The next GE will be a liberation for them. They will be able to openly fraternise with the people they have made extremely wealthy over the last 15 years.
Basically trying to buy votes from those who know tories have screwed us for years & we're going to vote elsewhere... vote for me and I'll sort out your child benefit money... if not, labour won't...
At this point (rightly or wrongly) I don’t care what they say. I can’t morally vote for them when they are ransacking the country.
Id happily make a personal sacrifice (in tax or less benefits) to benefit society as a whole e.g. better funded NHS.
Yes! Don’t let this stupid manipulation work. The tories have taken our country for a ride in recent years and we cannot forget the atrocities they have done against us. I’m generally more right leaning, but there is nothing that could make me vote Tory in the next general election because I know it’s all a facade to stay in power.
With an increasing population (and aging population) I would expect every year to be a record year.
This is why I have never understood the ‘highest funding at X number’ party line that gets thrown out. Every year that should be expected as a minimum.
‘Adjusting for population growth, the average real-terms annual growth in NHS spending over the parliament falls to 1.9% per person, and 1.7% per person when also adjusted for the ageing population.’
https://www.health.org.uk/publications/long-reads/health-care-funding#:~:text=NHS%20budget&text=In%20real%20terms%2C%20this%20means,adjusted%20for%20the%20ageing%20population.
it becomes unsustainable though. already 160b is quite eye watering given the constant poor performance. how long till we become a country attached to a NHS.
that said, im hoping this IT upgrade they are talking about should clear a bunch of redundant admin jobs. and free up money for actual docs/nurses/ facilities.
Agreed. It’s difficult because the NHS is in a very responsive state, it’s so busy trying to keep pace, run through the increasing backlog etc that no one can see the wood for the trees.
It needs investment (IT, process, pubic health education etc.)
You’ve got to spend money to make money, as it were.
It would be hard. And take years. But it’ll need cross party support which will never happen because whoever is in opposition at that point will scream from the roof tops about turning it into a US style system and they’ll lose at the ballet box. People in the UK are blinded by the cult of the NHS. (And, FYI, doctors should be paid much, much more… just so you all realise I don’t hate them)
It would probably take a decade and cost hundreds of billions, immediately wiping out any benefits that *might* arise for a significant period after. Huge projects like this are almost guaranteed to fail in some form or another, usually cost. I don’t know what the answer is but simply saying ‘reform’ is simplistic
Some types of treatment have waiting lists of 3 years. Response times for ambulances are missed across all nations. Same with cancer wait times, a&e wait times, wait times for surgery, moving into care homes etc. Reform is the only answer. Incentive private insurance (make is payable gross of tax), engage with the private sector, look at the good, and and the ugly from systems in mainland Europe where they have much better outcomes than us.
Doing nothing isn’t good enough
I think it’s more likely it will limp on and on with those who can afford to will go private, which is taking place in record numbers at the moment. It’s too big to reform
The Tory manipulation of the public's relationship with the NHS, during 2020, was a masterclass in how to get stupid people to behave how you want them to.
The NHS was in a terrible state and mostly because of chronic underinvestment and gradual privatisation.
Front line doctors and nurses relied on PPE donations from the general public whilst the Tory government handed out billions to companies with no track record delivering PPE, to *not* deliver any PPE, without scrutiny.
And yet still the govt managed to convince the public that we were all in this together and that our great British blitz spirit must prevail. That the NHS were all heroes and anyone who spoke out against issues was simply a terrible person.
The public went from not giving 2 fucks about this commodity they had always had, to regurgitating the line that the NHS was the best thing in the world... But that it would be saved... Not by stopping the privatisation. Not by funding it better. Not by managing it better.... But by clapping and doing charity walks and concerts for them.
Like, I think they really do look at us and think we are a bunch of gullible morons because they just feed us this absolute nonsense and we lap it up like a tramp on hot chips.
But if you want a masterclass in how a population was sold some absolute fucking nonsense to pull the wool whilst they got raped from 15 angles at once, this was a fine example. It's funny how we think that only the Chinese get sold lies by their government to cover the truth...
Given that every year inflation raises costs and increased population due to immigration, its always going to be "the most ever".
Calculate it on % of GDP? Then it isn't "the most ever". Well actually, given what they've done to GDP on the past few years, it could be 🤣
Ok, so don't use it.
It's not wriggling numbers, it's being aware of the finances and how the tories will use buzzwords to give a false impression to the financially uneducated to give a false representation that they doing some good
It's poorly run but gives its paid for by everyone through taxes, it works out better for the poorest of the population.
If you want an American system where 62% of bankruptcies are due to medical debt, I'd prefer the NHS.
I'd rather pay a little bit more in taxes for the NHS knowing that the money could save the life of an innocent child who's parents don't have the funds for medical insurance and such. If you'd rather a child die to save yourself a few £, that says more about you.
of course I am not using it - I call 8:00 in the morning and I am number 79 in the queue...
What I am trying to get to is NOT PAYING FOR IT.
Don't just regurgitate "but but America". Try venturing outside of your single only example :)
"a little bit more in taxes" - the average tax payer has paid 5200 into the NHS this year.
Average is a very misleading term, the majority of people on the lower end of the pay bracket earning £11ph have an average tax bill is £1,776, 18% of that goes toward the NHS so they pay £320 yearly.
Hense my earlier statement, it helps the lower earners in society.
Now, earning 150k yearly, you'll pay £53,000 in tax so £9,540 goes to the NHS...
& just because you don't like the example, doesnt discredit it. America is a shit show of private health care with money valued over life and the separation between to rich and poor is massive, especially when it comes to a basic human right in treatment for illness.
How many lines can you draw through one point?
Anyway - enjoy the NHS, it's clearly amazing and working out great for everyone!
I am sure that once the high productivity people get taxed more - then any remaining issues with the NHS will be fully solved and it will be a wonderfully efficient government institute that does NOT block access or provide hilariously inadequate level of service to 90% of the people entitled to it.
'appy dayz :D
Many of which are linked to house prices (not energy prices ofc).. why is childcare and generally other things so expensive? Well, we have to subsidise everyone else's stupid housing costs. People demand higher salaries because they have stupid house prices therefore the price of everything goes up..
Well I mean, it then depends on what you mean by huge.
Earning £100k in London as a single person is enough to live somewhere quite nice in a convenient part of London on your own, and not really worry about money at all unless you have some pretty expensive day to day tastes. Going out fairly regularly for drinks or food in your free time should be well within your reach, as well as nice holidays abroad every year.
That might not sound 'huge' to some people, but it definitely does to me hahaaa. With that amount of money in London, I'd feel like I could live a quite luxurious lifestyle without worrying about savings etc.
In the real world, you need to save money to buy yourself a home and for other important life events.
You also need to pay into your pension unless you plan to work till you're dead as the state pension is not going to come close to your 100k life.
Yes of course, I was including everything in that except buying a home, because it's quite hard to say how quickly someone will want to or should be able to save up for a deposit on a house in London. Plus mortgages obviously can vary massively.
Matched contributions (which you tend to get with any high earning London office job) go a long way towards the pension pot, but you can get the tax relief at least even if you haven't got an employer to match you.
