[Closed] Are any of the political parties planning to scrap the 60% tax rate at 100-120k?

A 100k earned by a single earner takes home far less than 2 people earning 50k each

£50k earned by a single earner takes home far less than £100k earned by a single earner.

The comparison is irrelevant

Not heard about it but the Tories would be the ones who would when they're finished wooing the super rich. Hopefully no one does.

None of them are openly pandering to the top 1% of earners

Give a shared tax allowance to couples and you need to give it to everyone. The overall revenue calcs probably say don't do it as you then start removing potentially a lot of people from higher rate tax.

Have to settle for raising the inheritance tax threshold.

have to settle for another Public Sector kicking

[i]£50k earned by a single earner takes home far less than £100k earned by a single earner.[/i]

Need to work harder and/or be luckier then.

No, but it is already conservative party policy to allow earners below the tax threshold to transfer their personal allowance to spouses.

There also isn't a 60% tax rate or a 100-120k tax band...

There is a lot of logic in taxing household income not individual earners built would require such a massive overall of the tax system it is unlikely to happen. That needn't be about reducing tax for the wealthy but rather about fairer tax...

anagallis_arvensis - Member
Have to settle for raising the inheritance tax threshold.

And with luck they will abolish the whole immoral thing.

Are any of the political parties planning to scrap the 60% tax rate at 100-120k?

Am really hoping this is theoretical thing rather than a personal thing, because it would be really depressing if someone earning north of £100K was not savvy enough to know what tax band they were in!

There is no 60% tax band to scrap you doughnut! There is a 40% high rate tax band and a 45% additional tax band for folk over £150K. That's it.

There is no 60% tax band to scrap you doughnut! There is a 40% high rate tax band and a 45% additional tax band for folk over £150K. That's it.

Can't see it going though - it Tories were going to do it they'd have done it same time as the 45% rate and Labour brought it in so unlikely to delete it.

Because the individual's tax free allowance is removed (above £100k?), the income between £100k and (£100k+2xpersonal allowance) is effectively taxed at 60%.
In my opinion, it's totally illogical.
What's the chance of it changing ('giving tax breaks to millionaires', etc., etc) - I'd say very little.

Higher taxes are just a greater contribution to society - enjoy it and feel smug 🙂

Between 100- 120 k for every £2 they earn they loose £1 of tax allowance hence the marginal rate of tax between those two points is higher
I assume this is what the OP is referring to.

ah 55 seconds to slow

... 60% tax rate at 100-120k?

That's crazy income tax rate.

No wonder this country is slowly doomed because the govt is not thinking with their heads. [b]

You still vote for the big parties? You might as well hang yourself now.[/b]

At some point people will try to evade tax which I think make sense if they can and I don't blame them. Moral? Ya right ... look into the mirror.

The govt is simply a parasite now. 😡

As Trek says, there is a completely illogical 60% band between 100k and £120k. It then drops back to 40% before going up to 45%. It's neither progressive, nor regressive, it's just bonkers.

Worse still, because it's implemented by mucking around with your personal allowance, it breaks PAYE.

And whilst £100k is undoubtedly still a very high salary, the threshold hasn't been inflation adjusted since it was introduced, so it's considerably lower than it was in real terms, and it will continue to erode in real terms, affecting more and more people.

EDIT - there's a handy graph of marginal rates in this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11733896

It's a perfect example of what's broken in our political system: they sound bite idea of "high earners" still getting a "tax free" personal allowance completely overrides any sort of common sense or logical approach to tax rates.

Am really hoping this is theoretical thing rather than a personal thing, because it would be really depressing if someone earning north of £100K was not savvy enough to know what tax band they were in!

There is no 60% tax band to scrap you doughnut! There is a 40% high rate tax band and a 45% additional tax band for folk over £150K. That's it.

Maybe have a read up on what happens to your personal allowance when you go over 100k

Egg on face?

Oh, let's not forget NI...make that 62%.

So the overall tax rate on £100,000 is 34.8%
http://www.incometaxcalculator.org.uk/?yr=2015&age=0&time=1&ingr=100000#
on 50k (x2) it's 27.7%
The overall income difference is the couple would be about 7k take home (or £580/month) so hardly the biggest injustice in the world.

Egg on face?

There is no 60% tax band to scrap you doughnut! There is a 40% high rate tax band and a 45% additional tax band for folk over £150K. That's it.

