Not an ordinary working person if you earn over 45k

[TesChique]

Disincentivising anyone to strive to earn over 45k a year is a bizarre strategy for growth i feel

Aibu?

Graduate programs are expensive. It takes a lot of time from senior employees to bring a fresher up to speed. It's not that employers aren't willing, they can't afford it mostly. Remember, those experienced senior people are squeezed as well.
And yes, there is significant devaluation of degrees as well.

You seem to have an incredibly naive and simpistic view. Do you work?

Ha didn't take you long to resort to the insults and put downs did it?

So typical of the right wing.

Pot. Kettle.
You have happily been throwing tory/right wing insults around all thread.
You will realise that the majority are now opposed to Labour, even an ex-Labour spokesman today has said he wouldn't vote Labour 😆 its rats leaving the ship at this point.

I do think we are better, yes.

We are already paying the vast majority of taxes in the UK. The Labour philosophy is the typical take money from those that work hard and give it to those that don't. We pay enough taxes.

Education is fine all my kids went to a good state grammar and then on to top unis. Health has always been shit. The NHS is a state-run mess and a waste of money. We're with BUPA thankfully.

The problem is that earning £45000 is not earning a lot these days. At all!
That is the sad reality. It is a good wage in most parts of UK. Not a " I am rollibg on it" wage. And it is very much a workers wage these days.

Inflation pre election inflation was at a high of 12%, its 3.8% now, the lows of 2.4% wasn't sustainable according to Andrew Bailey.

This spike in inflation was not driven by pay rises was it?

Its funny you go to great lengths to explain company payroll budgets but then say those who work PT should lose UC and work FT instead... i assume you realise companies will either not have the budget/work for this OR they'll get rid of another PT worker?

Then there will be the increase in child poverty, which costs more in the longer term

How exactly is cutting money going into the local economy, putting PT workers on dole and more children into poverty boosting growth?

Yet you have the nerve to call the pp simplistic.

Which makes me wonder why don't labour just do the vote winner and go after "millionaires and billionaires"?

Quite, we've low productivity because workers get paid peanuts, working hard to stay poor and struggle.

Someone on NMW will be paying in rent 50% to 75% of their take home wage in most parts of the UK.

Because they are much better placed to emigrate and mitigate.

They might, but on assets here and unearned income.

It would not raise anything close to what they need, and would be largely symbolic.

But surely someone only working PT and in the receipt of universal credit should be striving to find full time employment? Or maybe getting another job to make you the hours. If you're broke then surely you'd do anything. Maybe Uber, Uber eats, deliveroo. Try and use the gig economy to get something extra?

Not as far as the. Hmrc are concerned. People are taxed individually.

Perhaps thats possible but maybe they have caring responsibilities? childcare - only available during core hours... an ill parent etc.

But at the end of the day, there are only so many jobs available.

Then there is the "effective" tax rate if you do extra work, its around 63% i believe.

I'm not saying people shouldn't go FT where they can, of course they should but its not always possible...
i doubt the PT workers i knew, could then hop on an E bike in the evenings and deliver pizza's.

I asked my DD why so many in her NHS team are PT, around 50%, she said its childcare, stress of caring for people and dealing with families who quite often are not nice.

For someone who's not a working person, I seem to spend a lot of my time at my place of employment, I'm honestly not surprised anymore at the utter shite Labour and it's acolytes come up with these days, so meh.

Not everyone can. I certainly don't qualify for any help earning around 16k. No top ups for many people

I dont actually need it but that's by the by

Let's try again.

You cut welfare bill drastically means you reduce deficit means your debt becomes cheaper to service. It's 100bn pa of interest alone IIRC? so here's your savings immediately.
In parallel you reduce tax, employers NIC is the first one, you get rid of cliff edges so businesses start investing and those high fliers which we have (had) plenty of actually chose to stay here rather than move to Dubai/Italy etc. It really is simple.

Well yes, for tax purposes it's everybody for themselves.

If, however, the poster wanted to apply for UC because she's only working part time, then her husband's earnings will be counted as joint income.

How is that fair?

It isn't at all. I don't make nor agree with that rule.

Mind you if they did treat income separately there would loads of sahm with fairly well earning husbands claiming benefits for themselves when they don't actually need it

Not sure what the answer is

Thatb single parent is going to get about 1000gbp a month at least in benefits though. So not badly off at all

Thinking about it - what Labor are doing is getting rid of middle classes. Not uber rich, they can't do anything about the likes of Musk, Zuck, Besos etc. These ones control SM means our data and largely can influence opinions of majority of population.

Poor people tend to vote for far right (please don't start fight, it's stats) which works really nicely for those truly rich. So instead of trying to grow middle class Labor are giving the country away to Farage. How stupid

They will be eligible for benefits, to the tune of about 12000 a year, not too shabby really!

But this is the crazy thing.

They qualify for benefits because their income is too low, so let’s tax them more because they earn too much.

Make it make sense!

If we were to divorce (which we won't) don't I get 50% of the martial assets etc? 50% of the pension?