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

[Mum2b_Claire]

Good post PB. What a joke that a pay rise and extra responsibility means that one of you can't realistically work anymore. I wonder just how many people fall into this trap now. I can't work when no2 is here, mostly because I had to take a 10% pay cut last year and then we lost loads of our CTC in the budget in april. And then train fares go up! If I went full time we'd get no TCs at all and can you imagine the childcare bill for 2 children when I'd need the childcare from 8am - 6.30pm 5 days per week!

 

[PeanutBean]

I can imagine! Our £13,500 (just gone up a grand as prices go up in Oct) is for two children, 4 days a week after I've removed Byron's free hours. Working ok the assumption DH gets the good grace of his manager to always get his alternate week day off on a Friday and that my employers will continue to let me work from home on the week he is in work.

 

[MikaylasMummy]

Whilst I respect your opinion on the matter I actually disagree on a number of points..people who have studied or worked to get to higher income jobs should not have an extra responsibility o care for those who don't do the same.everyone has an equal responsibility..in Australia university is VERY easily accessible to anyone and we have a hecs program which means you don't start paying your university fees until you are employed in a full time job..if you never work I believe you never pay.so there is equal opportunity for anyone to further their career and earning prospects.my oh does not come from a wealthy family,just a middle class family who have struggled with five kids until his dad at middle age went back and did law at UNi and is finally earning a lot more money.his parents however were well below the poverty line and I often hear stories of how they ate only bread and jam ect.(this is oh's dad not oh)my oh certainly had no extra help from his parents financially(maybe the odd bit of money for meds every now and then)he left school,worked for a while sat a test got into the countries energy company worked as an apprentice on apprentice wages and worked his way up with extra courses ect to earn ad a high income earner e is today.he did not come from a wealthy family and had no benefit over any other person accept he worked hard..why should he not benefit more from his hard earned and long worked for money why does this mean he is suddenly responsible for supporting others so heavily?if the tax is raised as income raises I don't think it should rise as steeply as it does.everyone in this country at least has equal opportunity.I for one am starting university next year doing nursing after 6 years out of school to earn a good living when my kids are in school.back to the point not every high income earner has a cushy lifestyle my oh as mentioned a few times had a highly dangerous physically demanding job,which is why he is paid so much,so he then pays extra in tax which diminishes his extra pay for the danger he faces??

 

[PeanutBean]

I can't really comment on the situation with HE in Australia. I only know the UK though I would be confident in stating there is no country in the world where everyone has equal opportunities. It's simply not the nature of human society. Like I said in my post, it's not fair but it could be less so. It's great your OH (or OH's dad? I forget!) has worked so hard to make a success of his life and I hope that being able to work in the career of his choice is its own reward. If it were possible to take into account independent endeavour then maybe that would be the perfect tax system but it's not and I care more that everyone gets a decent standard of living than that wealthier people don't get to keep as much if their income.

 

[indy and lara]

The problem is that the Government are not planning on really taxing the hugely wealthy. Those earning £150k and more a year won't really be hit. Neither will the footballers and so on who earn mega salaries. I don't agree with the silly salaries earned by people like footballers but I am also not sure that they should taxed extra either.

'Wealthy' is a very subjective term as has been shown on BnB many times over the years. One man's wealthy is anothers just doing okay and anothers not that well off at all. I know that lots of people would class us as wealthy but while my husband earns a good salary it is our only income so has to support our whole family. We don't have debts but do have mortgage, pretty crazy petrol costs from his commute and bills like everyone else. We get no benefits except CB and that will be gone soon enough. However, he works long hours, has a lot of responsibility and has studied a lot post university in his free time to gain the qualifications he has. With all this in mind I do think he is more than entitled to his salary. He pays a huge amount of tax and NI so makes quite a considerable contribution to the state already. We both come from true working class backgrounds, are the first in the family to go to uni and so on.

No easy answers to this one- my cop out answer!!!!

