The forthcoming budget

mrginge

ilovehouses wrote: »

The offspring could use it as capital for business. Or, they could spend it on goods or services from other wealth creators.

It's only the timing of the wealth transfer that's altered and a reduced tax take later.

If anything an inherited wealth transfer is more likely to be used as spending or investment. Nobody gets an inheritance and leaves it sat in a bank account.

Perhaps the next great economic stimulus measure should be inheritance tax exemption for anyone opting for NHS paid euthanasia.

ruperts

Fella wrote: »

With respect it's you that sounds like you can't follow that statement.

"In proportion" would mean that if somebody who earnt £30K paid £5K in tax, then somebody who earn't £300K would pay £50K in tax.

That is not how the system works. It's based on higher earners paying disproportionately more and low earners paying nothing whatsoever.

Up to a point, yes. Ordinarily salaried employees who are in the higher rate tax bracket will find they’re paying a higher proportion of tax than someone on minimum wage. But what we’re talking about here is the top-1%, the privately educated CEO’s, the politicians with a ‘freelance’ gig on the side and so on. These are the people being referred to when we discuss the top 1%, and they are not like us mere mortals paying income tax, they have all sorts of tricks to avoid tax.

westernpromise

ruperts wrote: »

Up to a point, yes. Ordinarily salaried employees who are in the higher rate tax bracket will find they’re paying a higher proportion of tax than someone on minimum wage. But what we’re talking about here is the top-1%, the privately educated CEO’s, the politicians with a ‘freelance’ gig on the side and so on. These are the people being referred to when we discuss the top 1%, and they are not like us mere mortals paying income tax, they have all sorts of tricks to avoid tax.

To be in the top 1% you needed in 2012 to be on more than about £162k a year. That is not the salary of "privately educated CEO’s, the politicians with a ‘freelance’ gig on the side and so on". That's what a reasonably senior accountant would earn. And those are indeed ordinary salaried employees.

If you have any hints on how these supposed "all sorts of tricks to avoid tax" work, do spill. I would remind you that the evidence is they don't exist. The top 1% earns 12% of the money but pays 27% of the tax. This means that the other 99% pay only 73% of it, so that the 1% pays ~37 times more tax per capita than the other 99 do. You appear to think that's not enough.

mrginge

westernpromise wrote: »

To be in the top 1% you needed in 2012 to be on more than about £162k a year. That is not the salary of "privately educated CEO’s, the politicians with a ‘freelance’ gig on the side and so on". That's what a reasonably senior accountant would earn. And those are indeed ordinary salaried employees.

If you have any hints on how these supposed "all sorts of tricks to avoid tax" work, do spill. I would remind you that the evidence is they don't exist. The top 1% earns 12% of the money but pays 27% of the tax. This means that the other 99% pay only 73% of it, so that the 1% pays ~37 times more tax per capita than the other 99 do. You appear to think that's not enough.

A gp on 75k is in the top 5% of earners.

But GPs are ‘good rich’ so that’s ok. It’s only bad rich people like company directors that we want to hit with a !!!!!! stick.

Filo25

mrginge wrote: »

A gp on 75k is in the top 5% of earners.

But GPs are ‘good rich’ so that’s ok. It’s only bad rich people like company directors that we want to hit with a !!!!!! stick.

The one that makes no real sense is the effective 60% marginal rate of tax between 100-123k due to the tapering of the personal allowance (one of the highest marginal rates of tax in all of Europe)

westernpromise

Filo25 wrote: »

The one that makes no real sense is the effective 60% marginal rate of tax between 100-123k due to the tapering of the personal allowance (one of the highest marginal rates of tax in all of Europe)

It makes perfect sense if you utterly, viscerally hate everyone who makes more than you do.

ruperts

westernpromise wrote: »

To be in the top 1% you needed in 2012 to be on more than about £162k a year. That is not the salary of "privately educated CEO’s, the politicians with a ‘freelance’ gig on the side and so on". That's what a reasonably senior accountant would earn. And those are indeed ordinary salaried employees.

If you have any hints on how these supposed "all sorts of tricks to avoid tax" work, do spill. I would remind you that the evidence is they don't exist. The top 1% earns 12% of the money but pays 27% of the tax. This means that the other 99% pay only 73% of it, so that the 1% pays ~37 times more tax per capita than the other 99 do. You appear to think that's not enough.

The top 10% of households pay about 27% of the overall tax take (https://fullfact.org/economy/what-do-wealthiest-pay-tax/).

Looking for figures on how much the top-10% earn and spend as a proportion of all earning and spending and struggling to find a single source that lays it out clearly, but looks to me to be about 30%.

So we have a top-10% earning and spending 30% of the total but only contributing 27% of the tax.

Also according to this a senior accountant gets £32k not £162k. I know a few ordinary salaried accountants and none of them are on even a third of that figure. Ridiculous claim.

setmefree2

mrginge wrote: »

A gp on 75k is in the top 5% of earners.

But GPs are ‘good rich’ so that’s ok. It’s only bad rich people like company directors that we want to hit with a !!!!!! stick.

Or Headteachers, Chiefs of Police and Firemen. There are many public sector jobs (with high responsibility) in schools and hospitals with 1% level of earnings.

The Good Rich apparently.

setmefree2

ruperts wrote: »

Also according to this a senior accountant gets £32k not £162k. I know a few ordinary salaried accountants and none of them are on even a third of that figure. Ridiculous claim.

You'd have to be truly crap to be earning £32k as a qualified accountant.

In fact you would have to be an unqualified accountant. The starting salary for most graduate ACAs is £28k.

martinsurrey

ruperts wrote: »

The top 10% of households pay about 27% of the overall tax take (https://fullfact.org/economy/what-do-wealthiest-pay-tax/).

Looking for figures on how much the top-10% earn and spend as a proportion of all earning and spending and struggling to find a single source that lays it out clearly, but looks to me to be about 30%.

"looks to me to be around 30%"

Income Tax is not related to spending, its on earnings, you own link shows the top 1% earn 12% and contribute 27% in Income Tax.

ruperts wrote: »

Also according to this a senior accountant gets £32k not £162k. I know a few ordinary salaried accountants and none of them are on even a third of that figure. Ridiculous claim.

you know a lot of unqualified accountants!

http://www.icaew.com/~/media/corporate/files/about%20icaew/ICAEWSALARYSURVEY2015-amended.ashx

the senior end of the ICAEW member average salary+bonus is in the £100-130k range.