5 Million British children face poverty because of welfare reforms

[Anna B 1,414]

You can see from my example above that someone on 15k pays nowhere near 30% of their income in tax...plus I would imagine a fair few get tax credits so won't pay any at all...can you let me know how someone on PAYE earning 100k (headteacher of a large secondary perhaps) can use a loophole or clever accountant to wriggle out of it...

 

I don't know about head teachers, (and there are not that many on 100k) but civil servants on similar salaries to this who would also have been on PAYE one would think, have been condemned, but not stopped, for setting up 'companies' to have their salaries paid into.

 

I don't know how much this saves or how, but I presume it's worthwhile.

 

Tax credits often only come into play when children come into the equation. But to the best of my knowledge, no one without dependents on 15K would get tax credits.

[ricgem2002 11]

If the employer upped their wages, but they were still able to claim tax credits would they still collect it?

 

 

 

What choice do people have?

 

Is there an option on our PAYE system that says 'I don't wish to contribute to Tax Credits'?

why not pay a wage that means they wont get tax credits .

[truman 10]

I don't know about head teachers, (and there are not that many on 100k) but civil servants on similar salaries to this who would also have been on PAYE one would think, have been condemned, but not stopped, for setting up 'companies' to have their salaries paid into.

 

I don't know how much this saves or how, but I presume it's worthwhile.

 

Tax credits often only come into play when children come into the equation. But to the best of my knowledge, no one without dependents on 15K would get tax credits.

 

"According to the Times Educational Supplement, the standard starting pay for academy heads is £110,000. However, some state school headteachers earn even more, although salaries often include bonuses for other work."

 

http://www.teachingtimes.com/articles/heads-salaries.htm

 

Whether those on 15K get tax credits or not they still don't lose the same proportion of their salary in taxes etc as someone on PAYE getting 100k which is what you stated....

Edited May 30, 2014 by truman

[RonJeremy 10]

Despite this, a more relevant Tax Freedom Day can be worked out. More precisely, Tax Freedom Days can be worked out. Equality Trust analysis has found that when all taxes on income are taken into account, the richest 10 per cent pay 35 per cent of their income in taxes. However, the poorest 10 per cent actually pay more – 43 per cent. Taken as a fraction of the year, this means that the day someone in the richest 10 per cent stops contributing to tax, or their "Tax Freedom Day", is actually on 9 May. The poorest on the other hand are still waiting for their Tax Freedom Day, which will not come until 5 June, nearly a month after the richest 10 per cent.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/05/tax-freedom-day-comes-earlier-rich-poor

This is patently untrue. The poorest 10% get their income from the taxpayer anyway? ?

 

---------- Post added 30-05-2014 at 16:03 ----------

 

I'm guessing, but it may be because the things that the poorest buy - Cigs booze junk food etc is taxed more heavily.

 

---------- Post added 30-05-2014 at 16:09 ----------

 

Ok. Let's look at Asda. It pays most of it's employees minimum wage, and they have to receive tax credits so they can afford to eat. And farmers are seriously undercut for their produce almost to extinction.

 

Yet Asda's parent company, Wallmart, has a net worth of $447 BILLION dollars.

 

It is owned by the Walton family who still retain 50% of the shares. Sam Walton was worth $100 Billion dollars when he died. (1992)

His children, Christy and John Walton inherited nearly $40 Billion dollars each.

 

Do they pay 'less tax than their cleaner'? I don't know, but you can bet they will have some pretty nifty accountants working for them. And I guarantee their personal wealth will have grown by a few billion in the last couple of years.

 

Yet still their employees who do all the work to make them richer, are still paid only minimum wage.

And that means I have to subsidise their wage, so they can afford to eat, from the tax that I pay on the pittance of a pension that is only just about supporting me, nevermind anyone else. And so does everyone else who can't afford their own fancy accountant.

 

All so that the Walton family can continue to live a life of supreme luxury with more money than they know what to do with, (the CEO's run the company,) all thanks to inherited wealth.

 

Does that seem equitable to you? Repeat it with all the other Global Corporations and you can see why people are getting angry.

 

So what do you suggest? 100% IHT? Then people will take their money elsewhere. IHT on personal wealth is already 50% in this country over a certain threshold.

At some point if you tax people too much they will either leave if they are wealthy enough, or stop investing creating employment and being economically active and paying more tax.

 

Or do you suggest we should just arbitrarily steal money from individuals because they are wealthy and you are jealous?

BTW they tried that for a while in USSR - didn't work out well

Edited May 30, 2014 by RonJeremy

[Anna B 1,414]

This is patently untrue. The poorest 10% get their income from the taxpayer anyway? ?

