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.
📨 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!
Marcus sort code.
Comments
-
roadblock15 wrote: »To have that amount of spare money one must of done dodgy dealings, ripped someone off - and not been entirely Christian during their lifetime
Or just worked hard and not spent extravagantly.0 -
roadblock15 wrote: »To have that amount of spare money one must of done dodgy dealings, ripped someone off - and not been entirely Christian during their lifetime0
-
roadblock15 wrote: »To have that amount of spare money one must of done dodgy dealings, ripped someone off - and not been entirely Christian during their lifetime
Having large amounts of spare money and not being entirely Christian?
Sounds a bit like the Church of England to me.0 -
My favourite geek joke
- Planet - Deaths - Uses JavaScript
- Mercury - 0 - No
- Venus - 0 - No
- Earth - 100.8 billion - Yes
- Mars - 0 - No
- Jupiter - 0 - No
- Saturn - 0 - No
- Uranus - 0 - No
- Neptune - 0 - No
0 -
There are two kinds of people.
Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.0 -
roadblock15 wrote: »To have that amount of spare money one must of done dodgy dealings, ripped someone off - and not been entirely Christian during their lifetime
I have:)
I haven't 'done dodgy dealings' or 'ripped someone off'
I am not 'entirely Christian' or Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jewish, etc.
Does that make me a bad person? Hint, that's a rhetorical question.My favourite geek joke- Planet - Deaths - Uses JavaScript
- Mercury - 0 - No
- Venus - 0 - No
- Earth - 100.8 billion - Yes
- Mars - 0 - No
- Jupiter - 0 - No
- Saturn - 0 - No
- Uranus - 0 - No
- Neptune - 0 - No
Obviously I'm not geeky enough to understand that one:oThere are two kinds of people.
Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
On the other hand :rotfl:
Edit: time to feed myself now, instead of the troll0 -
roadblock15 wrote: »I don’t believe more than 3% of the population have more than £85k in savings, this is England in 2018 where we are all broke and on the breadline
Here is a link to some data for you direct from the ONS
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/compendium/wealthingreatbritainwave4/2012to2014/chapter5financialwealthwealthingreatbritain2012to2014
See in particular table 5.15 half way down - net financial wealth which excludes property wealth.
I'm not sure if this figure includes pensions and investment bond type of 'savings' in the totals. note that it is done by households total not by individuals.
Anyway:
13% of the population households has more than £100,000 in savings and investments.
A further 9% of the population households has between £50K and £100K.
Another interesting related figure not in the data but available elsewhere and much listed on the web is that 27% of all UK income tax receipts is paid by the top 1% of earners in the UK.
This all rather suggests that the top earners are over contributing to UK tax receipts rather than 'getting away with it'. Should of course these 1% decide to leave the UK that will leave the rest of us with a rather large hole to fill by increasing our tax rates considerably.0 -
Another interesting related figure not in the data but available elsewhere and much listed on the web is that 27% of all UK income tax receipts is paid by the top 1% of earners in the UK.
This all rather suggests that the top earners are over contributing to UK tax receipts rather than 'getting away with it'.
it's a misleading statistic, because it gives the impression that income tax receipts and total tax receipts are pretty similar. in fact, only about 28% of total tax receipts are from income tax. income tax is progressive, i.e. as people's income rises, they pay a higher proportion of it in tax. most of the other 72% of taxes are regressive, i.e. as people's income rises, they may a smaller percentage of it in other taxes (e.g. national insurance contributions, VAT, council tax).
overall, the poorest 20% of the population pay the highest percentage of their income is in total taxes. the system is regressive. if income tax weren't progressive, the system would be even worse.
it's also misleading to refer to the biggest income tax payers as the "top earners", because the highest incomes also include people who are not earning at all but living off income from their capital.Should of course these 1% decide to leave the UK that will leave the rest of us with a rather large hole to fill by increasing our tax rates considerably.
the most mobile group are young people, after finishing education and before starting, or in the early stages of, a career. some of these do choose to move. but they don't mostly move to very low tax countries. they move to where there are opportunities. that's almost always to countries that tax incomes at comparable rates to the UK.
let me suggest a good approximation: the higher the taxes on income, the more prosperous the country.
there's very little tax on income in the poorest countries. significant taxes on income in the rich countries (excluding tax havens with tiny populations). and especially high taxes on income in scandinavian countries, which have the highest living standards.0 -
Well I know several who have indeed left for tax reasons
Now non doms with assets in the UK or totally gone entirely.
Another has recently said they are leaving for France where they already have a property. The motivation is simply that the French have recently significantly reduced their wealth tax - all this is being done for tax reasons.
These are all very high earning international moving people.
They sold their companies and left - rather than pay any tax on their proceeds in the UK.
Another is making plans to leave should Corbyn get in - again all for tax reasons.
If indeed higher taxes on income resulted in a more prosperous country why not make tax 100% !
In the 1970's we had investment income surcharge of 15% on top of a 70% top rate tax bringing a high earner with savings income up to a marginal tax rate of 90% on it. Far from being prosperous the result was the UK had to go to the IMF for a loan so broke were we.
Edit:
We can see the effects of higher taxes with the figures just released on Stamp Duty.
The rate has been increased at the top end with the inevitable result that rather than getting in more you get in less as people modify their behaviour to pay less of the tax.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards