People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:
Single person, 2 children:
Gross salary £40,000 Rent £150/week Child care £100/week Pension contributions £1,200/year Council Tax £1,200/year
Gets £155.57 UC per week
(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)
It's obscene really, single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over£8,000 of UC.
NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36
The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79
Leaving a UC payment of £155.57.
That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.
Its not obscene, what's obscene is taxing that person on minimum wage a 75% tax rate. 🤦♂️
I couldn't care less if millionaires get UC. They'll be the ones paying for it in the first place. 🤦♂️
The person on a £40k salary is a net tax payer incidentally even if they get some back in UC.
No they are not a net taxpayer. All figures rounded to nearest £50:
They are paying income tax of £5,250 and NI of £3,900 - total £9,150.
They are getting UC of £8,100 and child benefit of £1,800 - total £9,900.
(NB. Remember the pension contributions!).
If someone earning £40k is contributing zero (and is actually receiving net benefits) then in my view that is not fair. It means everyone else without children is having to pay more than their fair share.
Essentially the whole "problem" arises because of children. The state (quite rightly) believes families with children on low or zero income need substantial support.
But the problem is that if you don't then have a high taper then you have the absurd situation as illustrated above whereby well off people with children get treated like royalty at the expense of everyone else.
And remember the above calculation is with a 63% taper. The UC calculated above of £8,100 will now be rising even higher - and by a significant amount.
Well, well - not before time - the Post Office is looking for an experienced investigator with leadership experience to set up and lead a Central Investigations Unit.
Whoever gets it will be cleaning out the stables there for some time I imagine.
That's what countless miscarriages of justice, some damning court judgments, journalistic probing and one hell of a compensation claim leads to. If only they'd thought of this before .......
People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:
Single person, 2 children:
Gross salary £40,000 Rent £150/week Child care £100/week Pension contributions £1,200/year Council Tax £1,200/year
Gets £155.57 UC per week
(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)
It's obscene really, single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over£8,000 of UC.
NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36
The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79
Leaving a UC payment of £155.57.
That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.
Its not obscene, what's obscene is taxing that person on minimum wage a 75% tax rate. 🤦♂️
I couldn't care less if millionaires get UC. They'll be the ones paying for it in the first place. 🤦♂️
The person on a £40k salary is a net tax payer incidentally even if they get some back in UC.
No they are not a net taxpayer. All figures rounded to nearest £50:
They are paying income tax of £5,250 and NI of £3,900 - total £9,150.
They are getting UC of £8,100 and child benefit of £1,800 - total £9,900.
(NB. Remember the pension contributions!).
If someone earning £40k is contributing zero (and is actually receiving net benefits) then in my view that is not fair. It means everyone else without children is having to pay more than their fair share.
Essentially the whole "problem" arises because of children. The state (quite rightly) believes families with children on low or zero income need substantial support.
But the problem is that if you don't then have a high taper then you have the absurd situation as illustrated above whereby well off people with children get treated like royalty at the expense of everyone else.
And remember the above calculation is with a 63% taper. The UC calculated above of £8,100 will now be rising even higher - and by a significant amount.
The "problem" in our finances is not too many children, we're well below replacement rate in birth rates. The problem in our finances is that people are retiring decades before they die when in the past they used to work until a couple of years before they died - and today's retirees didn't put anything to one side to save up for their retirement.
So having fewer workers of the future because you encourage even fewer children isn't the solution.
Most households have two earners not one and anyone working full time on UC will be paying 70% real marginal tax rate even after this taper reduction. Would you prefer their real tax rate to be even higher than 70%?
I'll give you a hint - if you tell people you're taking away every extra penny they earn, then they don't bother to earn any extra pennies, so they stay claiming benefits instead. That's not how I want my taxes spent, is that the system you'd prefer?
I believe in low taxes - and that should apply to the poorest just as much as the richest. Do you not believe in low taxes?
Well, well - not before time - the Post Office is looking for an experienced investigator with leadership experience to set up and lead a Central Investigations Unit.
Whoever gets it will be cleaning out the stables there for some time I imagine.
That's what countless miscarriages of justice, some damning court judgments, journalistic probing and one hell of a compensation claim leads to. If only they'd thought of this before .......
Might you not tip your hat into the ring?
I am already doing something similar for another well-known organisation.
1/3 of London's annual rainfall is due to fall on Cumbria in the next 24 hours. The river Kent in Kendal is already pretty high....
We felt the same way when Hurricane Ida came through a couple of months back and dropped a month or so of rainfall in a day. We watched our street turn into a minor tributary of the Hudson but it went past us which was good.
Of course to put it into perspective dozens of people drowned in the NJ/NY/CT tri-state area including tragically people in basement apartments in NYC who couldn’t get out in time. And what we got was nothing as bad as the initial impact on Louisiana.
