'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.

By describing what you think benefit claimants use their money on kind of gives it away.

I see where you're coming from but you're asking the wrong questions OP.

Why is the cost of living so high and where are the proceeds of all these high rents, high bills, going? Working people should be able to afford the basics of life but many can't. Food banks were not a thing in the early 2000s. Perhaps you are too young to remember the 90s. Did the population suddenly become financially irresponsible after 2012? No of course not! The global financial crisis of 2008, COVID, all played their part.

But there's also been a gradual erosion since the 80s. Those water companies paying shareholders / chief execs a fortune and dodging their commitments - shit in our bathing waters, not building a single reservoir. How was this allowed to happen? Who is responsible?

People buying things purely on price without thought of what their purchase supports. Ooh British made goods are a bit more expensive. I'll just buy that future landfill from the middle aisle of Lidl instead - it's cheap! Then they act shocked that there are not enough UK workplaces to offer their teen an apprenticeship. They shut down when people stopped buying. The trouble is that now the economy is so weak and inflation has been so high that some people can't even afford that. It is a downward spiral.

I am frustrated that my taxes have to be constantly bailing out people who cannot afford to live. It probably isn't much fun for people who have to claim UC either.

I want them invested in better infrastructure that will help everyone live in a healthier, more secure way, and tax loopholes to be firmly closed for corporations and high net worth individuals.

How much is a 'hell of a lot'? Remember this is gross and not net. The LHA rate in central London for large houses can easily reach £1k.

Depends how you define exorbitant. In central London the LHA rate for a 4 bed is £3k a month. That's £36k a year. Well above the average gross salary

And to get a 4 bed allowance you would have to have several kids, over certain ages. It isnt a one kid per room situation until they are 16+
so that isn’t going to be many people, or people long term. For those it is long term it is essential a house share with adult kids.

Because the kind of areas of work especially DH, friends are in £100 k+ are full time jobs. I don't know any surgeons TBF. Areas of work I'm referring to are Architecture, cyber security, finance, law.

The system is designed to taper, taking into account housing costs. Try playing around with EntitledTo. No one is ever worse off for working.

The highest LHA rate for a 4-bedroom house in central London is £704 a week. You need to check your figures.

Benefits claimants can also keep the first £400 of earnings, without housing costs, or £700 with housing costs, before the taper starts.

What we should be asking is, should private LL be allowed to take £704 a week from taxpayers? How much of that is profit?

This is a point I agree with. Although im not sure we'd agree the solution.

But I think the taper should be gentler to make working more rewarding. At the moment it is true the more you earn, the better off you are but lots of people would rationally think its very hard work to earn that extra 45p per £1. Just as I think the rate of tax at 100k is stupid. These issues are like bookends. Same problem. People want to, very reasonably, keep more than half of money they earn.

I think others would suggest making universal credit lower, so work is automatically better but I actually think the actual straight universal credit amount is low. Its only when you add it other elements that it becomes a lot. Ive never actually claimed so i find how its all worked out a bit opaque.

So none of them have nursery aged children? Because that it the absolute kicker.

There is more of an argument for a universal basic income
everyone gets enough for a decent standard of living
what you earn is taxed higher, but all your basic needs are already met, so those working are working for holidays, cars, nicer homes etc

Yes, they do but they can't go part time, not if they want their career to continue to retirement.

Is it actually true that some people are paying full nursery fees and huge tax rates whilst others are only working 16 hours and getting 30 hours free childcare? Or is that another urban myth.
And the nurseries do not get enough funding so they charge those paying out of their own pocket even more?

My figures are completely correct. The highest rate LHA for a 4 bed is £3k a month in Central London. This isn't the highest rate available for very large families that need more bedrooms.

People can be worse off working. If you are a single parent with a disabled child needing a 4 bed house and earning £86.5k a year living in central London then you are not entitled to Housing Benefit. Your take home pay would be around £59k. You would not be entitled to Child Benefit or UC. The non working family in exactly the same circumstance could have their housing paid for (£36k) and they would also be entitled to more than £23k in benefits according to benefit calculations. Both families would receive PIP. The non working family would also be eligible for additional benefits like free school meals, council tax discounts and free entry to various attractions. The adults would be eligible for free eye tests, dental treatment and prescriptions

The cut-off for subsidised childcare is £100,000 p/a. Less than 12% of UK households have income above £100k p/a, so it's not the big issue people like to think it is, although I do agree it should taper down, rather than being a cliff-edge.

It's also a very temporary issue, unlike disability.

“We all know…” who knows what, specifically, and how do they know it? Facts and figures please.

We should never have sold off so many council houses.

We haven’t planned for an ageing population.

The pension wasn’t brought in thinking people would have it for 20-30 years.

My ILs and my parents (70s) have almost weekly healthcare appointments at the GP or the hospital.

Care homes are expensive (if you need it, you need it, don’t get me wrong. It just is expensive at £1-1.5k / week where I live).

The birth rate is low for various reasons.

I don’t think retiring later is the answer as I worry about youth unemployment (I have older teens).

Sorry no answers but I can see lots of expensive issues.

Why should it taper down? Interested to hear your reasoning.

I am willing to pay taxes and even more that I pay now if and it's a big if the state ensures that the people for whom it is being given to use it to their betterment and to help them get out of the situations they are in, where possible.

I believe this is more the model in Scandinavia.

“The cut-off for subsidised childcare is £100,000 p/a. Less than 12% of UK households have income above £100k p/a, so it's not the big issue people like to think it is, although I do agree it should taper down, rather than being a cliff-edge.
It's also a very temporary issue, unlike disability.”

@Frequency - the issue is burn out for the women having to work full time in very high pressured jobs and pay that! I did it back when there was no financial help towards nurseries but it nearly broke me.
There is no incentive to keep pushing through that.
Any job paying over 100k is by definition high pressure and very intense mostly.

Sorry you aren't my university professor. If you're so sure I'm wrong then prove it. We all have access to benefits eligibility calculators and can work out net pay at different salaries.

In London over 15% of employees are on 100k+. It's estimated that over 2m will be above 100k very soon

Record 2m workers to fall into £100,000 tax trap bracket - here’s what it means | The Independent

Of course it's not a bit issue for you, but it's a huge issue for those impacted.

What @Araminta1003 says is correct - people on 100k+ pay enormous taxes, it's 67% tax bracket between 100k and 125k and lose free childcare, whilst those who work 16h/week get 30hours of funded childcare.

Wonder why these "rich bastards" feel a bit disengaged?

You keep doing this. You post unsubstantiated stuff and then get shirty when people ask you to back it up with facts. It makes you not very credible. Any idiot can post a Daily Mail type rant.

As a female dominated website, we should be celebrating successful women who earn a lot and achieve and still have kids. Not expecting them to pay 67% tax! It is completely sexist and only male dominated professions (like politicians) could come up with this bullshit. Disabled or not, there is no excuse for this.
I bet a number of female medics are impacted by this as well. They keep recruiting bright young women into uni and then shaft them with these sexist policies which hurt high achieving women the most. And actually, it hurts the whole next generation. We need successful motivated women to have as many kids as they feel they can cope with and society should be giving them free childcare too, not making them pay for others.

And said family have a baby, give them screen non stop, the child doesn't learn any social interaction, no reading etc, a few years later - bingo, child has ASD, so DLA/PIP/carer allowance sorted, they are set for life.

Disclaimer - ASD/ADHD are absolutely real and at some levels of spectrum are horrific disabilities which do require much more support from society than currently provided, I'm not questioning this for a moment, but there are so many behaviors which can present as ASD that are entirely self inflicted but will command "disability" tag.

Which country was that?