!!!!!! - Clown to raise the top rate of tax to 45%

godsakes

Pennywise wrote: »

Surely the answer is to make the UK a competitive place so that such people wouldn't have the need to actually move abroad and benefit other countries when they'd actually like to live in the UK but can't afford to!

if someone earns enough to be paying this new higher tax band (£150k!!). They'll have a hard time convincing me, they can't afford to live in the UK :rotfl:.

BTW i'm as big a capitalist as the next guy, i run my own business etc and i only pay myself a modest amount. I make that choice to live humbly and keep the money for business opportunities if i wanted to live the flash life with fast cars etc i could pay myself far more but at the cost of paying far more tax.

mitchaa

michaels wrote: »

SO Martin has at least 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
users on here of who 1 earns over 150k?

Realistically how much of your pay do you get after direct taxes (referred to as NI and income tax) are subtracted - I suspect you will find at least one third; not forgetting the 'employers NI' which is also a direct tax cost of employing you so to your employer it makes no difference whether it is taken off your 'salary' it is still part of the cost of employing you ... or what they could save if they no longer employed you.

I cant believe you actually counted all those 0's:rotfl: My point was made to show that there may only be 1 or 2 on here that earn that amount or more

Those that do certainly wont claim on a public forum they do.

Someone earning £100k pa 'only' pays 35% in direct taxation, so not a great deal to be honest. If you search up IT rates in the Netherlands for a comparison, you'll see how fortunate we are with low taxation rates.

kennyboy66_2

michaels wrote: »

Realistically how much of your pay do you get after direct taxes (referred to as NI and income tax) are subtracted - I suspect you will find at least one third; not forgetting the 'employers NI' which is also a direct tax cost of employing you so to your employer it makes no difference whether it is taken off your 'salary' it is still part of the cost of employing you ... or what they could save if they no longer employed you.

I suspect you will find that you are wrong.

You have to earn about £75k before a third of your gross is taken in PAYE / NI

Someone on £30k gross pays about 25% of it in "direct taxes".

kennyboy66_2

dopester wrote: »

He said he was against the tax because "it is a tax on aspiration" - which of course I agree with. As well as limiting the extra risks and investments a higher earner in business might take, such as maybe not investing seed capital for some ventures where there is risk of loss... to reward of success and gain and bringing new advancements and innovation for the UK to better profit and sell to the world.

The familiar argument that the wealthy need to pay less tax to motivate them, whilst the poor need to be paid less to motivate them. And that cutting taxes always increases government revenues.

Brought to you by the people who espoused "trickle down" theory.
At least George Bush (senior) had the gumption to rightly call this "Voodoo economics"

mitchaa

stephen163 wrote: »

You may have missed the obvious sarcasm in the post referring to engineers.

Shoot me if i'm wrong.

However, £455k for a practicing engineer is EXTREME. A more realistic salary for a chartered engineer is about £1,000 for each year of your age.

Very extreme yes and certainly not the norm, but it was just to highlight some engineers are earning silly salaries.

Your £1000/per age year falls well short of what some industries are offering now (Aviation, O+G) and is perhaps a little outdated now. Im not neccesarily speaking about degree qualified chartered engineers here either.

Plenty of young guys (20-30) in these industries earning double that £1000/age scenario

A good aim as an engineer is £2k for each year of your age, that way you know you are doing well in your field. Im sure there are plenty of professions all up and down the country where 25yr olds are earning more than £25k. (That's easy and not a lot to aspire too if i am being honest)

If you are in a position of earning £50k at age 25 (Some are, i know many )Inflationary awards alone will keep you in that £2k/age range.

However saying that, i work with some engineers that have 20/30yrs + more experience than what i do but are earning similar amounts so this £2k/per age year scenario is only an aim for us of the younger generation

amcluesent

No doubt that working 'on the black' will now skyrocket to limit the visibility to the taxman.

Looks like National Insurance will be up, up, up! But that's not 'income tax' is it :mad:

kennyboy66_2

Pennywise wrote: »

. This will cost millions, if not billions, to UK businesses simply in costs of administration of two changes.

It may be the wrong policy, however it is one of those changes that cost very little to implement.
The VAT rate will easily be changed in any piece of accounts software (even basic ones like Sage), likewise the 45% tax rate.
The idea of it costings billions is simply laughable.

chewmylegoff

kennyboy66 wrote: »

It may be the wrong policy, however it is one of those changes that cost very little to implement.
The VAT rate will easily be changed in any piece of accounts software (even basic ones like Sage), likewise the 45% tax rate.
The idea of it costings billions is simply laughable.

yeah this adds no red tape at all. they won't even have to change price labels, as they will just adsorb the extra margin rather than pass it on.

stephen163

mitchaa wrote: »

A good aim as an engineer is £2k for each year of your age, that way you know you are doing well in your field. Im sure there are plenty of professions all up and down the country where 25yr olds are earning more than £25k.

Talking as someone from within the industry (MEng degree, worked for FTSE 25 Utility company), I think you are grossly underestimating the difficulty of earning such a high salary in any engineering field. Nobody but nobody earns £50k at age 25 as a practising engineer. You work your way up slowly but surely.

The people making the big money are probably those one-offs with a specific set of skills. Which field are the people you know earnign £50k at 25 working in? I would like to know why they are earning more than managers with 25 years experience in industry benchmarked jobs.

Pennywise

kennyboy66 wrote: »

It may be the wrong policy, however it is one of those changes that cost very little to implement.
The VAT rate will easily be changed in any piece of accounts software (even basic ones like Sage), likewise the 45% tax rate.
The idea of it costings billions is simply laughable.

The idea of it costing very little to implement is also laughable. The number of man-hours in business administration is simply mind-boggling. I know for a fact that there are many software products, such as online retailers' websites where the price of every product will have to be manually adjusted - true, some will have an inbuilt feature to do it, but many don't. Think of businesses paid a regular amount by standing order - new standing orders have to be prepared, posted to customers, returned, posted to banks, processed by banks, etc. Think of vending machines - they don't change themselves. Many businesses will have to reprint their pre-printed business stationery as some have "prices include VAT at 17.5%" and will need changing. For a small business, it may only take the proprietor an hour or two to change, but that's an hour or two lost when he could have been marketing or doing productive work. What about the cost of HMRC sending out leaflets and reprinting literature to explain the changes? What about every payroll software house having to pay programmers to build in a new "higher" higher rate of tax? It may not cost an individual business much, but taken across every business, it soon becomes a very significant and unnecessary waste. If the reduction was permanent or if it was done for anything other than party political reasons, then I wouldn't mind. Compare it with reducing employers NIC by a few percent - very simple indeed, no new band, far fewer businesses affected - money straight into the business to keep it solvent and help reduce redundancies. There are better ways to help the economy.