Only the highest 10% of earners earn over £40 000 per year. wealthy elite.

If you cannot have a very comfortable indeed life on £40 000 per year then you really need to learn how to manage money and to distinguish between want and need

That’s complete bullshit.

if you earn £40k then you’re loaded, if you’re having money problems then you’re doing it wrong.

More bollocks.

Eh? How do you work that out?

How about cost of living, childcare, and all the other expenses that are ripping us off in the country?

Probably by comparing those earning £40k+ to the 90% of the population who earn less but live in the same country with the same expenses?

After consideration I’ll happily use those in the 50% tax band as elite.

It all depends on your definition of “rich” – to me it is having enough income for the sort of lifestyle that allows you a nice house in a nice area, a new Audi/BMW/Porsche, 2 holidays a year (skiing + beach), private school, etc.

So everybody who can’t afford all that should get child benefit (in order that they can get a bit closer to that consumerist ideal)? 😯

spacemonkey – Member

“40 000+ a year puts you in the very well off indeed category – don’t whinge.”

Eh? How do you work that out?

How about cost of living, childcare, and all the other expenses that are ripping us off in the country?

Because only the richest 10% earn that much

It all depends on your definition of “rich”

Precisely. Having a comfortable home, nice bikes, a functioning car, and an annual holiday makes me rich by any sensible measure.

If you really think that not having the latest ego-chariot on your drive means you’re not rich, you need to get some perspective!

I really don’t have an issue with losing child benefit but it’s still a drop in nett household income of £1500 a year.

Even people on £40k who consider themselves rich would notice the effect.

miketually – no, but we have genuinely considered the missus giving up her career. We’re hoping that once the nursery fees end in a few years then we’ll be better off. You can bet yer ass though that interest rates in a few years will fly and the mortgage will then need the additional money saved.

There I go again, looking on the bright side 🙂

No it doesn’t make high earners poor, but why should high earners just accept it when others do not just accept it?

Because, as high earners in the UK, we’ve always accepted that it’s a reasonably redistributive system. Paying more tax (or seeing allowances withdrawn/child benefit removed) is annoying for me, but really doesn’t affect my way of life. I’ve always held that it was stupid that my wife and I were entitled to child benefit, and that it would be better to give more to those who really needed it.

So everybody some who can’t afford all that should get child benefit (in order that they can get a bit closer to that consumerist ideal afford food, clothes and heating)?

FTFY

Probably by comparing those earning £40k+ to the 90% of the population who earn less but live in the same country with the same expenses?

I sincerely doubt that 90% of the population have the same outgoings as the missus and I.

TJ – could you leave the bit about being a 40% tax payer making you “rich” or “elite”? It’s simply providing the whingers a strawman to knock down.

This was about whether people earning that much need to get CB – a completely different issue to whether they’re rich.

Probably by comparing those earning £40k+ to the 90% of the population who earn less but live in the same country with the same expenses?

A lot of those on less than £40k get a lot of benefits to help them – paid for by the middle classes who seem to be expected to be happy about being sneered at for being far too rich.

Debate without the capacity to effect change is ❓

I’m just going to take issue with the definition of the word “elite”. To be honest, top 10% doesn’t really sound elite. Top 1% sounds more elite. Like championship compared to premier league, or world’s best armies or something.

Also, how do you measure richness? Is it disposable income or income earned? If you took on a big mortgage to ensure your wife and kids had a permanent roof over their heads, and that took up a large share of your [sole] income, would that make you rich? Even if you couldn’t afford to go on holidays, or drive anything but a beat up fourth hand car that you had to fix yourself?

I’m willing to bet you would not feel rich in that situation. Level maybe. Struggling possibly. Not rich.

So tube drivers are part of the rich elite now? And to think I was all in favour of their demand for massive pay rises…

As for the child benefit issue – if you want kids then make sure you can support them without a free government hand-out, I have enough problems buying all the expensive bike stuff I want without funding other people’s kids…

It’s also much more complicated to try and work out the combined income of a household vs just knowing if there’s a higher rate earner in the household so although not strictly fair it does save the government pissing away millions on a new system to track it.

Even people on £40k who consider themselves rich would notice the effect.

The effect wouldn’t be half as big as the effect that some of the cuts that are coming in are having on those considerably poorer.

I can see why people might be a little annoyed, but in the grand scheme of things there’s really very little to get annoyed about.

There does appear to be some great assumption that if you qualify for 40% tax you suddenly leap from being an average wealth person to being a super rich person. In reality as Mr Tax man is now taking a nice substantial chunk of your money the increase isn’t that great.

TandemJeremy – Member

Nice distorted stats there.

Only the highest 10% of earners earn over £40 000 per year. wealthy elite.

