Middle earners punished

[Eucalyptus321]

I am feeling so disheartened and frustrated by how middle earners are constantly suffering at the hands of ridiculous government priorities. My husband and I have a greater household income than other families we know but have less cash in hand due to increased taxes coupled with the fact we receive zero benefits like child benefit or tax free childcare etc. ZERO. If they want middle earners to fund the country thought tax then at least support us with childcare costs. It’s a joke that two parents earning £99k each get childcare funding but parents with one £101k salary and one £25k salary receive nothing. I just need to speak to people who understand the burden of raising a family amidst the current financial climate and then the potential of further tax rises!

Exactly. I won't be busting my gut to do the days that take me into higher tax bracket. The money vs quality of life makes it not worth knackering myself to lose half of it in tax. I won't be alone in that assessment. Lots more people going part-time I imagine.

@Strawberries86
I’m in California. I know what a caravan is and I know what a holiday is, but could you please tell me what a “caravan holiday” is?
Do you own the caravan and take it to different places? Do you rent a stationary caravan at a particular site each holiday?
Thank you.
My apologies for going off-subject.

She’s right. I don’t she’s trying to be controversial or offensive. Society mostly exists for the group who are receipt of help, not those who are paying for that help. Thats how systems collapse. Because those paying for it all see nothing in it for them.

Not sure of wages where you are but wouldn't someone on the lesser wage only be working p/t, so the need for childcare would be less. Their contribution to tax take also less.

It is true - no one wants to make it miserable for people, but there has to be an incentive to work and feel like you're gaining something from it? A friend of mine doesn't work and gets 26k benefits, which is a qualifying benefit for free dental, 85% off childcare, free after school clubs and holiday clubs, winter hardship fund, £45 food voucher for each child every holiday, free/massively reduced days out, free council tax, free prescriptions, free holiday fund every 3 years. That's better off than a lot of jobs.

Rising inequality makes us all unsafe by increasing the crime we face every day on the streets. It’s a false economy to want to avoid further tax, when the every day life we life gets unsafer and unsafer due to rising inequality! There’s a massive aging population which needs supporting, and fewer young people earning to pay tax - the maths you suggest of not paying more tax are ideal but simply don’t add up unfortunately

Nursery childcare is short term. We used to be overdraft every month until our children are in school.

But what REALLY doesn’t add up is the disincentives to earn more. The loss of childcare, the loss of child benefit, the 62% marginal tax rate. These things are REDUCING the tax take of this country. It’s utter madness that the government isn’t addressing this. It’s free money we could be getting as a country in tax that we’re not. These measures raised money in the past when people didn’t really realise they were paying a 62% marginal rate of tax, but now they do and are cutting their salaries accordingly and we’re all loosing out.

Look at the benefits systems of other European countries. In these countries you get MORE state pension / unemployment benefit / sickness benefit if you had earned a high salary (and therefore paid high taxes) while working. The high tax you paid was reflected I the way you’re treated. Here the OPPOSITE is the case. Pay high taxes? Well you’ll get just the same as someone who’s sat on their arse all their life if you lose your job, and we’ll even remove your child benefit from you, despite you working all hours to fund this benefit for those who can’t be arsed. It incentivises people to earn the maximum amount - for themselves AND the treasury.

Universal childcare / child benefit / personal allowance doesn’t have to be expensive - put the higher rate of tax up to pay for it. At least then those being squeezed might think their sacrifice is respected.

My children are older so nursery not a factor and 2 income household (each earning under £100k but not wildly off). I’m still worried how divisive it is to focus so much on the top 20% of earners rather than the 1%-2% for example.

Individually we’re all worse off because of the COL, but increasingly it’s harder for people to make choices that help themselves. For example because of the aging population the state pension is becoming unaffordable and as a country need people to save more themselves. But now we’re taking away incentives to do that because we want revenue now and for some reason perceive it to be unfair that some people will have more than people who aren’t saving in old age.

I am happy to pay taxes and wouldn’t be opposed to paying more. However there’s a real sense that nothing works - targeted services for the most disadvantaged or universal services. Universal services have been really eroded so people contributing most to them feel less of a stake in them. If you have to use social care or the NHS for an elderly relative it is pretty stark and you question what your money is funding. Schools can be similar- you get what you’re given unless you’re strategic about moving to the right catchment, or forcing young children to lock on for 11+ or can afford private school (which has become more expensive because of VAT). If you are unfortunate enough to encounter the criminal justice system then it’s impossible to have faith in it.

