Does anyone else get really annoyed with some peoples attitude of the rich should pay

[Mum2b_Claire]

^ wow that's a hell of a lot of extra work for just £300ish a month!!

 

[Eternal]

My husband puts it well. "I don't work as hard as I do for us to use cheap toilet roll". We don't have expensive tastes but we do live to a standard that his earning can afford. So to some with a smaller income might look at ours and think "Heck, they have loads to spare" but actually we don't because we live according to our means. I don't means we have lots of holidays, wear designer clothes and have a boat. We have a bigger house, a bigger mortgage, like to have one big holiday a year, have hobbies that cost money and treat ourselves where we can. If we didn't live to a standard to suit our incomes... then why bother working at all. Surely everyone works harder to better their situation... but if you only got to live the same regardless then how is that really a better situation... and where's your incentive to work hard?

So on the surface it might seem that those earning more can afford to pay more in tax... but they can't without losing the incentive to work in the first place xx

100% agree! My husband is not a high earner, but everyone lives up to their means, yes some may have savings. If those earning more didnt have nicer things or nicer holidays/homes/cars etc then why wouldnt they bother?

 

[midori1999]

Surely it is about society as a whole and everyone contributing what they can to it financially? Money to fund our benefits system and the NHS etc has to come from somewhere and I think it's right that those who can afford to contribute more do.

 

[Eternal]

^ wow that's a hell of a lot of extra work for just £300ish a month!!

I know, thats what we felt! he worked his ass off, not sure if he will now he is married though.

But as i said it did include pensions and OH had he had three company shares things which were £100 or more a month. which my husband doesnt have so if you included that it would be a lot more, but still, it made us feel better

 

[Eternal]

Surely it is about society as a whole and everyone contributing what they can to it financially? Money to fund our benefits system and the NHS etc has to come from somewhere and I think it's right that those who can afford to contribute more do.

But thats the whole point, if everyone was contributing then it wouldnt be a problem anyway.

But why should those earning more pay for people like my half sister to sit on her ass every day and never work a day in her life at the ripe age of 34?

If everyone took responsinilty then we wouldnt have the situation we do. Like why have more children than you can afford etc.

The other point is the rich cant afford to, the rich live to their means too, so have more than others but if they didnt spend on those things then those industries would die, they already conrtibute more, why should they be punished for working hard?

 

[buttonnose82]

it's a really tough subject, I can kinda see both sides, the government NEEDS the extra money too try get us out of the sticky wicket we are currently in, (although on the flip side it does seem unfair that we are the one's picking up the pieces after the government stuffed up but thats a whole other rant lol)

Hubby is in the 40% bracket, he works in the center of Leeds, we are by no means rich, infact we had to buy a house outside of the leeds council boundery just too be about too afford a house that would suit our needs for the next 10 years, this however means he has a longer & more expensive commute into work, he spends maybe 15/20 mins with Little Man on a morning and 15/20 mins with Little Man on an evening. We have very few 'luxuries' our last holiday was our honeymoon, we don't really go out, we don't get take away's very often, we don't go out for meals, we have Sky TV and the internet, those are our only real luxuries, yet we are taxed more because someone in a office someone decided that if you earn X amount then you are therefore a middle level earner and deserve too be taxed more

I really do think they need too look at things as a whole, the area you live in, commuting, cost of living in certain areas

 

[Mum2b_Claire]

Also where would this extra money that is needed come from if not from taxing the highest earners that extra percentage, surely no one thinks it'd be best for some people to go without food or heat in order to make it 'fair' and no one lose any of their luxuries?

and buttonnose I totally agree that the bigger picture needs looking at. Commuting is a killer cost in my area and not just to higher earners.

 

[Eternal]

it's a really tough subject, I can kinda see both sides, the government NEEDS the extra money too try get us out of the sticky wicket we are currently in, (although on the flip side it does seem unfair that we are the one's picking up the pieces after the government stuffed up but thats a whole other rant lol)

Hubby is in the 40% bracket, he works in the center of Leeds, we are by no means rich, infact we had to buy a house outside of the leeds council boundery just too be about too afford a house that would suit our needs for the next 10 years, this however means he has a longer & more expensive commute into work, he spends maybe 15/20 mins with Little Man on a morning and 15/20 mins with Little Man on an evening. We have very few 'luxuries' our last holiday was our honeymoon, we don't really go out, we don't get take away's very often, we don't go out for meals, we have Sky TV and the internet, those are our only real luxuries, yet we are taxed more because someone in a office someone decided that if you earn X amount then you are therefore a middle level earner and deserve too be taxed more

I really do think they need too look at things as a whole, the area you live in, commuting, cost of living in certain areas

I agree, OH is in the 40% bracket too, but again dont have any of those luxeries, even out honeymoon was in this country lol! But i guess our luxery is that im a sahm so we are happy to go without as there is no chance we can afford childcare, esp with twins on the way

I was shocked the other day as someone was asking if £1600 a month was enough to live on as thats how much she worked out she would get in benefits after she had her baby. that is only £100 less than my husbands basic! that doesnt seem right to me, he is classed as a middle earner, yet actually he earns the same if not less than people not working

I have nothing against benefits, i think there is a need and most people are genuine, but still should they be getting the same as middle earners? what about all those earning less than that?

 

[Eternal]

Also where would this extra money that is needed come from if not from taxing the highest earners that extra percentage, surely no one thinks it'd be best for some people to go without food or heat in order to make it 'fair' and no one lose any of their luxuries?

and buttonnose I totally agree that the bigger picture needs looking at. Commuting is a killer cost in my area and not just to higher earners.

No, but why would someone need to go without, i know plenty of people who the whole family are on benefits who have holidays abroad and brand new cars ever 3 years! I havent been abroad since i was married and my husband never has! we certainly dont have a new car, yet he is taxed at 40%

 

[Mum2b_Claire]

You'll like this then....
OH and I would be financially better off apart. The benefits I'd get would far outweigh OH's salary after commuting costs (which is £20k btw.)

 

[Mum2b_Claire]

Also where would this extra money that is needed come from if not from taxing the highest earners that extra percentage, surely no one thinks it'd be best for some people to go without food or heat in order to make it 'fair' and no one lose any of their luxuries?

and buttonnose I totally agree that the bigger picture needs looking at. Commuting is a killer cost in my area and not just to higher earners.

No, but why would someone need to go without, i know plenty of people who the whole family are on benefits who have holidays abroad and brand new cars ever 3 years! I havent been abroad since i was married and my husband never has! we certainly dont have a new car, yet he is taxed at 40%

Well, I don't know where these people get their money from, we're not on benefits atm but will be on a small amount soon (I'm quitting work due to it not making us ANY money after childcare, and that's for one child btw) and there is NO WAY we will able to afford any luxuries whatsoever, no takeaways, no nice clothes, we don't really mind as it's very temporary though.
Those people annoy me every bit as much as they annoy you!

 

[Eternal]

You'll like this then....
OH and I would be financially better off apart. The benefits I'd get would far outweigh OH's salary after commuting costs (which is £20k btw.)

yeah thats that what i have an issue with! Its a crazy system that doesnt help people who are helping themselves. You are trying your hardest and would be better off if you split with your OH doesnt that seem wrong?

To be benefits should be there to support those who cant work for whatever reason and give them resources to empower them to someday get back into work, weather that is very soon or after kids are in school or whatever.

Benefits should be there to make people better off or the same as those who work hard! How crazy that you would get over £20,000 in benefits if you broke up!

but thats equally why i dont think the high earners should be taxed greater when they already give more. where is the incentive for people to work harder. What will happen is those who have the ability to earn larger amounts will leave the country and then where would we be?

 

[Eternal]

Also where would this extra money that is needed come from if not from taxing the highest earners that extra percentage, surely no one thinks it'd be best for some people to go without food or heat in order to make it 'fair' and no one lose any of their luxuries?

and buttonnose I totally agree that the bigger picture needs looking at. Commuting is a killer cost in my area and not just to higher earners.

No, but why would someone need to go without, i know plenty of people who the whole family are on benefits who have holidays abroad and brand new cars ever 3 years! I havent been abroad since i was married and my husband never has! we certainly dont have a new car, yet he is taxed at 40%

Well, I don't know where these people get their money from, we're not on benefits atm but will be on a small amount soon (I'm quitting work due to it not making us ANY money after childcare, and that's for one child btw) and there is NO WAY we will able to afford any luxuries whatsoever, no takeaways, no nice clothes, we don't really mind as it's very temporary though.
Those people annoy me every bit as much as they annoy you!

I totally feel for you, must suck having to give up like that, i mean i am sure you will love being a sahm (i do) but its stupid isnt it? childcare is a joke, with twins on the way i know there is no way i could earn enough to afford it for 3!

 

[Mum2b_Claire]

well, we wouldn't get 20k of benefits as such, but it would be more than his net pay minus commuting costs.
I do agree and sympathise with what you're saying, I can never see things in black and white though, having been in 'both' situations, as a comfortable earner being taxed what seemed like a lot, and as someone who now can't do right for doing wrong because I'm better off NOT working and apparently a drain on resources!