People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:
Single person, 2 children:
Gross salary £40,000 Rent £150/week Child care £100/week Pension contributions £1,200/year Council Tax £1,200/year
Gets £155.57 UC per week
(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)
It's obscene really - single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over £8,000 of UC.
NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36
The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79
Leaving an actual UC cash payment of £155.57.
That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.
Agreed. Absolutely immoral that the state pays for people having children.
If you want children you should pay for them yourself!
Worst change in tax and benefits approach in last 40 years. In 1980 if you had children you took responsibility for them.
Child Benefit has existed in one form or another since 1909.
But in the old days eg 1980 people took responsibility for bringing up and paying for their children. Not today (in too many cases).
Yes yes, people are terrible nowadays and the world is going to hell in a handcart. Just like it has been for the last 3000 years.
You must have a rosy view of Ancient Sumer if that only started 3000 years ago.
Now I have a vision of the 4 Ancient Sumerians telling stories about their deprived childhoods over wine....
Well, Sumerian civilization is generally regarded to have come to an end by 1700BC, although the language persisted as a literary and liturgical language for a couple of millennia more, much like Latin today.
But in c.979BC in ancient Mesopotamia, you might well be bemoaning the “good old days”, especially if you lived somewhere that the Assyrians (the Nazis of the ancient Near East if you ask me) had recently done over.
1/3 of London's annual rainfall is due to fall on Cumbria in the next 24 hours. The river Kent in Kendal is already pretty high.......
Will your daughters restaurant be okay ?
Yes, it's nearby.
Kendal may be at risk. And the police are advising avoiding the Ambleside area. Some local roads and fields get a bit waterlogged.
Fingers crossed the rain clouds pass without too much damage.
A friend is walking in Cumbria and nearly got marooned today - planning to take a bus back, waited forever and eventually made her way to a pub who said all the buses had been cancelled. Eventually was able to get a taxi which aquaplaned her to her next stop.
People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:
Single person, 2 children:
Gross salary £40,000 Rent £150/week Child care £100/week Pension contributions £1,200/year Council Tax £1,200/year
Gets £155.57 UC per week
(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)
It's obscene really, single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over£8,000 of UC.
NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36
The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79
Leaving a UC payment of £155.57.
That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.
Its not obscene, what's obscene is taxing that person on minimum wage a 75% tax rate. 🤦♂️
I couldn't care less if millionaires get UC. They'll be the ones paying for it in the first place. 🤦♂️
The person on a £40k salary is a net tax payer incidentally even if they get some back in UC.
No they are not a net taxpayer. All figures rounded to nearest £50:
They are paying income tax of £5,250 and NI of £3,900 - total £9,150.
They are getting UC of £8,100 and child benefit of £1,800 - total £9,900.
(NB. Remember the pension contributions!).
If someone earning £40k is contributing zero (and is actually receiving net benefits) then in my view that is not fair. It means everyone else without children is having to pay more than their fair share.
Essentially the whole "problem" arises because of children. The state (quite rightly) believes families with children on low or zero income need substantial support.
But the problem is that if you don't then have a high taper then you have the absurd situation as illustrated above whereby well off people with children get treated like royalty at the expense of everyone else.
And remember the above calculation is with a 63% taper. The UC calculated above of £8,100 will now be rising even higher - and by a significant amount.
The "problem" in our finances is not too many children, we're well below replacement rate in birth rates. The problem in our finances is that people are retiring decades before they die when in the past they used to work until a couple of years before they died - and today's retirees didn't put anything to one side to save up for their retirement.
So having fewer workers of the future because you encourage even fewer children isn't the solution.
Most households have two earners not one and anyone working full time on UC will be paying 70% real marginal tax rate even after this taper reduction. Would you prefer their real tax rate to be even higher than 70%?
I'll give you a hint - if you tell people you're taking away every extra penny they earn, then they don't bother to earn any extra pennies, so they stay claiming benefits instead. That's not how I want my taxes spent, is that the system you'd prefer?
I believe in low taxes - and that should apply to the poorest just as much as the richest. Do you not believe in low taxes?
The problem is that we're juggling two things:
You're concerned about high marginal tax rates - and I understand that concern - you have posted the same point numerous times on this site in recent weeks.
But there's another problem of fairness between people. I don't think it's right that someone on a very low income should be a net contributor so that someone earning twice as much is a net recipient.
It's a matter of judgement how you balance the two.
The truth is that no solution is ideal because of one simple fact:
Your salary in a job doesn't change whether or not you have children. But your costs do massively. So the state has to intervene and you then have to balance the above two problems.
People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:
Single person, 2 children:
Gross salary £40,000 Rent £150/week Child care £100/week Pension contributions £1,200/year Council Tax £1,200/year
Gets £155.57 UC per week
(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)
It's obscene really - single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over £8,000 of UC.
NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36
The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79
Leaving an actual UC cash payment of £155.57.
