The characteristics and incomes of the top 1%

Thrugelmir

Kentish_Dave wrote: »

But what beggars belief is that while the banker with his twelve hour days and two hour total commute is spending half the year working for the common good you’ve the ludicrous spectacle of posture like we’ve seen above getting angry about it.

Not a usefull occupation though to the wider economy though. We all paid the cost after the GFC. Yet excessive remuneration levels continue. Fred the Shred suffered no real financial loss for the misery he caused to many families.

edgex

westernpromise wrote: »

43% of UK adults do not have an income high enough to pay income tax but even though they pay s0d all tax themselves they're still angry at those who do.

That attitude's a big part of why they're not in the 1% or even the 57%.

absolute crap!

NICs, VAT, Council Tax, Fuel Duty, Alcohol Duty, etc etc, all are taxes.


What proportion of that 43% are pensioners?

edgex

westernpromise wrote: »

The highest-income 1% of income tax payers have about 12% of the
taxable income (for income tax purposes) and pay 27% of all income tax.

12% of the TAXABLE INCOME FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES

There are other forms of income that are not subject to income tax


Unless EVERYONE* pays income tax on their income, someone has to pay income tax at a higher proportion than their income.

*low earners, children, pensioners etc

mumf

If I was in the position of earning that much money,I would be narked at having to part with about half of it ,to be quite frank.

For the record,I earn just a smidge below the ' national average', and I am doing ok.

westernpromise

ruperts wrote: »

we'll fight for and defend what's rightfully ours

You mean other people's stuff, right?

Malthusian

ruperts wrote: »

Ie, it works much better as an insult against the right, than it does against the left.

If you think homophobic slurs work brilliantly for any political purpose then by all means go for it. It just helps everyone else see what you are.

thickasabrick

Just wow !

westernpromise wrote: »

Lefties, post enviously here about how much you hate these people, and about how you'd like to make them poor as punishment for paying for all your stuff.

I suspect that you don't quite have the ability to empathise with someone who is in a less fortunate situation than yourself.

Despite that, I find myself drawn to debate on levels of taxation.

I'll start with Micheal Hudson on "Why America had a 90% tax rate"
Then point to the "Laffer Curve".

As for social mobility, seems to be a lot of conflicting reports out there. I'm of the opinion that it is a very resourceful individual who is capable of breaking free from a deprived background.
Millennials are some of the worst hit by social mobility decline in the UK

westernpromise wrote: »

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/14303

The highest-income 1% of income tax payers have about 12% of the
taxable income (for income tax purposes) and pay 27% of all income tax. Income tax is
more top-heavy than the two other biggest revenue-raisers, National Insurance
Contributions (NICs) and VAT, although less top heavy than some other (smaller) taxes,
notably Stamp Duty Land Tax and Inheritance Tax.5 Overall, this small group undoubtedly
pays a significant share of all of our taxes.

Lefties, post enviously here about how much you hate these people, and about how you'd like to make them poor as punishment for paying for all your stuff.

GreatApe

PasturesNew wrote: »

People who do not pay tax aren't shirking their 'responsibilities' - jobs aren't paying enough. The bosses are creaming off every available penny to fund their wife/gf's 300th designer handbag, or to hire a yacht for £10-50k for their 4th holiday of the year.

Everybody'd pay tax if jobs all paid £15k.

So many NMW, zero hours, jobs - and most shop/office jobs these days are simply NMW and never going to reach the tax threshold because there's no incentive/reason for bosses to increase the wages.

20 years ago I had a job that paid £17k.
Today that same firm is paying £17k for that same job.

Since tax credits were introduced for (mostly) families/kids, bosses have simply left salaries languishing until NMW caught them up because "enough people will apply at any rate we pay, after all, they'll get a top up".

But the median average full time wage is around £35,000

Plus the workforce is not private employer Vs employees. You are stuck in some fictional model

The state employs some 5 million people

The biggest group are in fact the self employed and the micro business (often just one person or husband and wife)

This is why the left don't win
They try demonise big companies but most people don't work for big companies most people work for the government, themselves, or for their families.

Having said this I'm all for the minimum wage going to £11ph that would take the min wage full time worker to £22k income

GreatApe

westernpromise wrote: »

I just knew this would provoke a massive, massive outbreak of bilious, entitled envy. You cut the income tax rate to nil for 43% of the population, and all they can do is bellyache about those nasty rich people who are so rich they are rich enough to pay all the income tax for everyone else, the greedy selfish gits.

If only everyone was equally miserable, we'd all be really happy.

You could argue we all pay a flat 45% income tax

Just those who earn under £150k get a tax credit of 5%
Those who earn under £45k get a tax credit of 25%
Those who earn under £12k get a 45% tax credit

In fact if I was a labor chancellor that's what I'd do to the income tax
It would then be a flat tax with everyone paying 45% yet some people getting credits

The overall tax take would be the same people would still have the exact same income as today only you can then day everyone pays a flat 45%


Also trying to help the lefties
Those who earn the mega bucks do so mostly for monopoly reasons
For instance what are the rantings of the top 10 music stars in the UK?
I don't know let's say £50 million each huge sums huge tax
Well if they were never born does that mean music wouldn't have existed or some other talented kid would have gained the monopoly of music star and we would have a different group of ten super music stars paying £50m. So is it the song producer or the populations need/want for music and the monopoly of human nature crating that income and tax? Same for sports starts and we'll a lot of top earners.

ruperts

Malthusian wrote: »

If you think homophobic slurs work brilliantly for any political purpose then by all means go for it. It just helps everyone else see what you are.

'Cuck' is not a homophobic slur. There's not necessarily any homosexual element to the practice of cuckoldry. Indeed, by definition it requires the cuckold in question to be in a straight relationship. Don't worry though, I won't hold your lack of knowledge regarding obscure sexual fetishes against you