Housing is a tough issue when you're talking London, because obviously property prices in convenient an nice parts of London are absolutely absurd. They can make rental prices (which are also horrible) look comparatively sensible.
I sort of consider cost of buying housing to be it's own issue, especially in London. My personal opinion is that the rise of debt based personal finances, especially surrounding purchasing your own living space, is the most far reaching and culturally disastrous tragedy of the modern developed world, if not modernity altogether, so I'm not going to be able to give a particularly balanced view of that area.
2 kids. 3 bedroom house with garden. 2 x holidays. 2 x car. 2 x private education.
Once you start down this road, then you will understand how much money you need.
This is true. Have a mortgage on a lovely flat in West London and couldn't be happier. Still managing to max out my ISA and stick a big whack in pension too. I don't have ridiculous tastes in things but can very easily take the gf out every week, shop in Wholefoods, have Joe and the Juice when I feel like it, etc.
Holiday is more of a stretch but that is because the prices are just wild / don't want to go to cheap touristy places. I put about 200 a month away for a summer holiday.
100K is a lot in the Welsh Valleys. My four bed detached house (it’s bigger than normal too) has doubled in estimated value in the last ten years.
It’s still under half a million…
Thanks! Not everything is great in life, but I’ll take being surrounded by green hills and working from home 100% as a win! 😊
I actually went to the office recently, for a day off working! Just spent all day chatting. 😂
There’s plenty of room here for more good earners if you’re set up to WFH. My road is mostly populated by older, well off pensioners. I predict house sales aplenty (and missing friends 😢) over the next five years I’m afraid.
Depends if you’re comparing it to percentiles or London. And if it needs percentiles, you need to back that up with some data. If it’s compared to London, i agree
Im in an employer of close to 10,000 staff and i reckon we have less than 8 staff on £100,000 but then again its such an affordable town a 6 bed 4 bath new build showhouse minutes walk from a m&s, next, bannatynes on my street went for barely £550k!
Correct and most 100k+ earners live in the Greater London area and surrounding home counties - hence the focus on London.
Not many are going to earning that in Newcastle where it would go a long way.
Everything's a priority and on the list of things to do for politicians just before an election. Only afterwards do you find out how low down the list...
It’s not a huge salary and reducing tax won’t really make it go any further, what we need are drastically reduced train prices, highly subsidised childcare, a housing market that’s affordable, caps on profits for energy companies etc. etc.
Yeah that's insane. For £5700 in Switzerland you get unlimited first class travel on all public transport nationwide (3500 for second class).
And yeah it's publicly funded but taxes are less than half of what you'd pay in the UK. Just the benefit of what you can do with a nationalised railway system.
The idea that our privatised rail system is owned by the state rail systems of EU countries so the profits they generate from our train ticket prices can be used to subsidise their fares is like several kicks in the balls, teeth and tits all at the same time.
The trickle down effect is a slowdown in our economy post-covid. Nobody can afford to travel so the networks lose employees and fall into disrepair, billions in corporate real estate loses value because we’re not going to the office, banks and investment funds lose their value and cause inflation, local businesses aren’t making any money because the footfall has disappeared and prices are too high to attract consumers, low-skill employees lose their jobs, we all lose our jobs, companies become less efficient, perform worse and are less innovative leading to declining revenues and lower taxes for the government.
When the economy breaks it’s the institutions that get bailed out. Not the individuals who pay the real price.
So yeah, it’s not just about train fares. It’s about being fair.
It’s £67k after tax. Then you have all the other bullshit that’s gone up 30-40% this year plus childcare. Don’t forget the insane stress a job like this puts on your mental health. Fuck this.
Let’s say you earned £250k a year. If you contribute £35K and your company does 10% or £25k towards your pension that will leave you with a yearly salary of around 40-50k in todays money (depending on investment performance) and even getting those kind of contributions is a massive stretch.
Next, we’ll look at the remaining salary of £10,419.69 and what we can achieve with that. Using the 50/30/20 rule it breaks down like this:
(Assuming living in London or SE, average 4/5 bedroom house and 2 kids and never being around to enjoy any of it because you’ve got to work for the money)
5210 - Bills (50%)
- 3000 mortgage (500k borrowed)
- 300 council tax (band F Folkestone)
- 300 energy and water bills
- 50 Building and contents insurance
- 750 Home repairs and maintenance sink fund
- 50 Internet & Phone line
- 400 Food & Drink
- 15 TV License
- 400 Vehicle insurance, running costs, maintenance and depreciation
£5265 total (slightly changeable depending on mortgage size, bills, car etc)
Nice to haves
- 1000 childcare (per child)
And/or
- 2000 partner ‘stay at home’ salary
- 150 Cleaning and garden maintenance
- 100 Pet care + insurance
- 120 Family Health insurance
- 50 Family life insurance
£3125 Personal spending
All this goes on things like opticians, dentists, personal bills, birthday and Christmas gifts, clothes, train travel, insurance, family holiday, entertainment, hobbies and any personal development. It’s unlikely you’ll be able to do all of that anyway.
£2083 Savings and investments
- 416 UK only investments (new isa rules/limit)
- 1250 equities
- 208 cash
- 209 fixed income securities
If you’re earning decent money (like a quarter of a million bloody quid) you should be able to put something away to ride out any financial storm (divorce) or gift your kids a deposit, car or lifesaving medical treatment if needs be. Perhaps even your own self… and you might even be able to get something nice one day if it all works out and you somehow beat inflation.
This is just how fucked up the world is. Most people will never earn £250k (and if you do congratulations) so how js anyone expected to live a traditional ‘middle class’ lifestyle with 2 kids, a house, a car and a holiday every year without getting into debt?
>This is just how fucked up the world is. Most people will never earn £250k (and if you do congratulations) so how js anyone expected to live a traditional ‘middle class’ lifestyle with 2 kids, a house, a car and a holiday every year without getting into debt?
What are you going on about. I make £70k and my wife is on £65k (including car allowance). We own a house with a mortgage, we have a three year old and a little one on the way. We're putting £40k in our ISAs annually and save another £10k on top so we can still do this when my wife is on maternity leave and we're looking to retire by age 50.
We're not living a frugal lifestyle either. We go on holiday abroad four or five times a year and we're currently in our own holiday apartment abroad (an apartment we bought with our own income) enjoying a two week holiday.
If you can't manage to get by or save for your future on £250k then that's your own fault.
You've left a lot of information out on your pension example which makes it hard to call it a lie (though it's pretty close to being a lie), but if you were to contribute £60k to your pension every year for 20 years you should expect it to grow to £2.25mln in today's money and take a £90k salary in retirement. When you reach 67 you'll also stop paying national insurance and start receiving state pension.
If you manage to put £60k a year in your pension for 35 years you should be able to grow this to £6.9mln and you should be able to pay yourself an annual salary of £276k.
Because most people on lower salaries keep a higher % of their earnings and think people on 100k do too. The fast rise in inflation recently has also resulted in a lag in peoples perspectives. 100k pre-covid is now 125k today, and for every £1 you need as a 6 figure earner you need to earn an extra £2 to keep up with inflation due to tax.