 

[KittyVentura]

Also where would this extra money that is needed come from if not from taxing the highest earners that extra percentage, surely no one thinks it'd be best for some people to go without food or heat in order to make it 'fair' and no one lose any of their luxuries?

Oh absolutely not. I'd never expect people to go without essentials. I don't really know what the ideal solution would be, all I know is that it's categorically unfair at the moment. It's going to really hit the UK hard in the long run I think because most of the people we know in a similar situation are all or have all considered taking their skills abroad. That could have a lot to do with the industry he works in though (kindof a smallish industry of people that work with & develop the software Ian does so once you're skilled you're constantly getting job offers from other companies and many of which are abroad).

I don't know logistically how it would work but part of me feels that those with an EXCESSICVE amount of wealth (We're not talking middle to high earners, we're talking CEOS of massive corporations who earn more than the prime minister etc) should be encouranged to plough some of their profits and wealth back into the governement or economy. If it was done right it could work well for both.

It doesn't need to be obligatory.

Could you imagine Tescos annoucing that they are funding the salaries of 150 nurses in the UK for the next year. What kind of positive publicity that would bring. The government could come up with all manner of ways to get these big corporations to give MORE back to the UK government and economy AND it being a positive publicity builder for the company as well. Win win.

There's quite a good sense of commraderie in teh UK at the moment. Everyone pulling together to stand up to things they don't agree with. If the governement were to announce that they would like to encourage companies to do these kind of things... and then name those that do... AND those that don't... like a name and shame. I'm sure the population would make a stand as such to try and help encourage other companies to do the same. Mild boycotts etc.

That might all be a load of crap but I was challenged to think of a solution and that's where my mind has gone. Not thought it all through fully though lol xx

 

[MikaylasMummy]

This is an issue that has been SERIOUSLY on my mind for the last few weeks and it really REALLY gets to me!!oh is in one of the highest ta brackets and pays A LOT of tax.he earns $100,000+ so therefor he is taxed a shitload.the reason he earns so much is because he works in a dangerous high risk job(lineworker for the government energy company)AND he has a lot of overtime available to him which he takes so we can have extra!he is on call 24/7 nearly every week to earn extra money for us.this year we paid close to $30,000 in tax..this week alone he got taxed $2500!!it's insane!we pay for private health and even when our son has been to the public hospital a few times recently we have had our private insurance pay for it.our children will go to private schools we pay for so really the only thing we use from the government are roads ect.it is not fair at all and I wholly believe that tax should go off a persons routine income and overtime,the time a person volentarily takes away from their family to earn a bit extra should not be taxed so harshly!we are by NO means rich,yet we pay a fortune in tax.I also think it's unbelievably unfair that there are millions of families out there who work for minimum wage and are happy that way but then get government benefits to suppliment what they don't make and we have to pay extra!!vent over sorry it's amazing that this has so recently come up in my personal life when we are trying to pay for things and just get taxed half our money!

 

[Eternal]

well, we wouldn't get 20k of benefits as such, but it would be more than his net pay minus commuting costs.
I do agree and sympathise with what you're saying, I can never see things in black and white though, having been in 'both' situations, as a comfortable earner being taxed what seemed like a lot, and as someone who now can't do right for doing wrong because I'm better off NOT working and apparently a drain on resources!

Your not a drain on resources, a vitcium of a poor system perhaps, but not a drain. I see nothing wrong with one partner staying home while the other works at all.

 

[Mum2b_Claire]

Also where would this extra money that is needed come from if not from taxing the highest earners that extra percentage, surely no one thinks it'd be best for some people to go without food or heat in order to make it 'fair' and no one lose any of their luxuries?

Oh absolutely not. I'd never expect people to go without essentials. I don't really know what the ideal solution would be, all I know is that it's categorically unfair at the moment. It's going to really hit the UK hard in the long run I think because most of the people we know in a similar situation are all or have all considered taking their skills abroad. That could have a lot to do with the industry he works in though (kindof a smallish industry of people that work with & develop the software Ian does so once you're skilled you're constantly getting job offers from other companies and many of which are abroad).

I don't know logistically how it would work but part of me feels that those with an EXCESSICVE amount of wealth (We're not talking middle to high earners, we're talking CEOS of massive corporations who earn more than the prime minister etc) should be encouranged to plough some of their profits and wealth back into the governement or economy. If it was done right it could work well for both.

It doesn't need to be obligatory.

