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?

There's always been higher tax rates for those that earn more. It's not something new.

My family and your family we are both are self sufficient and are not reliant on the tax payer. We've never taken a single penny of benefits (not even child benefits)

Congrats on raising DC and maintaining a career. I didn't do that. Yes I shouldn't have been so snarky. My whole thing was at some point you need to take charge. If you're on a low wage, make a plan to upskill. Don't be on benefits forever, it should be a temporary stop gap until you're back on your own two feet.

My kids did get into a private school, we could have done it at a push (as scholarship) but we chose the state grammar and it was cheaper and offered the same (if not better) quality of education. I don't take state benefits at all. My main thing has all been about personal responsibility and wanting to keep what you earn. My main lesson (which I've imparted onto my kids) is to study hard at school, go to a good uni. Learn some good technical skills and soft skills. Plan for the future and strive to do your best.

Try being a single mom in London on £50k with v little help from other parent. I don't have another salary to rely on. At least most of you affected here have duel incomes.

Yeah and it sucks. Its also gone too far in this country. Higher earners will pay way more tax anyway proportionally. That should be enough IMO

I don't earn anywhere near that much with my two part-time jobs.

Does this mean that I'm a Povo?

But higher earners can afford to pay more. And even with paying a little bit more tax, they still earn a lot more than lower earners. Where is the problem?

The problem is that its unfair. Why shoud success be penalised? At this rate no ones going to bother with education, we could all just 'exist' why should the hard working/succcessful, even LUCKY! Have to bail everyone out it makes zero logical sense to me!

Those are good lessons. But you assume that the only people who learned them, that worked hard, that planned for the future, are people who earn a lot of money. That’s nonsense. Of course there are lazy people, but I guarantee there are lazy high paid ones too.

if you had your children in an NHS hospital, if you sent them to state school, if you or they have received vaccinations, cancer screening, or emergency medicine, or take regular medications, you’re benefiting from the state. So you don’t claim UC or child benefit, so what? You’ve taken what you’re entitled to - as has anyone else.

I don’t care how much you earn or what you spend it on, I don’t even care if you don’t want to pay more tax, but I find it grotesque that you’d openly say you think you’re better than people less wealthy than you. When you eventually retire to an India, no doubt you’ll pay others to drive you, clean and cook and eventually care for you. And think yourself above them. How grim.

There’s nothing in her comment that suggests not caring about the poor. she’s merely suggesting it’s crackers to disincentives economic success.

Someone earning £45K already pays about £6,500 income tax, £2,500 employee NI, probably a student loan of £1,700 and also £6,000 of employer NI. That’s £16,700 in tax. It’s already a more than half of their take home pay. That take home pay then has to cover all sorts of inescapable expenditure, including council tax (averaging £2,280 a year), elevated utility bills (the highest in the world do to net zero taxes and to allow energy companies to meet their obligations to subsidise the energy bills of poorer households), commuting costs (again there are schemes to help low income households with these). Many people feel they have nothing left after paying for essentials, despite working full-time in demanding professional careers.

Taxing over £45K? I read the link posted and it is rather confused.

However it is no longer owned by Rupert Murdoch who, despite his reputation, left it with a veneer of neutrality. Now owned by banks & venture capitalists.

Now presuming this based on some sort of rumour for most people the £45k will be after personal allowance and after national Insurance so we are talking about a gross income of £61k+ so less than 10% will pay more.

This leak/article is probably designed to put pressure on the government to protect the interests of those who earn considerably more. If the higher rate of tax was increased by a considerable amount from the current 45% then it would probably benefit the country by encouraging greater investment in companies than in consumption.

If the higher rate of tax was increased by a considerable amount from the current 45% then it would probably benefit the country by encouraging greater investment in companies than in consumption.

How exactly? how higher rate of personal tax would encourage greater investments in companies?
And what would happen if consumption reduced in the UK?

NHS band 6- after 18 years of hard slog- there are no band 7 jobs to speak of in my field in my local area. I earn £46k ish- I am in my overdraft for 90% of the month. I live in an ordinary semi, I live an ordinary life and I’m struggling! Oh, also still paying off my student loan ffs. This is bad news for me

Purely hypothesising before I get blasted - but I wonder if it’s influenced by civil servants basing this on civil servant salary bands? Above this level the grades get a bit more elitist in some depts. Those working at the 45k level can have a lot of responsibility/management demands and some CS depts can be a little out of touch with (reality) private sector equivalents, as they may think above 45k makes everyone senior management - not the case in the real world.

So it's not okay to want to keep your money? But it's okay to want to live of someone else's?

I haven’t got a single qualification to my name

however I was earning £50,000 by the time I turned 21.

doesn’t always concur.

That’s correct.

That's an anomaly in terms of the general population and puts you in the top 1% of U.K earners. I think it would put you in the top range of earners even today, but it's been a few years since I last looked this up.

The average UK salary is around £39,039.

Those on £45K and above are rich.

All these 6 figure earning MNs who WFH and claim they are so high up the tree they have very little to do each week must be eating their pearls.

Oh same thing that people earning over 100K were saying for years 🤣 with zero sympathy

ha ha

A person wouldn't be if they didn’t have kids.

My view however is. If you work, you are a working person. Irrespective of earnings.

Have I missed the budget being announced?

People on benefits - they keep making those more generous

the trouble is, to paraphrase Margaret Thatchers, they have already run out of other people’s money

You can tell how middle class and out of touch with Mumsnet is by some of the posts on here. So out of touch and clueless as to how the majority of the people in the UK live.

Inflation has eating away at earnings so much that I would agree that 45k today is obviously not what it was, even just comparing it to 2020.

However, the vast majority of jobs UK wide (not just the London bubble), are MUCH lower than this. I've seen so many job adverts expecting people to line manage at 28k or less, expecting people to be the heads of entire departments in the public sector for 40-45k.

Even some qualified people in the NHS start at around 25k.

Most jobs in my area don't exceed 30k without the job description being bonkers in terms of requirements.

They already pay a disproportionate large share of their taxes it's their money. Why not take all of it above a certain threshold? "They can do without it"

I heard there will be more Bands for council tax. She is also talking about slapping a tax on houses when sold £600K and above. If she does - supposing she is still Chancellor - it will stop people downsizing and putting family houses on the market.

She came in with the wrong attitude. Wasn't it her who said she was brought up in a single parent household with very little money and struggling? Did she think they were the only ones. or at least in a minority?

Perhaps she had a diet of 'Upstairs, Downstairs' and 'Downton Abbey' and thought people still lived like that.

I don't believe there are enough rich people to pay for those on benefits, and when she has finished with such as there are, they will be on benefits too.

The Russian revolution, with the same attitude took the palaces away from the nobility, but they were not large enough to give families even one room each, and once the nobility had been knocked off their perches, there were no factories, no investments in industry - and no work for anyone.

Did this barmy army of a government fail history and social history, or do they think they can make a go of it where Marx failed?