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.

Not sure I agree with the term ‘dependent’. It depends very much on why they’re paying such low wages. To my mind, this is where the shake up of the benefits system needs to be concentrated.

Large scale employers can seemingly pay themselves big bonuses, and generous dividends to their shareholders, and still get away with paying wages their employees can’t live on - thereby passing off large chunks of their wage bills to the tax payer via UC top ups.

Similarly wealthy landlords have bought up previously affordable properties for buy to let and hiked the rents - also supported through the housing element of UC as they would otherwise be unaffordable. Better regulation of both would go a long way to reducing the benefit bill.

The figure of 1000 a day is distorted because it doesn’t take into account the numbers coming off PIP at review or change of circumstance which go some way towards balancing things out.

The cost also pales into comparison to that of the independent appeals tribunals needed because the quality of the decision making is so bad that this is the only way many genuinely disabled people can get a fair decision. Given that the provision of disability benefits is enshrined in law, it makes sense to have a robust and fair system so rather than concentrating on damaging cuts, the focus should be on reducing the need for appeals by ensuring better quality decisions. That alone would save a fortune for the tax payer.

As previously mentioned, the way figures are presented by government is intended to maximise support for cuts. There are not masses of people abusing the system. The DWP’s own figures bear that out - fraud and error is low in the disability benefit system. And your argument that cuts are needed to avoid hurting and penalising genuinely disabled people doesn’t stand up in the face of the cuts that are being proposed, which will inevitably impact genuine claimants the most - in fact they will impact the more severely disabled people because they cost the most to support.

There you go, more word salad you won’t bother reading.

I think that’s absolutely the point - many of us are being clobbered in the face of deteriorating public services.

Let her/him answer rather than you make assumptions.

Low wages are hardly surprising if more and more low skilled people come here to work. It's bound to affect the amount everyone is paid. Businesses will just react to what is in front of them.

Obviously, as someone has already posted, more people means more housing demand and higher rents. Solve the numbers issue and things might improve.

No, the point of the post was that once you are comfortably off and can afford the things you want and need, why should you object to paying more taxes to support the rest of society. Where those taxes actually go is obviously relevant, but not approving of how government spends money is not an excuse for not paying your share.

I don’t disagree with you about reducing the numbers but l think that’s only part of the problem. And the main problem is the majority of the real wealth being in the hands of the elite few, who are in control.

So still 1000 people a day going onto PIP. And disability benefits of £65b a year today expected to rise to £100b by 2030, almost as much as education spending. And that’s just the disability benefits. A gravy train and an affront to those paying for this racket. Unfortunately the minority of genuinely disabled people will suffer because of the majority.

There you go. That’s how you do facts, without a word salad that doesn’t actually say much.

So still no facts then. You could just say that. It’s be easier than pretending.

Yes agreed..but it's a start. We need to just take a step back as a country and see what's what. At the moment everything is distorted because of the sudden rocketing population.

That’s an interesting way to describe people who know their facts and can express them clearly. Anyone would think you’d rather fling around playground insults than hear any perspectives you don’t agree with. Oh, but hang on a minute…

Still waiting for facts rather than something or other nonsense.

Links + explanations = facts.

Do try it.

You got the facts. You just don’t like them.

If you struggle to read and understand or google stuff, that’s on you. I’m sure a bit of practice can fix that.

Still waiting….

Says the person badgering other mumsnetters for facts. Thanks pp, I needed a laugh today. (Hope that wasn't too many words btw.)

I will tell you why.

It’s not for you to decide what is the correct ‘share’. In real terms, I pay an enormous amount of tax, and have done for decades. You should be thanking me, or remaining silent, at least. That would be polite.

A government is democratically elected, and gets to implement tax policy. It is my prerogative to mitigate my tax exposure, including the ultimate sanction of leaving this tax jurisdiction. Many of us are at this stage (or beyond).

Do not even think about lecturing me on morality.

Good luck @Jennps ….

Of course it matters if it includes public sector employees! The public sector is rightfully huge.

And tbh I had thought the net contributors would be lower. The stats normally take into account things like use of the NHS and other public services. So most people with a disability or chronic health condition is often a net recipient plus people on minimum wage or similar are usually net recipients as they pay much less tax. That’s a lot of people! I think looking at this as a percentage of the population isn’t massively helpful tbh, it’s always going to look bad as there are always more lower paid people than higher paid people.

Do we know how this percentage has changed over the years? It might be a more interesting/useful to use it as a comparator?

If it’s not for the pp to decide what is the correct share, what do you think the correct share should be? Proportionate to salary, obviously.

Interesting that you single out salary.

Not everyone is PAYE. Income can be derived from dividends, credit interest, capital gains etc.

There is an inevitably an inflection point, beyond which people will look to mitigate their tax exposure - cutting hours, reducing income, disposing of assets, early retirement etc.

Earn between 100-125k and you face a nominal rate of tax of 60% odd - do you consider that to be reasonable?

The PP is naive to think that higher earners will allow themselves to be continually soaked - they will not.

That doesn't answer my question. I take your point re salary so I'll rephrase it. What do you consider a fair tax for the wealthy?

Your questions are either deliberately skewed, or they display a fundamental lack of understanding.

Define ‘wealthy’.

Edit: nor did you answer my question, incidentally.

Wow.

The entitlement is strong in this one.

The conviction and belief is much, much stronger.