'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.

I was successful in work, and did not marry money. When I married, I contributed to making us both richer.

Your put downs miss the mark. Many women have been very successful since the 1970s. Playing the pathetic card is an excuse. If there is no local opening in his hometown for your nephew, he needs to get out of his bedroom and seek a bigger stage. If he is brave enough to try.

My closest friends met in the 1980s, in the Middle East. Only one had a degree, the rest just went for the experience and the tax free salary, which was their chance to save the deposit on a house with five years work. They were mostly sales people, but our local coal merchant bought his business after a few years laying tarmac on the road gangs in Abu Dhabi.

There is always an element of risk-taking that leads to success. If you won't take the risk, you cannot succeed and frankly suggesting that marrying a rich man is the only way says more about you than anyone else posting here.

@Papyrophile That’s another example of privilege. As I said earlier I grew up on a sink estate until I was taken into care due to neglect. I most certainly did not come from a charmed background but I did pass the 11+ and went to grammar school.

It opened my eyes to another way of life. My friends had nice homes, working parents, fitted carpets, holidays and cars. After seeing how they lived, I decided that I wanted that life too. And luckily for me I was bright enough to get there. That was a privilege many don’t have.

If I had gone to the local comp, I never would have known that was a possibility. I’d never have aspired to better. When you’re living in the gutter all you can focus on is right now, you can’t plan for the future. That is scientifically proven.

You know that there are comfortable people, living nice lives, but they’re “others”. That’s not for you or the people around you. You know your place. You’re not encouraged to dream big by your teachers or parents, because they know your chances are slim and they’d be setting you up for a fall.

How do you expect someone on £90 a week to run a flat, and save up for a ticket to hop on a plane to the Middle East to seek their fortune, and be able to eat this week? Even relocating in this country is impossible if you haven’t got money for a rail ticket, or a deposit for accommodation, or to tide you over till you find a job and get your first month’s pay.

You’ll say they’re excuses, but it’s reality. Even asylum seekers usually come here because they know someone here already that can give them a helping hand. How many homeless people on the streets of London came from deprived northern towns, and ended up there precisely because they thought they could just move there and find work?

Those wives are not reliant on the taxpayer.

No, but they berate people who are not earning for themselves, when they are not earning for themselves either.
If they did not have their DH, they would be on benefits.

Depends. I have a high earning DH. I work and earn a lot less. Marriage is a partnership and all that. He worked, I looked after kids. Now kids are grown I just do basic admin to earn extra.

But the thing is these wives are not on benefits. I think no-one should be on benefits long term unless it's for health related issues or caring for someone with significant health issues that are life limiting and cannot improve.

Out of interest - what is your field of work?

What @EasternStandard says is correct - people who don't see AI in action can't yet appreciate the scale of change that is coming and coming very soon.

Middle level professional jobs will be largely gone, in a space of ten years max.

What's going to be left is manual labor like plumbers/care workers/hairdressers and very high tech. Entry and mid level Finance/HR/Marketing/many doctors etc will be gone.

There really won't be much need for that many workers.

It's a totally different topic as to what's going to happen to a huge number of people who become sort of irrelevant. But again, this is totally different conversation.

Could you support yourself on your own on your wage, without your DH? Because if you can not, you have no right to have a go at people on benefits.

DH and I grew up poor in India. Had so much difficulties growing up. We both studied hard at school, went to uni and met at work. I remember even then seeing DH's drive to better himself and improve his situation.

I understand there will always be cases where life hits you with a brick and you need support. But for me I believe (unless there's significant health issues that never improve) that welfare should be temporary until you are back to being self sufficient.

I know a girl who left school without even GCSEs. Has never worked in the near 15 years since. Her partner has a low-income jobs and she just has kids and claims child benefits.

Are you for real?

London subsidizes half of the UK. London and SE are the only areas of the UK which generate more than they spend.
London’s contribution to the national economy - House of Commons Library

But it’s the financial sector not your average person and this hugely skews it, it also gets the highest amount of public spending

“The proportion of people aged 16 to 64 in London who were in work (74.2%) was a little below the UK average (75.1%) in February to April 2025. The unemployment rate in London was higher at 6.4% than the UK average of 4.6%.”

Perhaps if other areas got more public spending their output would be higher.

If someone is supported by her DH she is NOT taking UC.

Someone not working with a husband who doesn't support her taking UC is supported by the TAX PAYER.

How can anyone not see this?

She is if they’re divorced and he’s paying a shedload of maintenance - that doesn’t count in a universal credit claim.

Hmm it doesn't? Makes sensible to think it should. Especially if maintenance exists to provide the ex spouse with living costs?

No it doesn’t. A divorcee can still claim universal credit regardless of how much her ex is paying. Ridiculous, isn’t it?

She is relying on the tax payer, just a specific one rather than you or me.

My personal gripe is people who say that the unemployed or benefit claimants should make their own success, when their version of making success involved marrying a man.

I personally think only the taxpayer should have an issue with where taxes go.

I am literally shocked that anyone can think like this!

