£100000 is only £65000 after taxes

If the insurance industry is left open to competition, premiums prices will fall to a level people can afford.

I'd love to see how these rich city suits cope without the people who clean our streets and their offices. Without the people who build their homes and office buildings. Without the people who sell them their food and make their morning coffee. Without the people who drive their buses and trains. Without the people who sell them their clothes. Without the people who maintain our roads and our street lights.

There are many 'little people' who are needed to keep rich people's lives running. Our cities and towns wouldn't function without them. No-one is self-made. No-one earns money without living in a society that helps them. They work as hard (often harder) as you. They are necessarily. You do not make money without them. Your job isn't more important. And if they can't afford to live in your cities, they will leave and no-one will do those jobs and your lives will fall apart.

And pay £350000 a year just on that? How about if you need a life saving operation, say treatment costing hundreds of thousands, what do you do then? What about the roads and schools, who pays for them? How about the police, government and the courts, who pays for them?

So you seem to want all these things but not to have to pay for them.

Posted from TSR Mobile

these things don't cost 1/3 of the salary of every professional, it only makes people less likely to want to work and study. What is the incentive then? and the government should be targeting companies worth billions and millionaires that have all their money saved up in banks which they are never going to use. Instead of hard working citizens that will not really save that much and spend most of their money on paying their mortgage, electricity, water and food for their their families.

these things don't cost 1/3 of the salary of every professional, it only makes people less likely to want to work and study. What is the incentive then? and the government should be targeting companies worth billions and millionaires that have all their money saved up in banks which they are never going to use. Instead of hard working citizens that will not really save that much and spend most of their money on paying their mortgage, electricity, water and food for their their families.
And yes I would pay £35000 on that because I know my money will not go into paying for a girls abortion of a child she just doesn't feel like having anymore or benefits of some people who are just lazy, definitely so.

these things don't cost 1/3 of the salary of every professional, it only makes people less likely to want to work and study. What is the incentive then? and the government should be targeting companies worth billions and millionaires that have all their money saved up in banks which they are never going to use. Instead of hard working citizens that will not really save that much and spend most of their money on paying their mortgage, electricity, water and food for their their families.
And yes I would pay £35000 on that because I know my money will not go into paying for a girls abortion of a child she just doesn't feel like having anymore or benefits of some people who are just lazy, definitely so.

these things don't cost 1/3 of the salary of every professional, it only makes people less likely to want to work and study. What is the incentive then? and the government should be targeting companies worth billions and millionaires that have all their money saved up in banks which they are never going to use. Instead of hard working citizens that will not really save that much and spend most of their money on paying their mortgage, electricity, water and food for their their families.
And yes I would pay £35000 on that because I know my money will not go into paying for a girls abortion of a child she just doesn't feel like having anymore or benefits of some people who are just lazy, definitely so.

An abortion would be a lot cheaper for you to pay for than the child she would otherwise have.

Strong critical thinking ability detected.

It is rather unlikely that any money from your taxes that goes on benefits will go on "some people who are just lazy". Most people want to work. People have to jump through plenty hoops to keep their benefits.

She can work and pay for her child like any normal person...
Strong logic detected

Massive hoops here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JqreWTZsF2M

Lol, throw one particular example at me, I'm sure this is representative and conclusive. (Though I would concede that child benefits seem the easier to come by)

Because it largely depends on how you measure it and many of the effects you apparently haven't considered.

Plenty of people on here will have parents on relatively low incomes with large houses. How? Because they're retired, or have scaled back their work - and have already paid off a mortgage. Many people occupy houses of a higher value than they could realistically afford by having bought them a long time ago - house prices have increased faster than average earnings.

Equally what earnings figures don't show is the huge number of people on low earnings who get them topped-up by the state. There's also little consideration of the effects of multiple earnings in a household, including how that effects take-home earnings for the household.

Someone on the average income cannot afford an average-priced house.

If you earn £100000 a year, your take-home pay is only £65467 after income tax and national insurance. So you literally lose more than a third of your income to the government. Surely this is really unfair to those who have worked really hard. I would much prefer it if everyone just paid 20% of their income in tax

Excuse me if I'm being dense, but I'm fairly certain your calculations are wrong???