There will always be repossessions, you will never get rid of that as people will always go in over their heads. Same with house prices, there have always been areas where prices are too high for the 'average' buyer. That will never change.

Actually - there is one group.

The much -hated international banker.


A recent analysis shows that you need to be earning about £30K NOT to be receiving more in benefits of one form or another than you pay in taxes.

That's a stunning statistic. Do you happen to have a source so that I can read more?

It doesn't look at occupations but origin - and anyway, bankers would need to contribute huge amounts just to cover the interest on their government benefit/bailout

I wonder what they are costing as "benefits"?

If they are simply taking government expenditure divided by number of people (or number of adults), then it would include "benefitting" from bank bailouts, etc. Regardless, I am sure it includes benefits such as roads, schools, NHS, pension, child benefit, universities, mortgage help schemes, rubbish collection, the BBC, etc. I'm sure most people wouldn't consider themselves to be on "benefits" because they drive on public roads but bottom line is that these things are paid for by taxes.

Except for this year (paying zero taxes) I am pretty sure I have paid more in taxes over my lifetime than I have received in benefits. So when I become a burden to the state in the not too distant future I will feel that I have earned it.

See this:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_317365.pdf

'On average, households in the top two income quintiles paid more in taxes than they received in benefits, while households in the bottom three quintiles received more in benefits than they paid in taxes'

Page 4 chart:

bottom three quintiles come to just under 30,000.

A little light reading, spells out what's in the benefits system and what is projected to be in it, plus costings and parameters:

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn13.pdf

Thanks Pete. I was just about to search and you saved me the bother!

Problem with -tile groups (quartiles, deciles, tertiles, etc.) is they don't give you the break even point. So "somewhere" between the 40th and 60th percentile is where people begin to pay more than they get ... plus of course individually it varies. A single, healthy person will be receiving less (assuming they are not in F-T education) than a person with children, lots of health problems, etc.

But in general I do think people underestimate how much it costs to pay for what they "get" from public services.

I was utterly shocked to discover that you could earn 50K EACH in a two person household, and still receive child benefit!

And when George Osborne tried to change that there were howls of protest.

Doesn't that depend on if it was one or both earning. One person earning the 50K meant no CB, but both parents could earn more than that combined (say 30k each) I thought and still claim.

Yep it was rather unsatisfactory to find the 10,000 quid gap between the quintiles and no pin-pointing to the actual 'balance/breakeven' number.

We must remember this is not the same as the contribution exhibit in the BBC for marginal migrants and under-water home-growns. These are benefits whereas the BBC exhibit talked to an allocation of public service costs beyond just benefits.

The example shown of an income of 31477, being worth net 31297 after benefits are taken into account is pretty close to the break even point

£50k from either parent brings you into the band for reduced child benefit. However, each parent can earn £49,999 (combined income £99,998) and child benefit will not be affected.

Makes no sense.

Thanks! didn't bother to look right or click the download in my haste. duh!

That's an anomaly that already existed in the tax system, as in the UK we tax as individuals, not households. A household with 2 earners just under the higher tax rate, would pay less tax than a single earner with the same total income.