The return of Sub-Prime, part 1

Linda_D_2

The_White_Horse wrote: »

she is a raving nut case.

That is brilliant coming from MSE's resident mental benefit scrounging troll:rotfl:

moneyinmypocket

House prices will rise - it's a fact of life

Kennyboy66

Generali wrote: »

Tax laws meant that 'unearned income' was taxed at a higher rate than 'earned income' (the distinction still exists in the eyes of HMRC although the rates of tax between the two have been equalised). At its peak, unearned income could be taxed at 168%. That means that at the margin, a pound in the bank earning 10% interest would return -6.8%: you'd have your entire 10% interest taken away and 6.8% of the cash in the bank taken off you for good measure.

Any evidence for this.
I though the highest rate was 98% during the 1970's.

In 1974 Earned income highest rate was 83% and there was a 15% surcharge on unearned income which meant you could reach 98%. This made it the highest since WWII when it peaked at 99.25%.

I have never seen the figures you quote - where are they from ?

Of course inflation would have done the job anyway.

Kennyboy66

Generali wrote: »

Entire industries were nationalised: it was illegal to, for example, run a private coal mine, steel factory or railway line for profit as the entire industry was required to be in national ownership.

No it wasn't.

A couple of railways were excluded from Nationalisation in 1947.

Equally about 10% of steelmaking was not part of Nationalisation in 1967.

This is not to justify it, but it wasn't illegal - just the barriers to entry are pretty high.

Generali

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

Any evidence for this.
I though the highest rate was 98% during the 1970's.

In 1974 Earned income highest rate was 83% and there was a 15% surcharge on unearned income which meant you could reach 98%. This made it the highest since WWII when it peaked at 99.25%.

I have never seen the figures you quote - where are they from ?

Of course inflation would have done the job anyway.

It's a memory, perhaps a faulty one. However even if 'only' 98% tax rates applied then the Government was effectively saying that certain savers could only receive 2% of the interest on their savings and the Government would take the rest. That certainly confirms the point I was making.

grizzly1911

Generali wrote: »

It's a memory, perhaps a faulty one. However even if 'only' 98% tax rates applied then the Government was effectively saying that certain savers could only receive 2% of the interest on their savings and the Government would take the rest. That certainly confirms the point I was making.

I think the government is happily contributing to the destruction of any liquid assets we have regardless of the tax rate.

We are mere commodities not human beings.

Generali

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

No it wasn't.

A couple of railways were excluded from Nationalisation in 1947.

Equally about 10% of steelmaking was not part of Nationalisation in 1967.

This is not to justify it, but it wasn't illegal - just the barriers to entry are pretty high.

A couple of railways were exempted (e.g. Ffestiniogg(sp?)) however it was illegal to set up railways to compete for profit with the nationally owned railway system (hobby railways like the Bluebell Railway were exempted I think).

John_Pierpoint

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/history/taxhis7.htm

Special rates have been introduced twice within the post-war years, causing income tax in certain circumstances to exceed 100%.

• For 1947-48 a special contribution was payable when a person’s total income exceeded £2,000. For investment income over £5,000 it was 50%. So with income tax at 45% and surtax at 52.5%, the effective rate was 147.5%.
• In 1967-68, the special charge was imposed. For investment income over £8,000, the rate was 45% which - with income tax at 41.25% and surtax at 50% - meant a total rate of 136.25%.

Generali

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/history/taxhis7.htm

Special rates have been introduced twice within the post-war years, causing income tax in certain circumstances to exceed 100%.

• For 1947-48 a special contribution was payable when a person’s total income exceeded £2,000. For investment income over £5,000 it was 50%. So with income tax at 45% and surtax at 52.5%, the effective rate was 147.5%.
• In 1967-68, the special charge was imposed. For investment income over £8,000, the rate was 45% which - with income tax at 41.25% and surtax at 50% - meant a total rate of 136.25%.

Thanks. It turns out I'm not going crazy after all although 168% was a slight exaggeration!