This is indeed true and you could have explained yourself in your OP and not claimed there is a 60% tax rate when there is not a 60% tax rate

Nobody said it was the biggest injustice in thee world.
But it's illogical, unfair and , in my opinion, should be changed.

But it's illogical, unfair and , in my opinion, should be changed.

Mikewsmith, you don't need to do 'it' for everyone, because it's only those earning in that bracket that are affected.
If I was King, I'd stop the removal of the personal allowance and tweak the higher rates to recover the loss.

you don't need to do 'it' for everyone, because it's only those earning in that bracket that are affected.

Mikewsmith, i can't believe it would be expensive to administer, we seemed to manage before it was changed (2010).
I don't know how much it raises, but it could be recovered by raising the higher rate. I think that would be more logical and fairer.

I guess you are in the band that hurts then...
One of the reasons for not doing combined child benefit calcs was the admin costs were higher than savings. How do you know the change didn't net the treasury more cash for the work put in.

Also just spied your 62% post above, stick to your overall rate...
How much extra do you save on pension contributions? Put the right amount in and you could probably come out square.

We'd be better off with a system where tax was simple with incremetal increases in rate by reference to earnings. Any attempt to negate benefits for the rich from changes intended to benefit the poor is invariably going to be relatively expensive to administer.

Tax changes which are politically motivated solely to win votes or as a superficial sticking plaster in the eyes of those who don't see the detail are invariably inadequately costed, planned and resourced.

I'd favour few changes in the short term in preference to a larger scale rethink of our tax system to be implemented in say 2020 AND properly funded. That last bit is key. Short termism is always hugely more expensive in the long run so it's about time policy makers 'manned up' as the Govt of the day to it right rather than shoddily which always leaves the next Govt with a partially implemented rag bag of rules and supporting systems to further tinker with and so on.

I genuinely worry that our public services will be slowly eroded under the banner of austerity and by setting the public against the public sector until finally the systems break and the public go 'WTF?'. By which time it WILL be too late but those who made the decisions and chose those directions of travel will have long since finished sunning themselves on foreign shores paid for with money which ought to have better spent for the good of future generations. Hell in a hand cart? Maybe not but the gap between the haves and have nots is expanding ever quicker and that is not a good thing.

Hard to imagine that scrapping it wouldn't save admin cost. Having your personal allowance dependent on how much you earn adds considerable complexity to the system, and makes it almost impossible for the PAYE system to take the right amount of tax at source.

If you want the extra tax take, then lower the £150k threshold so that more people pay 45%, rather than having a marginal rate that goes up then down then up.

For me the issue is one of fairness. According to HMRC the tax rates in the UK are

£10,600 to £31,785 20% Tax
£31,786 to £150,000 40% Tax
Over £150,000 45% Tax

In all reality it should read as follows

£10,600 to £31,785 20% Tax
£31,786 to £100,000 40% Tax
[b]£100,000 to £121,200 60% Tax[/b]
£121,200 to £150,000 40% Tax
Over £150,000 45% Tax

Everyone should be entitled to a tax free personal allowance, regardless of how much they earn. People moan that the rich should pay more, but given the top 1% of tax payers already contribute ~30% of all income tax paid to the treasury, I think they already pay their fair share

Deepreddave, fully agree, but you're dealing with politicians.
What chance sensible, long term decisions?

So the overall tax rate on £100,000 is 34.8%
http://www.incometaxcalculator.org.uk/?yr=2015&age=0&time=1&ingr=100000#
on 50k (x2) it's 27.7%
The overall income difference is the couple would be about 7k take home (or £580/month) so hardly the biggest injustice in the world.

The interesting comparison would be £120,000 vs 2 x £60,000, but the calculator you link to appears to be broken as it doesn't remove your personal allowance above £100k. I think the difference comes out at about £11.3k if you do the sums right.

@flanagaj whats the overall rates for those earnings?

If you can find a better calc then share it, but for all this the overall % tax paid is a better calc. Also adding in what you get back on pension needs to be taken into account.

I'm all for fair, but the HMRC needs to also collect effectively.

I think the figures are 39.3% for £120k vs 30% for 2 x £60k, based on http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/tax-calculator/

And with luck they will abolish the whole immoral thing.

