So, who votes for a government that improves the lives of Bankers, and ensures the excessive profits of energy companies, but needs all the "levelling up" money to pay for the holes in Brexit?

I do count my blessings Daisy but only one person actually helped me along that very long road to qualification - the solicitor for whom I worked as a secretary who agreed to give me articles of clerkship provided I continued to work as a secretary while learning on the job. Same duties. I received no formal tuition. I had no time for even a correspondence course. I literally read the books, many on subjects completely irrelevant to my then work in local government, read old exam papers I bought and sat the exams. In fact one man in my department who had failed his law exams always found extra work which needed to be done when an exam was imminent. Clearly you disbelieve what I say. I’m not in the habit of lying.
I had no contacts in private practice either when I moved on. Getting jobs and promotions was entirely on merit.
My parents were very proud of my achievements but were certainly in no position to give me financial support.
Not the picture painted in the cartoon is it?

Germanssheperdsmum you should be proud of yourself for achieving so much and working so hard, no wonder of course that your parents are too.
I do wish that people posting will stop personal remarks aimed at others, when they know nothing at all about that person or their life.
Also the remarks about evil or greedy landlords.There are some bad landlords of course but the majority are not so at all.
We have rented from some really good ones in the past.
It is true that more social housing is needed, but this would not be for all renters, as some would not want to live on a council estate.

Norah

DaisyAnne

JaneJudge

Quite a few of the threads on here the last few days remind me of this
9gag.com/gag/aPD9x7K

That is excellent Jane but sadly, very true.

Nothing there pertains to me. My husband worked very very hard, sometimes two jobs. We save. Neither of us have any education or special connection. We pay our taxes. I'm content with our life, our family, our savings, our giving.

Not all advantages are immediately obvious. Benefits are portrayed as handouts, yet there are other forms of subsidy that are not portrayed as such, and people sometimes even feel smug about receiving them. You mention that your husband worked very hard. What about you? If you didn't work you were subsidised by the taxpayer, which is something that only those who can afford it can do - most lower paid families have two people contributing to the public purse. I'm not for a moment suggesting that your husband didn't pay tax, but they will have been his financial contribution to society, and (if it is the case that you didn't work) it will not have covered yours, or paid for your education, healthcare, pension etc, or your use of any of the public services available to all but paid for out of common funds.

Having one stay at home partner is a massive 'leg up' for a couple, as it means no childcare fees, no need for a cleaner, one lot of commuting etc, and it is subsidised by dual income couples. There are even tax breaks available for people to do this, but couples who claim other benefits (eg UC) are denied those breaks and one person's income is offset against the other's.

If you did work and the above doesn't apply to you, it does apply to a lot of couples, many of whom would be appalled to be considered the recipients of state benefits, when that is exactly what they are, even though they don't have to go through the humiliation of justifying their claims. I'm not saying that it is wrong that this option is available, but I am saying that those who choose it are in no position to make comments about others who don't work but rely on the safety net provided by the NHS, subsidised pension contributions etc.

Thank you very much Prentice.

That was a rather unpleasant post to Norah, Doodledog. You have no idea how much tax has been paid. Possibly more than two working parents who don’t pay enough tax to cover themselves and their children. Maybe even receiving URC.

No, I have no idea, which is why I asked, and pointed out that if it didn't apply to Norah in particular it does to others in the situation I describe.

How is my post unpleasant? I don't see it as any more or less pleasant than the comments about personal choices or how Norah's family have saved and paid taxes are to those who have not been able to do likewise. Norah's post only mentioned her husband, which is the information on which I was basing my comments.

The amounts of tax paid are not relevant, IMO. Everyone is taxed on the basis of their individual earnings. If I earn enough to pay £1m a year in taxes should that mean that my husband should live free (or, more accurately, at the expense of the rest of society)? And if he does, should be be able to feel smug about his position as a 'kept man'?

It was a very personal post Doodledog. An attack. Your follow on comment about a kept man feeling smug is just as bad, if not worse. If one half of a couple is paying £1m in taxes do you not think that is more than enough to cover both? Or must the other partner undertake work which produces a taxable income just for the sake of it?

