'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.

@blossomtoes - I was talking about my DH. Not my DS. In any event, my DS is in another country now where he is guaranteed 2 years salary if he loses his job up to 80% of his salary, I think. Because he has entered a contributions based country and he is paying tax there.

@Frequency - I am talking about my DCs leaving not myself. I cannot control what they do past 18 and they are all quite intelligent so can work it out for themselves.

Although I stand by what I said about childcare. It should be universal like state education. To exclude a specific segment of society based on their earnings I think is ludicrous when the majority of people are included.

@Araminta1003 , it was a rude awakening to us. With decent A levels in Maths, Physics and English and plans for a career in the high-tech craft skills in film/TV after university, post pandemic and screenwriter strikes have obliterated employment in the sector, which is incredibly niche: one of DC's friends is still doing well -- making prosthetics for Marvel, as a typical example.

Our DC is well-used to hard graft and long hours, having spent 18 months in a five star hotel as a chef before starting uni and they've always liked plants, gardening and food, so they're not unhappy with life. Once the training is complete with a few extra courses (perhaps flying drones, /crop spraying), there will be opportunities, probably on a self-employed basis before too long. But the first job will be to leave Surrey for a lower cost area!

It would have helped if you’d specified that. My crystal ball isn’t working very well today.

Crystal ball or not, @blossomtoes - it is offensive that some people pay huge amounts of tax over many years and when they then lose their jobs, they cannot zero back from the system. So do you agree or not? And why is it different in other countries? I think the idea there is to support people back into employment as soon as possible by returning some of the tax they paid to tie them over! Still cannot see why that would not be the case here.

It is the case unless you have savings. What else are savings for if not to see you through hard times?

@Frequency, but some people save and others spend every last penny.

I think the unfairness arises when a person who has saved finds themself entitled to nothing yet another person made redundant from the same job/at the same time and on the same wages who didn't save gets benefits. Both should receive the same unemployment, for the same period, which should be related to the duration of employment.

We have a different system that is not as time limited nor contribution based and it likely has an impact on behaviour.

If someone has the means to support themselves, whether that means dipping into savings or not, then no I absolutely don’t agree that they should receive benefits.

Why would they? We save for a rainy day. If I lose my job, it’ll be raining.

But why not have a timeframe for how long you can claim benefits? Other European companies do.

I do not think other countries see it as “benefits“, it is an insurance based system for contributing your taxes and working hard in the first place. It is not seen as handouts to the poor, more a guaranteed safety net for work put in and a return of your taxes. The entire thinking across society is different because everyone wants to contribute and gets something back. You do not get fairer wages unless everyone has access to benefits equally, including childcare. If you cut out the top, they just demand higher wages in the first place. It causes division and is completely counterproductive. All benefits should be universal and tax deductible from previous contributions, at the very least.

Well the theory from other countries such as Denmark where you get 80% of your salary for 2 years is that you have paid into the NATIONAL INSURANCE system and that INSURANCE is in part an insurance scheme to protect you if you lose your job.

Now if you are on a good salary you probably have high expenses. If your salary drops from £5k a month to £800 a month you’re totally screwed and are much more likely to take the first job you can. If your salary drops from £5k a month to £4k a month for 2 years you have much more time to ensure you get a job that sufficiently meets your skills, and so maximises your pay and do maximises the tax you pay to the government’s return.

This is what national insurance means in virtually every other European country apart from ours. It protects the workers, while those that have never worked get very little, to reflect the little they have paid in taxes.

Theres a great IFS paper on this somewhere. I’ll see if I can find it.

I do think that if you’re long term unemployed, and work is available for you, then sanctions should apply if you don’t take it. I wholeheartedly believe that if you’re able to work, you should be strongly encouraged to do any job.

The right job is one that pays, end of story.

I wouldn’t be comfortable leaving people with nothing, because state mandated starvation isn’t for me, but there should be consequences for choosing unemployment as a lifestyle choice.

I also wouldn’t pay benefits to anyone choosing the career of SAHP, because they could be at work, and wouldn’t pay any child care for the unemployed- you’re not working, look after your own kids.

@Araminta1003

I completely disagree that benefits should be universal. I don’t qualify for any means tested benefit, and nor should I.

Benefits are a safety net, and if you have your own then you shouldn’t be relying on the government’s.

Those who can be self sufficient, should be, to make sure that those who can’t be have the support they genuinely need, and don’t just want as a token of gratitude.

We don’t have that and it impact behaviour. Perhaps it’s hard to switch and too late but it sounds better.

Exactly. It makes work pay. Taxpayers feel their are being treated fairly. No one begrudges paying high taxes because they are treated fairly as a result. It’s the Scandinavian system.

The current system where anyone earning over £100k gets no childcare or child benefit is the opposite, resulting in higher rate taxpayers begrudging paying taxes. It’s a stupid way to run a country.

Benefits are very much seen as a safety net here, but not in other countries where this system is seen to treat workers on hard times with much more respect. You pay in and you get out in these Scandinavian countries. It’s a much more cohesive society as a result.

Absolutely insurance based welfare.

So many people say how great Scandi model is without understanding what it means.

Our current system actively encourages wrong life choices and punishes good ones.

“I also wouldn’t pay benefits to anyone choosing the career of SAHP, because they could be at work, and wouldn’t pay any child care for the unemployed- you’re not working, look after your own kids.”

The children of a lot of long term unemployed deserve to be in good quality childcare and learn! It’s where the inequality starts. It’s exactly why the Scandis target early years. Kids need to be school ready and get a chance from infancy. Handing cash payments to their parents instead doesn’t work. We know it doesn’t but still operate a ridiculous feudal based serfdom system based on partisan politics going back a very long time.

To be honest, I’m admittedly very biased.

I would rather government support was reserved for those who really need it. Not the optionally unemployed, they absolutely should work.

But my bias is in the form of my complex needs 9 year old who will never work, and whose needs will outstrip our personal funds.

I think that the genuinely “needy,” pensioners, disabled etc should take priority and would hate to think that someone like me claiming a benefit that I don’t need would be taking from that pot.

My personal reward for that hard work, and the tax it pays, is that people who need support get it, because one day that will be my child.

@Araminta1003

Anecdotally, I appreciate - my brother’s partner has 3 kids, and has never worked. Her youngest goes to nursery 15hrs per week, and I absolutely begrudge my tax paying for that to happen so she can sit around doing nothing.

I begrudge that far more than I do rent payments or top ups.

Scandi targets early years with the expectation that both parents ho out to work full time. Provide free high quality childcare and the parents will be freed up to work. It’s not because they think some parents can’t parent.

But this is exactly what we're advocating for - by stopping support for optionally unemployed there'd be more money for those who genuinely need it.

Of course there are heartbreaking cases which need all support, but it just can't be the case that 24% of population are disabled.

Disagree.

The safety net encourages those with modest savings marginally above the safety net to ve spendthrift and keep the money lower just in case of redundancy.

yes the comfortably off will manage ( personally think they should be entitled to something as they have contributed the most).

The real losers are home owners with modest savings. Benefits pay rent but not mortgage. Imagine being on an average wage and scrimping and saving all your life to buy a home. In your hour of need you get nothing. Watch your savings disappear followed by your home. If single no chance of the government helping you out. Outcome is to become destitute.