I think people saying read the room etc or saying other people have it worse are missing the point. There was consensus and consent when the welfare state was established. If things don’t work well for anybody then the case for these things becomes much weaker and we open the door for the kind of politics which will make things far far worse for people on lower incomes and pull up the ladder for all but the very richest people in society.

nor meaning to sound glib but people want it all. They want a career, children, a big house, two cars, holidays, savings, pensions.

The fact it something has got to give. And home ownership and having the family you want is a huge blessing and privilege. Reframe it in your head. The government isn’t likely to change but your outlook and viewpoint are within your control

I kind of get you but try livingbon a combinedcincome of £80,.0000 no venefits either. Im not blaming anyone but myself and seeking to increase my wages...probably byy leaving nhs work but needs must.

This would be much easier to do if past generations had managed to have it all with far less in the way of skills. When a teacher 40 years ago could have the house / car / holidays / kids and now a teacher and NHS consultant struggle to afford the same. And that teacher and NHS consultant have done everything ‘right’ in life, but cannot get what they worked hard for and are being taxed ridiculously high amounts too. They’ve got a right to point out that it sucks.

Wow I earn £50k and my husband £44k. I thought we were middle earners but seemingly we are low earners

I used to be a lone parent on £103k, I didn’t need subsidised childcare as I earned enough to pay it myself. Other people on a similar wage choosing to poorly manage their money is no ones fault but their own. I had colleagues on more than me moaning how poor they were, yet they had chosen large mortgages they couldn’t afford, only wore very expensive designer gear and leased very expensive cars.

YANBU. My husband is stopping full time work I think. More time as a family, less tax. A much better quality of life. I’ll also be leaving teaching if this government continue its hatchet job.

Oh dear - poor you. with your DH earning in excess of £100k.

Suck.It.Up.

He is not a 'middle earner' and you won't be getting sympathy from a lot of people. If you don't want to work and stay at home to look after your children that is definitely an option for you.

In fact you have many options that only money can bring - so stop with the whingeing.

So you earned about £6k but had 2 in nursery that you paid for yourself - that’s you down to £3k max, rent £1.5k utilities and council tax £500, leaving you will £1k for food, holidays, transport, broadband, clothes, equipment.

Or you live somewhere cheap and had help with childcare, so had totally different expenses to OP and are therefore comparing apples and pears?

Do people realise that take home salary for some one on £100k is just about £68k …..

I think there is rose tinted spectaclesabout what people afforded in the past.

Growing up in London with professional parents...

• Mum didn't go back to work until I was 3 (youngest child) . Full time when I was 10.
• living in outskirts of zone 6 (but the trains were more reliable maybe? A Gold card (all zones full travel card) cost about £1k)
• no cars, not needed due to transport availability
• 2 week foreign summer holiday. And visits to family. This i guess made us very lucky.

I think the major difference, especially for London, is house prices. But... you also end up with a huge asset.

In the rest if the country... our living costs now are lower, but we aren't going to have that massive asset in retirement. We have 2 3-bed houses (one which we let out)... combined worth less than my parents 3 bed house in Zone 6.

Hackney, owned my own flat (mortgaged I chose to live in very cheap house shares so I had a good deposit), no help with childcare from friends, I picked a nursery near work to reduce time spent in childcare, it didn’t alter fees as it was a half day or full day rate.

Mortgage was about £1,700 I think, utilities and council tax were nowhere near £500, how are people spending that much? Transport very cheap, I rarely used my car and usually walked to work and nursery, it was only 45 minutes.

Now do the take home after benefits have been added in of a family with 2 kids on minimum wage. Not all that much different. And yet the person on £100k has got there by years of study and working long hours.

So you weren’t paying the going rate for nursery that OP is? Got you. Totally incomparable.

How is paying for full days of nursery not paying the going rate?

Your friend wont be a home owner and will not have a significant pension scheme which the employer contributes to.

This is the incentive to work. You own property, heritable estate, and have a decent pension at the end of it.

Your friend will likely never be in any sort of position to provide their children with any sort of leg-up in life, whether that's helping with education fees, accommodation fees, or helping them get a foothold on the property ladder by providing them with a deposit. They are unlikely to ever be able to amass any sort of savings, contribute to their children's weddings, take their grandchildren on holiday, or do much of anything with their own life beyond simply subsisting. Heaven help them if they ever need any form of care, because without wealth and assets of their own they are entirely at the mercy of whatever the local authority sees fit to provide for them.

Does it still sound like a cushy life?

Maybe I am out of touch but I would hardly label anyone earning over 100k as a middle earner.