So LU drivers = wealthy elite 🙂 Got it.

so instead of having a simple flag based on data already held by HMRC you’d have to have some complicated means tested system. No, you’re right – it really wouldn’t cost that much more to implement. That would explain why the tax credits system works so well.

If you’ve got the data, applying a percentage instead of a flag isn’t that much more complicated.

BTW I live in Spain – no child benefit here, and we have joint income declarations. But I have a fair idea of what London life costs as I’ve been vaguely looking into returning at some point.

So everybody who can’t afford all that should get child benefit (in order that they can get a bit closer to that consumerist ideal)?

That’s completely distorting what I’ve been saying – I’ve got no argument about means-tested benefits, I think it’s completely fair. I don’t think a hard cutoff is fair, but that’s a separate matter. I’m defining what I consider to be “rich”. And (in western Europe) it means a bit more than a house, working car and a holiday once a year.

have enough problems buying all the expensive bike stuff I want without funding other people’s kids free money bling fund…

FTFY 😉

A lot of those on less than £40k get a lot of benefits to help them – paid for by the middle classes who seem to be expected to be happy about being sneered at for being far too rich.

I would love to live in the world some people on here live in.

willard – its doesn’t matter if you feel rich or not – few people do. If you are amongst the countries top earners you are rich.

I would love to see a breakdown of the family budgets for those struggling on £40 000 plus. then imagine living on £10 000.

I sincerely doubt that 90% of the population have the same outgoings as the missus and I.

You mean they don’t have a big mortgage on a nice house, a car loan to pay off (for the new Audi), a new bike to buy because the mags say your current one is out of date? Poor you.

Only the highest 10% of earners earn over £40 000 per year. wealthy elite.

You are still confusing ‘earners’ and ‘households’.

Anyway TJ, once you’ve got kids you are entitled to debate this issue – as, as per usual, you are spouting off knowing bu99er-all on the subject!

+1 FunkyDunc

Getting back to the OP.

Can we not just sterilise the poor people? Then return their rightful benefits to the Daily Mail reading classes? That’d sort it out, surely?

Only the Daily Mail and (evidently) TJ use the word “Elite” in such circumstances to describe someone who may just claw their way into the higher tax bracket. It’s clearly a loaded term simply used to whip into a frenzy those with a particularly large chip on their shoulder. You can wheel out dictionary definitions of the word all you like (just heading that one off at the pass), but it’s nothing other than reverse snobbery and childish, jealous wankery.

TJ – and I would love the benefits and tax credits of someone living on £10k.

That’s completely distorting what I’ve been saying

Sorry. Maybe you should try and be a bit clearer about what exactly it is you’re whinging about.

pedalhead, +1

You can wheel out dictionary definitions of the word all you like (just heading that one off at the pass)

😆

That’s made my day, and on that, I’m off…

TJ – and I would love the benefits and tax credits of someone living on £10k

I’m sure your employer would be perfectly happy to pay you less if you asked nicely.

(TJ: please shut up about 40% earners being “the elite”; they’re not. Relatively wealthy, yes. The Elite, no.)

Sorry but that is just absurd. To try and create some kind of equivalence between the removal of a previously help benift from relatively wealthy people to state sponsored sterilization merely highlights the weakness of your argument.

thats is the point it is absurd and it highlights the weakness in your argument…it can be reduced to an absurdity [reductio ad absurdum]
I am not comparing anything with anything.
I am simply saying if we do something to you that is unfair i can repeat your mantra of life is unfair deal with it…which we could do if we sterilise you as it is obviously unfair.
Your argument is weak not mine. i dont think sterilisation can be justified by your mantra nor this change

I sincerely doubt that 90% of the population have the same outgoings as the missus and I.

that is because they earn less than you 🙄
Would you be better off or worse of if you had less ? Surely you would have to reduce your outgoings and therefore the quality of your life if you had less money – that is the point it is not really even debatable

It may be reasonable to argue not all scenarios are equal due to house prices etc but if you had less you would have a cheaper house etc so more money does mean you can buy better things than those with less..if you disagree just earn less and live better ..good luck

The big problem with this country is the way successive governments have allowed house prices to spiral to ludicrous levels, primarily fueled by the lenders offering ever greater multiples of income. Anyone entering the labour and accommodation markets today could take the exact same career path as their parents but never be anywhere near as well off. Whether £40k makes you rich depends a lot on your personal circumstances.

miketually – as it happens, the girl I spoke about earlier did exactly that as she would be better off under the threshold.

Sorry. Maybe you should try and be a bit clearer about what exactly it is you’re whinging about.

I apologise that I didn’t define my position clearly enough for you: I wasn’t whinging. I was pointing out that “wealthy” and “rich” aren’t directly applicable to a 40K income.

miketually – as it happens, the girl I spoke about earlier did exactly that as she would be better off under the threshold.

So I’m right. Excellent 🙂