60% income tax rate

mitchaa

bootman wrote: »

Allowing the transfer of personal allowances from a stay at home parent to a damn hard working partner putting in a 14 to 16 hour day might soften the blow a little.

Why do people assume you must be rich if you earn around £100k! A take home pay of £4k a month if you are a main earner is not megga bucks if you are the only bread winner.

£100k salary is £5440pm after tax if a sole earner, however you would get £5460pm from 2 x £45k earners

Not a bad income to be fair.

(No idea where you got £4k pm from, that equates to a salary of around £70k pa)

Above beat me to it.

Rochdale_Pioneers

I think £100k - even for a sole breadwinner - is way beyond the comprehension of the vast majority of working people. You rich people - and you are rich - have no idea just how lucky you are. I'm sure that you do work hard (you need to earn £250k upwards to not be working hard....) - do people on a fifth of your salary not also work hard?

Quit moaning about your poor lot in life !!!!!!....

silvercar

Some people work hard and earn well,

some people work hard are truely vocational (teachers, nurses) and don't earn well,

some people risk their own security to invest in their own businesses and will gain or lose by that.

I find some comments distasteful in their uncaring attitude of people who earn above a certain level.

thelawnet

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

I think £100k - even for a sole breadwinner - is way beyond the comprehension of the vast majority of working people. You rich people - and you are rich - have no idea just how lucky you are. I'm sure that you do work hard (you need to earn £250k upwards to not be working hard....) - do people on a fifth of your salary not also work hard?

Quit moaning about your poor lot in life !!!!!!....

True, but £5400/month really is not rich.

You can typically spend £2.5k-£3k/month on a 4-bed house in Surrey (more in London). Two children at private school costs about £2300/month. What does that leave for food, car, holidays, savings, etc? Pretty much nothing. No cause to moan, but it's very easy to burn through £100k/year living a lifestyle that's far from exclusive.

mitchaa

hermanmunster wrote: »

loss of the personal allowance is a mega pain -

Personal allowance = £6475, removal of this at the 40% rate will cost £2590 pa or £216 pm

If you are earning £112k, your take home will currently be £6,032pm, after the removal of the PA your salary will drop down to £5,816pm so works out around a 3.6% deduction in take home.

Hardly a big kick in the teeth when you look at the 3.6% figure.

If you were to take a 3.6% hit from the average £26,020 salary, it would equate to around £60pm. A pain in the ar*e i agree but hardly something to get your knickers in a twist about.

Rochdale_Pioneers

thelawnet wrote: »

True, but £5400/month really is not rich.

You can typically spend £2.5k-£3k/month on a 4-bed house in Surrey (more in London). Two children at private school costs about £2300/month. What does that leave for food, car, holidays, savings, etc? Pretty much nothing. No cause to moan, but it's very easy to burn through £100k/year living a lifestyle that's far from exclusive.

Do you have any sense of perspective? "Its not rich" because of the money you pay for private schooling?

Do you know how many people live on not much more than that for half a year? And also have kids to feed and a roof to pay for? Still, if the right want to keep bleating on about how £100k a year is not rich, its a great way of making sure all Labour's wavering voters turn out.

Eyesparky

We already have a deeply progressive tax system in this country that ensures that the top 10% of earners pay more than half the income tax burden in this country. With all the stealth taxes and the total erosion of civil liberties in this country over the last decade people are getting to the point where they have had enough and this cynical attempt by Labour to stir up hatred whilst doing absolutely nothing to deal with the problems this Country faces is pretty much the straw that crushes the Camel's back.

thelawnet

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Do you have any sense of perspective? "Its not rich" because of the money you pay for private schooling?

Do you know how many people live on not much more than that for half a year? And also have kids to feed and a roof to pay for? Still, if the right want to keep bleating on about how £100k a year is not rich, its a great way of making sure all Labour's wavering voters turn out.

Why on earth do you think I care about Labour's wavering voters?

You said rich, I said not so. Comfortable yes, rich no. I suggest losing the chip on your shoulder.

mitchaa

A £5.4k pm salary i would say is comfortable. I would not class it as a rich, nor a wealthy income.

thelawnet

mitchaa wrote: »

Personal allowance = £6475, removal of this at the 40% rate will cost £2590 pa or £216 pm

If you are earning £112k, your take home will currently be £6,032pm, after the removal of the PA your salary will drop down to £5,816pm so works out around a 3.6% deduction in take home.

Hardly a big kick in the teeth when you look at the 3.6% figure.

It doesn't work like that at all.

The plain and simple fact is if you earn say £110k, the last £10k is being taxed at 61%.

People earning £110k generally don't get that way by saying 'oh never mind, it's only 3.6% of my take-home pay', nope, they are more likely to say, 61% is ridiculous, let's take a £10k paycut and work fewer hours/put the money into a pension/contact a tax-dodging accountant.

I can assure you that when you earn that kind of money you absolutely do consider taxation, and you also consider whether additional pay is worth the effort. When it comes to 61% taxation the answer is NO.

Don't forget that generally speaking the more you earn, the easier it is to avoid taxes.

If you were to take a 3.6% hit from the average £26,020 salary, it would equate to around £60pm. A pain in the ar*e i agree but hardly something to get your knickers in a twist about.

I'm pretty sure people on £26k would be moaning if they were £60/month poorer.