The characteristics and incomes of the top 1%

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.

westernpromise wrote: »

Read the report, it's all in there. Being on:

• £120k puts you in the top 1% of earners.
• £160k puts you in the top 1% of income tax payers.
• £236k puts you in the top 0.5% of income tax payers.
• £648k puts you in the top 0.1% of earners.

The highest-income 1% of income tax payers have about 12% of the income but pay 27% of all the income tax.

But income tax is what? 30% of all tax receipts?

Other taxes of course as a percentage the rich pay less of

Someone earnings £30k pays perhaps 5% of that as council tax
Someone earnings £3 million pays perhaps 0.1% of that as council tax

Likewise for TV tax. The lower earner paying 0.5% of income as TV tax the higher earner paying 100x less as a percentage of income

Same for VAT, fuel duty, alcohol and tobacco duties etc

Malthusian

GreatApe wrote: »

For instance what are the rantings of the top 10 music stars in the UK?

They're usually something along the lines of "save the planet, end apartheid, orange man bad, I love you [insert city name], waaaaaaggghhh".

No idea why you're talking about monopolies. The mass market is not a monopoly. Music is probably one of the least monopolistic industries on the planet. Anyone can pick a street corner and start singing. There are indeed a lot of popular artists whom everyone listens to because that's what everyone listens to. But that's just luck and the whim of the mob, not a monopoly.

The sports industry has no relation. If Leo Messi broke his leg and retired from football at 21, some other footballer wouldn't have magically acquired his speed and technique.

Same for VAT, fuel duty, alcohol and tobacco duties etc

Not correct on VAT. The % of your income that goes on VAT rises as you get richer, because poorer people spend a higher proportion of their income on necessities which are zero-rated.

Alcohol and tobacco yes as you can only drink so much. Plus alcohol duty isn't a % of the price, so the better the alcohol, the smaller % of the price is fuel duty. Fuel duty - true to an extent but rich people do more jet-setting.

Malthusian

ruperts wrote: »

'Cuck' is not a homophobic slur.

Yes it is. The cuckold fantasy is watching another man have sex with your wife/girlfriend. It is therefore by definition homosexual. (Or technically bisexual, but hatred of bisexuals and bisexuality is essentially homophobia.) Quite often the fantasy involves the other man forcing the cuck to perform sexual acts on him, which makes the homosexual element even more explicit.

[Sorry if any more traditionalist DHP&E readers think this discussion is lowering the tone, but I didn't start the homophobic mud-flinging.]

Accusing another man of being a cuck (or a group cucks) is not simply an accusation of weakness or inadequacy but of being sexually involved with another man, and is therefore by definition a homophobic slur.

Don't worry though, I won't hold your lack of knowledge regarding obscure sexual fetishes against you

I'm not holding your homophobia against you. Indeed there is a rich tradition of homophobia in the far left. I just think you may as well own it.

ruperts

Malthusian wrote: »

Yes it is. The cuckold fantasy is watching another man have sex with your wife/girlfriend. It is therefore by definition homosexual. (Or technically bisexual, but hatred of bisexuals and bisexuality is essentially homophobia.) Quite often the fantasy involves the other man forcing the cuck to perform sexual acts on him, which makes the homosexual element even more explicit.

[Sorry if any more traditionalist DHP&E readers think this discussion is lowering the tone, but I didn't start the homophobic mud-flinging.]

Accusing another man of being a cuck (or a group cucks) is not simply an accusation of weakness or inadequacy but of being sexually involved with another man, and is therefore by definition a homophobic slur.

I'm not holding your homophobia against you. Indeed there is a rich tradition of homophobia in the far left. I just think you may as well own it.

I disagree. There is nothing necessarily homosexual about cuckoldry. The act of watching a man have sex with a woman need not contain any homosexual element. Is watching pornography featuring men and women having sex homosexual? You are trying to argue that watching straight sexual activity between a man and a woman is "by definition homosexual". I think that's fundamentally illogical.

In any case, clearly my use of the term is not actually related to the sexual element. More to the mindset.

GreatApe

Malthusian wrote: »

They're usually something along the lines of "save the planet, end apartheid, orange man bad, I love you [insert city name], waaaaaaggghhh".

No idea why you're talking about monopolies. The mass market is not a monopoly. Music is probably one of the least monopolistic industries on the planet. Anyone can pick a street corner and start singing. There are indeed a lot of popular artists whom everyone listens to because that's what everyone listens to. But that's just luck and the whim of the mob, not a monopoly.

