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!

I just had to turn it off as it’s like listening to fucking toddlers

Exactly. They’re acting like school kids!
it doesn’t matter if OBR was leaked, that isn’t her fault and they need to respect her announcement

That is so blinkered. Assuming everyone can choose exactly when they meet their life partner and fall pregnant which we all know is not the case. High earners are more likely to have spent longer in education, longer training to do the high income jobs. They will in all likelihood have had student debts to pay off.

High earning jobs don't simply get handed out straight from school - high earners become high earners over time and generally start a family later as a consequence of working towards stability first.

Good point. I also have a degree in Economics and think people need to look behind the sound bites that certain types of media are peddling.

Nobody has said that someone on £100k plus is worse off that someone on YC.

Someone earning slightly over 100k can be significant worse off than someone earning slightly less - it is that which is wrong and makes no sense

THIS

Yes this. Op struggles are very valid!

Research the facts and then come back with an informed opinion as to why it is fair and good economic sense for a person earning 99,999 to be thousands better off each month than someone earning 2 pence more per annum.

Not particularly no, useful skills don't necessarily equate to higher pay. A nurse is infinitely more useful than a stock broker, but that's not reflected in pay.

However, that's irrelevant.

Take home pay for someone earning £100k is approximately £1500 a month more than someone earning £70k. That's almost the entire take home salary of someone earning minimum wage.

To suggest that people are anywhere near making that up in CB payments and tax free childcare is just not true. You'd have to have 10 kids in full time childcare for tax free childcare to save you £1500.

I agree that household income should be the relevant thing to focus on with regards to benefits, which it is when it comes to claiming UC but not when it comes to maximum thresholds. It's not logical at all.

Why do so many people seem to think salaries are some mystical market-determined measure of actual worth, and only tax is a political matter. Income inequality has rocketed, not because people in the top brackets are suddenly performing so much better. I actually do think that some predistribution would be more effective than redistribution, but presumably the people arguing against paying enough tax to sustain public services would also not want rules about maximum income ratios, or rent caps, or UBI.

Quite. Many middle to high earners have made lots of sacrifices and compromises to get to where they are. For example, I held off having kids and went to university for undergrad and postgrad study. I still don’t earn a huge amount but to say “well at least you ain’t poor” is quite insulting to the amount of work people like myself have put in. It’s disgraceful. I work in healthcare too.

But would (quite rightly) no doubt be happy to accept them if your lot in life was different and you became disabled and could no longer work or had a disabled child, for example. And I imagine you'll also be claiming your state pension when the time comes which is an incredibly costly benefit that the taxpayer covers.

Paying for benefits is part of living in a civilised society.

Absolutely. People like you worked hard and got degrees (ended up with student loans possibly that need to be paid off too ) to succeed, so you deserve high wages and less tax in return for all you’ve done responsibly and for all you’ve sacrificed.

I'm not undermining the hard work you've put in, I'm sure you've grafted, as have many people who earn well. But I really hate this idea that hard work correlates to high earnings and vice versa. It absolutely doesn't. Some of the hardest workers in this country are in some of the lowest paid jobs. Some of the highest paid jobs are extremely cushy numbers.

Doesn't usefulness depend on need?
I would rather a stockbroker invest my meagre pension in the hope I may stand a chance of being able to retire before 90 than a nurse.

As for your example, can you explain the logic for a system that results in someone earning £99,999 pa being far better off than someone earning slightly more? Even with your example, the child care costs and 60% tax still could result in the person earning slightly over £100k being worse off. Envy aside, the £100k plus earners are the net tax payers that the majority of tax payers rely upon. Removing incentive ultimately risks reducing tax revenue and increasing benefit cost.

Because often hard work requires a degree or multiple exams/courses (like masters degrees and specialities) in order to be rewarded financially.
my sister is an actuary and earns very well, however she’s constantly doing extra courses/exams to be and stay in that role.

Yes but not full time as it affects what UC they receive

If your child is over 3, you are expected to work full time on UC.

Congratulations to the half a million people who have chosen to have kids they cannot afford get a £5k windfall per year paid for by those who choose to have only the kids they can afford.

This 👏

I have a disabled child and don’t claim. Why would I? It’s called social responsibility. My child, my costs. If I was unable to work through illness I would receive a 75% of my current salary indexed each year until I reach retirement age. I’m insured. It’s called social responsibility. There is no need whatsoever to be reliant on the taxpayer.

I don’t care. Like I said I studied hard and hard and hard. And I graft in my job every day. We don’t live in a communist state.

also by the child free *

He won’t because he won’t win.

If you want the ‘cushy numbers’ too why not do the academic work behind it?