But economics advisors/experts insist morality has nothing to do with public finances and the tax take. Or is that only for those avoiding tax?

For another example of why the current system is stupid, look at child care vouchers. A few years ago, it was decided that it was unfair that higher earners "saved" more money on child care vouchers, so they introduced limits on the total value of vouchers that people in the 40% and 45% bands could get so that everyone saved exactly the same amount overall. Of course, they forgot about the 60% band, because it's not implemented as a proper income tax rate, so people in that band can actually save more than everyone else.

The more you introduce politically motivated complexity into the system, the more you create stupid little loopholes.

We can argue about whether should pay more or less tax, but let's at least implement it in a sane and logical manner.

flanagaj - Member

Everyone should be entitled to a tax free personal allowance, regardless of how much they earn.

Why? The point of the tax free allowance is to give a little move some tax burden off the people that can least afford it. Frankly it's done it's job long before you're earning £100000. The only question then is about how you fairly phase it out, and how you avoid arbitrary steps in taxation- it does phase out pretty fast in the £100-£120k bracket just now, IMO the fix is to start phasing it out much earlier.

flanagaj - Member

given the top 1% of tax payers already contribute ~30% of all income tax paid to the treasury, I think they already pay their fair share

We talked about this in another thread recently but the top 1% actually pay a disproportionately small amount of tax compared to lower earners, when you take into account the income differences. Saying "the top 1% pays 30%" sounds impressive but doesn't take into account actual earnings. Or of course affordability

The national proportion of tax that the top 1% pays is higher than in the 80s, but the proportion of their income that they pay is pretty much the same- we're supposed to feel grateful that they pay 30% of tax earnings, I think, and forget that it's only gone up because they are richer.

TrekEX8 - none whilst we have political parties linked to funding/unions/big business etc rather than utterly independent with the country best interests solely at heart but then that goes to the nub of real politics I suppose.

I just hate watching short term thinking costing our country tens of million 'today' but 'hundreds of millions' tomorrow (not literal timescales). Those with plenty can afford to pay more and wouldn't haven't more without those below them in terms of wealth. I know I'd not lose sleep over paying 50% on earnings > £250k compared to someone earning < £25k paying 10%. The playing field is suitably levelled and more by the wealthier being more able to pay for guidance on how to organise their finances to pay less than generally intended. There are plenty of minor tax planning practices which don't reach the dizzy heights of avoidance bordering on evasion.

We need a Govt with a Conservative brain and a Socialist heart maintaining good EU trading and solid border controls but allowing positive/healthy immigration levels.

My first rule as Lord of the Realm would be that all politicians must answer any question with a straight yes or no. Starting any answer with the word 'Listen....' would lead to £1000 fine!

The Green Party would [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32274627 ]do the opposite[/url].

Why? The point of the tax free allowance is to give a little move some tax burden off the people that can least afford it. Frankly it's done it's job long before you're earning £100000.

Agreed, but...

The only question then is about how you fairly phase it out, and how you avoid arbitrary steps in taxation- it does phase out pretty fast in the £100-£120k bracket just now, IMO the fix is to start phasing it out much earlier.

The point is that you don't need to phase it out. You can achieve the same effect with higher marginal rates further up the ladder without removing the 0% band at the bottom.

It's the desire to get crowd pleasing soundbites like "we're removing the "tax free" allowance from higher earners" that results in a mess like this: what matters is the total tax due on a given level of earnings.

The Green Party would do the opposite.

No, they've said that they'll put up the tax rate above £150k.

Like all other parties, they've said nothing about fixing the anomalous 60% band that already exists.

pdw - Member

The point is that you don't need to phase it out. You can achieve the same effect with higher marginal rates further up the ladder without removing the 0% band at the bottom.

OK, that's a fair point though I'd say it's a difference that makes no difference ultimately

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something here but the "anomalous 60% between 100 and 120k"- does it actually exist? I've not looked into it in detail but it looks to me like the banding listed up the page adds a weighting for the removal of the personal allowance in that 100-120 band, but not in higher bands? I could be wrong though.

Like all other parties, they've said nothing about fixing the anomalous 60% band that already exists.

Ah, true. It does seem to be a silly anomaly, which should be sorted.

Im amazed when people say the 'rich' should pay more tax.

