Boris wants to raise 40% threshold

Albermarle

If you currently are able to avoid most of 40% tax by putting it in your pension , you would be worse off under this proposal , as you would be paying 10% more NI .
Although if you were able to salsac then you would be OK again.

Bravepants

Yeah, he also said the NHS would get £350M a week.


I'd take anything that politicians say during campaigning with a pinch of salt!

dunstonh

Whatever any of the potential candidates say, very little is going to happen in this parliament as there isnt the majority to deliver things like this.

This is playing to the audience with the hope of a majority after an election.

spadoosh

I can see the reasoning. Cars and holidays keep the economy moving, you improve the disposable income of the lower end of the scale and theyre still just buying essentials, you increased the disposable of £40k+ and youll sell more cars and holidays.

Its also much over muchness really in my mind. It basically comes down to the government needing ~37% of GDP in taxation to offer the relevant services, doesnt really matter if it comes from the majority (lower rate payers) the elite or business. Take it from the majority and business and the elites invest making things better for the majority. You take it from the elites or business you tend to get less investment and thus equally as costly to the majority.

ex-pat_scot

A couple of points on this:


1. it's moving the threshold also for NI I suspect, which makes the difference net 10% for that £50,000 to £80,000 band.
The difference to someone with net relevant earnings of £80,000+ is £3,000 pa. That's nice but not huge. (for reference, the loss of child benefit for higher earners for me is £3,250 less money, and the loss of PA above £100,000 is £4,000 less money).


2. this will have a big impact on rich pensioners - anyone who is taking pension income >£50,000 will not be suffering NI anyway, and so the £50,000 to £80,000 band will result in a £6,000 lower tax charge. Frankly I doubt there are many in this circumstance though.

Linton

spadoosh wrote: »

I can see the reasoning. Cars and holidays keep the economy moving, you improve the disposable income of the lower end of the scale and theyre still just buying essentials, you increased the disposable of £40k+ and youll sell more cars and holidays.

Its also much over muchness really in my mind. It basically comes down to the government needing ~37% of GDP in taxation to offer the relevant services, doesnt really matter if it comes from the majority (lower rate payers) the elite or business. Take it from the majority and business and the elites invest making things better for the majority. You take it from the elites or business you tend to get less investment and thus equally as costly to the majority.

Surely the poor buying essentials has as much effect on the economy as the rich buying luxuries if not greater as it is going to be mainly spent in this country. The richest are more likely to spend the extra money on assets thus increasing inflation or as you say on holidays which would probably be spent abroad.

jimi_man

ex-pat_scot wrote: »

A couple of points on this:

1. it's moving the threshold also for NI I suspect, which makes the difference net 10% for that £50,000 to £80,000 band.
The difference to someone with net relevant earnings of £80,000+ is £3,000 pa. That's nice but not huge. (for reference, the loss of child benefit for higher earners for me is £3,250 less money, and the loss of PA above £100,000 is £4,000 less money).


2. this will have a big impact on rich pensioners - anyone who is taking pension income >£50,000 will not be suffering NI anyway, and so the £50,000 to £80,000 band will result in a £6,000 lower tax charge. Frankly I doubt there are many in this circumstance though.

It also affects those who earn over the 40% tax bracket AND also pay 12% NI contributions over that figure as well. The change to NI would make no difference to me but the tax saving would.

Not that I expect it to come in.

spadoosh

Linton wrote: »

Surely the poor buying essentials has as much effect on the economy as the rich buying luxuries if not greater as it is going to be mainly spent in this country. The richest are more likely to spend the extra money on assets thus increasing inflation or as you say on holidays which would probably be spent abroad.

It does, thats why i say its much over muchness.

But if youre BoJo what concerns are you facing? A reduction (or stagnation) of purchasing in luxury goods. You can easily ease the burden on that by increasing the disposable income of the middle/upper ground. I dont think there is as much concern for the supermarket sector.

Paul_Herring

worried_jim wrote: »

He can add it to the extra £350m a week already going to the NHS.

It was actually £363m.

bioboybill

worried_jim wrote: »

He can add it to the extra £350m a week already going to the NHS.

:rotfl: Another lie to add to the many the idiot has told.