[Closed] Income Tax. Beginning to feel like working isn't worth it any more

As someone said above, why look at your gross income, just worry about the net. My salary's ok, not huge by any stretch of the imagination, but my net is enough to fund a lifestyle I'm happy / contented with so I'm not really that fussed over how much tax / NI I pay. Sure a small % may be funding scummers to smoke weed all day in their council flats, but a lot more will be spent on educating my kids and sorting us out if we need healthcare.

Fuss about nothing.

When I apply for a job, and I want to work out how well off I'll be, I NEVER take the yearly salary and divide by 12. I go to a tax calculator and work out my takehome. I've actually no idea how much tax I pay.

I've actually no idea how much tax I pay.

Ditto. Really not that interested.

grantway - Member

ian martin - Member
For me the term 'society' means sharing.

With you 100%

Sweet.
I currently earn less than you, give me some money please. 🙂

http://www.havingtheircake.com/content/Tax%20avoidance%20-%20an%20abuse%20of%20society.php

A decent article -

To say that you would rather pay no tax, is to say that you think that the state shouldn't exist, in which case your money wouldn't exist, as there'd be no banking or legal system to maintain the fiction that is modern money

Getting right back to the start... If you find yourself thinking "working isn't worth it any more", stop working- sign on, enjoy the wonderful life that you've been missing out on.

Sbob
First question, maybe.
Secondly if you have kids and receive all associated benefits then probably i already am.

I have to say that as far as equal opportunities go we are not perfect, but ee could be worse. There are a lot of people from poor backgrounds who have become successful. People from rich backgrounds also do well probably more often, but you can't stop people giving money, experience or guidance to their kids can you?

I have more of an issue with what happens to those who just don't have the capacity to be the best. They could be better off with more help and defence againt those who want to screw them over.

No matter how much tax you pay, have a look down the page here, it will make you feel better;

http://www.caughtoffside.com/2012/11/20/how-much-carlos-tevez-payslip-leaked-image/

Good work fellas. The OP sounds like just the sort of ignorant, selfish * who should put his money where his mouth is and * off to Dubai or somewhere equally putrid.

**** off to Dubai or somewhere equally putrid

I was thinking the same thing. There are places in the world where you can earn a boatload of money and pay next to know tax. I'd not want to live in any of them.

You don't need a state to have modern money

Whilst in theory that is true - things like bitcoin exist, can you actually think of any successful currency that isn't state backed? Now that currencies aren't liked to anything physical like gold, they're essentially a fiction based on the existence of a backing bank, and a large number of people who will also believe in the currency. States (usually) provide the stability that means that we can reliably believe that the money has a value and will still have a value tomorrow. Alternative currencies like bitcoin exist, but then you're reliant on a relatively unregulated system with a lot more risks - look at things like the recent hacks of bitcoin storing sites. Or commercially backed things like nectar points, where no one would accept their pay in them, because you're essentially at the whim of those running it as to how much they are worth at any point.

Even ignoring the backing of all successful currencies by states, the state also provides many mechanisms without which the financial system couldn't function. With no state, if you had something, there would be nothing stopping me from coming and taking it. There'd be no infrastructure for me to get something from you once i had bought it, no car for me to come and pick it up. We'd have a simple barter system based on physically available goods maybe, but how on earth that could support the making of modern things with big supply chains involved, i don't know.

I think the OP's problem is that he works too hard, doesn't do the things in life most people do to enjoy themselves. Maybe if you did you'd gain a bit more perspective on things. Cos that's what you're lacking, not a few quid that you 'think' is being stolen from you by the scroungers.

Exactly what the armchair psychologist in me was thinking

I effing hate petty mindedness over tax..

it's a reality, get over it

Awww.. diddums works hard does he..?
Me and my cute little family work all the hours god sends on big complex projects, although they are undoubtedly not quite as 'important' as you seem to think your projects are.. 😆
We get paid the grand sum of next to bugger all for our efforts and I have to say, miserly jealous thoughts about how others are doing are the very last thing on our minds..
Come the glorious people's revolution, there should be a simple questionnaire relating to benefits claimants.. Anyone petty and ignorant enough to believe the myths should be first against the wall, just to raise the IQ in the gene pool, and reduce the karmic burden on the emotional welfare state..

I used to say EAT THE RICH.. now I say EAT THE BITTER too..

It's a common misconception that you need to be particularly intelligent or socially aware to earn loads. I suppose you could live your whole life like that. just look at the PM!