That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.
Agreed. Absolutely immoral that the state pays for people having children.
If you want children you should pay for them yourself!
Worst change in tax and benefits approach in last 40 years. In 1980 if you had children you took responsibility for them.
Child benefit was introduced in 1977 actually and rightly so.
Children cost and if no one had them society would die out and the small working population would face a huge tax bill for the health and care costs of the top heavy elderly
1/3 of London's annual rainfall is due to fall on Cumbria in the next 24 hours. The river Kent in Kendal is already pretty high.......
Will your daughters restaurant be okay ?
Yes, it's nearby.
Kendal may be at risk. And the police are advising avoiding the Ambleside area. Some local roads and fields get a bit waterlogged.
Fingers crossed the rain clouds pass without too much damage.
A friend is walking in Cumbria and nearly got marooned today - planning to take a bus back, waited forever and eventually made her way to a pub who said all the buses had been cancelled. Eventually was able to get a taxi which aquaplaned her to her next stop.
Or Wednesday. As they call it in Cumbria. Still. Ditch the Green crap.
People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:
Single person, 2 children:
Gross salary £40,000 Rent £150/week Child care £100/week Pension contributions £1,200/year Council Tax £1,200/year
Gets £155.57 UC per week
(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)
It's obscene really, single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over£8,000 of UC.
NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36
The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79
Leaving a UC payment of £155.57.
That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.
Its not obscene, what's obscene is taxing that person on minimum wage a 75% tax rate. 🤦♂️
I couldn't care less if millionaires get UC. They'll be the ones paying for it in the first place. 🤦♂️
The person on a £40k salary is a net tax payer incidentally even if they get some back in UC.
No they are not a net taxpayer. All figures rounded to nearest £50:
They are paying income tax of £5,250 and NI of £3,900 - total £9,150.
They are getting UC of £8,100 and child benefit of £1,800 - total £9,900.
(NB. Remember the pension contributions!).
If someone earning £40k is contributing zero (and is actually receiving net benefits) then in my view that is not fair. It means everyone else without children is having to pay more than their fair share.
Essentially the whole "problem" arises because of children. The state (quite rightly) believes families with children on low or zero income need substantial support.
But the problem is that if you don't then have a high taper then you have the absurd situation as illustrated above whereby well off people with children get treated like royalty at the expense of everyone else.
And remember the above calculation is with a 63% taper. The UC calculated above of £8,100 will now be rising even higher - and by a significant amount.
The "problem" in our finances is not too many children, we're well below replacement rate in birth rates. The problem in our finances is that people are retiring decades before they die when in the past they used to work until a couple of years before they died - and today's retirees didn't put anything to one side to save up for their retirement.
So having fewer workers of the future because you encourage even fewer children isn't the solution.
Most households have two earners not one and anyone working full time on UC will be paying 70% real marginal tax rate even after this taper reduction. Would you prefer their real tax rate to be even higher than 70%?
I'll give you a hint - if you tell people you're taking away every extra penny they earn, then they don't bother to earn any extra pennies, so they stay claiming benefits instead. That's not how I want my taxes spent, is that the system you'd prefer?
I believe in low taxes - and that should apply to the poorest just as much as the richest. Do you not believe in low taxes?
The problem is that we're juggling two things:
You're concerned about high marginal tax rates - and I understand that concern - you have posted the same point numerous times on this site in recent weeks.
But there's another problem of fairness between people. I don't think it's right that someone on a very low income should be a net contributor so that someone earning twice as much is a net recipient.
It's a matter of judgement how you balance the two.
The truth is that no solution is ideal because of one simple fact:
Your salary in a job doesn't change whether or not you have children. But your costs do massively. So the state has to intervene and you then have to balance the above two problems.
People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:
Single person, 2 children:
Gross salary £40,000 Rent £150/week Child care £100/week Pension contributions £1,200/year Council Tax £1,200/year
Gets £155.57 UC per week
(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)
It's obscene really, single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over£8,000 of UC.
NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36
The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79
Leaving a UC payment of £155.57.
That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.
Its not obscene, what's obscene is taxing that person on minimum wage a 75% tax rate. 🤦♂️
I couldn't care less if millionaires get UC. They'll be the ones paying for it in the first place. 🤦♂️
The person on a £40k salary is a net tax payer incidentally even if they get some back in UC.
No they are not a net taxpayer. All figures rounded to nearest £50:
They are paying income tax of £5,250 and NI of £3,900 - total £9,150.
They are getting UC of £8,100 and child benefit of £1,800 - total £9,900.
(NB. Remember the pension contributions!).
If someone earning £40k is contributing zero (and is actually receiving net benefits) then in my view that is not fair. It means everyone else without children is having to pay more than their fair share.
Essentially the whole "problem" arises because of children. The state (quite rightly) believes families with children on low or zero income need substantial support.