Could you imagine Tescos annoucing that they are funding the salaries of 150 nurses in the UK for the next year. What kind of positive publicity that would bring. The government could come up with all manner of ways to get these big corporations to give MORE back to the UK government and economy AND it being a positive publicity builder for the company as well. Win win.

There's quite a good sense of commraderie in teh UK at the moment. Everyone pulling together to stand up to things they don't agree with. If the governement were to announce that they would like to encourage companies to do these kind of things... and then name those that do... AND those that don't... like a name and shame. I'm sure the population would make a stand as such to try and help encourage other companies to do the same. Mild boycotts etc.

That might all be a load of crap but I was challenged to think of a solution and that's where my mind has gone. Not thought it all through fully though lol xx

Liking these ideas in principle!

 

[KittyVentura]

This is an issue that has been SERIOUSLY on my mind for the last few weeks and it really REALLY gets to me!!oh is in one of the highest ta brackets and pays A LOT of tax.he earns $100,000+ so therefor he is taxed a shitload.the reason he earns so much is because he works in a dangerous high risk job(lineworker for the government energy company)AND he has a lot of overtime available to him which he takes so we can have extra!he is on call 24/7 nearly every week to earn extra money for us.this year we paid close to $30,000 in tax..this week alone he got taxed $2500!!it's insane!we pay for private health and even when our son has been to the public hospital a few times recently we have had our private insurance pay for it.our children will go to private schools we pay for so really the only thing we use from the government are roads ect.it is not fair at all and I wholly believe that tax should go off a persons routine income and overtime,the time a person volentarily takes away from their family to earn a bit extra should not be taxed so harshly!we are by NO means rich,yet we pay a fortune in tax.I also think it's unbelievably unfair that there are millions of families out there who work for minimum wage and are happy that way but then get government benefits to suppliment what they don't make and we have to pay extra!!vent over sorry it's amazing that this has so recently come up in my personal life when we are trying to pay for things and just get taxed half our money!

It's hard isn't it. Ian's job isn't dangerous but he works SO much. About 3 months of the year he's in his actual office which is a 45 hr drive. The rest he's wherever he needs to be in the UK. This means either very long commutes each day or staying away in the week. Either way he doesn't get to see Fin. He's either up and out before Fin wakes and home once he's in bed or he's not here at all. He's typically on call every weekend and through the night too. It's very hard on us both but we don't complain. We just enjoy the weekends and time together even more. I know how you feel xxx

 

[Eternal]

Also where would this extra money that is needed come from if not from taxing the highest earners that extra percentage, surely no one thinks it'd be best for some people to go without food or heat in order to make it 'fair' and no one lose any of their luxuries?

Oh absolutely not. I'd never expect people to go without essentials. I don't really know what the ideal solution would be, all I know is that it's categorically unfair at the moment. It's going to really hit the UK hard in the long run I think because most of the people we know in a similar situation are all or have all considered taking their skills abroad. That could have a lot to do with the industry he works in though (kindof a smallish industry of people that work with & develop the software Ian does so once you're skilled you're constantly getting job offers from other companies and many of which are abroad).

I don't know logistically how it would work but part of me feels that those with an EXCESSICVE amount of wealth (We're not talking middle to high earners, we're talking CEOS of massive corporations who earn more than the prime minister etc) should be encouranged to plough some of their profits and wealth back into the governement or economy. If it was done right it could work well for both.

It doesn't need to be obligatory.

Could you imagine Tescos annoucing that they are funding the salaries of 150 nurses in the UK for the next year. What kind of positive publicity that would bring. The government could come up with all manner of ways to get these big corporations to give MORE back to the UK government and economy AND it being a positive publicity builder for the company as well. Win win.

There's quite a good sense of commraderie in teh UK at the moment. Everyone pulling together to stand up to things they don't agree with. If the governement were to announce that they would like to encourage companies to do these kind of things... and then name those that do... AND those that don't... like a name and shame. I'm sure the population would make a stand as such to try and help encourage other companies to do the same. Mild boycotts etc.

That might all be a load of crap but I was challenged to think of a solution and that's where my mind has gone. Not thought it all through fully though lol xx

Big companies already have to contribute, its quite a bit too. i worked in the voluntery sector and there is lots of money avaliable if you know where to find it.

Tesco conrtibute a lot more than 150 nurses saleries.

Lloyds TSB are a major contributor to the olympics.

but yeah i understand what your saying.

The problem is things like the NHS are never ever going to work out! there is always going to be more coming out of it then into it even if you spikes incomes rates my 10% accross the board.

Cutting costs within would help, like all the middle management, but then your talking huge job losses.

So what do people consider a high earner?