DrS****, you were correct in your prediction of how your OP would be greeted since you combine a truism ("taxes reduce the welfare of those who bear their economic burden" The Mirlees Report), a behavioural comment (the title is stating what economists call the substitution effect ie, [i]crudely speaking,[/i] if taxes rise, people will in effect say why bother to work) with invalid and inflammatory comments on the nature of society (in effect the false "shirker notion").

But while the subsequent hostility in unsurprising, you [i]may be[/i] surprised to see that you have an unlikely ally this morning - Ed Balls! So the Labour Shadow Chancellor is telling a Tory Chancellor that he should cut taxes NOW (including not only regressive taxes such as VAT but also progressive taxes such as income tax) in, irony or ironies, [i]The Daily Telegraph![/i]

The current economic and poltical environment never fails to throw up these weird scenarios!

just quit work and live on 70 quid a week jobseekers allowance like i am at the moment (+ my savings so im not struggling at all tbh)

id be interested to know what you need to spend your money on that the tax man has 'stolen' from you

im a long way from the top tax bracket (when i was working!) and yeah a bigger house would be great, a newer car, maybe even buying a bike brand new (all my bikes s/h since 2002) and despite my paupers 😉 existence Im really quite happy; my family, friends, the odd bike ride life is all good.

I think you should work less, not to reduce your tax bill, but just take time to smell the roses

oh and stop reading right wing newspapers- will probably make you a lot cheerier too!

Late to the party but I'd like to second the comment about goverment subsidising low paid private company wadges via tax credits. It doesn't make sense to me that people are paid so low the tax they pay and their company pays gets fed back to top up their effective wages to roughly avaerage level. Seems like a meery go round of money!

ooooh! Just got a letter from my employers, apparently because I have to launder some of their clothes (uniform), I get a bump in my Tax allowance, back dated!

That will be about £60, or your taxes... for doing nought! (well, m' washing which being a clean sort of a chap I would have done anyway no matter what I wore) for the last three years, do you want me to fill the form in DrRS****, or do you just wanna send me a cheque! 😀

Nothing wrong with the OP's thoughts....perfectly understandable!

We've often thought down here in Surrey, we should seek independence as the result would be a tax cut of about 99.9% due to not having to fund all those Northern wastrels!

# runs away#

That's OK, we in the north often wish we could have rid of Surrey 😀

Actually I don't know anyone I've pitched the idea to who disagreed with the notion of [if the Scots vote yes] drawing a new border from the Humber to the Mersey, and pledging allegiance to the Republic of New Scotlandshire. You lot like Dave so much you can keep him. 🙂

Not reading all of that but to the OP I agree in that whilst we may have a lot of unemployed who want to work, the fact is that you receive benefits in return for no work. Hence I tend to think a claim to benefits should be met in return by say 20hrs of 'work' in return where the individual is able. Managing this could be the role of other suitably qualified claimants and the work done could be of a kind useful to local and national society, maybe the jobs that we can no longer afford to pay for per se.

It's nice to hear Ed Balls has been reading this thread and acting upon it!

I'm trying to adjust to my new tax band. Today I have shopped in Sainsburys. It was a truly vile experience and one I do not intend to repeat. I need to find new ways of economising that won't jeapordise my Waitrose addiction - Hestons Earl Grey infused hot cross buns are just wonderful for afternoon tea.

But, this thread does seem to have lost its way a little. I understand the ethos if paying tax. I just don't agree with how it is spent.

The thought of segregating the odd county or two isn't so fat fetched, they use local taxation in Switzerland for instance.

If I ran for Prime Minister I reckon a lot of you would vote for me 🙂

Wasn't there a vote on regional assemblies a few years ago, nobody was interested. Lets see what the Scots do eh? Tbh, I think they will bottle it unless the Tories really f it up even more.

... and I think a lot of the money in Surrey is earned in London, independence from a dormitory county would be a benefit to the rest of us!

Imagine the commute, lining up at the frontier with your passport and your work visa... Sniffer dogs and metal detectors... wondering if you have enough sterling to buy lunch... You know how bothered we all about immigration, probably only allow 100 people a year to immigrate into the UK, not like you'd be automatic EU members.

the biggest chunk of the benefits bill goes to OAPs

and the coalition havent dared reduce that, nor do the press like to deomonise them, because they are more likely to vote (and buy papers) than younger folk

there is a way to fix it all, and save the nhs billions

[img] [/img]

Put D'artagnaon in a spaceship?

You sure?

you mean youve never seen logans run?!

[img] [/img]

Heard of it, a bit, does she wear that alot?

Not reading all of that

Pity, as you could have avoided wasting your time making a suggestion which has already been debunked.

Heard of it, a bit, does she wear that alot?

Yes.

internet is go...

