Labour's £113,000 tax rise for people on £80k

Herzlos

westernpromise wrote: »

Married PA removed, higher tax on dividends - yes they will.

They wouldn't be eligable for the Married PA at £80k anyway. So that's a lie.



Higher tax on dividends, in line with everything else, but that's not an income tax and not everyone is over the £2k/year dividend tax threshold. So that's sort of true, but not going to hurt many people by much. Who it will hurt, though, are those directors who draw a small salary and take a large dividend in order to avoid paying income tax.

Someone on £236k has £136k left after tax now. Take another £113k off them and that's a 90% tax rate. Who's going to bother with that job if the state steals it all? Same applies at all levels.

Why would you take another £113k off someone on £236k?


I calculate it as this costing them £7.75k - £2.25k on the additional 5% from £80-125 and £5.55k on the additional 5% from 125-236.


You'd only get near £113k if you had no idea how marginal tax rates work. Or am I missing something? Can you show me how you worked it out?

It comes out of the pockets of others who'd have spent it anyway. It makes nil difference except to make it more expensive to employ people. So fewer people will be employed.

Or it allows people to actually have enough money to live on and spend, without needing state top-ups which are in essence business subsidies. Every £1 in tax credits an Asda employee gets is money you've just given to Asda.

It's clearly terrifying to have the truth pointed out. £733 billion doesn't grow on trees. A trillion here and a trillion there and soon you're talking serious money. Labour will be coming after everybody including you.

It doesn't, which is just as well since Labours manifesto seems pretty well costed - we know where the money is going to come from.
I don't mind if they come for me, I'm happy to pay a bit more to keep the country running and I've read what it actually involves.

The top 1% of earners earn 14% of the money but pay 33% of the income tax. 43% of earners pay no income tax at all but expect the state to which they pay no income tax to give them lots of free stuff.

Where do you think they money going to the top 1% of earners comes from?

You need to grasp something really, really simple. If you want the free stuff to continue to be paid for by a tiny minority, you need to allow that minority to prosper. If you don't, the money runs out and you live in Venezuela.

Labour isn't stopping that minority from prospering, they are just limiting them shafting the other 99% in the process.

SmashedAvacado

Labour isn't stopping that minority from prospering, they are just limiting them shafting the other 99% in the process.

If you see anyone who is a wealth creator as having shafted others on their way up then there is no hope.

We live in a global economy and if we don't allow for wealth creators in the UK to create wealth in the UK, then they will do it somewhere else. We need the pie to be as big as possible to have a chance of delivering effective public services. Shrinking the appetite to earn well will not help.

Policies that punish those that have done well do not help social justice. Look at the VAT on private schools as an example - do you think that will raise revenue for the government? It almost certainly won't. It won't increase standards of education either. Its just idealistic nonsense. The market should be there to provide an alternative to state provision. The market is good because it creates innovation. Risk taking and the potential wealth / profits available drive a diverse economy.

Limiting the rewards of endeavour will limit endeavour

Herzlos

So you dont think, for instance, Asda forcing staff to move to contracts which reduce their pay and benefits or lose their job is shafting them?

Or slum landlords?

It's perfectly possible to create wealth which still being fair

SmashedAvacado

You can improve the state of the rental sector by regulating it and punishing landlords that don't play by the rules. But there is absolutely no need to punish those who are providing an acceptable / good service - and who make money as a result. That actually meets the aim - provision of housing. If you provide a lack of incentive for housing provision, then what happens is that the availability of housing falls - and that typically impacts on the most vulnerable.

Asda are presumably doing this because of the changes in consumer demand. We all expect to be able to shop when we want to - to buy it online, to buy it at midnight. In order for that business to work they need to have a workforce that can adapt to those needs. By all means regulate employers but plenty of people are happy with more flexible working. if you force these businesses to employ people on a 35 hour week, then expect prices to rise and shops to be less convenient or businesses to simply fold - no-one wants that. There will be fewer jobs in supermarkets in the future as automation will meant that POS and shelf stacking roles are largely redundant. That's the way it is going to be - forcing a company into outdated business operations is not going to help anyone.

MaxiRobriguez

SmashedAvacado wrote: »

Limiting the rewards of endeavour will limit endeavour

Which is why it's imperative work is worth it for everyone, otherwise people will sack it off and claim benefits and your wealth creators don't have any staff to create the wealth they need to go around telling the world to bow down to their wealth creation.

GreatApe

westernpromise wrote: »

Labour's latest pledge on restoring pension inequality in women's favour takes their spending commitments to £733 billion for the next parliament.

With characteristic 100% truthfulness that you can take to the bank they've assured us nobody's tax will rise unless you're in the top 5%.

There are 1.3 million who are, starting with people on £80k a year (Labour MPs earn £79k). So that works out at £113,000 in tax per year per member of the 5%.

Now that's what a call a responsible, thoughtfully-costed plan for government. I'll be voting Labour!