The obvious difference between the two scenarios is that married couple not claiming benefits are supporting themselves using their own money. It doesn't matter who earns what, it's totally normal to merge resources whether it be time, effort, money etc when you marry. The law largely recognises this too hence why marital assets aren't usually split on the basis of who paid for what during divorce. Marriage therefore usually isn't entered into lightly and there is an acceptance between the parties of what setup best works for them and who contributes what. If someone isn't happy with the arrangement then they can file for divorce and now that spousal maintenance is uncommon, the dependent spouse isn't usually entitled to long term financial support after the marriage has ended

If you rely on the state then you are relying on the rest of society to support you.We don't get a say as to whether we are happy with this arrangement and we can't divorce you to alleviate our financial obligation to you. We don't love you like a spouse and you aren't contributing to our family units in the way a spouse would.

It's a bonkers comparison!

This such a stretch. Everyone is a taxpayer as we all pay VAT etc.

Personally I don't have a problem with people doing whatever they like as long as they aren't asking me to subsidise it. If they want to live off grid in the Scottish wilderness surviving off the land or to marry some rich partner who can support them for life, good for them! As long as they're happy and not hurting anyone then why would I care?

If however you are indirectly asking me to support you through relying on the welfare state then I am going to have an opinion as ultimately I am contributing towards your lifestyle.

What's even more bonkers is a blanket assumption that women are mainly supported by their partners and would go down on their own.

There are millions of women who are successful on their own, built great careers and are completely financially independent, if not higher earners than their DPs. There are also a lot of successful women who are single parents as well.

Thinking of it, I personally don't know any women who is not financially self sufficient and would need to claim benefits if their relationships broke down.

Yes, it's a weird assumption although I think it's still rooted in the motherhood penalty and the fact that we know that women's careers often take a hit when children come along. Personally I know a few women in this situation but the couples are largely interdependent. The man may earn more for a time or stay working FT whilst she works PT but both are absolutely contributing to the family unit equally just perhaps in slightly different ways.

This is totally different to someone claiming benefits who is dependent on the state for financial support but isn't directly contributing to other taxpayer's family unit. I don't get any direct benefit from Janet down the road who hasn't worked a day in her life and claims benefits, yet I'm expected to contribute towards her benefit payments.

As I mentioned upthread, I don't care how people live and what they want to do as long as they are happy and don't hurt anyone else. I just don't want to be forced into paying towards it and then told that I can't judge or have an opinion.

Yes I work PT whilst DH does FT (and gets paid the big bucks for it). We both contribute to the family and raised our kids without taking benefits.

But the comments aren’t just around being self sufficient, are they?

The judgment against benefit claimants doesn’t stop at whose money they’re spending, like we’ve see in this thread it’s often a personal judgment of their work ethic or ability to parent.

How is someone unemployed because their partner carries the financial load any less “workshy” than any other unemployed person?

If I chose to leave my job and be a SAHP, why doesn’t that also reflect a lack of work ethic?

I appreciate this wasn’t the point of the thread, but if we’re of the opinion that every fit and able parent should be in work, then that applies to every fit and able adult.

Let’s face it; they’re also choosing to not contribute to the economy in the form of employment tax, so whilst they’re taking less/nothing out, they’re still not net contributors.

Without going into detail, I know an awful lot about enterprise level accounting systems, how they're built and implemented and how easy it would be to take human beings out of it all together.

So my point is that, yes, a lot of jobs will be replaced by AI, but no, that doesn't mean that there will be an excess of labour - not for long. Because what capitalism is really good at is finding something for people to do that will make other people money. AI may change the nature of work, and it will certainly render some skills unsaleable, but it won't make work a rarity. The system will still find ways of exploiting people's waking hours in return for food and shelter.

If all else fails, and we really do have too many people sitting around doing nothing, we usually arrange a huge war. Which is looking increasingly likely.

But most of those will be tradesmen taking cash in hand, workers on PAYE doing "on the side" cash jobs, hand car washes/turkish barbers/nail bars, prostitution, drug dealers, etc. HMRC's definition of "self employed" and "small business" is very wide and doesn't just cover "genuine" small shops, tradesmen, etc. The figure also includes a huge amount for mistakes rather than deliberate tax evasion which is hardly surprising when tax is so complicated (the most complicated tax laws in the World apparently), yet your average hairdresser or garage mechanic is expected to know all the intricacies of VAT, employment taxes, etc etc.

Nail on the head there. Lots of adults who "could" work but don't. Just because they're not on benefits doesn't mean they're contributing to the economy and they could still be "net takers" in the big scheme of things even if they pay some tax. But I include those who've taken early retirement in this, stay at home parents, part time workers (who could work full time), etc. Pretty sure that only those who've earned an average income of £38k per year are in "balance" comparing the taxes they've paid against the benefits/services they've received. Anyone who's not "earned" that much on average over their life is a "net taker".

The whole point of the thread was to point out that the system encourages part time work. I am paying 60% tax precisely because I did an average of 48 hours a week. I am completely incentivised to do less. If I had my 4 DC now, I would be incentivised by the system to drop my hours right down to avoid being shafted into paying nursery fees in full.
I do not know anyone who does not have a job in my friendship circle of professionals. Even those who do not have to work in theory still do it for their own mental health and to have something meaningful to do. If anything they retrain as eg a midwife or nurse or teacher from having been a banker as they do not need two banker salaries. That is hardly a bad thing for society. And believe it or not, plenty find those new jobs easier than the dog eat dog world of corporate finance.