They already. Whereas someone on 15k in receipt of tax credits for children etc is a burden. Yet 'we' are supposed to squeeze even more out of people who are almost seen as thr baddies.

What a weird society.

Hora- lower paid people are only a burden if you look at them purely as taxpayers. The bulk of their contribution is as employees/providers of employees, and as consumers- resources, effectively. It's just that it's effectively off their balance sheet and onto that of companies/employers/sellers. The contribution of the richest people effectively includes a contribution from those beneath them.

What's weird is that people seem to forget that. Nobody became a top 1% earner without benefiting from others. It's similiar with welfare- the biggest beneficiaries from education and healthcare are employers- you get one education, they get thousands.

I'm not saying we should smash the system or anything... We just should remember how it works. The reason the top 1% pay more tax now is because we've made them richer.

OK, that's a fair point though I'd say it's a difference that makes no difference ultimately

Except that at a practical level it does make a difference, because the mechanism for removing the personal allowance is so clumsy (maybe it'll get better under RTI?) and because as it's not a "proper" rate of income tax, it introduces further anomalies like the treatment of childcare vouchers.

what should we do shoot the poor and tax the rich less?

Every society, even the US, does it this weird way so it might just be you that is out of kilter.

Why is it some folk. almost exclusively right wing, only see the "injustice" of a higher tax burden and yet they are oblivious to the injustice/unfairness of different wages?

Any insights Hora as to why one bothers you but the other does not?

someone on 15k in receipt of tax credits for children etc is a burden.

Any tax credits because of low pay represent a subsidy for the employer, and so it's actually to employer that is the burden. For example, [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32272817 ]supermarkets receive an £11bn subsidy to their massive profits each year[/url].

hey are oblivious to the injustice/unfairness of different wages?

Are you suggesting that everyone should be paid the same?

I'm not saying we should smash the system or anything... We just should remember how it works. The reason the top 1% pay more tax now is because [b]we've[/b] made them richer.

Have WE?

Even if we have, we haven't been coerced into it, so why do I deserve any of their rewards? So the Wendy on at the moment, how many if the 60,000 or so if the folk in Old Trafford were forced into spending their money to watch their heroes (sic).?

Still love to understand what the moral case is for the equality of outcomes? Totally bizarre concept.

Perhaps I can claim some of the free time/leisure time of those who prefer not to supply their labour?

Are you trying to ignore addressing what i said?

DO you have children THM?When one had something did you

1. make them share as it was fair
2. teach them that equality of outcome was "bizarre"?

Serious Question BTW - we all know why equality of outcome matters and we generally teach it to our kids.

You'll never get too many people excited about the unfairness on 100k+ earners.

The overall income difference is the couple would be about 7k take home (or £580/month) so hardly the biggest injustice in the world.

The issue applies much further down the earning spectrum too.

1x60k = 17.9k Tax & NI, v's 2 x 30k = 13k Tax & NI. Thats about 5k more in tax that 1 well paid professional and non working spouse pay than two teachers with the same total income.

or

1x30k = 6.5k tax & NI v's 2 x 15k = 3.4k tax & ni. Yip one teacher and a stay at home parent are paying over 3k more tax each year than a couple with the same income...

The only "fair" approach would be to reduce one and increase the other, but that is never going to be popular with "hard working families"!

The only "fair" approach would be to reduce one and increase the other, but that is never going to be popular with "hard working families"!

All those couples have to option for one to work fewer hours while their partner gets a job. Problem solved.

Everyone I know impacted by the 100k PA withdrawal has just reduced their taxable income - generally by increasing pension contributions. Obviously you can only do this to a certain degree. The way it is implemented is stupid tho - forces you into self assesment even if you're on PAYE.

All those couples have to option for one to work fewer hours while their partner gets a job. Problem solved.

Well Mike, certainly not all of them will have the "option". But actually that is not "problem solved" - if everyone did that (lets ignore if that is possible) then the net tax revenue falls and we all have to pay more in some way.

If it wasn't clear, I was being slightly flippant in my answer.

teamhurtmore - Member

Have WE?

Even if we have, we haven't been coerced into it, so why do I deserve any of their rewards?

Have WE? Yes. Who else do you imagine did it?

The second question has two answers. The first, in terms of rewards, is really a simple one- if you gain from a large group of people, it's reasonable to ask you to recognise that and contribute your share to the nation that enabled you to grow rich.

