Telegraph Letter

Similar position here. Between my wife and I we earn a nice sum, we’re not mega rich by any stretch but we have more than most. We have a nice house and nice cars which takes up a lot of our money, meaning day to day or month to month we don’t have loads of disposable income. It’s easily possible to earn plenty and be relatively skint.

The difference is we’re not moaning about being ‘skint’. If we did have any financial problems, we could easily sell our house, buy a smaller house and be extremely comfortable. Some people aren’t that fortunate and they are the ones that have my concerns.

 

It de facto is mate. Anyone earning over £60k if they claim it has to pay it back at a 100% tax rate. So most individuals opt out of receiving it to save the admin.

Either way the net income received from child benefit for the high earner is £0

 

I'm going to defend them a little bit here. Only a little mind - as others have said, they can move out of the area and cutback on the spending - but Surrey itself is hellishly expensive. On Rightmove, a search for homes for sale in Surrey takes you to page 38 before you see house prices as low as £1.3m. The highest isn't far from £20m. For the £1.3m, you are looking at a 4-bed semi or a large Victorian terrace in Guildford. These are the same kinds of properties that you would get for £1m less here. The could move somewhere cheaper, but it can be difficult to move your kids away from their mates or their family - my parents did that when I was 9 and it left me with issues.

People have reasons for wanting to live where they do - family, work, etc. As outsiders, it is easy to see what the problem is, throw stones and suggest solutions - but those solutions aren't always obvious or palatable to those in that position.

 

I remember last year I had a robust (but pleasant) discussion with a bloke who worked in the private education sector at a (sorry about this) dinner party. Whilst I don't blame parents wanting what's best for their kids, overall I think they run counter to achieving a meritocracy which in itself is of more interest to our economy. I think they should lose their tax status as they are treated like charities with breaks and vat exemptions. They should also be made to take 25% of their pupils for free based on educational ability. This would ramp up the fees and I'd like to see angry of Surrey's response to that. !!

 

A salary of £125k pays the highest marginal tax rate of any UK earner. In many parts of London and the South a decent family will set you back over a million quid. For many parents, sending kids to a private school is preferable to sending them to an underperforming state school. They aren’t rich - they still have to work hard and budget carefully to pay the bills.

If you want to know what rich looks like, see Tory party donors and premier league footballers for details.

 

I don't begrudge this family anything nor do I wish to criticise their choices. What I find, well, astonishing really, is that they're complaining and believe they have a legitimate complaint. You look around this world and see what people have to endure and then read this and my brain doesn't compute.

 

That sums it up perfectly imo.

 

Serves me right for talking to an accountant about money!

 

My policy to try and level that playing field would be for University fees to be equivalent to whatever school fees were paid for that individual - making it free for state school students and most expensive for those from elite boarding schools.

 

I don’t think you get child benefit at all after one parent earns over £60k mate (there is some tapering after £50k also) , that’s maybe what TM means

 

Oops - I’ve just read the rest of the thread

 

My colleague escaped the Rawandan massacre and lived in the Congo jungle for three years before finding refuge in the UK. She has raised two children on her own and earns just above the minimum wage and gets childcare for the youngest. She is grateful for what she has.

 

There would always be some loophole that they use to avoid paying. IIRC the Johnsons (Boris, Rachel, etc) all went to university with a full grant despite their father being loaded at the time.

 

Tuition fees were of course free for all in those days. Dunno about grants but I'm pretty sure he got a scholarship from Balliol.

 

In 1994 I got a grant, no tution fees and tax back from my previous employment. Try telling that to the young people of today, and they won't believe you...

 

In the mid-90s, my first job was registering students and part of it involved working out the local authorities and collecting fees from them. At the time, there were 3 bands of courses - A - £900/yr (very little other than classroom tuition - art, etc), B - £1600 (more supervision, etc - teaching) and C - ~£2300 (medicine, vets, etc). Now, all are a flat fee despite quite different levels of teaching, etc.

