'Taxes are the price we pay for a civilised society'

[Bargepole45]

Having just paid an enormous tax bill, I frankly am fed up with hearing this. There are lots of civilised countries that have a far lower tax burden than the UK. It's just a form of blackmail designed to make contributors believe that there is no other way other than to pay sky high taxes to subsidise people's crap life choices.

Have too many kids and can't afford them? No problem, the state steps in. Have a terrible lifestyle and don't look after your health at all? No problem, the NHS will treat you. Spent all your money with wild abandon and have nothing left to pay for your care when you get old? Don't fret, the state will fund the same care home as someone that has saved all their life.

Don't people understand that these 'safety nets' just facilitate reckless behaviour? We can have a civilised society where people aren't cushioned from all of their bad decision making. I say this as someone from a background where I didn't have much money and I am so fed up with people pretending that poor people don't know that an apple is healthier than a chocolate bar or that it's a good idea to actually attend school. It's insulting and disempowering to keep making excuses for people that simply aren't incentivised to make different, better choices.

Absolutely this
I would love to know how people think disabled folk live the high life on a max of £748 a month, that is less than a fifth of my previous income. Not to mention the ridiculously increased costs of being disabled.

Having defended providing benefits ... which I stand by ... I have just read about a mother of an autistic child who receives a number of benefits to which she is entitled, it slightly bugged me that as a family ( her OH works) they donate £200 a month to their church. Hmmm...

if you have children you are . It’s paid to the mother. My point is that every family is “on benefits” and everyone is entitled to free at point of entry healthcare as well as infrastructure such as roads, refuge collection etc. We pay in and receive as per our changing needs.

No you’re not. Surely you know this? It’s not a universal benefit. If you pay enough in in taxes, you are blocked from getting child benefit in return. It’s ’progressive’ apparently.

And?
do we now need to police how benefit recipients spend their money?

It shows benefits are too high. This is an excellent example of why they need to be slashed.

No - not at all - this is just my prejudices showing! I do not think a church should accept such a sum from a family who are struggling on benefits ....

I think that "slashed" is a bit of a drastic idea. Benefits levels do need regular review but blanket slashing is not the way forward.

what? Your post doesn't make sense!

"Meanwhile I would love a third child but even with me and DH working full time making decent money and living in a cheaper area than where I teach, I just don’t think it will be possible. It isn’t fair."

Why not order yourself a disabled one because according to some on this thread you would then be rolling in it.

Mine’s been up since 3:16am, she can have him.

(Joking, obviously)

I have 4 DC and we pay our way fully, including me paying 60% tax, no child benefit. There were a few very similar families at our state primary school. All working full time and not taking any benefits whatsoever. The privilege we all do have is good husbands who work full time and support our work and child rearing and pull their weight too. That is the real privilege.

The reason I cannot put the extra into a pension is because we have 2 at uni and have to pay their living costs too.
I do not see why we have to pay 60 per cent tax and do not get deductions for our children. We are not super rich living on passive income or landlords etc.
Successive governments are intent on eroding the middle classes.
Now I know we sound rich but because we live in London with huge living costs, we really are not rich.
If we lived in a much cheaper area we would be much better off on our salaries. But I think London wages are higher because living costs are so high and it is just a vicious circle from there. It is why so many people are leaving London or the country full stop.

We’re getting to the stage where those on high salaries are taxed down to similar income to those on lower salaries but get benefits. The government is removing the incentive to put in the academic or professional study or long hours needed to generate those high incomes which is eroding the tax base (see all the people deciding they can no longer be bothered earning more and going part time).

Its a dangerous game for them to play.

Posters just don’t understand the law of unintended consequences.

People adapt their behaviour. Tax pensions harder? Well, I won’t bother saving into one then. More punitive iht? I’ll spend my money first. These tax grabs only work once before people adapt.