But the problem is that if you don't then have a high taper then you have the absurd situation as illustrated above whereby well off people with children get treated like royalty at the expense of everyone else.
And remember the above calculation is with a 63% taper. The UC calculated above of £8,100 will now be rising even higher - and by a significant amount.
The "problem" in our finances is not too many children, we're well below replacement rate in birth rates. The problem in our finances is that people are retiring decades before they die when in the past they used to work until a couple of years before they died - and today's retirees didn't put anything to one side to save up for their retirement.
So having fewer workers of the future because you encourage even fewer children isn't the solution.
Most households have two earners not one and anyone working full time on UC will be paying 70% real marginal tax rate even after this taper reduction. Would you prefer their real tax rate to be even higher than 70%?
I'll give you a hint - if you tell people you're taking away every extra penny they earn, then they don't bother to earn any extra pennies, so they stay claiming benefits instead. That's not how I want my taxes spent, is that the system you'd prefer?
I believe in low taxes - and that should apply to the poorest just as much as the richest. Do you not believe in low taxes?
The problem is that we're juggling two things:
You're concerned about high marginal tax rates - and I understand that concern - you have posted the same point numerous times on this site in recent weeks.
But there's another problem of fairness between people. I don't think it's right that someone on a very low income should be a net contributor so that someone earning twice as much is a net recipient.
It's a matter of judgement how you balance the two.
The truth is that no solution is ideal because of one simple fact:
Your salary in a job doesn't change whether or not you have children. But your costs do massively. So the state has to intervene and you then have to balance the above two problems.
Does society need more children or not?
The UK birthrate is already below replacement level, only immigration fills the gap
People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:
Single person, 2 children:
Gross salary £40,000 Rent £150/week Child care £100/week Pension contributions £1,200/year Council Tax £1,200/year
Gets £155.57 UC per week
(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)
It's obscene really, single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over£8,000 of UC.
NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36
The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79
Leaving a UC payment of £155.57.
That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.
Its not obscene, what's obscene is taxing that person on minimum wage a 75% tax rate. 🤦♂️
I couldn't care less if millionaires get UC. They'll be the ones paying for it in the first place. 🤦♂️
The person on a £40k salary is a net tax payer incidentally even if they get some back in UC.
No they are not a net taxpayer. All figures rounded to nearest £50:
They are paying income tax of £5,250 and NI of £3,900 - total £9,150.
They are getting UC of £8,100 and child benefit of £1,800 - total £9,900.
(NB. Remember the pension contributions!).
If someone earning £40k is contributing zero (and is actually receiving net benefits) then in my view that is not fair. It means everyone else without children is having to pay more than their fair share.
Essentially the whole "problem" arises because of children. The state (quite rightly) believes families with children on low or zero income need substantial support.
But the problem is that if you don't then have a high taper then you have the absurd situation as illustrated above whereby well off people with children get treated like royalty at the expense of everyone else.
And remember the above calculation is with a 63% taper. The UC calculated above of £8,100 will now be rising even higher - and by a significant amount.
The "problem" in our finances is not too many children, we're well below replacement rate in birth rates. The problem in our finances is that people are retiring decades before they die when in the past they used to work until a couple of years before they died - and today's retirees didn't put anything to one side to save up for their retirement.
So having fewer workers of the future because you encourage even fewer children isn't the solution.
Most households have two earners not one and anyone working full time on UC will be paying 70% real marginal tax rate even after this taper reduction. Would you prefer their real tax rate to be even higher than 70%?
I'll give you a hint - if you tell people you're taking away every extra penny they earn, then they don't bother to earn any extra pennies, so they stay claiming benefits instead. That's not how I want my taxes spent, is that the system you'd prefer?
I believe in low taxes - and that should apply to the poorest just as much as the richest. Do you not believe in low taxes?
I don't believe in low taxes, any more than I believe in buying cheap shit from a shop. Yes, of course, sometimes it's best to just buy the cheapest, but often not. So it is with government. Sometimes it's worth paying more, sometime not. I like to know my government are doing the right things with the money, and effectively. Price and value are just two of several aspects in that equation.
People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:
Single person, 2 children:
Gross salary £40,000 Rent £150/week Child care £100/week Pension contributions £1,200/year Council Tax £1,200/year
Gets £155.57 UC per week
(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)
It's obscene really, single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over£8,000 of UC.
NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36
The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79
Leaving a UC payment of £155.57.
That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.
Its not obscene, what's obscene is taxing that person on minimum wage a 75% tax rate. 🤦♂️
I couldn't care less if millionaires get UC. They'll be the ones paying for it in the first place. 🤦♂️
The person on a £40k salary is a net tax payer incidentally even if they get some back in UC.
No they are not a net taxpayer. All figures rounded to nearest £50:
They are paying income tax of £5,250 and NI of £3,900 - total £9,150.