Not just for the sake of it, but to contribute in their own right, yes. All adults who benefit from living in a First World society should, IMO contribute to that, unless there is good reason not to - as, I believe, Norah has said herself on this or the other similar thread (I am getting them confused).

My post was not an attack, but a response to posts giving an equally strong opinion that someone is content with having saved, paid taxes and having the capacity to give to charity being based on choices rather than good fortune, and that all people need to do is defer gratification to be able to do likewise. I am simply pointing out that there is often more to the story, whether people identify with Richard or Paula in the linked cartoon.

We must agree to disagree Doodledog. I have always had to work but if one partner pays sufficient tax to cover the benefits such as healthcare, education, retirement pensions for both and general state infrastructure used by all the family, I see no reason why the other should work in order to pay tax too. They may be engaged in valuable work caring for family members and undertaking voluntary work, all of which has a value to the state.

I still feel that your post was unnecessarily hurtful to Norah.

Fair enough. I do disagree on both counts, but that's ok.

All the same, and as a matter of interest - do you think there should be a cut-off below which it is assumed that the taxes of one partner are not sufficient to support two adults instead of one? Where should it be set? And should single people be able to claim against the fact that their taxes are never going to be spread between two (plus any children that singletons may not have)?

Why should married or cohabitant couples be subsidised by others, and why should individual members of such couples get tax breaks denied to the rest of society?

In reply to the questions in your first para:
1. Yes
2. I’m not qualified to suggest a figure
3 No.

Second para:
Perhaps you could elaborate. Subsidised in which ways? Which tax breaks do you refer to?

Doodledog

Norah

DaisyAnne

JaneJudge

Quite a few of the threads on here the last few days remind me of this
9gag.com/gag/aPD9x7K

That is excellent Jane but sadly, very true.

Nothing there pertains to me. My husband worked very very hard, sometimes two jobs. We save. Neither of us have any education or special connection. We pay our taxes. I'm content with our life, our family, our savings, our giving.

Not all advantages are immediately obvious. Benefits are portrayed as handouts, yet there are other forms of subsidy that are not portrayed as such, and people sometimes even feel smug about receiving them. You mention that your husband worked very hard. What about you? If you didn't work you were subsidised by the taxpayer, which is something that only those who can afford it can do - most lower paid families have two people contributing to the public purse. I'm not for a moment suggesting that your husband didn't pay tax, but they will have been his financial contribution to society, and (if it is the case that you didn't work) it will not have covered yours, or paid for your education, healthcare, pension etc, or your use of any of the public services available to all but paid for out of common funds.

Having one stay at home partner is a massive 'leg up' for a couple, as it means no childcare fees, no need for a cleaner, one lot of commuting etc, and it is subsidised by dual income couples. There are even tax breaks available for people to do this, but couples who claim other benefits (eg UC) are denied those breaks and one person's income is offset against the other's.

If you did work and the above doesn't apply to you, it does apply to a lot of couples, many of whom would be appalled to be considered the recipients of state benefits, when that is exactly what they are, even though they don't have to go through the humiliation of justifying their claims. I'm not saying that it is wrong that this option is available, but I am saying that those who choose it are in no position to make comments about others who don't work but rely on the safety net provided by the NHS, subsidised pension contributions etc.

I have no education, I believe I work, please don't demean stay at home mums. Have since I married at 16 and began having babies at 17.

I took care of our 4 children, who are wide-spread in ages, believing I could do it better than childcare. Knowing I could earn little as a married woman with no education, I stayed home - did childcare for us and home care, chauffeur, volunteer work. I'm not even sure I could have paid for child care from what I could have earned factoring in commute and work expenses.

I'm quite confident my husband paid enough taxes to meet some standard (that I've not heard of) for both of us, after all I do know what he earned.

We cared for my parents and his parents in their old age, and paid for their care when we were no longer able to do the work of caring for elderly people.

I never spent frivolously on anything. I had no cleaner until 5 years ago (age 72) at the request of one of our GD.