To reverse the argument, nobody is coerced into making money- income inequality is the sole reason they pay more tax, it's 2 sides of the same coin. Saying this doesn't mean you demand equal pay for all; it just means you demand that people are honest about it, and accept the responsibilities that come with the benefits.

The second is more about frames of reference. It's not so much a question of "us" benefitting- it's more a question of recognising how both benefit. "We" personally benefit from healthcare, education, etc- "they" benefit from a healthy educated workforce. And so on.

The way we depict these things is absurd, currently. Hora gave perfect examples, working tax credits described as a benefit to the low paid individual and a cost to the rich. Low paid people that help make rich people richer, described as a burden because they don't pay that much tax. Rich people described as being "squeezed" because they're getting richer. Partly it's a silly us vs them but mostly it's just not accurate.

The moral question of whether it's OK for so few to benefit so much from the labour of so many is one question, and really not one getting into here. But what's not really debatable, is the need to be bloody honest about i, instead of bitching about it.

Though I agree that tax anomalies are annoying, just look at it as a motivator to get a promotion/earn more money to get out of the 60% zone. 😉

For me I've always thought that direct PAYE taxes (income and NI) should never be more than 50%, irrelevant of income bracket. Just feels wrong.

When I started work the only folk in the higher tax brackets were senior Managers, and on good money. Now your 'average-Joe' is paying top rate tax.

And, as a comparison, when I was very young my parents bought a house (3-bed semi, nice area in a decent small northern town) solely based on my Dad's income. And he wasn't earning enough to pay tax (deductions then for having two kids and mortgage interest).

it's more a question of recognising how both benefit.

Indeed, a snippet worth highlighting their NW

income [b]inequality[/b] is the [b]sole [/b]reason they pay more tax

No it's not, unless you use odd definitions of both words.

your 'average-Joe' is paying top rate tax.

The top rate starts at £42,385. That is not average its about double the average wage.

Everyone I know impacted by the 100k PA withdrawal has just reduced their taxable income - generally by increasing pension contributions. Obviously you can only do this to a certain degree. The way it is implemented is stupid tho - forces you into self assesment even if you're on PAYE.

I too, know a great many over the 100k but < 130k who refuse to pay the 60% and pay it into their pensions instead.

This 'anomaly' (of which there are many) does at least occur at a level where the earner has options - increase pensions or savings for example.

For other tax payers the only option is to keep working, and hope for a pay increase.

I do think that there needs to be a start from scratch approach to some of our taxation in the UK - we seem to have a lot of anomalies and a lot of sticking plasters to fix the old sticking plasters.... A friend who is a tax accountant moved from UK to NZ. He said in UK he had many, many books from HMRC on UK tax - a whole bookshelf worth. Apparently in NZ he was given four small files - one for personal tax, one corporate, one charitable/education and one overall dates and legal stuff. Simpler does seem easier to manage, and avoid some of the issues.

teamhurtmore - Member

No it's not, unless you use odd definitions of both words.

In what way? They pay more tax than most people because they earn more money than most people.

Fundamentally, complaining that you pay more tax than the average person, is complaining that you earn more than the average person. Then generally blaming the tax system or the government or the benefit-crazed.

A cynic might think that complex tax rules make it easier for the wealthy to dodge paying...

Complexity created by a succession of chancellors playing silly buggers with the tax system.

Natalie Bennet's argument this morning to explain a 60% tax rate was particularly contrived.

This 'anomaly' (of which there are many) does at least occur at a level where the earner has options - increase pensions or savings for example.

Savings won't help - it has to be pension (or child care, or cycle 2 work 😉 ) or something that reduces your taxable income, all which work equally well at the other thresholds.

As has flanagaj says, a 60% tax rate creates a hell of an avoidance incentive be that through government endorsed avoidance schemes like pension contributions, or other means.

I completely agree that simplification is needed, but the problem is that no government is going to propose a policy that gives back the PA to high earners. Even if accompanied by other increases that would completely even it out (say reducing the 150k threshold), our hysterical press would never get past the notion of giving a tax break to £100k+ earners.