They are getting UC of £8,100 and child benefit of £1,800 - total £9,900.
(NB. Remember the pension contributions!).
If someone earning £40k is contributing zero (and is actually receiving net benefits) then in my view that is not fair. It means everyone else without children is having to pay more than their fair share.
Essentially the whole "problem" arises because of children. The state (quite rightly) believes families with children on low or zero income need substantial support.
But the problem is that if you don't then have a high taper then you have the absurd situation as illustrated above whereby well off people with children get treated like royalty at the expense of everyone else.
And remember the above calculation is with a 63% taper. The UC calculated above of £8,100 will now be rising even higher - and by a significant amount.
The "problem" in our finances is not too many children, we're well below replacement rate in birth rates. The problem in our finances is that people are retiring decades before they die when in the past they used to work until a couple of years before they died - and today's retirees didn't put anything to one side to save up for their retirement.
So having fewer workers of the future because you encourage even fewer children isn't the solution.
Most households have two earners not one and anyone working full time on UC will be paying 70% real marginal tax rate even after this taper reduction. Would you prefer their real tax rate to be even higher than 70%?
I'll give you a hint - if you tell people you're taking away every extra penny they earn, then they don't bother to earn any extra pennies, so they stay claiming benefits instead. That's not how I want my taxes spent, is that the system you'd prefer?
I believe in low taxes - and that should apply to the poorest just as much as the richest. Do you not believe in low taxes?
The problem is that we're juggling two things:
You're concerned about high marginal tax rates - and I understand that concern - you have posted the same point numerous times on this site in recent weeks.
But there's another problem of fairness between people. I don't think it's right that someone on a very low income should be a net contributor so that someone earning twice as much is a net recipient.
It's a matter of judgement how you balance the two.
The truth is that no solution is ideal because of one simple fact:
Your salary in a job doesn't change whether or not you have children. But your costs do massively. So the state has to intervene and you then have to balance the above two problems.
Does society need more children or not?
The UK birthrate is already below replacement level, only immigration fills the gap
Gap? Your assumption being that a reduced population is a bad thing?
People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:
Single person, 2 children:
Gross salary £40,000 Rent £150/week Child care £100/week Pension contributions £1,200/year Council Tax £1,200/year
Gets £155.57 UC per week
(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)
It's obscene really, single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over£8,000 of UC.
NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36
The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79
Leaving a UC payment of £155.57.
That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.
Its not obscene, what's obscene is taxing that person on minimum wage a 75% tax rate. 🤦♂️
I couldn't care less if millionaires get UC. They'll be the ones paying for it in the first place. 🤦♂️
The person on a £40k salary is a net tax payer incidentally even if they get some back in UC.
No they are not a net taxpayer. All figures rounded to nearest £50:
They are paying income tax of £5,250 and NI of £3,900 - total £9,150.
They are getting UC of £8,100 and child benefit of £1,800 - total £9,900.
(NB. Remember the pension contributions!).
If someone earning £40k is contributing zero (and is actually receiving net benefits) then in my view that is not fair. It means everyone else without children is having to pay more than their fair share.
Essentially the whole "problem" arises because of children. The state (quite rightly) believes families with children on low or zero income need substantial support.
But the problem is that if you don't then have a high taper then you have the absurd situation as illustrated above whereby well off people with children get treated like royalty at the expense of everyone else.
And remember the above calculation is with a 63% taper. The UC calculated above of £8,100 will now be rising even higher - and by a significant amount.
The "problem" in our finances is not too many children, we're well below replacement rate in birth rates. The problem in our finances is that people are retiring decades before they die when in the past they used to work until a couple of years before they died - and today's retirees didn't put anything to one side to save up for their retirement.
So having fewer workers of the future because you encourage even fewer children isn't the solution.
Most households have two earners not one and anyone working full time on UC will be paying 70% real marginal tax rate even after this taper reduction. Would you prefer their real tax rate to be even higher than 70%?
I'll give you a hint - if you tell people you're taking away every extra penny they earn, then they don't bother to earn any extra pennies, so they stay claiming benefits instead. That's not how I want my taxes spent, is that the system you'd prefer?
I believe in low taxes - and that should apply to the poorest just as much as the richest. Do you not believe in low taxes?
The problem is that we're juggling two things:
You're concerned about high marginal tax rates - and I understand that concern - you have posted the same point numerous times on this site in recent weeks.
But there's another problem of fairness between people. I don't think it's right that someone on a very low income should be a net contributor so that someone earning twice as much is a net recipient.
It's a matter of judgement how you balance the two.
The truth is that no solution is ideal because of one simple fact:
Your salary in a job doesn't change whether or not you have children. But your costs do massively. So the state has to intervene and you then have to balance the above two problems.
Does society need more children or not?
The UK birthrate is already below replacement level, only immigration fills the gap
Gap? Your assumption being that a reduced population is a bad thing?
