We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Wealthy Britons pay 10% more in tax
Comments
-
£220m tax / 5800 people = £38k tax each
Doesn't really sound like all that much tax to be paying
What's wrong with this picture?
The £220m is the amount of money raised by HMRC High Net Worth Unit through its investigations. The total amount of tax actually paid by the 5,800 people concerned will be a bigger amount, because they would have paid tax even if the HNWU didn't exist.0 -
Was it not this month that Cameron gave tax breaks to all his millionaire chums ? Something like £43,000 for each million of Income every year?
Look it another way if they stay in the country rather than becoming tax exiles ( like the Rolling Stones did before your time I would imagine). The Exchequer nets a good £400,000 of additional income.0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »Look it another way if they stay in the country rather than becoming tax exiles ( like the Rolling Stones did before your time I would imagine). The Exchequer nets a good £400,000 of additional income.
Weren't rates up around 90% back then?
Are they all resident for tax purposes now (genuine question)?"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Weren't rates up around 90% back then?
Are they all resident for tax purposes now (genuine question)?
Same principle. There's free movement of capital now as well.
Quite a complex issue. Though hiding earnings offshore was up until recently quite easy for the mega rich. Now that the secrecy barriers with the banks are coming down. The income will declared for tax purposes in one tax domain or another.0 -
-
Was it not this month that Cameron gave tax breaks to all his millionaire chums ? Something like £43,000 for each million of Income every year?
Eh? What provision is that?...much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
lemonjelly wrote: »So about 34k each on average, from people worth 20m+.
Great. Really great.
So you work really hard, earn 20k, live like a monk and save 10k out of your net salary at 0% interest.
You do it again the next year.
At what point should the govt decide that they should start taking away a proportion of your savings each year?
50k in savings (5 years), 100k (10 years)?I think....0 -
princeofpounds wrote: »It is the beginning of a new tax year and the top tax bracket is moving from 50% to 45% rate, if that's what you mean.
A tax reduction is not a tax break.
And the 50% rate performed very poorly in raising the tax take, perhaps unfortunately.
I think we have been over this one many times, the reason it performed poorly was because of its short time in existence i.e. taxpayers could time shift their income from one financial year to another but this would have been a one off.'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Weren't rates up around 90% back then?
Are they all resident for tax purposes now (genuine question)?
98% (including income investment surcharge).'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
Old_Slaphead wrote: »I understand the ConDems reduced top rate tax from 50% to 45%.
What was the top rate for 12.8 years out of 13 years under Labour ?
What was the budget deficit during that period?'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455K Spending & Discounts
- 246.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 602.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178K Life & Family
- 260.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards