It's not free - somebody else is paying for it.

[Cyclone]

You'd need to be more specific than "many of them" regarding the 24 million private sector employed though.

 

What level of income is required before someone breaks even (ie isn't a drain but isn't yet contributing)? Complete finger in the air guess, but I think it's probably in the low twenties.

[I1L2T3]

Income tax is considerably lower now than it was in the 60s, 70s and early 80s. Of course the country is in deficit so there are limits to how far it can be lowered.

 

I shouldn't think people would have to pay national insurance contributions if the NHS is abolished.

 

NI contributions cover other things too - state pension, certain benefits.

[liam1412]

Robert Mugabe.

 

:hihi:

[angos]

You'd need to be more specific than "many of them" regarding the 24 million private sector employed though.

No I don't, its clear from the figures that there are too many non contributors compared to contributors.

 

 

 

What level of income is required before someone breaks even (ie isn't a drain but isn't yet contributing)? Complete finger in the air guess, but I think it's probably in the low twenties.

According to the CPS its the low thirties.

 

Are you a contributor to (or a burden on) the nation's finances?

 

The Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) - has crunched Office for National Statistics (ONS) numbers on the contribution made to government coffers by households from different stages of the income scale.

 

Having split the country's households into five income 'quintiles', the CPS claims that the bottom three, on average, now receive more back in state aid and value through public services than they pay in tax. The CPS claims that 53.4 per cent of total households received more in benefits than they paid in taxes in 2010/11 – compared to 43.1 per cent in 1979 and 43.8 per cent in 2000/01

 

It means households in the bottom 20 per cent of earners get £10,153 more in benefits than they pay in tax. Even the middle 20 per cent get £4,589 more than they pay in.

 

You have to get to the top 40 per cent before you can claim to be a net contributor. Households in the fourth quintile pay £4,113 more in tax than they take out, while the top 20 per cent of earners pay a whopping £20,125 more in than they get back.

 

The UK tax and spend is designed to be 'progressive', with those at the bottom get more from the state than those at the top, but the CPS say that the trend has accelerated in the last decade.

 

In 2000/01 the middle quintile of earners paid in 5.9 per cent more in taxes than they received back in value from the state. Ten years on and the middle quintile gets back 20 per cent more than they put in.

[Cyclone]

No I don't, its clear from the figures that there are too many non contributors compared to contributors.

No it isn't. Your paragraph is littered with 'many' without ever trying to quantify it.

24 million people in Britain are working in the private sector. Many of whom won't pay much tax because they are on a low wage. Many of them claim some benefits, housing benefits, tax and child tax credits, making them a net drain on the public purse. This is the group of tax payer that have to pay for everything.

Exactly how many is pretty important IMO.

According to the CPS its the low thirties.

 

Are you a contributor to (or a burden on) the nation's finances?

 

The Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) - has crunched Office for National Statistics (ONS) numbers on the contribution made to government coffers by households from different stages of the income scale.

 

Having split the country's households into five income 'quintiles', the CPS claims that the bottom three, on average, now receive more back in state aid and value through public services than they pay in tax. The CPS claims that 53.4 per cent of total households received more in benefits than they paid in taxes in 2010/11 – compared to 43.1 per cent in 1979 and 43.8 per cent in 2000/01

 

It means households in the bottom 20 per cent of earners get £10,153 more in benefits than they pay in tax. Even the middle 20 per cent get £4,589 more than they pay in.

 

You have to get to the top 40 per cent before you can claim to be a net contributor. Households in the fourth quintile pay £4,113 more in tax than they take out, while the top 20 per cent of earners pay a whopping £20,125 more in than they get back.

 

The UK tax and spend is designed to be 'progressive', with those at the bottom get more from the state than those at the top, but the CPS say that the trend has accelerated in the last decade.

 

In 2000/01 the middle quintile of earners paid in 5.9 per cent more in taxes than they received back in value from the state. Ten years on and the middle quintile gets back 20 per cent more than they put in.

 

So the top 40% of households (by income) in the country are bankrolling the entire thing.

[angos]

No it isn't. Your paragraph is littered with 'many' without ever trying to quantify it.

Exactly how many is pretty important IMO.

 

So the top 40% of households (by income) in the country are bankrolling the entire thing.

 

You do fully understand that I am just a member of the public and only have the information that is available by searching Google?

 

I don't work in a government department or have access to everyone's financial information. So whilst you might need more information to form a judgment, I am quite happy to form one on the information available to me.

[Cyclone]

So are you saying you don't actually know how many "many" is? That's not much to form an opinion on really.

[angos]

So are you saying you don't actually know how many "many" is? That's not much to form an opinion on really.

 

I find it odd that you would think that I would know the financial situation of everyone in the country?

 

Opinion

A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

 

So basically opinions are formed on the information we have even though that information might not be complete or correct.

[Cyclone]

You must have misunderstood, I don't expect you to know the details of all 24 million lower rate tax payers. I do expect that "many" can be qualified with some sort of % though, otherwise it's meaningless hyperbole and can't usefully be used to inform an opinion.

 

---------- Post added 30-09-2013 at 07:37 ----------

 

I think you actually answered the question already, but haven't actually realised, when you said that the top 40% (by income) of households are the ones who make a net contribution to the government.

The rest is just maths.

[angos]

You must have misunderstood, I don't expect you to know the details of all 24 million lower rate tax payers. I do expect that "many" can be qualified with some sort of % though, otherwise it's meaningless hyperbole and can't usefully be used to inform an opinion.

 

---------- Post added 30-09-2013 at 07:37 ----------

 

I think you actually answered the question already, but haven't actually realised, when you said that the top 40% (by income) of households are the ones who make a net contribution to the government.

The rest is just maths.

 

So you agree then I gave enough information to form an informed opinion.