It inevitably increases the tax burden on the working age population to cover the health and care costs of the elderly and lowers economic growth.
A declining population is as big a concern as overpopulation
People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:
Single person, 2 children:
Gross salary £40,000 Rent £150/week Child care £100/week Pension contributions £1,200/year Council Tax £1,200/year
Gets £155.57 UC per week
(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)
It's obscene really, single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over£8,000 of UC.
NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36
The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79
Leaving a UC payment of £155.57.
That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.
Its not obscene, what's obscene is taxing that person on minimum wage a 75% tax rate. 🤦♂️
I couldn't care less if millionaires get UC. They'll be the ones paying for it in the first place. 🤦♂️
The person on a £40k salary is a net tax payer incidentally even if they get some back in UC.
No they are not a net taxpayer. All figures rounded to nearest £50:
They are paying income tax of £5,250 and NI of £3,900 - total £9,150.
They are getting UC of £8,100 and child benefit of £1,800 - total £9,900.
(NB. Remember the pension contributions!).
If someone earning £40k is contributing zero (and is actually receiving net benefits) then in my view that is not fair. It means everyone else without children is having to pay more than their fair share.
Essentially the whole "problem" arises because of children. The state (quite rightly) believes families with children on low or zero income need substantial support.
But the problem is that if you don't then have a high taper then you have the absurd situation as illustrated above whereby well off people with children get treated like royalty at the expense of everyone else.
And remember the above calculation is with a 63% taper. The UC calculated above of £8,100 will now be rising even higher - and by a significant amount.
The "problem" in our finances is not too many children, we're well below replacement rate in birth rates. The problem in our finances is that people are retiring decades before they die when in the past they used to work until a couple of years before they died - and today's retirees didn't put anything to one side to save up for their retirement.
So having fewer workers of the future because you encourage even fewer children isn't the solution.
Most households have two earners not one and anyone working full time on UC will be paying 70% real marginal tax rate even after this taper reduction. Would you prefer their real tax rate to be even higher than 70%?
I'll give you a hint - if you tell people you're taking away every extra penny they earn, then they don't bother to earn any extra pennies, so they stay claiming benefits instead. That's not how I want my taxes spent, is that the system you'd prefer?
I believe in low taxes - and that should apply to the poorest just as much as the richest. Do you not believe in low taxes?
The problem is that we're juggling two things:
You're concerned about high marginal tax rates - and I understand that concern - you have posted the same point numerous times on this site in recent weeks.
But there's another problem of fairness between people. I don't think it's right that someone on a very low income should be a net contributor so that someone earning twice as much is a net recipient.
It's a matter of judgement how you balance the two.
The truth is that no solution is ideal because of one simple fact:
Your salary in a job doesn't change whether or not you have children. But your costs do massively. So the state has to intervene and you then have to balance the above two problems.
Does society need more children or not?
The UK birthrate is already below replacement level, only immigration fills the gap
People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:
Single person, 2 children:
Gross salary £40,000 Rent £150/week Child care £100/week Pension contributions £1,200/year Council Tax £1,200/year
Gets £155.57 UC per week
(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)
It's obscene really, single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over£8,000 of UC.
NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36
The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79
Leaving a UC payment of £155.57.
That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.
Its not obscene, what's obscene is taxing that person on minimum wage a 75% tax rate. 🤦♂️
I couldn't care less if millionaires get UC. They'll be the ones paying for it in the first place. 🤦♂️
The person on a £40k salary is a net tax payer incidentally even if they get some back in UC.
No they are not a net taxpayer. All figures rounded to nearest £50:
They are paying income tax of £5,250 and NI of £3,900 - total £9,150.
They are getting UC of £8,100 and child benefit of £1,800 - total £9,900.
(NB. Remember the pension contributions!).
If someone earning £40k is contributing zero (and is actually receiving net benefits) then in my view that is not fair. It means everyone else without children is having to pay more than their fair share.
Essentially the whole "problem" arises because of children. The state (quite rightly) believes families with children on low or zero income need substantial support.
But the problem is that if you don't then have a high taper then you have the absurd situation as illustrated above whereby well off people with children get treated like royalty at the expense of everyone else.
And remember the above calculation is with a 63% taper. The UC calculated above of £8,100 will now be rising even higher - and by a significant amount.
The "problem" in our finances is not too many children, we're well below replacement rate in birth rates. The problem in our finances is that people are retiring decades before they die when in the past they used to work until a couple of years before they died - and today's retirees didn't put anything to one side to save up for their retirement.
So having fewer workers of the future because you encourage even fewer children isn't the solution.
Most households have two earners not one and anyone working full time on UC will be paying 70% real marginal tax rate even after this taper reduction. Would you prefer their real tax rate to be even higher than 70%?