[i]The top rate starts at £42,385. That is not average its about double the average wage. [/i]

1 in 6 apparently, so way over how it use to be.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/20/budget-2013-40pc-higher-tax-bracket

[i]Twenty five years ago, when Conservative chancellor Nigel Lawson introduced the 40% band, only one person in 20 paid the higher rate. A quarter of a century on, Osborne is fuelling outrage among his own supporters with one in six taxpayers now paying tax at the 40% higher rate.

Unless Osborne reverses decisions he set out in the autumn statement, it is estimated that an extra 400,000 people will become higher rate taxpayers in the 2013/14 tax year, bringing the total to a record of 4.3 million people.
[/i]

Does that indicate that the rate has 'come down' to catch more people, or that more people earn higher wages though? (An 'expansion of the Middle classes') and thus come into the 'wealthy' bracket.

Does that indicate that the rate has 'come down' to catch more people, or that more people earn higher wages though? (An 'expansion of the Middle classes') and thus come into the 'wealthy' bracket.

"Forgetting" to adjust thresholds is a brilliant mechanism for stealth tax increases. Whilst the 40% threshold has received some adjustments, the £100k and £150k thresholds have not, so they'll affect far more people than when they were first introduced, and will continue to do so.

In a similar vein, the recent stamp duty changes were brilliant in offering everyone a better deal today, yet are expected to net huge increases in revenue as more and more houses slide into the 10 and 12% bands.

I hit the 40% bracket and while it's frustrating when I do overtime to be hit with it I'm lucky to be in that position. Yes I get less benefits, pay more tax and other 'penalties' in household than 2 people splitting our income 50/50 but I'm fortunate to have a good wage. I've worked hard and still do to get that wage though so think I'm reasonably fairly paid.

If I earned a 100k I'd feel the same way, frustrated but privileged.

Come and do a shift with me see those on minimum wages or just benefits trying to raise a family. They often get less in a week what we'd freely spend on a day out with my kids. If my 40% tax helps a little towards a family feeding and clothing their kids I'm happy with that.

You're not hard done to paying high end tax you're in a privileged situation.

Drac +1. If only more people had that view the country would be a nicer place.

Ok I'll bite.

Mrs FD in the not too distant future will earn £100k + .

There is many a time that we feel financially we are screwed because only 1 of us earns big money, where as if we both had average ish jobs we would have similar ish take home without Mrs FD having to work 80hrs per week.

It is frustrating that Mrs FD works so hard, and then gets all her money taken off her, it feels like a punishment for doing well, and quite frankly makes you think about telling kids not to bother as the amount of work you have to put out ways the reward.

I don't know anyone on £100k + who doesn't work excrptionally hard for it, and there isn't that much difference in net pay monthly to some one in £40-£50k bracket

I don't know anyone on £100k + who doesn't work excrptionally hard for it, and there isn't that much difference in net pay monthly to some one in £40-£50k bracket

No about £2.8k isn't much at all.

Drac, you're right, but the frustration part of it is amplified by knowing that the tax rate you're paying is a result of political posturing, rather than part of a carefully constructed, logical progressive tax regime. Plus I think there's a psychological leap when rates exceed 50%, knowing that any additional work that you do, you'll get to see less than half the proceeds.

Plus I think there's a psychological leap when rates exceed 50%, knowing that any additional work that you do, you'll get to see less than half the proceeds.

I agree.

Drac - the gap isnt that big.

The point I am making is that there are a lot of people who now earn £100-£200k who work very very hard for it. There are people who earn a figure higher than that, well lets say £500k + who do not work any harder for it.

My old boss (Finance Director of a FTSE 100 company) last time I looked earn approx £1.3m per year + bonuses/share schemes etc. Yep he worked hard for it, but no harder than a lot of people earning a lot less.

Top wages have rocketed in the last few years. £100k isnt that massive a wage. A £100k tax point is talked about as it sounds impressive to the masses and wins votes. The reality is £100k isnt excessive these days, and that bracket needs moving up.

Minimum wage is a pittance, and I know plenty of people who work unbelievably hard for it...I'm sure some of them think the people earning vast amounts more than them don't do vast amounts more work than them...
Everyone kind of resents the people who earn more than them, it's just that people who earn £100k plus don't have to worry about how they're going to pay their gas bill...
And yes, for most of us, £100k is a bloody massive wage

Minimum wage take home pay: £1,073
Median wage take home pay: £1,759
50k take home pay: £3,027
100k take home pay: £5,444

My heart pumps purple piss for them...