paid a lot of tax, you’re expected to sort yourself out,
That is how it should be though, simplisticly the relationship with the state should be give according to your means and receive according to your needs.
And to further add to what seosamh77 said previously, you also need to get a claim going about a Protective Award.
The office staff at my failed employer had the happy task of taking KPMG to a tribunal and having Unison arguing that we shouldn't get it...
give according to your means and receive according to your needs.
Yeah I did the first bit, doesn't mean the second bit was easy or I didn't need some help finding another job.
So no it shouldn't be like that, state support should be there to help anyone who needs appropriate help, just because someone was OK last year doesn't mean they don't need help this year and it certainly shouldn't preclude help. TJs comment about the real world is more on the money, if you earn a decent amount and look after yourself you're simply a cash cow to pay for the totally ineffective welfare system we have which fails those few it's targeted at and ignores everyone else when they are in need.
Always worth remembering that only a very small % of people (I'm going to guess but it's in that sort of range) ever pay enough tax and use few enough services to avoid being a burden on the state in the long run.
Being a professional is not enough. You need to be a professional, not have kids and never need to go to hospital till you die early.
wbo not entirely true, you need to be in the top 40% of household incomes to be net contributors, so whilst the majority are net consumers a significant minority contribute so not just the highest incomes.
Net contributors over a lifetime of paying and receiving benefits? Much, much less than 40%. How many nurses a year can your tax payments cover? Even if you're paying 60 or 70K a year in tax, not many, and how many pay that?
Eh? You clearly don't understand the concept.
Always worth remembering that only a very small % of people (I’m going to guess but it’s in that sort of range) ever pay enough tax and use few enough services to avoid being a burden on the state in the long run.
Being a professional is not enough. You need to be a professional, not have kids and never need to go to hospital till you die early.
What a load of BS. If you're working you are contributing to the economy via your productivity at work which in turn puts money into the state outside of just your income tax and NI. You're contributing to corporation tax, GDP, VAT, government bonds, foreign investment etc all of which have a net effect on the amount of money and quality of service things like the NHS can provide. Not having children also means less people contributing to the tax revenue in the future as well.
Your contribution to funding public services goes far beyond just the income tax you pay.
What a load of BS.
Not really. Can't recall the exact number but until you earn about £45k, you're a net drain on UKPLC and over that you pay in more than you receive. Obviously, as with any average, you can't just apply the number blindly to any one individual.
But it makes sense, we currently run a current account deficit (ie borrow each year to pay for HMG expenditure), so we have more money going out than going in. Those who earn more will pay in more* and you can roughly split the populaton into two groups - net contributors and net drains.
* they also tend to contribute more in VAT / Stamp Duty and other taxes as they buy more expensive things and drive more thirsty cars etc.
How many nurses a year can your tax payments cover?
My PAYE + NI would pay for a single nurse (obs not the higher bands).
Not really. Can’t recall the exact number but until you earn about £45k, you’re a net drain on UKPLC and over that you pay in more than you receive. Obviously, as with any average, you can’t just apply the number blindly to any one individual.
But it makes sense, we currently run a current account deficit (ie borrow each year to pay for HMG expenditure), so we have more money going out than going in. Those who earn more will pay in more* and you can roughly split the populaton into two groups – net contributors and net drains.
* they also tend to contribute more in VAT / Stamp Duty and other taxes as they buy more expensive things and drive more thirsty cars etc.
It's too simplistic of a way of looking at it, you can't measure whether someone is a "burden on society" or a "net drain on UKPLC" based only on their tax contribution to the state.
If you removed all the people in that calculation who are "paying in less than they are using" most of those critical services would grind to a halt, thus making your metric worthless. If everyone was flying around earning over £45k for computer programming, net tax contribution or not there'd be no nurses, doctors, admin staff etc to treat them when they got sick. The fact we don't pay most of those workers enough to make them a net positive financial contribution doesn't remove their value as a labour force.
You are technically right mathematically on the basis by which you're calculating it, but in reality it doesn't work like that. Wbo is wrong in what he has said as he has only taken a small part of the equation and used it to demonstrate a point which works on far more variables than his proof takes into account.
If you want to take your point in isolation, then it's true. But it's also a worthless statement outside of academia.
Hopefully all work out.
I had two spells of unemployment. The first - alongside @donald - was when our employer went bust - liquidation rather than administration. Got about 10p in the £ of owed wages, there was a government scheme that took up some slack at the start. Found another job not so long after, and then jumped after a year to...
The second, was after nigh on 20 years with that company - made redundant on that occasion. Dole office wasn't so bad, they must have been making an effort to get engineers / developers new work - I got given a chit to go to Slaters and get a new interview suit, shirt & tie to value of around £250 IIRC.
It’s too simplistic of a way of looking at it, you can’t measure whether someone is a “burden on society” or a “net drain on UKPLC” based only on their tax contribution to the state.
Well from a fiscal point of view you can and people obvously do. Whether you decide to make that your only basis for judging peoples worth (to society) is a separate issue.
I think it's useful to remind people that the modest number of well paid individuals do quite literally subsidise the rest of society and without them our standard of living would have to drop.
You might as well measure it based on how many pineapples someone has posted to Belgium, as stated it is complete b*llocks.