Humans form network effects for a lot of things including music film art sports

Take football again
If every single premiership footballer died would that mean football dies we just give up on the sport? Or do the next 1,000 best get promoted to the premiership and take their place? It is of course the latter

Film and music is also true
If the current top film and music stars all died today do you think the music industry and Hollywood would say....ok guys we had a good run let's just shut up shop now it's all over..or do they just cast new starts who become rich and famous. It's the demand that creates these industries and these big pays not the supply from particular individuals but particular individuals are rewarded for it

Take another example say Google just decided to close and go home
Does that mean internet search is now dead? Or does the enxt search engine take over
It's the same with music and film

It's a type of monopoly

The sports industry has no relation. If Leo Messi broke his leg and retired from football at 21, some other footballer wouldn't have magically acquired his speed and technique.

If all the paid for footballers in the world all have a heart attacks today does that mean we all abandon football or just promote the next best lot who are now paid as the best were?

Not correct on VAT. The % of your income that goes on VAT rises as you get richer, because poorer people spend a higher proportion of their income on necessities which are zero-rated.

I was thinking middle of the road people
Say someone earnings £35k
Spends most of it
Someone earnings £35m saves most of this post tax income (buying homes or art is also savings)
Even if he spends £360k a year on goods and services and they all have VAT it's not even 0.2% of his income

Alcohol and tobacco yes as you can only drink so much. Plus alcohol duty isn't a % of the price, so the better the alcohol, the smaller % of the price is fuel duty. Fuel duty - true to an extent but rich people do more jet-setting.

Jet fuel doesn't have duty on it
The rich can also afford new cars which have higher mpg


But anyway everyone knows the gap is much smaller when you look at all the taxes. Income taxis only 30% of the taxes. Also how to account for government borrowing?

michaels

Govt borrowing is deferred taxation so will he paid in the same proportion by income as current taxation.

High taxes on income and pensions means that for some it is not worth working more than 3 or 4 days a week as the marginal rate is high. Fine for it consultants but for gps where supply is limited it means worse health outcomes for all of. Is just raising taxes may not be the panacea the left would like to pretend.

Thrugelmir

GreatApe wrote: »

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

Stacking shelves or serving coffee in Starbucks worth £22k, no way. Focus should be on obtaining vocational skills. That actually generate real econmic growth for the country.

Malthusian

ruperts wrote: »

I disagree. There is nothing necessarily homosexual about cuckoldry. The act of watching a man have sex with a woman need not contain any homosexual element.

It is when the woman is your own partner, which means the desire to add a man to the picture is purely homosexual. In vanilla pornography the man is a stand-in for the viewer. Heterosexuals don't watch heterosexual !!!!!! and focus on the man's todger. People with a cuckold fetish look at cuckold pornography to fantasise about a guy with a bigger todger than theirs having their way with their partner (and often themselves).

Stalin hated gays, Chavez hated gays, Corbyn hates gays or he wouldn't shill for the Iranian and Russian governments, I don't understand why you're struggling with your normal left-wing homophobia so much.

GreatApe wrote: »

Take football again
If every single premiership footballer died would that mean football dies we just give up on the sport? Or do the next 1,000 best get promoted to the premiership and take their place? It is of course the latter

It is, but the Premiership will make a lot less money as it won't be as attractive to watch. 1,000 dead footballers accounts for the entire Premier League and most of the second division, people won't pay Premier League prices to watch League One cloggers just because they're wearing Man United shirts.

If the top 1,000 music artists died however, the big record companies would make just as much money as they could find 1,000 equally good artists which would benefit from network effect.

It's not a monopoly. A monopoly is where there is one supplier controlling all or nearly all of the market. There are loads of record companies and loads of artists.

Kentish_Dave

ruperts wrote: »

People like me? Immediately you move in with the personal comments. Speaks volumes. If you think anyone can get any job, you're a naive fool, simple as that. The elite have got you right where they want you - eating out of the palm of their hands. Indeed, here you are doing their bidding for them. Unpaid, of course. I doubt they'll even call you to say thanks. Doesn't matter though because you'll do it anyway, for them. You'll do anything for them. Maybe one day they'll send you an envelope full of cash to express their gratitude at your having spent your life defending their honour. One day, eh Dave? Maybe one day.

Unpaid? I work in banking, which is how I know that we pay our taxes, and that they are not small.

What is it that makes you think that you couldn’t have done the same, and earned the same money? There’s a huge variety of people in the industry nowadays.

Kentish_Dave

Thrugelmir wrote: »

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.

What cost did you pay then?

A lot of people think that they paid, but very few seem to be able to point out where.

I did, as I was paid in stock, but the man on the street really did not.