Everyone keeps talking about high earners paying their "fair share" and pay more tax,but I'm yet to hear a valid reason(s) as to why it's supposedly fair?

If I've gone to college, then university, then got my masters degree, got a job, worked up the ladder for 15 years whist paying off my student debt, worked hard to earn myself a few promotions in that time - why should I have to start paying 45p in every pound that I earn over £80k?

What about that is fair, just because some lazy lay about can't be bothered to get a better paid job than stocking shelves at the local supermarket, if they bother to get a job at all and just live off the state?

What is stopping them putting the effort into life that I have?

I agree to an extent. The 'debate' though was little more than a shoutathon the kids in my little girls playground would have struggled to compete with. I found it particularly amusing when Angus Robertson fired off at the PM for being nowhere to be seen when his esteemed leader was MIA too!

Agree entirely - she has been a huge disappointment.

And this is what is wrong with society today. Have you ever thought that the people who do these jobs are not very academically minded? They may even not have had the chance or opportunity to go to university. Heaven forbid, there may be something wrong with them which means they need the state support.

Not everyone has the chances or support in life you have had and not everyone can be in a high paid job. Someone has to do the low paid jobs and its up to the people who can afford to contribute to pay to help those who struggle.

Congratulations on making the most of your opportunities but not everyone is as lucky as you

Thank you from the bottom of my heart. When you drive past the homeless, the beggars, those with mental problems roaming the streets, you can contemptuously sneer at them, possibly stopping to swat them with your copy of the Daily Mail. Or you could contemplate the tax you avoided paying as self employed - the car, parts of the home, capital allowances, loans, paying your partner just below the tax threshold despite them not doing a jot, the partner's car, pensions, paying dividends at the best time of the year, business entertainment, business travel.

Isn't she lined up for the chancellors slot when Hammond gets the bullet next week??

MO wrote

That's a great post only lost on those who haven't achieved. Reinventing yourself through education is not only available to us all at any stage of life but equally affordable.

I suggest you take up the opportunity then, you might learn something.

It's not all about education, I was just making a point about my experience - some people just aren't built for long term further education. I have friends though that didn't go to uni, and went straight into work at 16 - two have their own businesses and one did some evening college courses once she'd be working for a few years and could afford it, and is now a qualified accountant.

My point is that there are ways to get it if you want it - but I don't think enough people in this country do want it, and want the high earners to pay for them either way!

From my year at school, of c250 kids, only 2 went straight to Uni. There was no ambition or expectation of the others, myself included. Since leaving, several have progressed to further or higher education & many have become relatively successful. I doubt many of those would now follow that FE/HE route due to cost, but that is another argument. I am not aware of any of those 250 ever suggesting that the rich should pay for them, just their fair share.

What is their fair share though? And why is it fair? Just because I've managed to get myself into a better position in life (as do others) why does that mean I have to contribute more in tax? I still do the same number of hours and same amount of work in a week, yet I bring home less money because the government deem it so??

We all benefit from paying tax.

I agree, but why should I have to pay more tax because I earn more money??

No you misunderstand my point. Read it again.

I was talking about learning the lessons from dealing with the incident at Hillsborough.

The thing for me is you ignoring those that work in the private sector that haven't had a pay increase for years - I suppose that is their own stupid fault for having the audacity to not work for the government.

How have those receiving housing benefit lost out - if they have a house that is bigger than they need why the hell should the tax payers support that? Why should I as a tax payer support housing benefit in London that is higher than some people's salaries?

Putting a cap on benefits at £20k is that such an outrageous proposal - how much do you have to earn to net £20k?

Why should we have child support? If you decide to have children surely that is your choice and your responsibility to support them not the role of the state?

The elderly have a locked in increase in benefits - the idea they can take your house is barmy who ever thought that was a good idea is delusional you will just end up a branch of Dignitas in every town.

etc.

What affronts me is that hard working people who have scaled the ladder through hard graft are vilified and expected to support all those who simply don't have the drive or desire. The top 1/2% already contribute c30% of the whole income tax take - how much more should they pay? Why can't we have a flat rate for everybody those that earn more will pay more 20% of £200k is a lot more than 20% of £20k.

Of course its unfair that those who are successful continue to do so and are rewarded accordingly - what a very sad point of view. All you want to do is to crush ambition where is the wealth generation/innovation/progress going to come from in your "I don't give a flying fu ck" world?