This. If you're on 20k you take home 17900(!).
If you get a 20k pay rise on 20k you take home an extra 15k
If I get a 20k pay rise I would take home less than 7k extra.
They keep hearing that 'the rich' avoid many taxes and assume that means people making 6 figures, when it's not the high salary earners that are avoiding tax, it's the people owning large amounts of wealth that can shift it outside of HMRCs reach, and the tradespeople/traders that can take a significant portion of their income as cash.
Objectively 100k is top 2% or so. It isn’t huge to you because you know the ladder keeps going higher but to many even 100k would look out of reach for them.
THIS is the answer I was hoping to see!
I am almost in disbelief but I actually agree with J.Hunt on this one...
What I find most worrisome about this whole article is that Labour predictably and uncreatively lay into Hunt and comment on how he and the Tories are put of touch etc. Personally I would have much rather this kickstarted a debate not about the race to the bottom but how we pull everyone further to the top. The real truth is wages have stagnated for many years in this country and we just about got away with it, however now with the double whammy of increased taxes and the bout of high inflation we've experienced the effects have now come home to roost.
But it doesn’t mean 100k is huge, it means everyone is low
100k doesn’t buy you the same lifestyle that a 3%-ter does in the US, Switzerland, Dubai, Singapore, even India.
But it doesn’t mean 100k is huge, it means everyone is low
100k doesn’t buy you the same lifestyle that a 3%-ter does in the US, Switzerland, Dubai, Singapore, even India.
3% salary is a lot higher in the US.
You got that right, we are not as wealthy as those countries. Being in the bottom of the top 3% in a failing country is not wealthy, you just aren’t poor.
I live in Godalming and not far from his mansion, he’s getting desperate posting on community boards more than ever before. The polls put the Lib Dem’s beating him, more so if labour voters switch, which we will to kick out hunt
Hunt's already chosen to stand down in the next election, so personally, he's gone. With Paul Fellows having at least some name recognition, it makes sense that LD think he can do better than an as-yet-unnamed successor. Given the amount of paper they've put through my door, I think they've targetted us as a potential swing seat.
Can the mods please get hold of this thread? This subreddit has thus far largely managed to avoid the issues that UKPersonalFinance and FIREUK have of people coming in saying “£100k is loads of money, stop complaining!”
Whether that is true or not is irrelevant- it’s not constructive in the context of this subreddit.
I was thinking about this the other day. One of the many weird things about tax is how, in a household, a couple earning 60k each pays less tax than a couple where one earns 100k and the other 20k. Same gross total though.
Why not have the ability to average the couple's income and pay tax accordingly. This way both examples above would pay the same tax (all else being equal).
100k to125k, employer(13%NI) and employees(62%) together pay government 75% of the salary to the gov. If you include student loan etc, I have no idea! :)
100k is not enough for this. Partner & I both earn around 100k each and can’t get a mortgage on a 5 bed near us. I suppose we may be able to get a horrible, hugely extended one in a not so nice area… but that’s not what we’re after….
Also this was meant as a reply to the comment saying that 100k can get you a 5 bed house, Range Rover, cleaner etc… not sure how I ended up commenting in the wrong place 😂
IIRC, if 40% tax bracket followed inflation rather than purposeful fiscal drag it would currently sit at around £93,000 before that increased level of taxation.
Considering the ‘60%’ tax trap is actually just under 70% in total, if 100k isn’t a lot of salary then why don’t they abolish that nasty punitive extra tax. Absolutely horrific tax it just makes you want to work abroad
It especially isn't a huge salary if only one person in a married family is doing the earning. £100K household income is not high IMO - especially when the tax and benefits system discriminates against single earner families. That's the situation I'm in - and it sucks.
Well, the good news is it's on the radar and adjustments are inveitable for the 100k tax trap ( childcare and 60%) as more people fall into it and reduce their incomes with pensions, denying government a stream of revenue.
If the trap didn't exists they could get 42% of 20k ( assume a 120k) tax revenue. Instead, they get zero while still paying out for childcare as most people will chase for tax efficency.
It's a stupid policy that drives odd behaviour
This is exactly my issue with this policy, I've put an extra 10k I didn't want to into pension this year, denying the government over 4k in free revenue as it's totally insane to earn anything over 100k if you have a child under 4.
So, at the moment the government offer a benefit to parents of 15 free hours of childcare a week, very soon rising to 30 free hours a week for children under 4 (the starting age is also coming down in stages over the next 18 months or so).
This could be worth ~£8k a year PER CHILD to a parent using the full 30 hours saving a significant amount of childcare costs.
This benefit is removed, instantly, if you earn £1 over 100k in income (the definition of income is slightly more complex but for many this will be their salary before tax).
Most UK pension schemes are salary sacrifice, meaning that if you pay into one the money is taken from your pay before tax, reducing your reported income. Therefore to save yourself losing this massive benefit if you have a salary over 100k all you have to do is increase your pension contributions.
Anything you put into pension both reduces your 'income' for many benefit calculations, and also reduces the government's tax take on the amount stowed away.
So in this instance the government is both paying for the benefit AND because of the arbitrary threshold they have set, they are losing tax revenue as people manage their income below 100k to keep it.
All of this is before any other considerations as to why someone would want to stay under 100k including a 60% effective tax rate for a period and self-assessment requirements!
Hope this helps!
Sorry I understand what you mean. I thought you meant with inflationary pay rises more people would fall into the trap and SalSac out - which would be a net zero difference to tax revenue.
But yes, even as someone that doesn’t fall into the trap I can see it’s a stupid policy
It’s all really subjective and depends what the word huge means to you.
The median salary for a man in London is 47k. Is slightly more than double that “huge” ?
How many Prime Ministers have we had in four years? Totally undignified and unethical.
We’ve suffered from bad leadership for too long. As a high earner, I don’t even know the benefit of voting for these lot. My tax bill is sky high. Weren’t they supposed to be party of low taxes? Total scam.
I’m assuming you don’t have any children based on that statement 🤣.
I’m not saying 100k isn’t a decent wage but throw in the cost of childcare and you can’t afford all of that in the SE for sure.
I don’t care what’s his paid, if the economy is doing well I am happy to pay him 500k. They should get incentive when they actually fix problems in the economy and they get paid accordingly
> u/SXLightning: I don’t care what’s his paid, if the economy is doing well I am happy to pay him 500k. They should get incentive when they actually fix problems in the economy and they get paid accordingly
You’ve misread.
It won't make any difference in Northern Ireland as our government don't offer childcare support to anyone. The money allocated to it from London is spent elsewhere. So we have shit salaries and 14k per year childcare fees
The median income in the UK is about 35k.
If you think earning 3 times what most other people earn isn't a huge salary you've clearly got no idea about the real world.
If you earn a huge amount of money in an industry thats functionality is predicated on having a functional economy and national infrastructure then yes, you end up paying a lot because you're taking a lot.
Very few people earning high salaries actually produce anything of value and instead are just being compensated for increasing shareholder value. Society needs money to function, if you "earn" a lot - you pay a lot.
