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.

Well looking ahead if they don't die at 68 they'll be retiring at 74 if we don't grasp the mettle

If you are in the top 1% of earners and feel there is no hope you must be depressed. See a GP.

Really? Which higher rate tax bracket are you referring to and what rate should it be?

What a terrible comment to make, and hugely disrespectful towards those with genuine MH issues, as well as the OP.

Shameful.

They keep saying we live in a global village. Two of mine wound up in careers that took them overseas. We missed them terribly. Face time Etc helped a lot though. We also got to visit them overseas. I'd never hold anyone back from living abroad. My brother lives in Kunming. It's absolutely beautiful there.

Why don't you move to the USA and support Trump? He doesn't care about the vulnerability, the sick, disabled, homeless. There's no safety net there and the well off are safe.

You really believe the safety net is working here?

Funny how the rich think it's fine to leave for a country with better prospects but resent those who come to Britain for the same reason.

I've been paying higher rate taxes for over 20 years, so it's never affected me. And if you're so concerned about people earning less money who might be affected, perhaps turn your attention to those who earn very little. They don't even get sick pay or maternity pay.

Maybe try looking up the relative definitions of socialism and communism and decide for yourself.

Not getting into the minutiae of an economic argument on this thread.

Yes I do but it could certainly work better.

The 'rich' won't be rocking up to another country expecting financial support though will they? They'll be fully supporting themselves from the off.

It’s not the best idea, plus it’s always tax someone else more on these threads.

Very true.

Maybe if salaries were higher for important but lower paid jobs, maybe fewer people would be net takers. Maybe if we taxed assets more rather than income, fewer people would be net takers. I feel sorry for people who work hard on nmw when they see benefit claimants not only taking home more money but having access to free prescriptions, council tax discounts etc.

Yes, I believe this poster is Jewish.

So which category would you place those who aren't paid enough to survive without UC into, out of interest? Would you accuse them of treating benefits as 'a way of life' too?

And actually, if a person is paying into a benefits system such as the UK's, they absolutely are owed something if they come to need it. That's kind of the whole point of the system.

9500 left last year - 0.3% of the total millionaires that live here (over 3million).
Three people in my organisation have left, 2 for the UAE and 1 to America - all millionaires. Their roles and salaries were taken by people in their teams and 3 new jobs created for people outside our organisation. So the net tax loss was zero. Net gain to UK plc from the stamp duty on their homes though was net positive. Now I appreciate that this isn’t always the case. For anyone truly interested in how we fix the issue of inequality in the UK - Gary Stephenson has some workable answers (Garys Economics). His policies would adversely affect me financially and yet I fully support them. The Global World Happiness index is much higher in countries with high tax and low inequality. I would rather live in a country where wealth is not the only measure of success, and where we value societal contribution as a whole.

Maybe you just outline what you think was wrong with my statement? You're the one questioning it, after all.

You don't really know, do you.

Incidentally I didn't make it up myself. It's a fairly well known comparison.

The UK can't afford it though. So that's the.problem. We aren't guaranteed to always be a solvent country. Look at Greece.

The irony of the OP screeching at everyone for “not getting it” when she is wilfully either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the figures.

The so-called 52% are not “dependent” on the state in the way OP implies. Many of those are working in the public sector carrying out essential roles for our society. That’s not the government “supporting” them - it’s part of the essential cost of running the country. If they moved to the private sector, the government would have to employ someone else to do the same job.

Ditto for higher education institution employees.

None of those are “dependent on the state”. Ridiculous claim.

They are government costs, but that would have always been the case. Lumping them in with benefit claimants and pensioners skews the data heavily.

Yes, there is a problem with an ageing population but do you suggest we start culling people when they reach 70?!

Also what the figures don’t reflect is the extent of ££ that the imaginary 52% are reliant on the state. It doesn’t show the balance between revenues being collected and the amount paid in benefits and pensions. (I’m absolutely not including employees in the figures because that’s patently ridiculous.) In real monetary terms, what do we pay out and what is collected? That’s a far more interesting metric.

Pensioners who get £200 a week after being a net contributor for 50+ years aren’t “draining” the state.

Carers who work their arses off 24/7 looking after a sick relative for a paltry sum aren’t “draining the country” - they’re saving the government quite literally thousands in care fees, while struggling on about £150 carers allowance.

This country has been woefully mismanaged by the Tories who pissed money away on billion-pound scammy contracts for their pals. I can’t say I’m thrilled with Labour but at least there’s less corruption and backhanders using state money.

If you think you’d be happier elsewhere OP, then go. We are all captains of our own ship. But sneering at people you perceive are grifting off the state using heavily manipulated data is diabolical.

That doesn’t answer my question.

What’s beyond insane is that you would post something so unashamedly ableist without the slightest idea of what you’re talking about.

Motability is not funded by the tax payer. It’s a private concern overseen by the charity and sources and purchases the cars for the scheme in conjunction with car manufacturers. It’s only available to the most disabled claimants who get the higher rate mobility component of PIP or child DLA (around 37% of claimants), who also need to have a minimum three year benefit award.

Only 36% of those in receipt of the higher award use the scheme and the vehicle is funded by them handing over their mobility award for the duration of the lease. And the allowance is paid to all who are eligible regardless of whether they use the scheme or not - it doesn’t cost the tax payer any more in terms of benefit for claimants to use the scheme, so l’m at a loss to understand your objection. It comes across as envy - if that’s the case, do you also envy the disability ?

Oh, and motability isn’t responsible for a quarter of new car sales, as you stated. It’s just under a fifth, and those vehicles are then sold on into the used car market, and the proceeds go back into the scheme. Motability has existed for nearly forty years and has helped disabled people to stay mobile, independent, and to work. But don’t let that stop your inaccurate and mealy mouthed comments.

And a couple of final points. The mobility component of PIP is not paid for ADHD or in fact any mental health condition/learning disability unless it’s severe enough to affect mobility - which can either be physical or from the point of view of awareness of danger - or in conjunction with other physical disabilities. Neither is it payable for alcoholism. Alcoholism is not defined as a disability under the Equality Act 2010. Only the physical/mental disabilities caused by alcoholism can be considered as disabilities and therefore be considered for disability benefits if they are significant enough. It is not the disability itself that counts, it’s the effect on everyday living and mobility.

Here’s a definition for you:
Socialism is an economic and political system where the means of production are owned and controlled, at least in part, by the community as a whole, rather than by private individuals. It's characterized by social ownership, which can take various forms, including public, community, or cooperative ownership. Socialism is generally considered a left-wing ideology, and its core aim is to reduce inequalities and promote social welfare through collective control of resource.

If we had followed socialist principles we wouldn’t have sold off our oil and gas industries….and that would have led to us being in much better situation than we are currently in.

The answer is definitely not to let a workshy proven liar to run our country with low taxes for millionaires