 

[PeanutBean]

Not sure if this is really related but something that bothers me is the assumption that a degree automatically confers higher income. Both DH and I have degrees, mine a first class science degree and both earn below the average salary. I did a PhD too but because I work for a charity I'm paid low for my skills and role. I also have the problem that there are no jobs north of Oxford in my sector so am pretty stuck. I've yet to earn enough to start paying my student loan. I'm about to start an MSc (courtesy of a loan from my mum) to try and shift career paths back towards that of my degree but it'll take three years to complete and the change of path is likely to mean another pay drop.

I've got quite a few friends who never studied in HE and who evidently have way more money than us. Some friends recently bought a house £150,000 more than the value of ours (secretary and travel agent) whilst we don't actually own any of our house courtesy of the insane house prices when we relocated for my job. It's depressing to have been 9 years on the property ladder and possess nothing for it.

I guess if I'd chosen to do accountancy as so many science graduates do we'd have money and no job satisfaction instead of the other way round.

 

[Mum2b_Claire]

I have a degree but at 18 I had no idea about what my strengths and interest lay in and chose a bit of a random subject. 12k worth of debt later and I got a job I didn't need a degree for (wage a shade above national average.) However there was no opportunity for progression, I do wonder if I'd got something 'using' my degree I would have more of a career. Back to the drawing board now anyway, have decided that healthcare is my calling!

 

[PeanutBean]

I use mine and also have no progression because I don't live in London.

 

[MikaylasMummy]

Thats the thing about degrees though.oh chose his trade cos he knew it would be great money and huge chance for career progression.I chose to study nursing for the same reason.not necessarily because it's my absolute passion in life,but because there's millions of jobs,big chances to go places in your career and many different aspects I can work in.so because oh and I chose to work in high paying jobs and undertake further education for money not passion we should pay more tax?doing something that doesn't necessarily make us happy?my point we chose degrees/trades to make money.there is plenty of research and information on what jobs a degree could award you how many jobs or percentage of employment rate there is from your course and the income
Bracket earnt.I know many many ppl with psychology degrees who have finished studying and can't find work but I know that,why don't others realize before they start and take that into account.I fear this convo has gotten very off topic sorry =)

 

[PeanutBean]

There are plenty of science jobs, just not the right ones in an area I can afford to live in and I sort of stumbled into my particular socialism because of what was available at the time. I personally can't comprehend choosing a career for financial purposes. If I wasn't doing a job I was passionate about it would be soul destroying. I'm afraid I'm quite happy for people choosing high paying careers to pay more tax than those doing low paying careers with high social value. I should add that I would consider nursing to be in the latter, it must be a very different system in Aus!

 

[indy and lara]

^^^ There are quite a few high paying jobs which have high social value too.

Many people choose or find they have to choose jobs which are not their passions, especially just now. DH had his dream job but extended recession has meant the what he does is only really happening in the Middle East just now. After a lot of heartache he chose not to follow his company to the ME, took redundancy and now works in the same industry but different job. This was chosen because it was best for his family. It is not his passion but he is able to see his family and life the life he wants. You may think it is soul destroying but sometimes making a choice about where you work means you have to put the needs of others before you.

 

[PeanutBean]

Yes there are high paying jobs with high social value but the highest mostly do not IMO.

You're right of course Indy, I doubt many people have passion about street cleaning or sewer work, both a necessity. I was thinking more about people who have a choice, have followed the HE path and have specifically chosen money-making careers in response to the post before mine. In my ideal society the necessary jobs that are so low paid would be much better paid to compensate.

My brother fell into accounting after his environment degree and I know he would love to go back to that if he were able to get a job in it but he needs his high paid job now to support his family. I dunno... Neither DH nor I have the option to switch career path to something better paid and as I'm going to have to drop out of work, fingers crossed for at least part time work somewhere, because or childcare costs it's unlikely I'll be doing anything I have passion for for a while. I'm lucky as I'll be able to at least get intellectual stimulation from the MSc.

Eta Of course there are people whose passion is money. I won't go into my opinion of them!