[quote=kimbers said]the biggest chunk of the benefits bill goes to OAPs
and the coalition havent dared reduce that

Vince wants to though and also cut NHS/Education spending. Who'd a thunk it eh.

The OP is trolling brilliantly I think.

You earn more tax and its a tiered system whereby you pay more only on the amount over the limit. You take up is going up? What's not to like.

If the OP is at the top limit he wouldn't have been getting any allowances anyway.

BTW I also pay a lot of tax.

But, this thread does seem to have lost its way a little. I understand the ethos if paying tax. I just don't agree with how it is spent.

I call troll. No-one can carry on being as dense as this in the face of insurmountable evidence, can they?

We've often thought down here in Surrey, we should seek independence as the result would be a tax cut of about 99.9% due to not having to fund all those Northern wastrels!

That's fine, but you will have to pay punitive taxes and face a harsh border control policy if you want to come anywhere decent for mountain biking. 😉

Actually I don't know anyone I've pitched the idea to who disagreed with the notion of [if the Scots vote yes] drawing a new border from the Humber to the Mersey, and pledging allegiance to the Republic of New Scotlandshire. You lot like Dave so much you can keep him.

Can we start a serious political campaign to make this happen?

I love the way anyone says anything slightly contentious to the Guardianistas on here and it's 'Trolling'.

It's a perfectly reasonable argument that its a debilitating experience being taxed so much money when you have already contributed far more than most.

Next time I go up a tax bracket, I must remember to cry about hard it is.

Can we start a serious political campaign to make this happen?

I really think we should.

Next time you go up a tax bracket you run the risk of earning less than you do now!

Yes, I would

I love the way anyone says anything slightly contentious to the Guardianistas on here and it's 'Trolling'.

It's a perfectly reasonable argument that its a debilitating experience being taxed so much money when you have already contributed far more than most.

No, it's that the OP seems to be incredibly ill-informed about what his taxes are spent on, despite repeated evidence. You can't just 'have an opinion' that something is true, without bothering to find out if it actually is, then when shown that your opinion is factually wrong just keep repeating it anyway.

Well you can, but it makes you look quite daft. Or like a troll.

Rockape63 - Member
Next time you go up a tax bracket you run the risk of earning less than you do now!

Don't talk rubbish.

[quote=stevewhyte said]Rockape63 - Member
Next time you go up a tax bracket you run the risk of earning less than you do now!
Don't talk rubbish.

If you factor in things like Child Benefit then it's possible for the household total income to drop when moving up a tax bracket.

Not really no.

It's not rubbish actually old Chap.... There is a point where you earn around 45k and earn less than someone earning less due to various factors such as child benefit etc

Someone with children?

There is a point where you earn around 45k and earn less than someone earning less due to various factors such as child benefit etc

Prove it!

Not you don't.

The loss of cb is on a sliding scale and your tax I crease is only on the amount above the lower limit threshold. And you get extra tax relieve at 40% on pensions.

So actually old chap, you simply don't.

Also CB has nothing to do with tax. And in all seriousness has no place in such a discussion.

aracer - Member

Not reading all of that

Pity, as you could have avoided wasting your time making a suggestion which has already been debunked.

Aaaahhh, just read a bit more and can't see the proven arguments that debunk the idea. Please point me to them 🙂 In reality the system wouldn't cost a huge amount more over the benefits/support already provided bearing in mind that any costs/wages are paid by the same Govt to whom taxes and nic is paid. Plus the overall reduction due to increased incentive to take a private sector job could be substantial, not to mention better health/self esteem, better example to offspring etc etc.

Can't be arsed to read it all but i guess there will be a stack of jealous people who resnt him making more than them. Our system is blantantly unfair. those who work should be encouraged not penalised. Same tax rates for all please. why should someone who takes little pay the most? thats Sodding wrong.
those who take should pay more. with no kids I should not pay as much as those with kids. etc.
Lazy jealous ****s think otherwise.

"Can't be arsed and don't understand when the grown ups speak. Can't understand math either....."

Fixed it for you mattsccm

deepreddave - Member
"aracer - Member
Pity, as you could have avoided wasting your time making a suggestion which has already been debunked."

Aaaahhh, just read a bit more and can't see the proven arguments that debunk the idea. Please point me to them In reality the system wouldn't cost a huge amount more over the benefits/support already provided bearing in mind that any costs/wages are paid by the same Govt to whom taxes and nic is paid. Plus the overall reduction due to increased incentive to take a private sector job could be substantial, not to mention better health/self esteem, better example to offspring etc etc.