I'll give you a hint - if you tell people you're taking away every extra penny they earn, then they don't bother to earn any extra pennies, so they stay claiming benefits instead. That's not how I want my taxes spent, is that the system you'd prefer?
I believe in low taxes - and that should apply to the poorest just as much as the richest. Do you not believe in low taxes?
The problem is that we're juggling two things:
You're concerned about high marginal tax rates - and I understand that concern - you have posted the same point numerous times on this site in recent weeks.
But there's another problem of fairness between people. I don't think it's right that someone on a very low income should be a net contributor so that someone earning twice as much is a net recipient.
It's a matter of judgement how you balance the two.
The truth is that no solution is ideal because of one simple fact:
Your salary in a job doesn't change whether or not you have children. But your costs do massively. So the state has to intervene and you then have to balance the above two problems.
Does society need more children or not?
The UK birthrate is already below replacement level, only immigration fills the gap
Gap? Your assumption being that a reduced population is a bad thing?
It inevitably increases the tax burden on the working age population to cover the health and care costs of the elderly and lowers economic growth.
A declining population is as big a concern as overpopulation
Well, there are a number of industries that are, in my view, frivolous wastes of resources. If we re-balanced our overall use of resources away from those and towards health and social care, I'm sure we could cope. That's a political choice. I'm not really sure I have a view on whether the population should be smaller, larger, or about the same.
Not everyone benefited from the budget today according to Peston earlier.
While those on the living wage saw a boost and those in work on UC did too and pub and club and cafe owners also were winners, single people out of work will still see a £19 a week pay fall. They therefore joined port and sherry drinkers as the main losers
Not everyone benefited from the budget today according to Peston earlier.
While those on the living wage saw a boost and those in work on UC did too, single people out of work will still see a £19 a week pay fall, joining port and sherry drinkers as the main losers
I'll be £400/yr worse off, according to one of those calculator things.
People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:
Single person, 2 children:
Gross salary £40,000 Rent £150/week Child care £100/week Pension contributions £1,200/year Council Tax £1,200/year
Gets £155.57 UC per week
(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)
It's obscene really, single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over£8,000 of UC.
NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36
The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79
Leaving a UC payment of £155.57.
That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.
Its not obscene, what's obscene is taxing that person on minimum wage a 75% tax rate. 🤦♂️
I couldn't care less if millionaires get UC. They'll be the ones paying for it in the first place. 🤦♂️
The person on a £40k salary is a net tax payer incidentally even if they get some back in UC.
No they are not a net taxpayer. All figures rounded to nearest £50:
They are paying income tax of £5,250 and NI of £3,900 - total £9,150.
They are getting UC of £8,100 and child benefit of £1,800 - total £9,900.
(NB. Remember the pension contributions!).
If someone earning £40k is contributing zero (and is actually receiving net benefits) then in my view that is not fair. It means everyone else without children is having to pay more than their fair share.
Essentially the whole "problem" arises because of children. The state (quite rightly) believes families with children on low or zero income need substantial support.
But the problem is that if you don't then have a high taper then you have the absurd situation as illustrated above whereby well off people with children get treated like royalty at the expense of everyone else.
And remember the above calculation is with a 63% taper. The UC calculated above of £8,100 will now be rising even higher - and by a significant amount.
The "problem" in our finances is not too many children, we're well below replacement rate in birth rates. The problem in our finances is that people are retiring decades before they die when in the past they used to work until a couple of years before they died - and today's retirees didn't put anything to one side to save up for their retirement.
So having fewer workers of the future because you encourage even fewer children isn't the solution.
Most households have two earners not one and anyone working full time on UC will be paying 70% real marginal tax rate even after this taper reduction. Would you prefer their real tax rate to be even higher than 70%?
I'll give you a hint - if you tell people you're taking away every extra penny they earn, then they don't bother to earn any extra pennies, so they stay claiming benefits instead. That's not how I want my taxes spent, is that the system you'd prefer?
I believe in low taxes - and that should apply to the poorest just as much as the richest. Do you not believe in low taxes?
The problem is that we're juggling two things:
You're concerned about high marginal tax rates - and I understand that concern - you have posted the same point numerous times on this site in recent weeks.
But there's another problem of fairness between people. I don't think it's right that someone on a very low income should be a net contributor so that someone earning twice as much is a net recipient.
It's a matter of judgement how you balance the two.
The truth is that no solution is ideal because of one simple fact:
Your salary in a job doesn't change whether or not you have children. But your costs do massively. So the state has to intervene and you then have to balance the above two problems.
Does society need more children or not?
The UK birthrate is already below replacement level, only immigration fills the gap
Gap? Your assumption being that a reduced population is a bad thing?
It inevitably increases the tax burden on the working age population to cover the health and care costs of the elderly and lowers economic growth.
A declining population is as big a concern as overpopulation
One only has to look at Italy and Japan to see what happens when you combine terrible birthrates and rising life expectancy.