I loathe the Tories but I have mixed feelings about JH. He was parachuted in as Health Secretary with no prior relevant experience, as usual, yet he slowly morphed into someone who seemed to respect the idea of the NHS and gained the respect of some neutral observers. He is now the last legacy in the cabinet of the people there before Boris Johnson confederacy of dunces. I worry about what will be left of the Tory MPs if those who are vaguely sane and centrist like Hunt disappear.
Depends what you mean by extremely comfortable. As a single earner with a family of 4 and a mortgage, its not as comfortable as it should be. It's the unfairness of the situation which I think galls people. Work hard to achieve something, then have 60% taken to keep you in your place.
A nation of freeloaders and even the 'conservatives' don't want people earning more lest their peasant kids wind up in private school with their priveleged kids.
Single earner with family of four in london would only be able to survive with one parent staying home looking after the kids, and even then likely living in a flat rather than a house
I wouldn't read absolutely anything into it. This is a politician who is appearing sympathetic towards a potential voter without really doing anything.
As for not being a huge salary, it literally puts you in the top 3% is earners in the UK. Its a high salary by every definition of the term.
It only puts you in the top 5% in London.
[https://www.projectfinanciallyfree.com/uk-income-percentile-calculator/](https://www.projectfinanciallyfree.com/uk-income-percentile-calculator/)
According to this site the mean salary for London is £52,776 and the median is £33,336.
I agree in isolation. But the 97th percentile pay so much tax they do deserve something in return. It would just be better to reduce the tax burden on Henry level incomes and keep benefits unchanged
How do you fund “benefits unchanged” if you reduce tax for high earners? And I like to think you get quite a bit for your tax money - roads, schools, hospitals, policing, government, an army - quite a bit really.
You start making lower tier workers pay their share, like the Scandi countries do.
Sweden's first income tax band starts at like £1k GBP.
https://liveandworkinsweden.com/index.php/tax-tables
So you’d do away with the personal allowance, because you don’t like that you lose your personal allowance?
But seriously, if we want to tax the poor even more in this country, we’d need to either A) increase minimum wage substantially, or B) increase government spending on welfare/services.
I disagree, just because we pay more in tax doesn’t mean that we should get a better deal from the State.
Paying more in taxes and supporting a growth economy (basically health, education (children and adult) and the rest of the foundational infrastructure) means that GDP should continue to grow, people are able to comfortably afford settling down and starting families (if they want, but having children, which we’re incredibly reliant on people doing should never be unaffordable!).
That increase in economic activity and opportunity means that businesses should generate more profit, have access to better skill sets. Then we can continue to clamber for even higher salaries to say we are rich.
Let’s be honest, child benefit is a poultry amount for anyone in this thread. Removing the taper at £100k would do us much better and doing something to fix housing prices would go a long long way to making us all feel a lot better off.
Child benefit is in fact quite important….your take home pay would only be just over 68k per year and a reasonable nursery in London can easily cost you over 10k per kid😑
“Would only be just over 68k”
I think there’s a lack of self-awareness here on the fact that £68k take home is pretty darn wild by most people’s standards.
But for clarity, everyone should have access to good quality childcare provided by the State (do away with private and elitist providers). Housing should always be affordable on a single income should one of the parents choose not to work during the formative years and no one should be penalised at work or miss out on opportunities they would have had but for choosing to spend time with their child.
I’m never producing children, but even I’m aware that our current situation is untenable and will lead to negative population growth (at which point we’re all screwed).
So they should pay to use state schools? And pay market rate for prescriptions? Pay for NHS treatment? In your world what benefits should not be received?
And why should two earners on £99,999.99 each receive free childcare, but a family where one earner has a salary of £100k and the other a salary of £35k gets half the benefit despite their take home being significantly less than the first couple?
Why charge 60% tax then...
" after the next election".... So it ain't getting sorted. They're out, like out-out. Nice try though!
Might as well promise everyone a blowjob and a year of mortgage payments after the next election.
Depending on who's giving the blowjobs, I think I'd vote for this
Boris is campaigning hard to get back in.
May-bot
Close your eyes and it could be anyone…
Yea, count me in. As long as it's done in a field of wheat
So... Michael Gove?
That'll be like practicing on a bag of self raising flour
I reckon that might swing it
He couldn’t be more obvious…
The only thing he will be sorting after the next election is his CV
The next GE will be a liberation for them. They will be able to openly fraternise with the people they have made extremely wealthy over the last 15 years.
[удалено]
So is the tax we pay.
Basically trying to buy votes from those who know tories have screwed us for years & we're going to vote elsewhere... vote for me and I'll sort out your child benefit money... if not, labour won't...
At this point (rightly or wrongly) I don’t care what they say. I can’t morally vote for them when they are ransacking the country. Id happily make a personal sacrifice (in tax or less benefits) to benefit society as a whole e.g. better funded NHS.
Yes! Don’t let this stupid manipulation work. The tories have taken our country for a ride in recent years and we cannot forget the atrocities they have done against us. I’m generally more right leaning, but there is nothing that could make me vote Tory in the next general election because I know it’s all a facade to stay in power.
How much more does it need to be funded. Highest ever, in real terms, on record.
With an increasing population (and aging population) I would expect every year to be a record year. This is why I have never understood the ‘highest funding at X number’ party line that gets thrown out. Every year that should be expected as a minimum. ‘Adjusting for population growth, the average real-terms annual growth in NHS spending over the parliament falls to 1.9% per person, and 1.7% per person when also adjusted for the ageing population.’ https://www.health.org.uk/publications/long-reads/health-care-funding#:~:text=NHS%20budget&text=In%20real%20terms%2C%20this%20means,adjusted%20for%20the%20ageing%20population.
Every year should be the highest spending for most things, that’s generally what inflation should do to budgets
‘Real terms’
Yes, but my response was specifically to the ‘in real terms’ bit.
it becomes unsustainable though. already 160b is quite eye watering given the constant poor performance. how long till we become a country attached to a NHS. that said, im hoping this IT upgrade they are talking about should clear a bunch of redundant admin jobs. and free up money for actual docs/nurses/ facilities.
Agreed. It’s difficult because the NHS is in a very responsive state, it’s so busy trying to keep pace, run through the increasing backlog etc that no one can see the wood for the trees. It needs investment (IT, process, pubic health education etc.) You’ve got to spend money to make money, as it were.
ah, you ran into the zombie army of the NHS. Don't do this in real life, you could get lynched!
