To be sick of politicians using 'fairness' as justification for tax rises?

[Itchthescratch]

Fairness is completely subjective and I notice that this is often shorthand for giving more money to those that contribute the least.

Of course there will always be those that can't contribute much due to factors outside of their control, but we are kidding ourselves if we pretend that there aren't already lots of people that are scraping by doing the bare minimum (sometimes even less) and making completely irresponsible decisions knowing the state will ultimately insulate them from the consequences.

I personally know people that have had lots of children that they can't afford and can't parent properly simply because they wanted to. They are now on an incredible amount of money as the two child cap has been lifted. I know people that have stopped working because they weren't much better off than being on benefits and they couldn't be bothered with the hassle. I know young people that are already planning to stay on disability benefits their whole lives for mental health issues as they want to stay home and game.

Is it really 'fair' to charge the rest of us more to subsidise all of this?

These posts are scathing but out of kilter with what the op is saying.

I wish we could ban the phrase “net contributor”. Not sure what I am - teacher, but claim 2 x child benefit and DLA for DS. I hope being in education for 26 years means my contribution to society is worth my “pay”. Not all benefit claimants are abusing the system. Yes they exist - I grew up in a benefit lifestyle household - but I am not unique in being socially mobile.

What helped to lift me out of poverty were good teachers who cares for me, FSM, a bursary to catch a bus to college, no uni fee, bursary at uni - all this would be under “welfare”.

"Of course you can rely on innovation etc but let's be honest, we aren't really renowned for that as a country."

We absolutely are renowned for innovation. The UK ranks 6th in the Global Innovation Index.

It’s physically hard, I used to work double shifts and my back was constantly in agony, my feet killed. It’s unsociable hours, you have to work evenings, weekends, over Christmas and on bank holidays. That’s hard. It might not be academic but it’s exhausting, badly paid and you miss out on a lot of events with family and friend ps. Not to mention dealing with the general public, the behind the scenes in the kitchens is stressful too.

A quick Google says that you have to be earning £50k to be a net contributor.
So the people saying about some arbitrary "social contract" about being self sufficient is wanting people to push themselves to earn £50k at the minimum before they stop sneering at them.... and that will be the people teaching their kids in schools, and scooping them up in an ambulance when needed. Utter scroungers those feckless paramedics and teachers choosing to be "takers".

I'm with you on banning the phrases "net contributor" and "net beneficiary", or more specifically the value judgments that go with them...

Anyone with a seriously disabled relation who relies on the state must surely loathe OP's implication that anyone who doesn't pay their way is a burden on society.

Some people know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

A PP has already said it but I'm afraid you really don't know what you're talking about!

If I take out £100k in dividends then I also have to pay corporation tax on that before I withdraw it which for £100k would put me in the higher CT rate (25%) which means it all nets out. There's really no meaningful tax advantage.

There was more of an advantage a few years ago before the CT rates went up (and dividends rates rose earlier this year).

I never asked the question, I replied with a comparison.

The question was essentially sacrifice. People who do speciality jobs have sacrificed their time, more than anything. And usually lots of it!

People can engage in whataboutery, however spending on sickness and disability benefits has increased rapidly, and continues to increase. I don't think it's unreasonable for tax payers to ask at which point will government address the unsustainable path robustly, rather than shying away again and again and reverting to the tax rise cop out.

No I won't no. I don't care for further judgement on my actual life. Ultimately people can think and believe what they want. Everyone is just strangers on the internet afterall

I'd pay less tax as a sole trader. The fact I employ people and have a limited company means I pay more. That's ludicrous.

Not read the thread but I imagine it's the usual whining from people pretending to be on huge incomes, dehumanising people whose contributions don't meet some imaginary bar and a load of guff about "personal responsibility"?

Contributing what you can constitutes fairness so the op is on dodgy ground before you even get past the title. But people have always whinged about doing their bit because their greed dictates that they want to keep everything to themselves. Nothing new under the sun.

Interesting (albeit irrelevant) - mine used to say "better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick".

As opposed to what taxes should go up on most threads?

What if you're wrong though?

I don't think people who question the trajectory of a benefits heavy society necessarily do so on the basis of their own circumstances. Maybe it's about a bigger picture.

Personally, I think it's an absolute waste to see so many working age adults not working. With encouragement, they could improve their own standard of living/emotional well being and (in numbers) would improve the areas we all live in.

We've also had - the more kids people have the higher chance one will be disabled so they will get more benefits

That’s very true, on top of all the physically hard work, you’re also pretty much an actor while on shift. It’s mentally exhausting using all your face muscles to look and sound happy and friendly when there’s chaos in the kitchen and a vast percentage of customers are miserable sods😆

In what jobs?
According to ONS figures, there are 2.5 jobseekers (so people actively looking for work) to every vacancy.

The government has made a deliberate choice to allow hundreds of thousands of unknown people, many with little understanding of English into the country and now expects the average person to foot the bill. It's the equivalent of spending a household's budget on keeping a ridiculous number of pets rather than getting the food in or paying the gas bill. Then we all wonder why we're worse off.

Just thought I would put this out there for context.

,No, UK welfare spending is not internationally high. Measured as a percentage of GDP, the UK sits near the middle or slightly below the average of advanced economies in the OECD Social Expenditure Database. 1, 2]
Spending as a Share of GDP

• Narrow Definition (DWP benefits): Direct welfare and social security payments handled by the Department for Work and Pensions (including the state pension and working-age benefits) amount to roughly 10.6% to 11% of GDP. 1, 2]
• Broad Definition (OECD Social Protection): When using wider international frameworks that blend broader social safety nets, health, and care, the UK spends roughly 21% to 23% of GDP. This is close to the broader OECD average (~21%), but considerably lower than top-tier European spenders like France, Finland, and Austria, which dedicate upwards of 30% to 32% of GDP to social protection.’

It doesn’t mean per se that our welfare bill isn’t too high, but where would that put France then?

I think a large part of the issue is that people see taxes as high but don’t feel government delivers much in return for it.

I am surprised that sitting on MN all day and night being an argumentative Nellie Know All is so well paid lucky you....!

Except that wasn't what was said at all. This was specifically about the two child cap and the fact that almost half of families are exempt from the general benefit cap because there is a disabled family member. This is fact. The more children you have the more likely it is that one will be disabled. This is just common sense and supported by statistics. What is so awful in noting this?

Just a 🤏 bit defeatist.

Would you like to answer my (quite reasonably phrased, I thought) post about why it is reasonable for disability to lift the benefit cap?

It is not defeatist to say that not everyone is going to be employed. There are not enough jobs out there.