You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
As an aside I don’t understand why we have tax bands, I’m sure it just encourages those that can afford it to avoid paying tax. Surely just set it at 25% or whatever for everyone. I suppose you’d have to increase the living wage to offset it, hmm this is getting complicated. Also avoid taxing the same bit of money twice e.g. income tax then VAT. Just have a single point of tax.
But yeah also the child benefit allowance based on the single highest wage is bonkers, should be based on household income.
IMHO a complex income tax solution is great for getting the masses to argument amongst themselves about what's 'fair' and notice we don't tax wealth, only income (by and large). If you're really rich, you stay rich, and so do your descendants forever more.
Truthfully though, it's not as clear as it looks - you get the odd chap who humblemoans that they have to pay 40% now, and 'lazy' or 'normal' people only pay 20% (honestly, I've heard that, from a friend).
It's simply not true. For a start if you don't consider NI you're a mug, it's a 'stealth' tax because for some reason we think it's somehow paid into a different pot just for JSA and State Pension, it's not.
The government deduction rates for 'most people' are really (these are the current ones):
0%
32%
42%
Because NI is 12% up to higher rate and 2% thereafter - 20% and 40% is enough for people who don't pay higher rate to think that the 'rich' pay much more, and 32% and 42% is close enough for people who have to pay it, to live with it.
And we all pay the same rates for the same amounts, if you earn £50,001 from next April, you'll only pay 42% of the last £1.
That is the government figure in the budget papers.
I'd be interested in seeing how they calculated that number and what estimates they used for what the 'saved' cash would be spent on, and what changes in behaviour would occur.
The 40% tax band was once originally the preserve of the very wealthy directly employed professions i.e. senior doctors, lawyers etc.
The failure to move the band in line with inflation over the last decade effectively pulled 1-1.5m extra people into the tax band - which now means many teachers, police officers etc are now classed as “rich”.
The guardian reported in 2014 that more than 1m people now pay 40% than would have paid the rate based on Labour’s tax and spending plans in the 2010 election ergo the 40% have made a disproportionate contribution to reducing the defect during a period when those on benefits and the retired saw incomes maintained.
I think your arithmetic is wrong there.
£83.
In addition to the more spending argument its one that could easily be made if you used the cash to employ more nurses. coppers and teachers.
Thats never going to happen. The money would simply be spent on reforming outdated service contracts and propping up failed PFI’s. Not a single £1 will be going towards new positions for humans in any public service.
Better get used to that fact that more £’s do not create Jobz.
The comment about people’s attitudes towards political parties changing as the get older is true, proven and in my situation valid.
Once a stout Tory Blue Neck with a centerist attitude, now a Pure Liberal with social awareness and conscience... 🤣
That extra £500 I’ll receive will be spent on increasing my charity payments I make each month.
Do they recognize that 50k isn’t necessarily ‘rich’ anymore?
Double the average UK salary.
Still doesn't make anyone rich. Just shows how shit the average salary is.
I am extremely privileged, Mrs Gob and me have a very good joint income.
How a young family, particularity in the SE, with 2 or 3 kids can get by on £50k a year and have any quality of life is beyond me. By the time you have paid the mortgage or rent on a house, gas, council tax and electricity. There won't be much of your £2500 take home left. Run a car and try and have a holiday and then there can't be enough.
Graph time!
When thresholds dont move you get a "fiscal drag" that due to inflationary increases in, say income or prices, captures increasing parts of the population. That might well be fine, but it does reinforce the notion of what someone thinks as "rich" is arbitrary. As one might think someone earning over £44k in 2010 is rich, but is someone earning over £43k in 2016 as rich or poorer? Which threshold defines "rich"?
Since 2010, an extra 1,500,000+ have been redefined as "rich". many of them by their inflationary pay rises taking them over an arbitrary threshold. It is unlikely their lifestyles will have improved or their disposable income increased, but they now qualify for paying higher rates of tax then they used to.
In fact just as this thread shows, one mans definition of Rich is another mans sauce. or something
EDIT: BTW the IFS analysis is pretty clear. The increase in the higher rate will take c.300k people out of the higher rate tax bracket, however if the higher rate threshold had grown with inflation since then 900k people (of the 1.5m above) would not be paying higher rate tax.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/13655
How a young family, particularity in the SE, with 2 or 3 kids can get by on £25k a year and have any quality of life is beyond me. By the time you have paid the mortgage or rent on a house, gas, council tax and electricity. There won’t be much of your £1250* take home left. Run a car and try and have a holiday and then there can’t be enough.
*Approximation....
*Approximation….
Exactly. The point I was making, that £50k a year is nothing if you have a family and want to do more than just "exist".