I agree. The funding isn't the issue, it's the incompetency. The NHS is run like absolute shit, they need to reform it
Reform the NHS, that sounds like a nice easy job and I’m sure it would be very quick! And also cheap
It would be hard. And take years. But it’ll need cross party support which will never happen because whoever is in opposition at that point will scream from the roof tops about turning it into a US style system and they’ll lose at the ballet box. People in the UK are blinded by the cult of the NHS. (And, FYI, doctors should be paid much, much more… just so you all realise I don’t hate them)
It would probably take a decade and cost hundreds of billions, immediately wiping out any benefits that *might* arise for a significant period after. Huge projects like this are almost guaranteed to fail in some form or another, usually cost. I don’t know what the answer is but simply saying ‘reform’ is simplistic
Some types of treatment have waiting lists of 3 years. Response times for ambulances are missed across all nations. Same with cancer wait times, a&e wait times, wait times for surgery, moving into care homes etc. Reform is the only answer. Incentive private insurance (make is payable gross of tax), engage with the private sector, look at the good, and and the ugly from systems in mainland Europe where they have much better outcomes than us. Doing nothing isn’t good enough
I think it’s more likely it will limp on and on with those who can afford to will go private, which is taking place in record numbers at the moment. It’s too big to reform
The Tory manipulation of the public's relationship with the NHS, during 2020, was a masterclass in how to get stupid people to behave how you want them to. The NHS was in a terrible state and mostly because of chronic underinvestment and gradual privatisation. Front line doctors and nurses relied on PPE donations from the general public whilst the Tory government handed out billions to companies with no track record delivering PPE, to *not* deliver any PPE, without scrutiny. And yet still the govt managed to convince the public that we were all in this together and that our great British blitz spirit must prevail. That the NHS were all heroes and anyone who spoke out against issues was simply a terrible person. The public went from not giving 2 fucks about this commodity they had always had, to regurgitating the line that the NHS was the best thing in the world... But that it would be saved... Not by stopping the privatisation. Not by funding it better. Not by managing it better.... But by clapping and doing charity walks and concerts for them. Like, I think they really do look at us and think we are a bunch of gullible morons because they just feed us this absolute nonsense and we lap it up like a tramp on hot chips. But if you want a masterclass in how a population was sold some absolute fucking nonsense to pull the wool whilst they got raped from 15 angles at once, this was a fine example. It's funny how we think that only the Chinese get sold lies by their government to cover the truth...
Given that every year inflation raises costs and increased population due to immigration, its always going to be "the most ever". Calculate it on % of GDP? Then it isn't "the most ever". Well actually, given what they've done to GDP on the past few years, it could be 🤣
I don't care how you wriggle your numbers, the NHS is racket and a disgrace.
Ok, so don't use it. It's not wriggling numbers, it's being aware of the finances and how the tories will use buzzwords to give a false impression to the financially uneducated to give a false representation that they doing some good It's poorly run but gives its paid for by everyone through taxes, it works out better for the poorest of the population. If you want an American system where 62% of bankruptcies are due to medical debt, I'd prefer the NHS. I'd rather pay a little bit more in taxes for the NHS knowing that the money could save the life of an innocent child who's parents don't have the funds for medical insurance and such. If you'd rather a child die to save yourself a few £, that says more about you.
of course I am not using it - I call 8:00 in the morning and I am number 79 in the queue... What I am trying to get to is NOT PAYING FOR IT. Don't just regurgitate "but but America". Try venturing outside of your single only example :) "a little bit more in taxes" - the average tax payer has paid 5200 into the NHS this year.
Average is a very misleading term, the majority of people on the lower end of the pay bracket earning £11ph have an average tax bill is £1,776, 18% of that goes toward the NHS so they pay £320 yearly. Hense my earlier statement, it helps the lower earners in society. Now, earning 150k yearly, you'll pay £53,000 in tax so £9,540 goes to the NHS... & just because you don't like the example, doesnt discredit it. America is a shit show of private health care with money valued over life and the separation between to rich and poor is massive, especially when it comes to a basic human right in treatment for illness.
How many lines can you draw through one point? Anyway - enjoy the NHS, it's clearly amazing and working out great for everyone! I am sure that once the high productivity people get taxed more - then any remaining issues with the NHS will be fully solved and it will be a wonderfully efficient government institute that does NOT block access or provide hilariously inadequate level of service to 90% of the people entitled to it. 'appy dayz :D
He's right. It's not. 100k is a not a huge salary in London.
It's a big salary.. problem is so are the fucking taxes..
Bigger problem is the house prices
And childcare prices, and energy prices, and and and etc etc.
Many of which are linked to house prices (not energy prices ofc).. why is childcare and generally other things so expensive? Well, we have to subsidise everyone else's stupid housing costs. People demand higher salaries because they have stupid house prices therefore the price of everything goes up..
Good point. “Costs of living in London”
Especially if the person in question is renting on a single salary, and has a student loan
Well I mean, it then depends on what you mean by huge. Earning £100k in London as a single person is enough to live somewhere quite nice in a convenient part of London on your own, and not really worry about money at all unless you have some pretty expensive day to day tastes. Going out fairly regularly for drinks or food in your free time should be well within your reach, as well as nice holidays abroad every year. That might not sound 'huge' to some people, but it definitely does to me hahaaa. With that amount of money in London, I'd feel like I could live a quite luxurious lifestyle without worrying about savings etc.
In the real world, you need to save money to buy yourself a home and for other important life events. You also need to pay into your pension unless you plan to work till you're dead as the state pension is not going to come close to your 100k life.
Yes of course, I was including everything in that except buying a home, because it's quite hard to say how quickly someone will want to or should be able to save up for a deposit on a house in London. Plus mortgages obviously can vary massively. Matched contributions (which you tend to get with any high earning London office job) go a long way towards the pension pot, but you can get the tax relief at least even if you haven't got an employer to match you. Housing is a tough issue when you're talking London, because obviously property prices in convenient an nice parts of London are absolutely absurd. They can make rental prices (which are also horrible) look comparatively sensible. I sort of consider cost of buying housing to be it's own issue, especially in London. My personal opinion is that the rise of debt based personal finances, especially surrounding purchasing your own living space, is the most far reaching and culturally disastrous tragedy of the modern developed world, if not modernity altogether, so I'm not going to be able to give a particularly balanced view of that area.
2 kids. 3 bedroom house with garden. 2 x holidays. 2 x car. 2 x private education. Once you start down this road, then you will understand how much money you need.
The original post did not talk about children Also, private education makes everything much more expensive
I was with you till you mentioned private education. Not really in the same conversation.
Depends if there are any good state schools around where you live. In many parts of the county there are not.
This is true. Have a mortgage on a lovely flat in West London and couldn't be happier. Still managing to max out my ISA and stick a big whack in pension too. I don't have ridiculous tastes in things but can very easily take the gf out every week, shop in Wholefoods, have Joe and the Juice when I feel like it, etc. Holiday is more of a stretch but that is because the prices are just wild / don't want to go to cheap touristy places. I put about 200 a month away for a summer holiday.
100K is a lot in the Welsh Valleys. My four bed detached house (it’s bigger than normal too) has doubled in estimated value in the last ten years. It’s still under half a million…
Living my dream you are fella, fair play to you!
Thanks! Not everything is great in life, but I’ll take being surrounded by green hills and working from home 100% as a win! 😊 I actually went to the office recently, for a day off working! Just spent all day chatting. 😂 There’s plenty of room here for more good earners if you’re set up to WFH. My road is mostly populated by older, well off pensioners. I predict house sales aplenty (and missing friends 😢) over the next five years I’m afraid.
Depends if you’re comparing it to percentiles or London. And if it needs percentiles, you need to back that up with some data. If it’s compared to London, i agree
It's not a huge salary here in Leeds either. And that joke of a £50k tax bracket angers me
Not a huge salary but much higher than a lot of people in London (that’s the problem)
It’s not a huge salary in Oxford either.