I'm decidedly not smug, I see different side to the debate than you.

I believe we should have a safety net for all who can't work for whatever reason.

1. That suggests that lower-paid couple would both have to work, whilst someone married to, or living with a well-paid partner would not, and would be able to use the education, health and other benefits paid for out of taxes without contributing. Does that seem fair to you?

2. I don't know what would be a reasonable cut-off figure either, but then I think that everyone should pay in what they can, and take out when they need to. To me, it is perfectly fair for those who earn more to pay more tax, but not fair for that contribution to be expected to cover another adult, particularly if there is a figure below which they are not able to do so - that would be hideously divisive and discriminatory. Either we should have a system that allows for non-contributing partners or we shouldn't.

3. Logically, if it is ok for partners of the well-paid to be excused taxes, why should single people not have the same consideration? Maybe they should pay half of their contribution, which is, effectively what the well-paid are doing, if their taxes cover two people instead of one?

Second para - Single tax-paying couples are subsidised as they use the same services as everyone else, but only pay one lot of tax. The tax breaks I refer to are those, plus the fact that in some circumstances it is possible to transfer the non-taxpayer's allowance to the other partner despite the fact that it has not been used as an allowance against contributory taxes. People
not paying NI because they look after children get NI contributions paid, which is another tax break denied to working parents, who not only pay tax and NI, but also for the ability to go to work and subsidise others, in the form of childcare and other work-related expenses saved by single-earning couples.

Norah, each to her own, but please don't demean working parents by suggesting that they don't also volunteer, chauffeur and look after their families - of course they do. Many also look after aged parents as well as working.

My point is not personal at all. It is simply that it seems to me incongruous for someone to make what appear to be judgemental comments about people's choices when they are not making a personal contribution to the system that supports all of us.

How can you criticise others for not contributing when you have not done so yourself? It makes no more sense to do that than it would make sense for someone else to point out that you could have 'chosen' to get an education or a job.

Doodledog

Norah, each to her own, but please don't demean working parents by suggesting that they don't also volunteer, chauffeur and look after their families - of course they do. Many also look after aged parents as well as working.

My point is not personal at all. It is simply that it seems to me incongruous for someone to make what appear to be judgemental comments about people's choices when they are not making a personal contribution to the system that supports all of us.

How can you criticise others for not contributing when you have not done so yourself? It makes no more sense to do that than it would make sense for someone else to point out that you could have 'chosen' to get an education or a job.

I don't believe I said anything to other people volunteering or chauffeuring children. I said what I did/ do. I don't criticize others for not contributing.

I do wish people would attempt saving instead of complaining while they spend on frivolous things. My opinion to that will not change.

I chose my job - childcare of my own children and homecare of my own home (until age 72). That is a job.

We'll not agree.

GSM, when you were a single Mum who helped you look after your son? when you were training or were you already qualified before the split from his Father?

I think we become defensive because our own set of circumstances are ours. I can guarantee you couldn't have looked after my daughter and worked full time without either paid professional help (£££) or family on stand by 24/7 and there in lies the difference in our lives because of birth/life/circumstance. We are all the same really, human beings. Your son is no better than my sons and vice versa.

My life has more value than having a mortgage.

and the reality of low paid wok now is you are required to be flexible on any day at any time and no one cares if you have someone to care for or children at school.

I chose my job - childcare of my own children and homecare of my own home (until age 72). That is a job.

We'll not agree.

We won't agree that it's not a job that is also done by working parents on top of working outside of the home, unless they have a full-time residential nanny and other domestic staff, and that those working parents (and single people) are subsidising single earner families.

I'm still reeling at the notion that the low paid should have to pay two lots of tax/NI when it is ok for the spouses of the better -off not to have to do so. (I realise that it was GSM, not you who said this, Norah).

I have no issue with people being rich, and am not jealous of those better off than I am. I just feel that the system as it stands is skewed in favour of the 'haves', and that it is getting worse, as even the pretence that systems of health and education are paid for by all, and accessible to all is crumbling, and it irritates me when people who have benefited from that unfairness criticise those who have not.