While 5% earn £80,000 or more that's a snapshot
People move in and out of earnings
This means much more than 5% of the population will be a top 5 earner at some point in their life

The jr doctor might be on £50k so under the £80k but they won't be on below £80k forever
So definitely it will impact more than 5% of people. Let's say it's closer to 10%

Well these people have partners too so it's closer to 20%

The lefties always scratch their heads why their policies are unpopular
Sure it will only impact 5% of paychecks but those paychecks impact 20% of people


Also what do they think is going to happen when corporation tax goes up
Prices will go up. So you will be paying for labor taxes via the food you eat and the water you drink

Zero_Sum

GreatApe wrote: »

While 5% earn £80,000 or more that's a snapshot
People move in and out of earnings
This means much more than 5% of the population will be a top 5 earner at some point in their life

The jr doctor might be on £50k so under the £80k but they won't be on below £80k forever
So definitely it will impact more than 5% of people. Let's say it's closer to 10%

Well these people have partners too so it's closer to 20%

The lefties always scratch their heads why their policies are unpopular
Sure it will only impact 5% of paychecks but those paychecks impact 20% of people


Also what do they think is going to happen when corporation tax goes up
Prices will go up. So you will be paying for labor taxes via the food you eat and the water you drink

Thats clutching at straws mind.
Its more like 5% then 7% then 10%

Average individual income is about £25k. Average household is about £40k
Ie you cant just double the figures assuming everyone who's earned £80k will be married to someone in same position.
Then again your the person who tried to claim average salary was £40k
So a somewhat hypocritical to criticise others about 'scratching their heads"
Like the bloke on QT who said he wasnt even in top 50% you live in a bubble.
Jnr doctors dont earn £50k quite a bit less. The qualified doctor earns £50k.
Its only GP's & consultants earn £80k+ and not every doctor goes onto those jobs.

Herzlos

GreatApe wrote: »

While 5% earn £80,000 or more that's a snapshot
People move in and out of earnings
This means much more than 5% of the population will be a top 5 earner at some point in their life

Slightly more will, as people's salaries tend to increase over their working life, only dropping when the scale back / retire / decide to change for some other reason. Even then, I doubt that'd push those affected by this tax beyond another few percent. Even with couples where one earner we're still looking at a tiny majority earning 4x the average. We're also talking about a £0 tax increase for someone earning £80,000, and a £500 tax increase by the time they get to £90,000.


You're really pushing it if you think anyone outside the top 1 or 2 % are actually going to be hurt by this.

GreatApe

BakingC wrote: »

Are we doing to ignore the fact that it won't be 113k each. People on 80k will have a minor increase. Not even the top 1% will pay much more the top 0.1% will be forking out for this (bankers etc which is the purpose behind the wealth taxes as income hasn't increased in the last decade but wealth divide between the top and the average has)

In order to achieve a fairer society the changes made over the past decade to Corp tax need to be reversed and something done about tax avoidance.

Also things like increase in ISA allowances I would suggest should be reviewed as the people needing help couldn't save 5k a year let alone 20k (they probably don't even have 20k income due to zero hour contracts and a minimum wage which isn't a living wage) so when it was all marketed at helping people the only people it actually helped were those already better off who could previously max out the ISA or now max out this one.

If the choice is paying down debt at an average cost of 2.5% or putting it in a cash ISA paying 1.36% the choice is clear paying down debt makes more financial sense

Also I don't think you are aware how the tax break works and how small a break it is

For instance if you have £20,000 in a normal account paying 1.36% interest
Vs putting it into an ISA paying 1.36% how much tax do you save?
Less than £109 tax saving....

I'd keep them they encourage savings so less benefits and hardship down the line and the cost of it is small
Paying down debt makes more financial sense than a cash ISA and using a pension makes more sense than a shares ISA

GreatApe

Herzlos wrote: »

Slightly more will, as people's salaries tend to increase over their working life, only dropping when the scale back / retire / decide to change for some other reason. Even then, I doubt that'd push those affected by this tax beyond another few percent. Even with couples where one earner we're still looking at a tiny majority earning 4x the average. We're also talking about a £0 tax increase for someone earning £80,000, and a £500 tax increase by the time they get to £90,000.

You're really pushing it if you think anyone outside the top 1 or 2 % are actually going to be hurt by this.

They plan to tax £83 billion per year more assuming their math is correct :rotfl:
Of which £5 billion or so is from this the other £78 billion are not from income tax

There is no way they can do that by hitting fewer than '1-2% of households'

There is plenty to dislike about them other than this

They plan to tax companies £24 billion more per year.
That's going to go straight into higher prices
Those who disagree well why don't we raise every single penny of tax from companies if there is no price increases??

And higher inheritance tax for people who leave homes to their kids


Plus more than anything the current tax system works well so don't fix what isn't broken. Record employment isn't something worth risking on a PM that got two grade Es at a levels and a chancellor who reeks of hate and bile