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.

Agree so hard. I once sat through an entire sociology lesson on 'why not everybody can be a CEO' after a snide comment about people who "don't try hard enough" from a boy in my class. It was the best lesson ever and really shut some mouths up that day.

Even if every single person in the UK went on to get several PhDs in whatever the fuck, most of them would still have to work low-level jobs because without them the whole of society is fucked. How some people can't comprehend this is truly mind-boggling. Anything to make them think they have the right to pass judgement and feel better about themselves, I guess...

Can you point out to me where I said they're not important?

@Maverickess put it really well if you read a few posts above yours, this part especially:

on here I see it used as a way to devalue people who work in low paid and poorly respected roles that are essential and if not essential then important to society.

I think it is partly to combat the constant narrative about 'free healthcare', 'free education' and the 'government' paying for things.

I’m a net contributor, and parent to disabled child.

The only time I ever make reference to contributions, net or otherwise, is when people bang on about the cost of disability, immigration, or any form of welfare/funding for vulnerable people, despite not actually putting enough in to cover their own arse.

I have no issue contributing, or paying towards people who need it, and don’t think that makes me some sort of higher being

But I genuinely can’t bare people who think they’re begrudgingly paying for my son, when they are in fact not because I am, and they wouldn’t be anyway because they haven’t yet covered the cost of their own kid’s state education etc etc.

How many people are truly net contributors though, throughout the whole of their lives? I certainly was pre-kids, well established career, strong salary and very little need for state provision and support.

Enter two children with complex needs, reduced working hours to care for them, extensive health involvement and specialist education provision and I was definitely a net recipient. I could argue that removing two kids from the care system is a significant net contribution but in cold, hard cash terms not do much. Fast forward and my career is back on track, but I’m still not covering the cost of their ongoing health care, and I now have some health issues of my own.

I think it’s an unhelpful distinction to make because our economic capacity, support needs and health care vary so much over a lifetime. The net contributors now may not be in 5 years time - that doesn’t make them more or less worthy than the next person. A narrative where everyone is encouraged, supported and incentivised to do their best, in whatever way they can, with the means available to them, feels more reasonable.

But why have you assumed that net contributor is only financial? It clearly cant be. I have always thought, on hearing that phrase, that yes financial, so normally anyone who works, but also voluntary works, eg scouts, old people homes, volunteer drivers, schools, councillors, etc. Ie someone who literally contributes to society positively. A taker, rather than contributor, is for me someone who net financially RECEIVES from society but offers nothing back. This number should be very few for society to move on.

I earn a decent amount, and pay taxes of course, but there's no way it's paid for my education, hospital births, NHS medication and it definitely won't pay for my pension. So I am not a net contibutor and will probably become a financial drain as I get older. I'm very grateful for what I have been given.

I think it's a useful term to remind ourselves that other people's hard work is paying for our NHS, schools and any unearned income.

@SleeplessInWherever some are clearly deluded as to how far their tax contributions go.
I detest how certain sections of society are seen as a burden.
Not everyone on low pay /benefits are at it some are and DWP should go after them in my experience it's the genuine that gets the rough computer says no treatment.

I haven't assumed, it's how I (and others on this thread) have seen other people use it, particularly here on MN

I don't know how you would even go about calculating it. So the equation is taxes paid minus benefits received in cash and services. How do you know any of these totals? Income tax is simple but what about VAT, fuel duty etc. Same with the benefits side. UC, child benefit is simple but how to you calculate health care, using the library, your child's education (if not private!). And then I volunteer at the library, can this be counted?

Well that's partly why it's an annoying phrase

And other people's hard work often enables the net contributors to earn their money. Would they be able to earn that much without the lower paid people in their organisation, without the lower paid people in society around them? Very doubtful

When I was in business, I knew that I wouldn't be earning the money I did without the contributions of those who worked for me.

It's a phrase used relative to tax receipts and government expenditure so it's entirely appropriate in the context of discussions about those things.

Everybody has a place in society, and nobody is more important than anybody else when you're talking about jobs and service.

I agree, I also think that it's useful to remind ourselves that some people's hard work provides those services at a pay rate that means (especially in the current climate) they're in need of support in some way to enable them to continue.
I work in social care, I live in social housing, if social care paid more, I wouldn't need the social housing, living in SH means I can make ends meet and have a very, very modest amount to actually live and not just exist to serve society, and I mean the occasional coffee with a friend, the occasional meal out or an item of clothing that isn't strictly for looking the part at work, not holidays, fags, booze and tattoos like is often assumed for people in my situation.

I love my job, I'm good at it, I make a real difference to other people's lives, I actually care, and that's what society demands of people who care for the vulnerable, their vulnerable, and I'm fine with my lifestyle, I don't expect 3 holidays a year or a brand new car, what I'm not fine with (and I think the feeling of the OP and others) is the attitude that I'm taking other people's hard work in return for nothing.

Wow how many times are you hearing the phrase? And how many of those times are in conversations not about the economy (the time and the place)? I barely ever hear the phrase personally so am not sick of it.

@HedgerowD The ONS does those calculations on a household (rather than an individual) basis:

Many people on here use the same logic to attack the OAP's right to a decent pension.

'Net contributor' is only relevant to taxes. It is an economic term, not a moral judgement on anyone's societal contribution. It isn't saying there aren't other ways that people contribute.

Anyone who is judging others’ social value based on the tax they pay is an arsehole.

I think the phrase is needed.

There is a thread by a pregnant OP who thinks she should be able to claim PIP because she has undiagnosed anxiety and wants to be a SAHM for her two kids because she has worked for a few years and paid tax.

She really seems to think she should be getting back in benefits what she has put into the system.