to be comfortable have you considered working harder?

How would that work?

Four-day week for schools?

To be fair, you are very much focusing on yourself, so why do you expect anything different from the replies? You want to run away, you think the grass is greener elsewhere, you don’t want to stay in the UK to be involved in any potential change to deal with the situation, you don’t think there is anything in it for you to stay here, you think it’s downhill all the way from now on, you think the same doesn’t apply in the US. If you have no sense of belonging, loyalty, love, obligation, hope or optimism, what do you expect Mumsnet posters to do about it (other than ask you to stop whingeing and sounding sorry for yourself)?

Looking round the world, it seems to me that every country has wealthy, successful people and less successful people and poor people, so your desire to escape from a country where you claim to be a successful person already just comes across as sour grapes, and your view of other people’s opinion of your success as deeply paranoid. If you think there is nothing left worth defending in the UK, want to take a punt on the US, are confident you will not only be welcomed but also allowed to stay there forever, regardless of your subsequent circumstances and the fact of the place of your birth, then go ahead. If that turns out to be a busted flush, too, and is another country you would not be willing to defend when the chips were down, then keep an eye out for the next replacement superpower and whether you would be happy to live there, instead. Do you fancy moving to China?

No point. The government will just take the extra tax and pay it to the people needing support in the hotels.

Well if we go bust because Labour have killed the golden goose by their rubbish economic policies on work provision then maybe we will be forced into that. We can only afford what we can afford.

We don’t have a 100% tax bracket so just keep working harder until you have enough money surely?

Agree. It’s depressing how often this is dragged out on benefit bashing threads. Allow me to refresh it for them, and for anyone else falling for this ableist nonsense.

Motability is a scheme which has been running since the 1980s. It leases vehicles to the most severely disabled people who qualify for the higher rate mobility component of personal independence payment - a disability benefit, which despite MN’s distorted opinion is one of the hardest benefits to claim. The mobility allowance incorporated into the various disability benefits since then - most recently PIP and child DLA, replaced the system of vehicles provided for the disabled - blue three wheel robin reliant type jobs which meant the driver went everywhere alone and was identifiable as disabled. The vehicles were unreliable, costly to provide and maintain and isolated the drivers.

The tax payer has no input into the provision of motability cars beyond the usual disability exemptions which would also apply to eligible disabled people buying a car privately - VED, VAT exemption and where appropriate import duty. The cars are bought and paid for by motability, which is a private concern overseen by the motability charity which provides funding for adaptations and other essentials for those who would otherwise not be able to meet the advance costs - it’s strictly controlled.

The lease is over three years or five, depending on the cost and extent of the adaptations needed - for example ramps for wheelchairs, alternative driving controls. It includes servicing, maintenance/repairs and insurance. And it’s paid for by the claimant handing over most or all of their mobility component for the lease period. At no point is the car ever the property of the claimant and it’s handed back at the end of the lease period and sold on by motability.

It’s important to remember that the higher rate mobility component is paid to all eligible claimants, regardless of whether they use the scheme or not, so it’s not costing the tax payer any more for any claimant who does use it. Currently 37% of PIP claimants are higher rate mobility recipients, and only 36% of those recipients use the scheme - many aren’t eligible because they don’t have the minimum three year benefit award needed to meet the terms and conditions of the scheme. Oh, and motability doesn’t account for a quarter of the new car market - it’s actually below one fifth.

So before anyone starts banging on about ‘free cars’ they would do well to ask themselves whether it’s just the provision of the cars they object to, or the allowance itself. Because in my experience of over twenty years as a disability outreach worker, most people who aren’t familiar with how these things work will say they’re in favour of the mobility allowance, but not the provision of a car even when it’s pointed it to them that the car isn’t costing any more to the tax payer than the payment of the qualifying benefit. Which is totally illogical and highly suggestive of envy. So do you also envy the disability or is it just the ‘free car’ ? Because without the former, the latter doesn’t happen.

CBA to go look for the ONS data because I know they'll say the same but the Adam Smith Institute figures include public sector employees, state pension recipients, higher education employees, and students in higher education.
State Reliance Index — Adam Smith Institute

You say you're a high earner OP? But you're incapable of accurately interpreting a very simple pie chart? 😂

Well I prefer us to look after our own first, personally. Rather than the Mauritians. Who I understand have had a nice tax break thanks to the UK taxpayer.

The UK tax gap is over £45billion. Hotels for asylum seekers costs a tenth of that number. So you would be far better off focussing your anger at tax dodgers

And if we got rid of the public sector, what would happen to the private sector? With no education system, no roads, no police, no justice system, no financial regulation, no social care, no public healthcare… Leaving aside the bank bailouts, water company bailouts, house building subsidies, and all the other direct funding the private sector gets from the state.

There have been examples of states collapsing too (Sudan being an obvious example), these are not places you would want to live.

What golden goose is that?

The public sector educates the private sector’s workers, keeps them healthy and alive and provides things like roads and transport infrastructure to keep business going. Good luck running your private sector without any of that.

So this is just a ridiculous post then. You're skewing the statistics to create your own narrative and are unwilling to break them down as you know it will paint quite a different picture.

By all means leave, I am not sure that moving to a country like the US that would rather have it's poor, old and sick bankrupt and on the streets rather than helping them is quite the marvellous thing you think it is.

https://www.adamsmith.org/press-releases/over-half-of-brits-reliant-on-state-for-their-income

Golden goose ???!!!

What's the problem? 😂

OP, I don't know your personal situation, but for example in Prague, one of the richest cities in Europe, you would live like a King, without certain restrictions on your money and free speech.
Obviously plenty of other options.

A tenth of £45billion seems rather a lot for taxpayers to be forking out for strangers in preference to our own vulnerable. But I'm not Keir Starmer (luckily) and I'm not aiming to cut a dash on the world stage as a do-gooder for the benefit of the world's diaspora rather than my own population.

I think if you got rid of the private sector society would be a shit show.

I think if you got rid of the public sector society would be a shit show.

They co-exist and both rely on each other. And I say that as somebody who has never worked in the public sector.