£25k a year? You would be skint.
£14k a year a living wage? Not at all.
I know, so take the list of priorities and decide where it should be spent.
entertainingly BTW, John McDonnell's definition of "Rich" at £70k is, like any good socialist, just a smidge higher than his personal salary of £68k in 2017 😉
He does also receive an additional £20k in pensions though (state and private), so maybe he is being magnanimous... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
"We" want to think of the "Rich" as being anonyomous people who own islands and have cocktails at 11am, not high earners living normal busy difficult working lives.
entertainingly BTW, John McDonnell’s definition of “Rich” at £70k is, like any good socialist, just a smidge higher than his personal salary of £68k in 2017
But does John McDonnell count himself as rich? I would guess he probably does.
How a young family, particularity in the SE, with 2 or 3 kids can get by on £25k a year and have any quality of life is beyond me. By the time you have paid the mortgage or rent on a house, gas, council tax and electricity. There won’t be much of your £1250* take home left. Run a car and try and have a holiday and then there can’t be enough.
We've 'been there' I was just back in work after a long redundancy working for half what I was on, Mrs was still a student and we had a 4 year old.
Actually we weren't quite 'there' as Mrs was getting a Nursing Bursary, but it was mostly eaten up by childcare.
These days we'd have no chance of her completing her degree without it.
'Holidays' during this period were long weekends in Bluestone, I remember I'd get them for £250 or so for booking in Sept for the following June (term time). 'Entertainment' was £30 a month to Sky. Bills were a constant worry, but thanks to a Housing Association we had a decent, if very small roof over our heads, we didn't go hungry or ever would.
I won't romanticise it with this whole 'happy in poverty' bullshit people try to sell sometimes, we were happy despite it all, not because of it. This sort of hand to mouth lifestyle grinds you down day by day, month to month, things that others find fun turn against you - Christmas? Oh shit, that'll cost, Holiday? Oh shit, that'll cost, even stuff like leaving a light on all day by mistake will give you an eye twitch as you worry if N Power will want to rise the DD next year.
I think if the light ever went out at the end of the tunnel, it would have broken me. We lived like that for about 2 years, things got a bit tough going again when the youngest came about, well if you can call living on £5k a month 'tough', even if 20% goes on Childcare.
“We” want to think of the “Rich” as being anonyomous people who own islands and have cocktails at 11am, not high earners living normal busy difficult working lives
Some people seem to want to make this an issue about "Rich" and jealousy etc, hard work and rewarding go getters who built it all from nothing but a good health service, solid education and all those things.
When really it's a question about economic priorities.
IME 'Rich' is a £1k a month more than you have now.
When really it’s a question about economic priorities.
Indeed. Continue shrinking what local authorities can provide, and offer a tax cut to all* high earners instead.
(*this boundary change benefits ALL earners over the threshold, not just those at or near 50k)
When really it’s a question about economic priorities.
yup. so vilifying people who by your definition are 'rich' when the banks get bailed out for billions and big corporations pay tax rates in the single digits and the tories find a spare billion down the back of the sofa to buy off the DUP seems a little pointless...
yup. so vilifying people who by your definition are ‘rich’ when the banks get bailed out for billions and big
Vilification? Or just questioning if its worth it. It is laughable to watch people claim earning over 45k is hard done by though. A sense of perspective may be missing there.
lets not forget the £13k in tax/NI that those ‘rich’ people on 50k are paying plus the indirect taxes they pay by spending their income which contrary to popular belief isn’t just at waitrose/BMW/John Lewis etc which directly benefits those on lower or ‘average’ incomes.
and the bigger picture of those huge corporations that pay very little tax.
No point pointing out logic MrP, this threads turned the same way as all the other recent threads on the subject.
🤣🤪🔥
It is laughable to watch people claim earning over 45k is hard done by though. A sense of perspective may be missing there.
apart from bikebuoys vacous twitterings about £5k a month as just getting by, I'm not sure where you are getting the sense that 'the rich' feel hard done by. I quite happily pay my taxes, but I'll pay exactly what the government decide I should. If they ask for more, I'd pay more, if they ask for less I'll pay less.
PS. I just found out I can claim tax relief on my national trust membership. #middleclasswins
apart from bikebuoys vacous twitterings about £5k a month as just getting by,
Vacuous or vacous?
Either way I applaud you for calling me out.
👍👏
i'm better at maths than spelling...
lets not forget the ...indirect taxes they pay by spending their income .....which directly benefits those on lower or ‘average’ incomes.
WTAF. really. Utter garbage. So the poor should be eternally grateful to the rich for spending some money. Words fail me.