 

---------- Post added 30-05-2014 at 16:03 ----------

 

I'm guessing, but it may be because the things that the poorest buy - Cigs booze junk food etc is taxed more heavily.

 

---------- Post added 30-05-2014 at 16:09 ----------

 

 

So what do you suggest? 100% IHT? Then people will take their money elsewhere. IHT on personal wealth is already 50% in this country over a certain threshold.

At some point if you tax people too much they will either leave if they are wealthy enough, or stop investing creating employment and being economically active and paying more tax.

 

Or do you suggest we should just arbitrarily steal money from individuals because they are wealthy and you are jealous?

BTW they tried that for a while in USSR - didn't work out well

 

'The unjust sharing of risk and reward has contributed directly to inequality, but more importantly has had a corrosive effect on the broader social fabric, breaking the link between hard work and reward.'

 

So says Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England.

 

He goes on to warn about the 'growing exclusivity of capitalism,' claiming 'the basic social contract was breaking down as the rich prosper at the expense of the less well-off, spreading inequality.' 'The link between hard work and reward is breaking down for the majority, while globalisation had led to huge earnings that were amplyfiing the rewards of the self styled 'superstars.' He pointed to 'disturbing evidence that equality of opportunity has fallen,' warning that the young could face a bleak future.'

 

If you don't believe me, will you believe the Governor of the bank of England, or is he 'just jealous' too?

[ivanava 10]

'The unjust sharing of risk and reward has contributed directly to inequality, but more importantly has had a corrosive effect on the broader social fabric, breaking the link between hard work and reward.'

 

So says Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England.

 

He goes on to warn about the 'growing exclusivity of capitalism,' claiming 'the basic social contract was breaking down as the rich prosper at the expense of the less well-off, spreading inequality.' 'The link between hard work and reward is breaking down for the majority, while globalisation had led to huge earnings that were amplyfiing the rewards of the self styled 'superstars.' He pointed to 'disturbing evidence that equality of opportunity has fallen,' warning that the young could face a bleak future.'

 

If you don't believe me, will you believe the Governor of the bank of England, or is he 'just jealous' too?

 

I don't thinks its about not believing you, its about how can you solve the problem, If I started a business, I could be risking everything, if the business fails I would loose everything I had and still be in debt to the banks, why should I not take the biggest reward from that business if it succeeds and pay my staff as little as I can get away with.

[Anna B 1,414]

I don't thinks its about not believing you, its about how can you solve the problem, If I started a business, I could be risking everything, if the business fails I would loose everything I had and still be in debt to the banks, why should I not take the biggest reward from that business if it succeeds and pay my staff as little as I can get away with.

 

Well first of all I think it's important for everyone to agree there is a serious problem, but with some of the forummers on here I don't think we'll even get that far.

 

As for your example I think it rather proves my point. If you started a business you would be risking everything, working your socks off and still stand a good chance of failing, (nothing personal, 80% of new businesses fail.) But nobody would care, you would be just another casualty that's all, and may or may not get back on your feet.

 

But if your business failed because someone else started a business where they knew they couldn't fail, because if they did some sucker would reimburse their losses and give them a nice fat bonus to boot making them fantastically rich, would you think that was fair?

 

The fabulously wealthy don't get rich by working like you, they get rich by manipulating money, buying and selling it, buying and selling assetts, which is pretty much the same thing.

I don't begrudge the small businessman his success for a minute, he makes a big contribution to society, jobs etc. and he's entitled to his cut, but he's still just a puppet in the game. And he's not going to wreck the world as we know it. It's the big guys I'm after.

 

As for solving the crisis, I don't know if it can be solved. We've sat back and watched half the world starve when there was food for all, now the boots on the other foot why should anybody want to save us. Nigeria, for example, has fantastic wealth with oil and minerals galore. But it will all go to the top few and the corrupt politicians who are billionaires while they watch their people scratch a living in the mines earning a pound a day.

 

People think this could never happen here, but that's exactly what is going to happen unless we all get together to stop it.

We've made a start with the 'kick up the backside' UKIP landslide. The people in power now supposedly know of our 'Deep discontent,' and might, just might start to do something about it, but I'm not holding my breath. It's very hard to take on super powerful people with little in the way of a moral compass. The rich and powerful have always exploited the poor and powerless since the dawn of time. We have to hope that as we become more civilized this attitude becomes as unacceptable as aparthied.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Anna B

[ivanava 10]

Well first of all I think it's important for everyone to agree there is a serious problem, but with some of the forummers on here I don't think we'll even get that far.

 

As for your example I think it rather proves my point. If you started a business you would be risking everything, working your socks off and still stand a good chance of failing, (nothing personal, 80% of new businesses fail.) But nobody would care, you would be just another casualty that's all, and may or may not get back on your feet.

