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?

I have a young child. I don’t live in London though.

I asked for a source. If you haven’t got one then move on.

At what point do people have to take personal responsibility for their careers and salaries? I understand if disabled or kids are disabled but like on average.... When do you have to be like "okay this is my life and I'm the captain of my destiny"

Well, aren’t you lucky? Sadly, not everyone can hope to earn that much ever, let alone as a recent graduate. And those of us working for the government who SHOULD be on about 45k are actually on 10k less than that after 15 years of real terms pay cuts. And with hardly any opportunities for progression nowadays, 45k is a pipe dream for many.

But why am I not a 'working person' even though someone who is not working is seen as 'working person'.

Does my head in.

RTFT.

Bizarre statement. How do you know a poster is right wing? How do you know a poster is a bot? Have you been reading the daily mail? Are you angry with yourself? Are you angry with Labour?

‘It comes as Sky News has obtained an internal definition of "working people" used by the Treasury.’

https://news.sky.com/story/income-tax-and-national-insurance-unlikely-to-rise-as-sky-news-obtains-definition-of-working-people-13459288

There’s a link in pp

Yes or someone working part time 🫠 So they work less, therefore earn less. But they're a working person and I'm not. Right

Naivety / cognitive dissonance/ ignorance/ intense disappointment with one’s master? Who knows..

I guess we are in speculation from the Daily Heil territory

Does earning under that, but being self employed mean I am Not A Working Person?

I'm expecting them to announce the Liquidisation of the Kulaks any day now. Hard work, ownership and prosperity need punishing. Where will our gulags be?

Yes, unfair to all single earners, but single parents and carers carry a much heavier burden, financially.

My newish partner earns the same as me. He doesn't have any children. He is able to save a decent sum every month, to spend on his house, his hobbies, outings. I barely survive after feeding, clothing and housing 2 children as well as me. Our earnings are the same, our outgoings vastly different. Hence why the per head earnings in a household should be taken into account.

You chose to read the thread. If you don't agree with what's being discussed, it's you who needs to 'move on'.

It's a controversial opinion but I totality agree. I grew up poor, trained as a nurse and have expanded my career beyond that. Through pure hard work and self determination.

Those who say it's not available to everyone are mistaken, and to be considered not a 'working person' is simply insulting

@TesChique, where did you get your info about £45k being the government benchmark?

FWIW the average median full-time wage is around £37,800 (from the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings).

I’m a band 7 AHP and never imagined that I’d be struggling to make ends meet at this point in my career. Cost of living is a disgrace and makes life impossible for single people (even relatively good earners like us!). DD also currently studying for an AHP degree and I’m seriously worried for her future to be honest.

https://news.sky.com/story/income-tax-and-national-insurance-unlikely-to-rise-as-sky-news-obtains-definition-of-working-people-13459288

That’s not a source for proposed tax changes. That threshold has always been in place in the Treasury for fiscal modelling. It’s not linked to political definitions.

Hove I reckon

It’s not. It’s the Treasury’s benchmark for taxation modelling and Sky News making click bait headlines.

So just speculation about something that may or may not happen that may or not use a definition of something that is pretty arbitary . But lets all get angry about it anyway

Yep. That’s what the Labour Party think of millions of us (tax payers) in the electorate.

Thanks - yes, I've just seen the Sky piece linked to above. There's nothing in it to suggest taxes being raised on those earning more than £45k - quite the opposite. It does sound like DM hysteria.

Fuck off £45k is not a high salary these days 😡😡. My ex-friend on benefits gets more than DH in her pocket a month and he’s on £60k 😡😡😡😡😡😡😡.