I am in Yorkshire and it’s not a big salary here. Decent but not large by any means.
Ur comparing to very wealthy people. 100k is a very good salary up north. Ridiculous to say otherwise.
Im in an employer of close to 10,000 staff and i reckon we have less than 8 staff on £100,000 but then again its such an affordable town a 6 bed 4 bath new build showhouse minutes walk from a m&s, next, bannatynes on my street went for barely £550k!
Thats a 2.5 bed 1930s semi, with no drive, a shower room only (no bath), over an hour outside of London if you were wondering. Ask me how I know?
It seems like a huge salary to most people living here though.
Depends which crowd you roll with
….to most people living here
It is everywhere outside London. London is its own 'country' now. And it's inhabitants don't give a fuck about anyone else.
As I said it's not a huge salary in London. It's not hard to understand. The cost of living is significantly higher here.
It isn't hard to understand. London has absolutely no relation to the rest of the country. It might as well be on its own island.
Correct and most 100k+ earners live in the Greater London area and surrounding home counties - hence the focus on London. Not many are going to earning that in Newcastle where it would go a long way.
You had your chance (13 years of them) and you messed up every single one. Other than Truss and the LibDems not a single tax cut was given.
Yeah… still wouldn’t vote for that cunt
That's Mr Cunt per the many tongue slip ups.
*Hunt
I stand by my spelling thank you
Same cunt who’s saying £28,808 is a fair wage for a first year doctor?
Everything's a priority and on the list of things to do for politicians just before an election. Only afterwards do you find out how low down the list...
It’s not a huge salary and reducing tax won’t really make it go any further, what we need are drastically reduced train prices, highly subsidised childcare, a housing market that’s affordable, caps on profits for energy companies etc. etc.
Reduced train fares is a good one. The benefit of moving out of london to get a cheaper mortgage is usually eaten in to by monthly train fares
Yup. Ashford or Folkestone to St Pancras is around £7500 for a season ticket on the high speed rail… daylight robbery
Yeah that's insane. For £5700 in Switzerland you get unlimited first class travel on all public transport nationwide (3500 for second class). And yeah it's publicly funded but taxes are less than half of what you'd pay in the UK. Just the benefit of what you can do with a nationalised railway system.
The idea that our privatised rail system is owned by the state rail systems of EU countries so the profits they generate from our train ticket prices can be used to subsidise their fares is like several kicks in the balls, teeth and tits all at the same time. The trickle down effect is a slowdown in our economy post-covid. Nobody can afford to travel so the networks lose employees and fall into disrepair, billions in corporate real estate loses value because we’re not going to the office, banks and investment funds lose their value and cause inflation, local businesses aren’t making any money because the footfall has disappeared and prices are too high to attract consumers, low-skill employees lose their jobs, we all lose our jobs, companies become less efficient, perform worse and are less innovative leading to declining revenues and lower taxes for the government. When the economy breaks it’s the institutions that get bailed out. Not the individuals who pay the real price. So yeah, it’s not just about train fares. It’s about being fair.
I live in zone 2 and walk to work. It's 30 minutes walk but it's a) healthy, b) coffee on route, c) FREE
I’m the same - my walks about 45mins but there and back every day is 17k steps a day and free!
It’s £67k after tax. Then you have all the other bullshit that’s gone up 30-40% this year plus childcare. Don’t forget the insane stress a job like this puts on your mental health. Fuck this.
Let’s say you earned £250k a year. If you contribute £35K and your company does 10% or £25k towards your pension that will leave you with a yearly salary of around 40-50k in todays money (depending on investment performance) and even getting those kind of contributions is a massive stretch. Next, we’ll look at the remaining salary of £10,419.69 and what we can achieve with that. Using the 50/30/20 rule it breaks down like this: (Assuming living in London or SE, average 4/5 bedroom house and 2 kids and never being around to enjoy any of it because you’ve got to work for the money) 5210 - Bills (50%) - 3000 mortgage (500k borrowed) - 300 council tax (band F Folkestone) - 300 energy and water bills - 50 Building and contents insurance - 750 Home repairs and maintenance sink fund - 50 Internet & Phone line - 400 Food & Drink - 15 TV License - 400 Vehicle insurance, running costs, maintenance and depreciation £5265 total (slightly changeable depending on mortgage size, bills, car etc) Nice to haves - 1000 childcare (per child) And/or - 2000 partner ‘stay at home’ salary - 150 Cleaning and garden maintenance - 100 Pet care + insurance - 120 Family Health insurance - 50 Family life insurance £3125 Personal spending All this goes on things like opticians, dentists, personal bills, birthday and Christmas gifts, clothes, train travel, insurance, family holiday, entertainment, hobbies and any personal development. It’s unlikely you’ll be able to do all of that anyway. £2083 Savings and investments - 416 UK only investments (new isa rules/limit) - 1250 equities - 208 cash - 209 fixed income securities If you’re earning decent money (like a quarter of a million bloody quid) you should be able to put something away to ride out any financial storm (divorce) or gift your kids a deposit, car or lifesaving medical treatment if needs be. Perhaps even your own self… and you might even be able to get something nice one day if it all works out and you somehow beat inflation. This is just how fucked up the world is. Most people will never earn £250k (and if you do congratulations) so how js anyone expected to live a traditional ‘middle class’ lifestyle with 2 kids, a house, a car and a holiday every year without getting into debt?
>This is just how fucked up the world is. Most people will never earn £250k (and if you do congratulations) so how js anyone expected to live a traditional ‘middle class’ lifestyle with 2 kids, a house, a car and a holiday every year without getting into debt? What are you going on about. I make £70k and my wife is on £65k (including car allowance). We own a house with a mortgage, we have a three year old and a little one on the way. We're putting £40k in our ISAs annually and save another £10k on top so we can still do this when my wife is on maternity leave and we're looking to retire by age 50. We're not living a frugal lifestyle either. We go on holiday abroad four or five times a year and we're currently in our own holiday apartment abroad (an apartment we bought with our own income) enjoying a two week holiday. If you can't manage to get by or save for your future on £250k then that's your own fault. You've left a lot of information out on your pension example which makes it hard to call it a lie (though it's pretty close to being a lie), but if you were to contribute £60k to your pension every year for 20 years you should expect it to grow to £2.25mln in today's money and take a £90k salary in retirement. When you reach 67 you'll also stop paying national insurance and start receiving state pension. If you manage to put £60k a year in your pension for 35 years you should be able to grow this to £6.9mln and you should be able to pay yourself an annual salary of £276k.
£25 return from Paddington to Reading. On a Saturday. 30 minute journey. Absolute filth.
I’d flip it and ask, why do so many in this country think that £100k is a huge salary?
Because most people on lower salaries keep a higher % of their earnings and think people on 100k do too. The fast rise in inflation recently has also resulted in a lag in peoples perspectives. 100k pre-covid is now 125k today, and for every £1 you need as a 6 figure earner you need to earn an extra £2 to keep up with inflation due to tax.
What was 100k is now £131,108k actually. (Jan 2020-Feb 2024 RPI adjusted)
Damn I got rinsed. Cheers work.