 

[MikaylasMummy]

Compared to a Lot of other jobs and especially as a second income after a year or two in registered nursing there is the potential to earn a decent income and advance in the career.there are agency nurses that once I get a bit of experience up I will probably do that can earn up to $80 and hour.icu nurses who also earn a lot.plus the potential for overtime and extra shifts.it is slightly offending your view on careers for money.but at the same time I don't really care.we earn money so we can do things outside of work that we enjoy.work is work.to pay the bills and keep the world going.we may not be passionate about our careers but we don't hate them,is it what oh would want to do with his day if he had any choice?no but it is a good job with good pay.each to their own though.

 

[Eternal]

I agree, degress dont always mean money, I have a degree but my OH doesnt, yet he earns a middle salary figure.

But then I guess it depends what you do your degree in and if you follow that path.

I wonder with uni fees raising what the value of a degree will be, because of of the problems is that a huge proportion of people have degrees. Because so many people have them its worth less, if that makes sense?

Although if im honest, i much prefer the system of working your way up from the bottom, with portential to do anything. Obviously education is important and degrees essential on some places/subjects, but these days you can get degrees in all sorts.

 

[PeanutBean]

I get where you're coming from eternal and am not sure what I think... I definitely think access should be equal for people from all backgrounds and I disagree with the fees. I agree that certain professions need degrees (I couldn't have been a marine biologist with a degree and that applies to most science) and that others don't. DH's 2:1 English Lit degree has certainly done absolutely nothing for his prospects (except by opening up connections for his writing career he is working on unpaid). I think the problem is a lack of an alternative. After apprenticeships were scrapped by the last Tory government it really closed that avenue into a career structure and Labour's efforts to reintroduce them haven't come to much. I think we have a problem of longevity with a given employer compared to the past when someone might spend 40 years with the same employer starting at the bottom out of school (also a problem for the way pensions work). I'm not sure that that's something we do necessarily want to go back to though so I guess we need new thinking to create new systems.

 

[TwilightAgain]

What pisses me off is that the rich do have to pay for everything. And those sat on their backsides get everything for bloody free! (Obviously I know sometimes it can't be helped but i'm talking about those who take advantage of the system).

Why on earth should the 'wealthy' have to fork out for tonnes when they're the ones getting out of bed on a morning and making the effort to go to work and those who can't be bothered get free childcare, dentist etc (I think, feel free to contradict if i'm incorrect). It makes no sense!

Edit: Apologies, I thought they did

 

[Mum2b_Claire]

Nobody who doesn't work gets free childcare?? Unless I'm mistaken.

 

[Eternal]

I get where you're coming from eternal and am not sure what I think... I definitely think access should be equal for people from all backgrounds and I disagree with the fees. I agree that certain professions need degrees (I couldn't have been a marine biologist with a degree and that applies to most science) and that others don't. DH's 2:1 English Lit degree has certainly done absolutely nothing for his prospects (except by opening up connections for his writing career he is working on unpaid). I think the problem is a lack of an alternative. After apprenticeships were scrapped by the last Tory government it really closed that avenue into a career structure and Labour's efforts to reintroduce them haven't come to much. I think we have a problem of longevity with a given employer compared to the past when someone might spend 40 years with the same employer starting at the bottom out of school (also a problem for the way pensions work). I'm not sure that that's something we do necessarily want to go back to though so I guess we need new thinking to create new systems.

Im not saying thats its a good thing uni fee are going up, infact i think they should be free, im just saying it may have a positive impact on those who have degrees.

I also agree we should bring back apprenitships, my husband despiratley wanted to be a joined and couldnt, he eventually got an appreacntiship with british gas, and they paid him for train. Now if you want to do the same as him, you have to pay to train and they have worked it in such a way that it takes a long time to earn decent money. Crazy!

 

[Eternal]

What pisses me off is that the rich do have to pay for everything. And those sat on their backsides get everything for bloody free! (Obviously I know sometimes it can't be helped but i'm talking about those who take advantage of the system).

Why on earth should the 'wealthy' have to fork out for tonnes when they're the ones getting out of bed on a morning and making the effort to go to work and those who can't be bothered get free childcare, dentist etc (I think, feel free to contradict if i'm incorrect). It makes no sense!