People talk about the Universal Credit taper - but the point is that even with the current taper we are paying UC to people on very high incomes:
Single person, 2 children:
Gross salary £40,000 Rent £150/week Child care £100/week Pension contributions £1,200/year Council Tax £1,200/year
Gets £155.57 UC per week
(Plus £35.15 Child Benefit per week)
It's obscene really - single people on minimum wage are paying tax so that someone on a gross salary of £40,000 can get over £8,000 of UC.
NB. The "Gross UC" is £472.36
The taper (at 63% of net pay above £67.62 per week) is £316.79
Leaving an actual UC cash payment of £155.57.
That, of course, will now rise when the taper falls to 55%.
Agreed. Absolutely immoral that the state pays for people having children.
If you want children you should pay for them yourself!
Worst change in tax and benefits approach in last 40 years. In 1980 if you had children you took responsibility for them.
How do you feel about the French system where every member of your family comes with their own tax allowances and they stack? So, a single man might start paying higher rate tax at €60,000/year, but if he's married and has two kids, then it's €240,000/year.
Real wages are expected to remain stagnant for 20 years.
In 2026, wages are forecast to be £11.70 lower than if the pre-2008 trend in wage growth had continued.
Isn’t it the case that people get higher wages through their career progression though? Obviously not for everyone.
The whole notion of career progression is a middle class one. Most working class jobs have little scope for progression. Maybe not even middle class jobs beyond set annual increments for experience. We can't all be promoted every three years.
Cut for champagne is not looking too good tonight.
Could this be Rishi's 'Pasty Tax' - a relatively sensible technical tweak that sent out all the wrong messages? (The media were gunning for Dave and Ozzy at the time - 'put these posh upstarts in their place' - but I suspect Rishi still has plenty of political capital so he'll probably be fine.)
It certainly looks dodgy, if (as reported) the threshold really is set at 11%. The budget clearly painted a picture of winners and losers within wine categories - with roses specifically named as benefitting. Yet almost all roses nowadays, and indeed almost all wines, are above the 11% mark
Comments
They are paying income tax of £5,250 and NI of £3,900 - total £9,150.
They are getting UC of £8,100 and child benefit of £1,800 - total £9,900.
(NB. Remember the pension contributions!).
If someone earning £40k is contributing zero (and is actually receiving net benefits) then in my view that is not fair. It means everyone else without children is having to pay more than their fair share.
Essentially the whole "problem" arises because of children. The state (quite rightly) believes families with children on low or zero income need substantial support.
But the problem is that if you don't then have a high taper then you have the absurd situation as illustrated above whereby well off people with children get treated like royalty at the expense of everyone else.
And remember the above calculation is with a 63% taper. The UC calculated above of £8,100 will now be rising even higher - and by a significant amount.
So having fewer workers of the future because you encourage even fewer children isn't the solution.
Most households have two earners not one and anyone working full time on UC will be paying 70% real marginal tax rate even after this taper reduction. Would you prefer their real tax rate to be even higher than 70%?
I'll give you a hint - if you tell people you're taking away every extra penny they earn, then they don't bother to earn any extra pennies, so they stay claiming benefits instead. That's not how I want my taxes spent, is that the system you'd prefer?
I believe in low taxes - and that should apply to the poorest just as much as the richest. Do you not believe in low taxes?
I wish the Post Office luck. They'll need it.
BTW lovely header. Enjoyed it, thank you.
Of course to put it into perspective dozens of people drowned in the NJ/NY/CT tri-state area including tragically people in basement apartments in NYC who couldn’t get out in time. And what we got was nothing as bad as the initial impact on Louisiana.
But in c.979BC in ancient Mesopotamia, you might well be bemoaning the “good old days”, especially if you lived somewhere that the Assyrians (the Nazis of the ancient Near East if you ask me) had recently done over.
You're concerned about high marginal tax rates - and I understand that concern - you have posted the same point numerous times on this site in recent weeks.
But there's another problem of fairness between people. I don't think it's right that someone on a very low income should be a net contributor so that someone earning twice as much is a net recipient.
It's a matter of judgement how you balance the two.
The truth is that no solution is ideal because of one simple fact:
Your salary in a job doesn't change whether or not you have children. But your costs do massively. So the state has to intervene and you then have to balance the above two problems.
Children cost and if no one had them society would die out and the small working population would face a huge tax bill for the health and care costs of the top heavy elderly
As they call it in Cumbria.
Still. Ditch the Green crap.
So it is with government. Sometimes it's worth paying more, sometime not. I like to know my government are doing the right things with the money, and effectively. Price and value are just two of several aspects in that equation.
A declining population is as big a concern as overpopulation
While those on the living wage saw a boost and those in work on UC did too and pub and club and cafe owners also were winners, single people out of work will still see a £19 a week pay fall. They therefore joined port and sherry drinkers as the main losers