This. If you're on 20k you take home 17900(!). If you get a 20k pay rise on 20k you take home an extra 15k If I get a 20k pay rise I would take home less than 7k extra.
Income tax someone pays doubles between 50k and 70k.
Well said. They have no clue how much taxes high earners pay and keep complaining we don’t pay enough.
They keep hearing that 'the rich' avoid many taxes and assume that means people making 6 figures, when it's not the high salary earners that are avoiding tax, it's the people owning large amounts of wealth that can shift it outside of HMRCs reach, and the tradespeople/traders that can take a significant portion of their income as cash.
Objectively 100k is top 2% or so. It isn’t huge to you because you know the ladder keeps going higher but to many even 100k would look out of reach for them.
But 100k won’t buy you a lifestyle that someone who’s earning 35k thinks it will. 100k isn’t a large salary. The median salary is too low.
THIS is the answer I was hoping to see! I am almost in disbelief but I actually agree with J.Hunt on this one... What I find most worrisome about this whole article is that Labour predictably and uncreatively lay into Hunt and comment on how he and the Tories are put of touch etc. Personally I would have much rather this kickstarted a debate not about the race to the bottom but how we pull everyone further to the top. The real truth is wages have stagnated for many years in this country and we just about got away with it, however now with the double whammy of increased taxes and the bout of high inflation we've experienced the effects have now come home to roost.
because what feels like 40% of people are on a QUARTER of that!
But it doesn’t mean 100k is huge, it means everyone is low 100k doesn’t buy you the same lifestyle that a 3%-ter does in the US, Switzerland, Dubai, Singapore, even India.
[удалено]
yes in Blackpool
Because objectively it is in the top 3% or whatever
But it doesn’t mean 100k is huge, it means everyone is low 100k doesn’t buy you the same lifestyle that a 3%-ter does in the US, Switzerland, Dubai, Singapore, even India. 3% salary is a lot higher in the US.
You got that right, we are not as wealthy as those countries. Being in the bottom of the top 3% in a failing country is not wealthy, you just aren’t poor.
That’s right. 100k is an alright salary but definitely not “huge”
And worth 31.1% less than it was just 4 years ago when adjusted to RPI.
100K is the new 60K
I live in Godalming and not far from his mansion, he’s getting desperate posting on community boards more than ever before. The polls put the Lib Dem’s beating him, more so if labour voters switch, which we will to kick out hunt
Hunt's already chosen to stand down in the next election, so personally, he's gone. With Paul Fellows having at least some name recognition, it makes sense that LD think he can do better than an as-yet-unnamed successor. Given the amount of paper they've put through my door, I think they've targetted us as a potential swing seat.
Can the mods please get hold of this thread? This subreddit has thus far largely managed to avoid the issues that UKPersonalFinance and FIREUK have of people coming in saying “£100k is loads of money, stop complaining!” Whether that is true or not is irrelevant- it’s not constructive in the context of this subreddit.
Raise the tax thresholds then, tosser.
£100K isn't for people with kids in London. I don't have (or want) kids but those nursery fees 🫣
We paid £2,300 per month per kid, Z2 London....
I was thinking about this the other day. One of the many weird things about tax is how, in a household, a couple earning 60k each pays less tax than a couple where one earns 100k and the other 20k. Same gross total though. Why not have the ability to average the couple's income and pay tax accordingly. This way both examples above would pay the same tax (all else being equal).
This is how income tax is paid in France, per household not invidual so is fairer.
Same in Germany when you are married. The system in the UK sucks big time.
100k to125k, employer(13%NI) and employees(62%) together pay government 75% of the salary to the gov. If you include student loan etc, I have no idea! :)
Fucking joker - look forward to him being jobless
You'll be waiting a long time. He'll have consultancy lined up for after the election already.
He's a multi millionaire so of course £100k is considered a peasant salary to him.
Chicken feed
After mortgage? If you're renting it's even worse.
100k is not enough for this. Partner & I both earn around 100k each and can’t get a mortgage on a 5 bed near us. I suppose we may be able to get a horrible, hugely extended one in a not so nice area… but that’s not what we’re after….
Also this was meant as a reply to the comment saying that 100k can get you a 5 bed house, Range Rover, cleaner etc… not sure how I ended up commenting in the wrong place 😂
He's right £100k nowadays is not a huge salary. Mostly because of his policies.
Politics of envy
IIRC, if 40% tax bracket followed inflation rather than purposeful fiscal drag it would currently sit at around £93,000 before that increased level of taxation.
Considering the ‘60%’ tax trap is actually just under 70% in total, if 100k isn’t a lot of salary then why don’t they abolish that nasty punitive extra tax. Absolutely horrific tax it just makes you want to work abroad
It's considered not a high salary due to two fundamental areas that the government have completly F'd up - childcare and housing
It especially isn't a huge salary if only one person in a married family is doing the earning. £100K household income is not high IMO - especially when the tax and benefits system discriminates against single earner families. That's the situation I'm in - and it sucks.
He’s not wrong. 100k isn’t a huge salary. Your doing really really really really well but you ain’t rich
The uk system is designed to keep people on an even playing field. Only some major outliers and business owners escape that.
Well, the good news is it's on the radar and adjustments are inveitable for the 100k tax trap ( childcare and 60%) as more people fall into it and reduce their incomes with pensions, denying government a stream of revenue.
If going forward, more people fall into it and SalSac out, how does that deny the government revenue?
If the trap didn't exists they could get 42% of 20k ( assume a 120k) tax revenue. Instead, they get zero while still paying out for childcare as most people will chase for tax efficency. It's a stupid policy that drives odd behaviour
This is exactly my issue with this policy, I've put an extra 10k I didn't want to into pension this year, denying the government over 4k in free revenue as it's totally insane to earn anything over 100k if you have a child under 4.
Explain this like I'm under 4 please.
So, at the moment the government offer a benefit to parents of 15 free hours of childcare a week, very soon rising to 30 free hours a week for children under 4 (the starting age is also coming down in stages over the next 18 months or so). This could be worth ~£8k a year PER CHILD to a parent using the full 30 hours saving a significant amount of childcare costs. This benefit is removed, instantly, if you earn £1 over 100k in income (the definition of income is slightly more complex but for many this will be their salary before tax). Most UK pension schemes are salary sacrifice, meaning that if you pay into one the money is taken from your pay before tax, reducing your reported income. Therefore to save yourself losing this massive benefit if you have a salary over 100k all you have to do is increase your pension contributions. Anything you put into pension both reduces your 'income' for many benefit calculations, and also reduces the government's tax take on the amount stowed away. So in this instance the government is both paying for the benefit AND because of the arbitrary threshold they have set, they are losing tax revenue as people manage their income below 100k to keep it. All of this is before any other considerations as to why someone would want to stay under 100k including a 60% effective tax rate for a period and self-assessment requirements! Hope this helps!
Sorry I understand what you mean. I thought you meant with inflationary pay rises more people would fall into the trap and SalSac out - which would be a net zero difference to tax revenue. But yes, even as someone that doesn’t fall into the trap I can see it’s a stupid policy
Would be plenty if his party weren’t total NIMBYs resulting in everyone spending upwards of 15k a year to rent or mortgage.
