Taxing the rich to pay for the poor

Elegran

I didn't say either of those things. I don't believe that everyone is a saint, but I do believe that the majority of "the poor" are working, not skiving, and to get out of their poverty they need the tools to do so - health, education, and confidence.

To confidence, I would add security (about having a roof over their heads, knowing how much they'll be earning next week, etc).

Norah

Elegran

Norah quoted - "in Wandsworth, half of all PAYE earners earned less than £43,620 gross."

Norah replied - "I gather that means half earn more than that? So, if their partner even close to similarly earns, depending on outgoings, they could save."

"I find it ludicrous to believe nobody but the very wealthy can save." Norah

The half earning more than £43,620 gross were probably aged 45 or over.

Age / Weekly Wage (median) Full time gross pay / Annual salary*
18-21 / £441/ £22,932
22-29 / £583 / £30,316
30-38 / £722 / £37,544
40-49 / £770 / £40,040
50-59 / £727 / £37,804
60+ / £651 / £33,852
( www.forbes.com/uk/advisor/business/average-uk-salary-by-age/ )

In www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/country/united-kingdom , a summary of living costs per month is given, these equate annually to £52,368 for a family of four, and £30,036 for a single person.

So the income of the average person between 18 and 21 is about £700 short of their expenses – so they are probably living at home, and eating the groceries bought by their mother.

Someone between 22 and 29 is spending right up to his/her income on living independently.

Between 30 and 49 is the peak time for producing and raising a family – a costly period in both money and in time. After that average salary reduces, though children (and later grandchildren) don't suddenly stop needing help – those average 18 to 21 year-olds are not yet fully independent.

Someone with a working partner, between 22 and 29 using your sums, would have money to spare - if I understand you.

Seems reasonable to me.

Looks to me working people with working partners, between 30 and 49 would be financially ok to produce and raise a family and save, correct?

That's in Wandsworth, which has the highest median pay. Everywhere else has less. You have also forgotten that is gross pay before income tax and NI deductions (and student loans repayments for many).

Now deduct rent/mortgage repayments, which are likely to be over £1000 a month, Council Tax, utilities and travel to/from work and food. There won't be much left.

Working people with working partners between 30 and 49 are also likely to have childcare costs.

You're living in lalaland if you think they're financially OK.

I'm not sure that this is in the Labour Party manifesto, is it ?!

If a tradie does work for you and then asks you whether you want to pay $800 cash or $ 1,000 on a card which would most choose ? That is the reality here. We are lazy, personally, and will pay by card because we can’t be bothered going to the bank but I think we are in the minority there.

I didn't say either of those things. I don't believe that everyone is a saint, but I do believe that the majority of "the poor" are working, not skiving, and to get out of their poverty they need the tools to do so - health, education, and confidence.

Norah "Looks to me working people with working partners, between 30 and 49 would be financially ok to produce and raise a family and save, correct?"

You would have to ask a wide variety people of that age to be certain of the answer, in any specific case, as you would of people between 22 and 29 with a working partner and children It depends on how much that particular couple is earning - an average means that there are people earning more than that and less than that. Many women with families work part time, as childcare full time can absorb a large chunk of their wages.

The "average" person could be doing OK, while under the "average" graph line are others who are not.

Elegran

Germanshepherdsmum

Who is suggesting that?

You are. You think a whole demographic is engaged in the black economy while claiming to be poor and/or unable to work, and spends its time sitting in a pub plotting how to avoid declaring the cash-in-hand payments received, then claims all the benefits available, whether they genuinely qualify for them or not. What a cynical view of your fellow men and women you have.

That’s not what I said. I suggest you re-read my post. I said ‘nobody knows how many work for cash, don’t declare their earnings and may well claim benefits’. That is not a whole demographic. ‘Sitting in a pub plotting etc’ is entirely your own manufacture - don’t twist my words. If you pay anyone in cash, do you really believe it’s all declared? And that nobody works for cash but claims benefits?