PS. I just found out I can claim tax relief on my national trust membership. #middleclasswins
Honey, you're only middle class if you're a life member. 🙂
Honey, you’re only middle class if you’re a life member
and claiming tax relief on a life time membership is surprisingly difficult. Can only do it if it's a family account if memory serves.
Edit to say - it looks like a joint account is okay as well
- Please note that we cannot reclaim tax on individual life membership, individual senior life membership or gift membership subscriptions
Vilification? Or just questioning if its worth it. It is laughable to watch people claim earning over 45k is hard done by though. A sense of perspective may be missing there.
I don't think anyone did?
The point I was making, is that even apparently "middle class" families don't have much left after paying for the fundamental things in life.
My first house was about 1.5 times my salary when I bought in the 90's.
I know that the same job currently pays about £35k and the same properties go for about £100k.
That was in the NE, if that was in SE the difference would been even greater.
If you need to live in the SE for your job and have a £300 - £350k mortgage to pay, then £45k doesn't go very far.
WTAF. really. Utter garbage. So the poor should be eternally grateful to the rich for spending some money. Words fail me.
who said they should be “eternally grateful” ? it certainly wasn’t me, did somebody else say that or was it just you?
so where do you think the governments money to spend on ‘running the country’ comes from?
here is a nice pie chart. as you can see nearly 3/4 of that comes from wages and spending, without those higher earners that drops and those on lower incomes would have to be taxed more or it has to come from somewhere else.
edit: and this from the BBC "his chart from the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that about 90% of income tax is paid by the 50% of taxpayers with the highest incomes, while more than a quarter is paid by the richest 1%."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39641222
who said they should be “eternally grateful” ? it certainly wasn’t me, did somebody else say that or was it just you?
so where do you think the governments money to spend on ‘running the country’ comes from?
And as pointed out in a few other places, that spending by the government has enabled those paying high rates of tax to be there in a lot of cases, be that by subsidising low wages through benefits, construction of infrastructure and other things essential to wealth generation.
As a point of clarity on the chart above, it's 62% from Income, NI and VAT, not all of that is paid by the individual, NI is split between employee and employer, VAT is charged on a lot of things and business will pay some of that along with other organisations. Fuel duty is paid in significant amounts by business and government.
So I'd say it's a lot less than "Nearly 75%"
The second point on income tax breaks down that 22% of tax take comes from the richest 50% of tax payers in the form of income tax.
Nice stats blur though, sure I've done stuff like that in reports before
And as pointed out in a few other places, that spending by the government has enabled those paying high rates of tax to be there in a lot of cases, be that by subsidising low wages through benefits, construction of infrastructure and other things essential to wealth generation.
The problem with rich people thinking that they deserve to be rich, is that they also think that poor people deserve to be poor.
Nice stats blur though, sure I’ve done stuff like that in reports before
thanks, i’ll take the statistic critique as an apology 👍
EDIT: sorry it wasn’t you who was making stuff up.
Well you certainly passed the Maths for Back Benchers test 😉
And as pointed out in a few other places, that spending by the government has enabled those paying high rates of tax to be there in a lot of cases, be that by subsidising low wages through benefits, construction of infrastructure and other things essential to wealth generation.
All the more reason to keep UK tax rates competitive to keep them contributing.
All the more reason to keep UK tax rates competitive to keep them contributing.
Are we back to Schrodingers bankers again?
Nothing Brexit can do will make them leave, 0.5% tax increase and they will all pack their bags and leave....
How about we make the country an attractive and welcoming place to live.
Are we back to Schrodingers bankers again?
Nothing Brexit can do will make them leave
You reckon? I think a lot of banking roles are going to move to Europe in the run up to and post Brexit.
0.5% tax increase and they will all pack their bags and leave….
Not quite, but it doesn't take many roles to move to shift along the laffer curve offset all the revenue raised by the increase. It's not just moving abroad of course. Self employed people can choose a tax efficient salary point, if you let them have more cash at basic rate they can increase their salary a bit, and pay more tax. Tax revenue is not inelastic. Governments wish it was, of course.
All the more reason to keep UK tax rates competitive to keep them contributing.
Interesting to see how this will look in 10 yrs time as AI reduces the workforce.
Which is all very interesting but in this case this was something that was brought forward - it was never done the government would have more money to spend on other things.
Did they need to cut taxes in this band in 2019 to stop people leaving?
Did they need to cut taxes in this band in 2019 to stop people leaving?
there's probably an element of bribing people to take their minds off the FUBAR of brexit.
Interesting to see how this will look in 10 yrs time as AI reduces the workforce.
The same as when automating factory production happened in the industrial revolution. Replacing people with machines is not new. If we ever have a situation where most people don't work for money at all I guess we'd need to tax things other than income.