Local Elections - failure for all parties..

michaels

With a higher income I will if anything consume more vatable/dutyable goods than with a lower income and thus pay more consumption taxes.

I will use exactly the same amount of state schooling, NHS etc. Council tax is frozen and anyway does not relate to income.

The 26k cap and the housing benefit changes would hit those on a lower income who are more likely to be receiving them but many don't qualify.

I would agree that if I were earning over 150k so benefiting from the 45% rate and not tax avoiding then I would probably be better off but I suspect that is far less than 1% of the population.

grizzly1911

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Imagine a person who was totally honest and straighforward. Polite, but doesn't smile at you and then stab you in the back later. Always answers questions truthfully and to the point without weasel words or evasion.

Someone who made family decisions on the basis of what's best for the family as a whole. Business decisions based only upon what's best for the company rather than any individual including himself. Someone who - if running a country - would do things purely on merits rather than popularity...

Well, such people might exist. Such people might even join a political party. But be absolutely sure: That person would not be able to rise one single inch through the ranks. It would be physically impossible for such a person to garner support in a party, be selected for standing for parliament. Let alone rise amongst the ranks of MPs to lead the party.....

It is impossible to be a successful surgeon without a very good medical knowledge, good eyesight/dexterity, and practical experience.

Likewise, it is impossible to be a Prime Minister (or leader of a political party), without being a liar, disingenuous, dishonest, self-seeking, arrogant, opinionated, and domineering.

It goes with the 'profession'.

What we need is is Sincerity, Honesty, Integrity and Trust. Unfortunately they're (politicians) full of the wrong type of 5h*t.

Loughton_Monkey

grizzly1911 wrote: »

What we need is is Sincerity, Honesty, Integrity and Trust. Unfortunately they're (politicians) full of the wrong type of 5h*t.

Courtesy, Respect, And Patience.

kabayiri

michaels wrote: »

...

Instead this year I will earn about 60k which at 2.5x average income most would consider to be a high income. I will be a lot worse off than had I earned 60k last year as I will lose 2.4k of child benefit.

Thus as far as I can see those on low and average incomes are benefitting at the expense of those on higher incomes but obviously my figures must be wrong?

Perhaps one of the posters who is so certain that higher earners are benefitting and lower ones are suffering could explain it to me?

Interesting question.

Is 60K considered a high income now? It wasn't the level I had in mind when high earners are mentioned.

High earners, to me, now start at above 150K. These are the group of people who managed to marginalise the impact of the 50% tax rate, leading to the recent decision to drop it. These people can therefore clearly 'steer' some of their income into different channels.

Loughton_Monkey

kabayiri wrote: »

Interesting question.

Is 60K considered a high income now? It wasn't the level I had in mind when high earners are mentioned........

Checking back in my records, I find that I crossed this threshold over 20 years ago. Even then, I didn't consider myself highly paid. Just well paid. My overall tax bill that year was virtually spot on 20% of gross, with well over 25% salted away into pensions.

You could live very well on £33K net, then, but sadly house prices were pretty stagnant. Nobody moaned much about that in those days, because we knew it was only temporary.

michaels

Well in my job it is quite low but then most of the people at the places I work earn less.

As a family it puts us in the 82 percentile, as an income it seems to be in the top 5% (on 2007/8 data)

So if you want 'higher earners' to pay their share you have to look at the top 10% or 20%, there are simply not enough in the top 0.5% to pay enough to make a big difference.

kabayiri wrote: »

Interesting question.

Is 60K considered a high income now? It wasn't the level I had in mind when high earners are mentioned.

High earners, to me, now start at above 150K. These are the group of people who managed to marginalise the impact of the 50% tax rate, leading to the recent decision to drop it. These people can therefore clearly 'steer' some of their income into different channels.

grizzly1911

Remember when BIK was for higher earners of £8500 (late seventies) and still is:rotfl::rotfl:

paulmapp8306

Its local elections. Most people dont really care because it makes little difference to their lives whos in power at that level. You may get a few vote on a specific issue they want sorted - but not in general.

Local elections are often down at that level, and the voting rarely follows that of a general election either - as those that DO vote pay less attention to the party and more to thee person - again thats more important at a local level.

macaque_2

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Courtesy, Respect, And Patience.

Perhaps you could provide some guidance on Courtesy, Respect And Patience.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3939935

Loughton_Monkey

macaque wrote: »

Perhaps you could provide some guidance on Courtesy, Respect And Patience.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3939935

:staradmin:staradmin:staradmin