Nobody knows how many work for cash and don’t declare their earnings, and may well claim benefits.
Or may well not claim benefits.

As Elegran says what a cynical view of your fellow men. I would hate to think like this.

Elegran

Norah quoted - "in Wandsworth, half of all PAYE earners earned less than £43,620 gross."

Norah replied - "I gather that means half earn more than that? So, if their partner even close to similarly earns, depending on outgoings, they could save."

"I find it ludicrous to believe nobody but the very wealthy can save." Norah

The half earning more than £43,620 gross were probably aged 45 or over.

Age / Weekly Wage (median) Full time gross pay / Annual salary*
18-21 / £441/ £22,932
22-29 / £583 / £30,316
30-38 / £722 / £37,544
40-49 / £770 / £40,040
50-59 / £727 / £37,804
60+ / £651 / £33,852
( www.forbes.com/uk/advisor/business/average-uk-salary-by-age/ )

In www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/country/united-kingdom , a summary of living costs per month is given, these equate annually to £52,368 for a family of four, and £30,036 for a single person.

So the income of the average person between 18 and 21 is about £700 short of their expenses – so they are probably living at home, and eating the groceries bought by their mother.

Someone between 22 and 29 is spending right up to his/her income on living independently.

Between 30 and 49 is the peak time for producing and raising a family – a costly period in both money and in time. After that average salary reduces, though children (and later grandchildren) don't suddenly stop needing help – those average 18 to 21 year-olds are not yet fully independent.

Someone with a working partner, between 22 and 29 using your sums, would have money to spare - if I understand you.

Seems reasonable to me.

Looks to me working people with working partners, between 30 and 49 would be financially ok to produce and raise a family and save, correct?

Germanshepherdsmum

Who is suggesting that?

You are. You think a whole demographic is engaged in the black economy while claiming to be poor and/or unable to work, and spends its time sitting in a pub plotting how to avoid declaring the cash-in-hand payments received, then claims all the benefits available, whether they genuinely qualify for them or not. What a cynical view of your fellow men and women you have.

Who is suggesting that?

Germanshepherdsmum

And many more will not be subject to PAYE.

Nobody knows how many work for cash and don’t declare their earnings, and may well claim benefits.

So does that mean we should penalise the majority who DON'T work for cash and who DO declare their earnings? If they work for an employer, they don't have any choice.

Norah quoted - "in Wandsworth, half of all PAYE earners earned less than £43,620 gross."

Norah replied - "I gather that means half earn more than that? So, if their partner even close to similarly earns, depending on outgoings, they could save."

"I find it ludicrous to believe nobody but the very wealthy can save." Norah

The half earning more than £43,620 gross were probably aged 45 or over.

Age / Weekly Wage (median) Full time gross pay / Annual salary*
18-21 / £441/ £22,932
22-29 / £583 / £30,316
30-38 / £722 / £37,544
40-49 / £770 / £40,040
50-59 / £727 / £37,804
60+ / £651 / £33,852
( www.forbes.com/uk/advisor/business/average-uk-salary-by-age/ )

In www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/country/united-kingdom , a summary of living costs per month is given, these equate annually to £52,368 for a family of four, and £30,036 for a single person.

So the income of the average person between 18 and 21 is about £700 short of their expenses – so they are probably living at home, and eating the groceries bought by their mother.

Someone between 22 and 29 is spending right up to his/her income on living independently.

Between 30 and 49 is the peak time for producing and raising a family – a costly period in both money and in time. After that average salary reduces, though children (and later grandchildren) don't suddenly stop needing help – those average 18 to 21 year-olds are not yet fully independent.

We won't employ anyone who asks for cash. We have a gardener and cleaner who work for us on a weekly basis, both paid well above the living wage and paid by BACs. Cleaner has just had a knee replacement, we are paying her the full wages for a month and half pay until she's well enough to return to work. We also employ a house/animal sitter on an occasional basis and again paid by BACs. We employ contractors to cut our hedges and we used to employ contractors to make haylage, we expect a proper bill and again pay them by BACs. No one needs to pay cash and tbh no one ever asks us for cash.