 

But if your business failed because someone else started a business where they knew they couldn't fail, because if they did some sucker would reimburse their losses and give them a nice fat bonus to boot making them , would you think that was fair?

 

The fabulously wealthy don't get rich by working like you, they get rich by manipulating money, buying and selling it, buying and selling assetts, which is pretty much the same thing.

I don't begrudge the small businessman his success for a minute, he makes a big contribution to society, jobs etc. and he's entitled to his cut, but he's still just a puppet in the game. And he's not going to wreck the world as we know it.

 

As for solving the crisis, I don't know if it can be solved. We've sat back and watched half the world starve when there was food for all, now the boots on the other foot why should anybody want to save us. Nigeria, for example, has fantastic wealth with oil and minerals galore. But it will all go to the top few and the corrupt politicians who are billionaires while they watch their people scratch a living in the mines and earning a pound a day.

 

People think this could never happen here, but that's exactly what is going to happen unless we all get together to stop it.

 

Richard Branson went from nothing to fantastically rich and he created a lot of wealth in his wake.

[aliceBB 10]

Well first of all I think it's important for everyone to agree there is a serious problem, but with some of the forummers on here I don't think we'll even get that far.

Well said.

 

 

The fabulously wealthy don't get rich by working like you, they get rich by manipulating money, buying and selling it, buying and selling assets, which is pretty much the same thing.

True. Money breeds money.

[Bubble3082 10]

Why would they pay a living wage when they have a over supply of people willing to work for less than a living wage, and to keep us competitive globally we would be better of reducing our living costs.

 

---------- Post added 29-05-2014 at 06:53 ----------

 

 

That's the crux of it, did you plan to have a child with someone you new wouldn't be able to contribute to his child upbringing, it take two people to reproduce and two people in most cases working together to support a child.

I totally agree with you - ideally I would have chosen someone much better to be the father of my child. I can only say that at the time I was completely head over heels in love, and very naïve in that I believed all the promises about "I'm looking for a job" etc. As I said, I was earning a good wage and didn't fully appreciate how much a child cost. But I can't say I regret it as she is the best thing that's ever happened to me. I'm trying to rectify my situation, albeit only 16 hours a week but to me that's better than sitting on my backside all day. I rely a lot on family for childcare so that's one less expense I claim. Its not all about money for me, but about setting an example that you have to work for money and make a small contribution to society, even if it is a token one. As you said, it takes two to make a child, and slowly but surely I'm trying to take responsibility and balance my responsibility for working with my responsibility as a single mother. Parenthood should be a 50/50 responsibility yet I've taken on 100% of it, yet seem to get 100% of the blame for him not being there. My whole point is that he gets to claim his dole and live stress free, without (it seems) anyone being there to take him to task. He is 50% responsible yet does nothing, not even a birthday card, and is quite happy with the situation. I hold my hands up to my faults and mistakes.

[Mecky 10]

I wouldn't worry about poverty too much, the government is going to lift people out of poverty by simply redefining what poverty is

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/800000-people-lifted-out-offuel-poverty--by-redefining-it-8976232.html

[Zamo 10]

I totally agree with you - ideally I would have chosen someone much better to be the father of my child. I can only say that at the time I was completely head over heels in love, and very naïve in that I believed all the promises about "I'm looking for a job" etc. As I said, I was earning a good wage and didn't fully appreciate how much a child cost. But I can't say I regret it as she is the best thing that's ever happened to me. I'm trying to rectify my situation, albeit only 16 hours a week but to me that's better than sitting on my backside all day. I rely a lot on family for childcare so that's one less expense I claim. Its not all about money for me, but about setting an example that you have to work for money and make a small contribution to society, even if it is a token one. As you said, it takes two to make a child, and slowly but surely I'm trying to take responsibility and balance my responsibility for working with my responsibility as a single mother. Parenthood should be a 50/50 responsibility yet I've taken on 100% of it, yet seem to get 100% of the blame for him not being there. My whole point is that he gets to claim his dole and live stress free, without (it seems) anyone being there to take him to task. He is 50% responsible yet does nothing, not even a birthday card, and is quite happy with the situation. I hold my hands up to my faults and mistakes.

 

The reason you made a bad choice is because you couldn't see any consequences. Society has taken away the consequences so people making your sort of mistake do not live in abject poverty and do not lose their children. If you had seen that as you grew up - instead of 16 year old girls pushing prams back to their council flats whilst talking on their iPhone - then I am not sure you would have made the mistake.

 

I think society let's down both itself and people like you. I think kindness condemns more people to dependence that would be the case if society was less generous. We need to break the cycle and start letting people take (and show to others) the consequences of their choices.