How middle class families pay 49% of income in taxes - The Telegraph

marklv

carolt wrote: »

I think that depends where you live. In many parts of the country, earning over the 40% tax threshold would make you very well of indeed.

In London and S East, it's the minimum you could get by on with a family - given the high cost of house prices/rent.

The differences between the South-East and the rest of the country are not as great as they once were. London is certainly exceptional, but then people earn substantially more there than in the rest of the UK.

marklv

The_White_Horse wrote: »

they should increase the earning threshold for people who live in London and/or the Home Counties. someone earning 40k in London is NOT well off. Someone in Huddersfield may well be.

An experienced secretary can earn £40k in London, quite easily. Tube drivers earn this much already - a little more actually.

How well off you are depends on your personal circumstances - a working couple with no kids, a small or modest mortgage and only one (cheap to run) car can survive on a £40k combined income.

drc

marklv wrote: »

An experienced secretary can earn £40k in London, quite easily. Tube drivers earn this much already - a little more actually.

How well off you are depends on your personal circumstances - a working couple with no kids, a small or modest mortgage and only one (cheap to run) car can survive on a £40k combined income.

The problem is if you live in London and have a median sort of income and a family. We are kind of in that predicament. London is full of very well off people and quite a lot of benefit recipients. Both of these groups do quite well and are looked after (either by themselves or the state) but people who don't earn a huge wage (say £40k for London) but are not entitled to any benefits as they are classed as earning too much are penalised both by London weighting and the benefits system (and sometimes people have no choice but to stay in London for work or to help elderly relatives). £40k may make you rich in Sheffield or somewhere up north but in London, it's not that easy to live on after paying rent, council tax and living expenses and having a family.

I've suggested to my other half many a time that we would be better off on benefits but he enjoys workng too much .

lostinrates

marklv wrote: »

Class has nothing to do with money. Class is about attitudes, manners, upbringing, etc. A footballer can be on £5 million a year but he will still be working class - that will never change.

Yes. As I went on to further say. I was responding to the two points made. You will also have, I'm sure, read on to discover I make the point myself (low income ''well bred'' mother, higher tax rate paying working class father).

A foot baller needn't be working class.

ninky_2

i think there are some bitter people on here who resent the fact they've had kids and can't afford a glamorous city life anymore. my advice is to stop looking at what you think everyone else has got and enjoy your own good fortune.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

my advice is to stop looking at what you think everyone else has got and enjoy your own good fortune.

God advice whatever the situation and the people involved IMO.

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

God advice whatever the situation and the people involved IMO.

i'm not religious.....:D

carolt

ninky wrote: »

i think there are some bitter people on here who resent the fact they've had kids and can't afford a glamorous city life anymore. my advice is to stop looking at what you think everyone else has got and enjoy your own good fortune.

Whilst I agree with the second sentence, as lir says a generally sage piece of advice whatever the scenario may be, I disagree that being angry about 'hard-working families' (how I hate that phrase!) bearing the brunt economically is just a reflection of selfish bitterness.

I'd put myself in that category of hard-working parent, and I think expressing dissatisfation with the scenario of us paying for the economic recovery reflects more than personal bitterness -it

(a) reflects an anger on behalf of our children, who hardly get to see their parents, and whose views are not taken into account - would you call the children 'bitter'?
(b) is part of a move to protest - without expressing our views publicly, how can we exect politicians to act on them? - it is constructive not destructive.

I think it is easy for someone such as yourself, who is childless, to accuse others of being bitter and desiring a 'glamorous' lifestyle. I've never had a remotely glamorous lifestyle - didn't have one before I had kids either! - so there's not really anything to miss there!

I don't however think it is unreasonable to be annoyed that people who don't work at all should enjoy the same standard of living as I do - or better in some regards - in particular endless hours to spend with their beloved families - whilst I pay for BOTH OF US.

Please explain to me why that is fair and I am 'bitter' to feel otherwise. I don't get it, I really don't.

lostinrates

carolt wrote: »

Whilst I agree with the second sentence, as lir says a generally sage piece of advice whatever the scenario may be, I disagree that being angry about 'hard-working families' (how I hate that phrase!) bearing the brunt economically is just a reflection of selfish bitterness.

I think its hard working people....whatever the income and family situation, bearing the brunt.

ninky_2

carolt wrote: »

I think it is easy for someone such as yourself, who is childless, to accuse others of being bitter and desiring a 'glamorous' lifestyle. I've never had a remotely glamorous lifestyle - didn't have one before I had kids either! - so there's not really anything to miss there!

I don't however think it is unreasonable to be annoyed that people who don't work at all should enjoy the same standard of living as I do - or better in some regards - in particular endless hours to spend with their beloved families - whilst I pay for BOTH OF US.

Please explain to me why that is fair and I am 'bitter' to feel otherwise. I don't get it, I really don't.

i could feel angry at paying for things for your children out of my taxes (e.g. free schooling).

equally you could look at the lives of others less fortunate who pay to sustain your current level of living. as westerners we all benefit from the struggles of others in other countries.

i've made these points before but those on benefits do not have a better standard of living than you. that is a daily mail myth. those who claim benefits and work cash in hand might do but that is a totally different issue to do with fraud.

i don't know you but i presume you and yours are fed and watered, have a roof over your heads, enjoy the occassional holiday and maybe even have a bit of disposable income to spend on hobbies. you clearly have some leisure time or you wouldn't post on here.

what exactly are you campaigning for. more for you or less for them? i can't see that you have a very valid argument to ask for more so you are going to have to argue others have less.