 

I had a student loan as well, about £3,000 per year but that was for living expenses.

 

There are plenty of things that would be preferable to me as a parent and person generally but I don’t do them if I can’t afford to!

Besides, that’s not really much of an excuse for the example in the paper. The state schools in leafy Surrey are not underperforming in comparison to those in areas like ours or inner city areas anywhere. I can guarantee you that.

And as for the tax, you lose all your personal allowance at (just over) £125k but the 45% tax rate only starts at that level. So they’d pay 20% on the first 50k then 40% on the next 75k. So a total of just over 40k in income tax, then about 8k on ni. Total deductions of 50k ish. That’s a lot, yeah.

But still gives a bring home of 75k. They bring home 60% of their pay. You’d expect higher earners to have a lower overall proportion, that’s just logical.

I work in banking/finance as a contractor. It is alleged I am paid ‘more’ as I have to find replacement contracts at the end of short term gigs and so need to save to cover that period. It isn’t really the case though. Not anymore at least.

On my current contract, for a major high street bank, my day rate equates to maybe a third of the gross salary figure above. Slightly over, but for ease of discussion, say 1/3.

This role is short term, will last no longer than six months, so is way below the IR35 limit of 24 months that would deem me an ‘employee’ under that daft legislation. However because of it, this bank, like every other U.K. retail bank I’ve worked for, now insists every contractor is ‘employed’ under an umbrella company and will not permit use of psc (limited company) even for roles which will not last 24 months.

As a result, income tax, national insurance, then the employers contribution to national insurance I have to pay for myself, a bloody apprentice levy, and a nominal £45 a month in umbrella fees, means last month I brought home just over 65% of my rate. Which at this level is scandalous. On an equivalent salary a permanently employed person would draw around 75%. So I’m being pinched significantly.

But I’m still bringing home more than the average salary for the place I live by some distance. In Donny the stats say the average salary is 26k.

So I don’t feel the right to complain too heavily; even though my gross daily pay rate equates to an equivalent salary of 50k, yet my bring home pay is the net equivalent of what someone on 40k gets.

My Mrs works in a bookies, so the second income isn’t massive but is necessary. We have a three bed semi in Scawthorpe, ex pit house, two second hand cars, the youngest of which is over five years old and three kids in state school. We are going on holiday next month to Florida - having not been abroad for six years or even on holiday at all, except the odd single night away, for four years. We’ve saved up for it. We live to our means and are better equipped to cope than a lot of our peers. My kids have got mates who’s parents both work full time, live as frugally as is practically possible, who still need to use food banks and school uniform banks. Two full time wages isn’t enough to feed and clothe a family of four and pay the bills.

So sorry, this bilge in the Torygraph has no validity other than to point out that people need to get their heads from up their backsides. Can’t afford school fees? Don’t put them through private school. Can’t afford the Maldives? Poor you.

The tax system is going to be argued to be unfair by everyone. I have on this thread about my situation to an extent.

But you cannot make changes to it to help someone on a six figure salary put their kids through private school and service a mortgage on houses worth over a million when hard working families can’t afford to eat and pay rent. It is that inherent selfishness and sense of entitlement to dare to feel sorry for yourself with a life like that, that keeps the conservatives in power.

 

She should try living on next to nowt. Makes my blood boil. With stuff like this.
I coped during the miners strike on naff all. Built up a small debt on my mortgage. But survived on food kitchings. Mortgage interest £19. Family allowance not sure what it was then for 2 kids and £10 in food vouchers + savings (no income from mi mrs she'd packed in work to bring kids up) .
What i have in common with the complainant . It was my choice. Regrets absolutely none.
Same with those who say "I can't afford a day off" when they see their colleagues fighting for a better standard of living on the picket line. The exact reason they moan about. Then take advantage of the outcome. Grrrrrrrrrrrrr