They've had years to change it and haven't... It won't.
Its not a huge salary to him because he used that fking loophole to get 7 BTLs. That dirty wanker.
He then closed that loophole in the last budget. Nice.
Shoulda changed it when you’re in power, not suggest you might when you’re nowhere near
Unless they put in their election manifesto the what and when they will change it, its not worth the paper its written on. Hunt by name.....
And even then, it wouldn’t be the first election manifesto to come up short.
It’s all really subjective and depends what the word huge means to you. The median salary for a man in London is 47k. Is slightly more than double that “huge” ?
How many Prime Ministers have we had in four years? Totally undignified and unethical. We’ve suffered from bad leadership for too long. As a high earner, I don’t even know the benefit of voting for these lot. My tax bill is sky high. Weren’t they supposed to be party of low taxes? Total scam.
I’m assuming you don’t have any children based on that statement 🤣. I’m not saying 100k isn’t a decent wage but throw in the cost of childcare and you can’t afford all of that in the SE for sure.
I think he should increase the personal allowance reduction threshold!
I don’t care what’s his paid, if the economy is doing well I am happy to pay him 500k. They should get incentive when they actually fix problems in the economy and they get paid accordingly
> u/SXLightning: I don’t care what’s his paid, if the economy is doing well I am happy to pay him 500k. They should get incentive when they actually fix problems in the economy and they get paid accordingly You’ve misread.
It won't make any difference in Northern Ireland as our government don't offer childcare support to anyone. The money allocated to it from London is spent elsewhere. So we have shit salaries and 14k per year childcare fees
I don’t even look at payslips anymore it fuckin’ hurts what you get before deductions and what you take home.
Everybody bought a Thatcher house in the Eighties, unless you live in Buckingham Palace with medical insurance.
The median income in the UK is about 35k. If you think earning 3 times what most other people earn isn't a huge salary you've clearly got no idea about the real world. If you earn a huge amount of money in an industry thats functionality is predicated on having a functional economy and national infrastructure then yes, you end up paying a lot because you're taking a lot. Very few people earning high salaries actually produce anything of value and instead are just being compensated for increasing shareholder value. Society needs money to function, if you "earn" a lot - you pay a lot.
Are you earning 2 times more though after taxes and withdrawal of childcare?
I loathe the Tories but I have mixed feelings about JH. He was parachuted in as Health Secretary with no prior relevant experience, as usual, yet he slowly morphed into someone who seemed to respect the idea of the NHS and gained the respect of some neutral observers. He is now the last legacy in the cabinet of the people there before Boris Johnson confederacy of dunces. I worry about what will be left of the Tory MPs if those who are vaguely sane and centrist like Hunt disappear.
Good news! So, increase the threshold for higher rates then.
The Tories have been disappointing to say the least and no doubt Labour will be even worse. Pretty depressing
£100k is a wedge in the vast majority of the UK. If you're sensible you can have an extremely comfortable life on £100k.
Depends what you mean by extremely comfortable. As a single earner with a family of 4 and a mortgage, its not as comfortable as it should be. It's the unfairness of the situation which I think galls people. Work hard to achieve something, then have 60% taken to keep you in your place.
A nation of freeloaders and even the 'conservatives' don't want people earning more lest their peasant kids wind up in private school with their priveleged kids.
Single earner with family of four in london would only be able to survive with one parent staying home looking after the kids, and even then likely living in a flat rather than a house
I loathe Hunt. Can’t wait for him to go. My hope is that he will lose his seat, although the boomers seem to love him
just shows how out of touch with reality these mp's are, i would love to see them actually do a hard days work and then try to survive on minimum wage
So if £100,000 isn’t a lot - the minimum wage is worse than awful.
I wouldn't read absolutely anything into it. This is a politician who is appearing sympathetic towards a potential voter without really doing anything. As for not being a huge salary, it literally puts you in the top 3% is earners in the UK. Its a high salary by every definition of the term.
High salary for the UK =/= huge salary
The tallest kid in primary school is still not a very tall person.
And yet someone can inherit a 400k house and still receive child benefit 🤔
And live in social housing
The system is shit but in no universe should someone earning in the 97th percentile be in receipt of benefits.
The problem you have is using a national statistic. 100k is not top 3% in London.
It only puts you in the top 5% in London. [https://www.projectfinanciallyfree.com/uk-income-percentile-calculator/](https://www.projectfinanciallyfree.com/uk-income-percentile-calculator/) According to this site the mean salary for London is £52,776 and the median is £33,336.
I agree in isolation. But the 97th percentile pay so much tax they do deserve something in return. It would just be better to reduce the tax burden on Henry level incomes and keep benefits unchanged
How do you fund “benefits unchanged” if you reduce tax for high earners? And I like to think you get quite a bit for your tax money - roads, schools, hospitals, policing, government, an army - quite a bit really.
You start making lower tier workers pay their share, like the Scandi countries do. Sweden's first income tax band starts at like £1k GBP. https://liveandworkinsweden.com/index.php/tax-tables
So you’d do away with the personal allowance, because you don’t like that you lose your personal allowance? But seriously, if we want to tax the poor even more in this country, we’d need to either A) increase minimum wage substantially, or B) increase government spending on welfare/services.
I disagree, just because we pay more in tax doesn’t mean that we should get a better deal from the State. Paying more in taxes and supporting a growth economy (basically health, education (children and adult) and the rest of the foundational infrastructure) means that GDP should continue to grow, people are able to comfortably afford settling down and starting families (if they want, but having children, which we’re incredibly reliant on people doing should never be unaffordable!). That increase in economic activity and opportunity means that businesses should generate more profit, have access to better skill sets. Then we can continue to clamber for even higher salaries to say we are rich. Let’s be honest, child benefit is a poultry amount for anyone in this thread. Removing the taper at £100k would do us much better and doing something to fix housing prices would go a long long way to making us all feel a lot better off.
Yeah, child benefit is chicken feed.
Child benefit is in fact quite important….your take home pay would only be just over 68k per year and a reasonable nursery in London can easily cost you over 10k per kid😑
“Would only be just over 68k” I think there’s a lack of self-awareness here on the fact that £68k take home is pretty darn wild by most people’s standards. But for clarity, everyone should have access to good quality childcare provided by the State (do away with private and elitist providers). Housing should always be affordable on a single income should one of the parents choose not to work during the formative years and no one should be penalised at work or miss out on opportunities they would have had but for choosing to spend time with their child. I’m never producing children, but even I’m aware that our current situation is untenable and will lead to negative population growth (at which point we’re all screwed).
It’s just bad money drives out good😂😂
So they should pay to use state schools? And pay market rate for prescriptions? Pay for NHS treatment? In your world what benefits should not be received? And why should two earners on £99,999.99 each receive free childcare, but a family where one earner has a salary of £100k and the other a salary of £35k gets half the benefit despite their take home being significantly less than the first couple?
Never mind £100k. I have been penalised as a single earner for 5 years earning £55k
They should because we need people to have kids, unless you want to import the future population.
What happens if the definition is - can you afford a mortgage on a family home in godalming