The point of buying a property is that it’s yours - if you have less certainty of being able to live in it than someone who has a council property - ie high council tax, mooted property taxes, using house to pay for care and punitive iht, then trust and stability is lost. Mind you, I guess some posters would be all for re-allocation of all properties based on need.

Could anyone explain why - as in earlier example - an earner on £70k is richer than a family on £70k of benefits?

They’re not, obviously

You can't have it both ways. Posters on this thread suggesting that anyone that wants benefits reduced want to see children starve and that nobody is sat there living the life of Riley on benefits as it barely covers the essentials. The implication is that anyone even questioning this is inherently nasty.

Yet, here we have an example where a family on benefits has enough spare money in their budget that they can donate £200 a month to charity... So you factually could cut their benefits by this amount and they could afford to live exactly how they are doing now where presumably nobody is starving and everyone is housed and clothed.

Well said. Don't see how anyone could disagree with it.

No, if you earn over a certain amount then you can claim Child Benefit but the taxman essentially claws it all back. The amount incidentally is £60k. This is why a large family with someone earning over £60k and a disabled person in it are worse off than a large family that doesn't work and has a disabled person in it or works but only 16 hours in essentially a minimum wage job.

How does the large family with a high earner have less needs than the large family without the high earner? We all know it costs money to get to work, cloth yourself, pay for childcare etc so arguably the high earning family have more needs and yet nobody cares. They are part of the class of people who have the 'broadest shoulders' according to Reeves. The system is completely broken!

And on here if someone says their struggling to manage on £80k it’s all smallest violin, cut your cloth etc but talk of talking away exorbitant benefits from someone getting loads of free money and the chat is of starving children etc.

May I say OP I really appreciate the way you are holding your ground on this thread and challenging posts you disagree with. It is making this post an interesting and informative read.

Speaking as someone who earns over £60k, and has a disabled person in the household - can you stop speaking on my behalf, please?

When you’re in that situation, you do not care if another SENd parent (for example) is choosing to work part time or not at all, and is instead claiming benefits. You don’t feel worse off, or victimised by your decision to work in those challenging circumstances, and you can well understand why other people would choose not to.

Our family does potentially have “more needs,” in that my partner and I make the active choice to both parent a child with significant disabilities, and work full time, which no doubt presents challenges that wouldn’t exist if one of us quit.

But that is the choice that we have made, for our family, for various reasons that in absolutely no way cast aspersions on families with similar struggles who make different decisions.

It is grossly unfair for you to be casting judgment on people in situations that you don’t understand, particularly when those of us in those situations don’t share your “concern.”

It's not having to pay taxes that's the problem, it's that the services they are supposed to go to are failing.

Just because one family donate money, doesn’t show that benefits are “too high”. They can obviously afford to donate money (presumably they are high earners) and there is an argument for means testing. But another family on low wages could be struggling on wages + PIP and unable to pay the bills. Benefits wouldn’t be ‘too high’ for the second couple.

That’s the problem with benefits bashers. They’ll take one case of an outlier, and extrapolate their situation across everyone on benefits. This single mum in London gets £5k a month for rent and childcare - so in their minds EVERY UC claimant is getting £5K a month and living the life of Riley. Totally ignoring the fact that the average UC claim is £730 a month. Could you live like a king on £730 a month?

I never suggested or even implied I was speaking on anyone's behalf. You on the other hand seem very keen to act as the self appointed voice of all households earning more than £60k with a disabled family member. I have been on MN long enough to know for a fact that actually a lot of high earning disabled posters and SEN parents actually don't share your view. I also know people IRL with disabled family members that don't share your view either. Shock horror, families with disabled members aren't one homogeneous group with identical political views. Their lived experiences are hugely different and your experience could be vastly different than a family that experienced disability completely differently to you. Dyslexia is a disability and so is ALS. Even the same disability can be experienced completely differently in a family.

What we can all have a view on though is whether we view the rules to be fair and effective in incentivising the right things. This is hugely subjective and you have made your views clear but it is completely wrong to suggest that your view overrides everyone else's because you have a disabled child.