Jane

My parents looked after my son. I was fortunate that he didn’t have special needs. I have not suggested that my son is better than anyone else’s, though you will understand that to a mother their child is the best in the world.

I was qualified when my first husband left me. He encouraged me to study and said he could retire when I qualified. I thought he was joking. He wasn’t. He went back to live with his mother after I asked for some help with the housework, which I was doing single handedly. I hope that gives you sufficient insight into the end of what was an unhappy and abusive marriage after 23 years.

Quite what you mean in your final sentence I don’t know. Anybody’s life means more than a mortgage. If I had stopped working when my husband left me the (very modest) house would have been repossessed and I would have been destitute. Is that what you mean?

Yes GSM it IS what I mean


can you not see your parents supporting you makes so much difference? Even something that someone takes for granted makes the difference between someone keeping their head above water or not

My parents marriage was awful, my Mum was abused, it's not something easy to get out or away from. You've done amazingly well but some people aren't as tough as you or have as much support

You did suggest my children were less than yours on another thread btw because only one of mine has a mortgage I've had a mortgage too btw, I was made redundant and had to sell and move and rent and I've never gotten out of that trap

Jane, I’m very well aware that without my parents’ support I would have been unable to work. Part time work in my line was not available. I never took their support for granted and never will.

My husband had flounced out before. Finally I found the strength to decide it was the last time and, believe me, he made it as difficult as he possibly could, to the extent that I had so little money I went without food in order to feed my son and pay the bills. I didn’t tell anyone except my solicitor, not even my parents, about how hard it was.

I’m not aware of having commented on your sons - perhaps you could post a link.

JaneJudge she did the same to me on another thread regarding my granddaughters chosen careers.

Not that again Barmey. You brought up the subject of their chosen careers, being paid minimum wage hence could not afford houses. I said, and repeat, that is their choice.

Germanshepherdsmum

Not that again Barmey. You brought up the subject of their chosen careers, being paid minimum wage hence could not afford houses. I said, and repeat, that is their choice.

Much as I admire your - obvious - resilience against the misfortune of marrying someone who was clearly using you and abusing you, I think you are wrong to say that people who do minimum-wage jobs have made that a 'choice'.

Given real choice, would anyone choose to do a job that barely paid enough to live on? Those who have not attained a certain level of education, or with learning difficulties; those who are from a chaotic home life, or with caring duties for family members (sometimes in difficult circumstances and with little to no outside help); those with mental health problems or who have faced disruption to their lives through accident, sickness or disability; and those who are simply overwhelmed through personal 'complications' in their lives, or by a tragedy... do these people really have a choice in the true sense of the word?

I understand to some extent where you are coming from - I too had to raise a child on my own under difficult circumstances. But I had the advantage of a good education at a prestigious boarding school - and this was mostly brought about by luck. My mother (also a single parent ultimately) obtained a grant to enable me to attend this particular school and luck was on my side after the results of the entrance exam indicated that I wasn't particularly bright but it was thought by a couple of kindly souls that I might benefit from such an education in spite of this fact.

When applying for jobs, I only had to mention the school and it immediately worked in my favour. I was, simply, lucky. Through little effort on my part I immediately had an advantage over other applicants who had not had the same good fortune as me.

Someone has to do the menial, often tedious, but nearly always low-paid jobs. And, doesn't Capitalism rely on this - a pool of labour, shifting but permanently available? Would Capitalism function if everyone was a go-getter and refused to work at unskilled, low-status jobs (though of course not all low-waged jobs are unskilled, certainly not those which involve caring for the sick and elderly)?

I've also done menial work, not out of choice but necessity. And that is my point, it being that for many people because of the circumstances I've outlined, low-paid jobs are not always a choice, certainly not in the widest sense of the word.

I don't think Capitalism is 'broken' or not working well, I believe that exploitation is a necessary feature of it. There are of necessity, winners and losers, and those doing low-paid jobs are the losers - sometimes maligned by those who rely on their labour to flourish themselves.