Yeah I dont think they get free childcare, although social services so sometimes fund childcare for those who cant look after their kids.

I knew someone who didnt work, and couldnt get out of bed in the morning, so SS paid for someone to come and get the kids ready in the morning and take them to school while she stayed in bed!

Crazy, saying that the kids needed that, so it wasnt so much about her as it was about them, in which case its a good thing. They were evetually taken off her.

I think childcare should be subsidised, its so expensive and so many more people who want to work would if the cost wasnt so high, in the long run subsidising childcare would cost significantly less than paying benefits. But thats the system, it doesnt allow people to help themseleves.

As for the rich should pay thing, i 100% agree, but the highest earners, that 1% or whatever it was that peanutbean talked about, I do agree that thats different.

But for the vast majoirty of the "rich" which is anyone who earned over £35,000 appareantly I dont think should pay for society. People can choose what they want from life, no one is forced into their way of life. Yes the richer families kids tend to stay rich, thats clearly about living a certain way. I know people who I would consider rich, and their kids either marry rich or work hard to earn a good wage, its not about the poorer people not have access its about getting used to a certain way of life and wanting to maintain that.

If you raised by family in benefits, you know nothing different, and although some break the mould, it tends to be that if your family dont have much they you wont either. Because thats same motivating factor isnt there.

It doenst always work that way, one of my ex's families were loaded, but he wasnt and never will be. Yes he is lucky, mummy and daddy pay for nice holidays, etc, but for the most part he is in a tiny tiny flat with his wife and kid.

 

[MikaylasMummy]

What pisses me off is that the rich do have to pay for everything. And those sat on their backsides get everything for bloody free! (Obviously I know sometimes it can't be helped but i'm talking about those who take advantage of the system).

Why on earth should the 'wealthy' have to fork out for tonnes when they're the ones getting out of bed on a morning and making the effort to go to work and those who can't be bothered get free childcare, dentist etc (I think, feel free to contradict if i'm incorrect). It makes no sense!

Yeah I dont think they get free childcare, although social services so sometimes fund childcare for those who cant look after their kids.

I knew someone who didnt work, and couldnt get out of bed in the morning, so SS paid for someone to come and get the kids ready in the morning and take them to school while she stayed in bed!

Crazy, saying that the kids needed that, so it wasnt so much about her as it was about them, in which case its a good thing. They were evetually taken off her.

I think childcare should be subsidised, its so expensive and so many more people who want to work would if the cost wasnt so high, in the long run subsidising childcare would cost significantly less than paying benefits. But thats the system, it doesnt allow people to help themseleves.

As for the rich should pay thing, i 100% agree, but the highest earners, that 1% or whatever it was that peanutbean talked about, I do agree that thats different.

But for the vast majoirty of the "rich" which is anyone who earned over £35,000 appareantly I dont think should pay for society. People can choose what they want from life, no one is forced into their way of life. Yes the richer families kids tend to stay rich, thats clearly about living a certain way. I know people who I would consider rich, and their kids either marry rich or work hard to earn a good wage, its not about the poorer people not have access its about getting used to a certain way of life and wanting to maintain that.

If you raised by family in benefits, you know nothing different, and although some break the mould, it tends to be that if your family dont have much they you wont either. Because thats same motivating factor isnt there.

It doenst always work that way, one of my ex's families were loaded, but he wasnt and never will be. Yes he is lucky, mummy and daddy pay for nice holidays, etc, but for the most part he is in a tiny tiny flat with his wife and kid.

well in australia ppl (single parents and low or no income families on benifits)get child care for around $7 A DAY!!regardless if its for the parent to go to work or not!!i know lots of single mums who dont work but put their toddler in childcare at least one day a week for a break or to hae a day alone wth the younger child!
for us higher income earners it is $80 a day, i havnt fully looked into it but I THINK that we may get some subsidy, which may make it about $50 a day. still that is a lot!especially when i am going to uni next year so i will actually NEED daycare and we will have to pay a lot for it!thats per child by the way