And many more will not be subject to PAYE.

Nobody knows how many work for cash and don’t declare their earnings, and may well claim benefits.

growstuff

GrannyGravy13

growstuff

www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/earningsandemploymentfrompayasyouearnrealtimeinformationuk/latest

Median pay across the NUTS3 regions of the UK in May 2024 ranged from £2,057 in Leicester to £3,635 in Wandsworth (Figure 7).

Even in Wandsworth, half of all PAYE earners earned less than £43,620 gross. After paying for essential bills, how much do you think those people would have left to save?

It’s their business how much they save not yours, mine or anybody else’s.

I agree it's not my business. What I was doing is pointing out that any form of saving is impossible for millions of people.

in Wandsworth, half of all PAYE earners earned less than £43,620 gross.

I gather that means half earn more than that? So, if their partner even close to similarly earns, depending on outgoings, they could save.

I find it ludicrous to believe nobody but the very wealthy can save.

Good, growstuff. Nor do I. I expect many do, without considering that they are probably contributing to tax evasion. There is no good reason why someone working for you should not give you their bank details so you can pay them online. Some may be able to take payment by card but that entails taking a hit from the card company. Vast amounts of income go untraced through the cash economy, and how do you know that the person to whom you pay cash is not only putting it under the mattress but also claiming benefits?

GrannyGravy13

growstuff

www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/earningsandemploymentfrompayasyouearnrealtimeinformationuk/latest

Median pay across the NUTS3 regions of the UK in May 2024 ranged from £2,057 in Leicester to £3,635 in Wandsworth (Figure 7).

Even in Wandsworth, half of all PAYE earners earned less than £43,620 gross. After paying for essential bills, how much do you think those people would have left to save?

It’s their business how much they save not yours, mine or anybody else’s.

I agree it's not my business. What I was doing is pointing out that any form of saving is impossible for millions of people.

Germanshepherdsmum

Or £20k even.

Like others, you ignore the huge cash economy in the UK. Vast numbers of people are paid solely in cash. I wonder how many people on GN pay tradesmen, cleaners, market traders and tip solely in cash?

I don't.

I do hope Labour get in.

What I find very sad, nadateturbe, is the suffering of animals who have no voice and no means of escape from cruelty and neglect. They are the sentient beings that I support, in this country and elsewhere in the world, and always will. I make no apology for preferring to give financial support to charities which work to improve the conditions of animals worldwide rather than people in this country, many of whom could well improve their lot in life if they were willing to put in the effort.

Excessive wealth seems very important to some.

I find it so depressing, in a society that is insistent on the sanctity of human life, that we still can't work out how to ensure that all these sanctified lives are adequately supported.
I find it very sad too.

Glorianny

Germanshepherdsmum

You don’t have to go far. Jersey is very nice, no culture shock, and some time ago we did contemplate moving there.

Jersey may be very nice but moving there an buying property there is neither simple nor cheap. They want people with money.

I know that. Do you think we would have considered it if we couldn’t afford it? As with everyone who chooses to move to avoid punitive taxes.

nadateturbe

Germanshepherdsmum

You have no idea how much I would give to the charities I already support, do you? That would give me enormous pleasure.

But it wouldn't give you pleasure to pay more tax and help those in our society who are less fortunate. We need a better redistribution of wealth.

No, paying more tax would not give me pleasure. I donate to charities which have no state funding and that is my choice. I have paid a great deal of tax over the years and I continue to do so. And the state is likely to rob my estate when I die unless I can do some serious spending before then - which I fully intend to do.

Germanshepherdsmum

You don’t have to go far. Jersey is very nice, no culture shock, and some time ago we did contemplate moving there.

Jersey may be very nice but moving there an buying property there is neither simple nor cheap. They want people with money.