One job funded by the state takes one job out of the market. How does that reduce unemployment? Workfare provides free labour for massive companies, funded by the tax payer. If there wasn't workfare they would still need people to do these jobs but they would pay them [at least] minimum wage. This person would then have money to put into the economy. Not that difficult really.

But screw the economy lets make the scroungers work out.

Also I'd love to see your figures on how much it would cost, I'm sure they're pretty comprehensive.

Lifer - my guess is that my figures are as comprehensive as yours 😉 given the closing of the gap between benefits v low paid employment and reduced central spending due to the recession the cost v benefit of such a scheme is increasingly favourable. In addition there are many many areas of work that benefit claimants could become involved in that are neither the jobs you're referring to or even currently been done in these austere times. It's also a shane you can't see the positive benefits as I have encountered hundreds of people for whom leaving benefits simply isn't sufficiently financially beneficial compared to their quality of life on benefits. What do you suggest to incentivise/help these people beyond an unviable higher minimum wage?

deepreddave - Member
Lifer - my guess is that my figures are as comprehensive as yours

My figures for what? A claim that you made?

given the closing of the gap between benefits v low paid employment and reduced central spending due to the recession the cost v benefit of such a scheme is increasingly favourable

According to you, but I don't agree, for the reasons given above.

In addition there are many many areas of work that benefit claimants could become involved in that are neither the jobs you're referring to or even currently been done in these austere times

Such as?

It's also a shane you can't see the positive benefits as I have encountered hundreds of people for whom leaving benefits simply isn't sufficiently financially beneficial compared to their quality of life on benefits.

Find me one example in history where workfare has actually worked in reducing unemployment and/or the benefit bill. Can I ask where you've encountered these hundreds?

What do you suggest to incentivise/help these people beyond an unviable higher minimum wage?

Why is a higher minimum wage unviable? It would mean a simpler tax system as if employers paid a living wage the state doesn't need to subsidise it with housing benefit, income support, tax credits etc. Plus I don't need a solution as I don't think a problem exists (except the erosion of a benefits system we should be proud of).

Workfare provides free labour for massive companies, funded by the tax payer. If there wasn't workfare they would still need people to do these jobs

So, you would presumably have no ethical objection to 'workfare' if the jobs were done entirely for the benefit of the wider community - such as basic cleaning in hospitals, litter picking in public parks, conservation work (the people currently doing this can supervise/oversee so its zero sum gain on the jobs/expenses side of things, but they now have a much greater workforce)

rattrap - Member
Workfare provides free labour for massive companies, funded by the tax payer. If there wasn't workfare they would still need people to do these jobs
So, you would presumably have no ethical objection to 'workfare' if the jobs were done entirely for the benefit of the wider community - such as basic cleaning in hospitals, litter picking in public parks, conservation work (the people currently doing this can supervise/oversee so its zero sum gain on the jobs/expenses side of things, but they now have a much greater workforce)

You presume wrong.

It's not the ethics I have a problem with FFS. It's the maths.

We have 5 cleaners in a hospital. They're replaced by 5 workfare 'volunteers'. Do you think the cleaning company will keep on the 5 original cleaners to provide 1 on 1 supervision? Or will the person who supervised the 5 original cleaners now be supervising 5 workfare claimants while 5 ex-cleaners look for work and the cleaning company's profits increase by 5 people's salaries?

Only about 40% of hospitals use contract cleaners, so thats your first 'jumped to conclusion' shot down.

So, back to the point - if that was the case (no loss of existing, but they were used to train and oversee, so you end up with more) would you have a problem with people working for their benefits or not?

rattrap - Member
Only about 40% of hospitals use contract cleaners, so thats your first 'jumped to conclusion' shot down.

Ouch, what a major rebuttal. Except it doesn't change the scenario. Why would an NHS Trust (right this time?) use money from their budget to keep on 5 cleaners as supervisors to workfare claimants when they will already have a supervisor for the 5 cleaners, who they can now 'get rid of'?

So, back to the point - if that was the case (no loss of existing, but they were used to train and oversee, so you end up with more) would you have a problem with people working for their benefits or not?

Most people receiving benefits do work, but require benefits because minimum wage is not a living wage.

Why would an NHS Trust (right this time?) use money from their budget to keep on 5 cleaners as supervisors to workfare claimants when they will already have a supervisor for the 5 cleaners?

Because they do what the people who provide their budget tell them to, so if the government made that the rule, would you support it, or not?

If there's a job give them a job.

Take 15 minutes to listen to this:

[url= http://audioboo.fm/boos/1223720-iain-duncan-smith-s-explosive-row-with-james-o-brien ]IDS can't defend workfare[/url]

Pretty difficult to come away from that with the impression that workfare is nothing but posturing.

