to be fed up of the phrase 'net contributor'

[glitterpaperchain]

Obviously there is a time and place for this phrase because we need to have a realistic financial plan and a functioning economy.

But society is more than just money. And I feel like this phrase is really making people view each other in a nasty way, purely focused on whether they provide economic value or not.

There are so many ways to contribute. The people who look after our small children, teaching assistants and 1 to 1s who look after SEN children, many healthcare workers, the people who care for our elderly, they all get paid a pittance but that work is so valuable to our society.

We're more than just our finances and there are many ways to contribute to society, many of which are not reflected in the economy.

Right. So what do you want? In conversations about economics do you want us to refer to “Net Contributors In A Strictly Financial Sense With No Judgments Implied On Their Overall Value To Society Relative To Others”? Or do you want the general public and politicians to just be able to have conversations about finance and assume people understand that we’re talking about finance?

In the first line of my post I said there's a time and place for this phrase. Conversations about economics is an example of that. Don't be so obtuse.

One reason that I dislike the concept is that it disregards the value of a person’s work and focuses solely on income tax.

For example, a domiciliary care assistant might enable multiple elderly people to live at home for longer, delaying their move to residential care and preventing some expensive hospital stays. She also enables their children to carry on working.

But she is not a “net contributor” so some see her as a drain on society.

I agree, see it so many times on threads as if their worth is more than anyone else’s.

Short memories here, think back to the essential workers during COVID. We’d have been screwed without them but a lot of them the lowest paid workers

Completely agree. I fell into the trap of thinking like that and maybe verging on being smug that I was a net contributor until someone explained it like that to me.

If all of us 'net-takers' working 40 hours a week stacking shelves etc. weren't doing so then the 'net contributors' higher up would gave nothing to contribute at all.

The only time I hear it is when used constructively in arguments with muppets who think their tax is paying for immigrants and free houses and lambos for those fresh off the boat and someone reminds them that they probably aren’t net contributors so ‘their’ tax isn’t even paying for their own needs. I think it’s important to acknowledge that a vast number of people ‘cost’ more than they contribute. We are so so much more than our income tax bracket but when it comes to discussions about how tax should be used it is important to recognise that actually not that many people are heavily contributing! It reminds most that they BENEFIT from taxation and society set up as it is as most take more than they give

I use it a lot for DH and I, as a first gen immigrant married to a second gen immigrant. Increasingly feel we have to justify our presence in the U.K with cold hard tax contributions.

100%. So many people seem to lack this kind of zoomed out thinking where you consider wider society. Eg elderly care workers that enable 'net contributors' to keep working rather than go down to part time to provide the care themselves. It takes all sorts.

I'm sorry you've been made to feel that you need to justify your place here. In this case, I'm glad the phrase exists so you can use it.

I genuinely have no idea what you want though. When are people using this phrase in conversations that aren’t about finance? If they’re using the phrase it’s because they think financial matters are relevant in that conversation? What use is it that you’re actually objecting to?

I think it's a really helpful phrase. It reminds us that no matter how important some jobs might be socially (eg care assistant), we need enough net contributors to keep the whole show on the road.

Again, in my OP I said:

I feel like this phrase is really making people view each other in a nasty way, purely focused on whether they provide economic value or not.

I think in theory this is true. But in reality I often see people talking about net contributors as if they are better or more important than other people.

Ok, so your issue with the phrase is that some people are using it as though it’s the only important thing? It’s still a helpful and important phrase for any discussion about finance, which is the only context I’ve seen it used in. But honestly I’m not sure we’re going to have a constructive conversation about this so I think I’ll bow out now.

YANBU
I think it has its place when talking about finances, but I have seen it used on here by people to feel superior to those who earn less than them.
I remember a thread where OP suggested that people who are not net contributors not be allowed to vote

But surely those people are very important? Otherwise there will be much reduced public services? Shouldn't their contribution be respected and appreciated?

Short memories and shades of Daily mail comments section.
I'll use someone very close to me as an example.
Osteoarthritis
Birth defect leg condition
Degenerative neck condition
Learning disability(literacy+numeracy)
42 years a cleaner the last two years using mop handle ,floor duster handle as a means of support as she needed her stick all the time
She had to admit defeat and stop work.
Some in low paid work battle to keep going it's not the easy life some think it is.

I both agree and disagree. There is definitely a place for considering this metric when discussing the national economy. It doesn't generally give the whole picture though as it only talks about income tax, ignoring VAT for example. There are definitely more ways to contribute to society than through how much you pay in tax, unpaid care and volunteering being absolute prime examples. Someone somewhere has probably spent many years trying to build a model that captures this.

The entire tax system in this country is fucked though and is currently hindering the economy and overall tax take more than it's helping.

It’s still a helpful and important phrase for any discussion about finance

Yes this is exactly what I said in my FIRST SENTENCE. What is going on 😅

I don’t dwell on it anymore. I doubt I’ll ever be one, I used to let this sort of discourse get me down. I had my kids really young (pregnant with first at 15) and so I don’t have many qualifications and have only ever worked minimum wage jobs. It really got to me when I didn’t have a job until I was in my 20s then I found out I’m still considered a loser/bum because my job isn’t high earning enough to make me a net contributor.

Theres also people who are born disabled who will technically never be net contributors it feels depressing and nihilistic to think of people that way.

Yes, but other kinds of contribution are also important, and from this thread I'm not the only person who has seen people talking as if net contributors are MORE important than everyone else

You asked if you were being unreasonable to be fed up of the phrase. I queried what you wanted people to say instead. You confirmed that in fact you don’t have any problem with people using the phrase in the only context I’ve ever seen it used in. That’s a summary of what’s going on from my perspective!

I should think many of them still have to pay council tax so still contributing.

I completely agree - I think it’s reductive and divisive.