It has never worked in reducing unemployment and has always cost more to administer than JSA/equivalents, if it was such a great policy why have other countries tried it and abandoned it?

ICan't be arsed to read it all but i guess there will be a stack of jealous people who resnt him making more than them.

Our system is blantantly unfair. those who work should be encouraged not penalised.

Same tax rates for all please.

why should someone who takes little pay the most? thats Sodding wrong.

those who take should pay more.

with no kids I should not pay as much as those with kids.

In addition there are many many areas of work that benefit claimants could become involved in that are neither the jobs you're referring to or even currently been done in these austere times.

It's also a shane you can't see the positive benefits as I have encountered hundreds of people for whom leaving benefits simply isn't sufficiently financially beneficial compared to their quality of life on benefits.

What do you suggest to incentivise/help these people beyond an unviable higher minimum wage?

Can you use Mc Donalds and their UK based profits to explain why they cannot pay above the minimum wage? Could you explain why we should subsidise their employment [ via working tax credits]

re cleaning a hospital I would rather leave it in the hands of a professional who has a job and may get sacked if they do it badly than make an anthropology graduate, a recently redundant builder, the ex army major person with no interest in cleaning clean hospitals.
Its not about helping them or about making a better society it is about tax payers feeling like they get thier moneys worth out of them.
Perhaps we could make them wear special uniforms with a badge on so we can tell who they are in every day life?

if there's a job give them a job.

[i] "Dear Chief Secretary. I'm afraid there is no money. Kind regards - and good luck! Liam."[/i]

No actual response to my points then?

I'll respond to your points when you've answered my earlier simple question on whether you would support workfare on that basis...

On the basis that you think there is work that needs doing but are too selfish to pay for it to be done?

Talk about a sense of entitlement.

Forcing benefit claimants to work would certainly be a good thing for lots of people in society.

Not for my dad though, litter picking would be tough, what with his arthritic knees and all.

On the basis that you think there is work that needs doing but are too selfish to pay for it to be done?

[img] [/img]

Ok same wages for all please

Something heading even remotely in this direction would solve many many many problems, where's that wealth distribution graph when you need it.

There was enough money to cut the top rate of tax.

@rattrap

Surely Labour were simply giving a brief summing up of the situation caused by greedy bankers, and the people actually having a laugh were the bankers themselves ?

The biggest joke being the now well established "reward for failure" joke.

There's plenty of money in the country. It's just in the wrong hands.

rattrap - Member
I'll respond to your points when you've answered my earlier simple question on whether you would support workfare on that basis...

No, if there's a job give them a job.

I don't understand why JSA is seen as such a massive problem?

[img] [/img]

The biggest joke being the now well established "reward for failure" joke.

Like Andy Burnham?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/16/ignored-nhs-hospital-warning-claims

Doing alright for himself considering the last person in the NHS who killed that many was called Harold Shipman...

[img] [/img]

Like Andy Burnham?

I'm not sure what your link, which you undoubtedly searched frantically for, has to do with "reward for failure" Z-11, but you should know better than expect me to defend the less than honest tories in New Labour.

Yes of course New Labour behaved appallingly whilst in government, precisely because they enthusiastically adopted the disastrous neo-liberal policies which you are so supportive of.

The only thing in New Labour's 13 years in power which I give them any sort of credit for, was the direction they took when confronted the global credit crises. The speed which they temporarily abandon neo-liberalism and adopt basic keynesian solutions, in the much the same way as George Bush did, was quite remarkable. The consequences were considerably less misery for ordinary people, less unemployment etc, a higher deficit, and increased popularity - the Conservatives went from having a 22% lead and certain victory before the credit crises, to failing to win the general election after 2 years of Labour's handling of the global crises.

I think some people need to learn where the money goes. I work every day for local and national government, the waste is just astounding. I personally blew the best part of a million this year providing something that they decided they didn't want after all, we got paid, they got nothing.

This happens everyday everywhere, and thats before you get to the big ticket items. Anyone for a nimrod, fired off a catapult perhaps? £4Bn down the tube for nothing, it goes on and on and on.

Arguing about Mrs Miggins and her spare bedroom "tax" is just a front, it keeps people away from the bigger issues.

£4bn you say? More than the entire employment and support allowance budget.

But it's these bloody scroungers that are the problem.

What narks me is the proportion of my tax/NI/VAT/fuel duty etc that Gideon has spunked up the wall on his mismanagement of UK plc. And the right-wing press trying to blame the less fortunate in our society for it.

Bah