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

Thrugelmir

GreatApe wrote: »

Plus more than anything the current tax system works well so don't fix what isn't broken.

Far too complex. There's always room for improvement.

Herzlos

GreatApe wrote: »

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'

They'll increase the tax take from the top 5%, it's just the tax increase won't hurt most of them, it'll barely be noticable.

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??

Yup, some prices will go up, but prices will go up anyway. Everyone will be paying a little bit more when they engage companies for services, but we need to pay tax in order for the country to run.

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

Above a substantial threshold, sure.



[quote[Plus more than anything the current tax system works well so don't fix what isn't broken. [/quote]
The current tax system is an overcomplicated mess full of loopholes and bizarre rules. Labours plans go some way to simplifying it by removing the special rate for dividends.

Record employment isn't something worth risking

It'd be nice if we could do it without so many working poor though and tax credits. The country gains nothing from 0-hour contracts needing benefits (read: your tax money) to keep them alive.

Malthusian

Herzlos wrote: »

They'll increase the tax take from the top 5%, it's just the tax increase won't hurt most of them, it'll barely be noticable.

Are you aware you're essentially accusing Corbyn of being a Red Tory?

If the rich currently aren't paying enough, and would barely notice the increase under Labour, then they still won't be paying enough. And Corbyn's proposals need to be more radical.

Anyway, you are probably correct. It is the poor that will mostly notice Corbyn's higher taxes on the poor (the increase in corporation tax most significantly, plus higher taxes on married couples with one non-tax-payer, raid on their pension funds, etc), as they always do. The less you have the more you notice the government confiscating what little you've got.

GreatApe

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Far too complex. There's always room for improvement.

Sure things need to evolve in a reasonable conservative manner

First thing to do is accept things are pretty dam good
In many ways we've never had it so good
Full employment high wages lots of oppertinity safety security and a high degree of freedom

From that point you can conclude we don't need revolution but slow evolution

GreatApe

Herzlos wrote: »

They'll increase the tax take from the top 5%, it's just the tax increase won't hurt most of them, it'll barely be noticable.

But you could and probably would say that irrespective of what the rate was
Labor put it to 50% you'd say the same, 55% you'd say the same 60% you'd say the same...

Yup, some prices will go up, but prices will go up anyway. Everyone will be paying a little bit more when they engage companies for services, but we need to pay tax in order for the country to run.

The country runs just fine
The majority are happy and content

It'd be nice if we could do it without so many working poor though and tax credits. The country gains nothing from 0-hour contracts needing benefits (read: your tax money) to keep them alive.

0 hour contracts are fine
But I would agree the lowest paid should be paid more
I'd have a min wage set at 60% of median earnings.
Median full time earnings are about £35k so min wage should be about £21,000 for £10.50ph and increase with average wages. With London (or inside M25) wages +£1/pH higher again

I would also get rid of the tax advantages of hiring multiple part time workers rather than a smaller number of full time workers. I think this is a drag on productivity in some ways.

westernpromise

Herzlos wrote: »

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.

It's very simple. The average has to be £113k per earner in the top 5%. Because there are ~1.3 million of them, and £733,000,000,000 is £564k per earner which over five years is £113,000 for each one.

If anyone in that group is only going to pay £500 more, then there'll be a massive shortfall. So others will have to pony up more in order for the average to be £113k. If one taxpayer pays £500 more, another's going to have to pay £225k rather than £113k to make up that deficit.

The teeny tiny problem is that the top 1.3 million don't actually earn enough for this to be possible. If you stole everything they earned over £80k you still wouldn't raise £733 billion.

So between those who leave and take their tax payments elsewhere, and those who can't be expropriated of what Labour needs because they've not got it, the money is going to have to be robbed off someone else.

Yes, Labour voters, that means you.

Sooner or later socialism runs out of other people's money.

Herzlos

You seem to be assuming that the average salary for the top 5% is about £80k.
Those on £80,000.00 pay exactly £0.00 more. The bulk of the money will come from those on 7 figured where it works out at about an 11% difference. That'll be noticable but even at £90k the increase is minimal.

Arklight

westernpromise wrote: »

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


Doesn't work at any level. The top 5% start at £70,000 in fact
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/top-five-percent-salary-uk-wealth-tax-rich-average-a9213406.html
and meanwhile
To be in the top 1% of income tax payers in the UK (i.e. to be among the 310,000 individuals with the highest income), a taxable income of at least £160,000 is required. £236,000 is required to be in the top 0.5% and nearly £650,000 to be in the top 0.1%.
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.

How much money after tax does your hate group actually have?


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.


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.

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.

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.

I love how within your post bleating about the plight of people earning in excess of £80,000 per annum, you have linked to a newspaper article highlighting the corrosive effect of income inequality and how high earners need to wake up to how fortunate they are.

For the benefit of those who didn't trawl far enough through your erudite and somewhat mathematically dubious scribings to find this link, I have quoted some of it below:

The most recent data from HMRC shows that the median average pre-tax income is around £22,400. An income of over £70,000 a year will actually put you in the top five per cent of all UK earners.

When Ed Miliband proposed a “mansion tax” on properties valued at more than £2m in 2015 right wing newspapers exploded with fury, screaming about how that this would lay waste to middle England. In fact, it would have affected around 100,000 homes, less than half a per cent of the total UK residential dwelling stock. The average house price today, by the way, is around £220,000. And wealth is a far more unequally distributed than income, with the luckiest tenth owning almost half of all the assets....

But people are extraordinarily reticent about allowing themselves to be labelled rich. Many would sooner present themselves in the Daily Mail offices as a Brexit saboteur.

This helps explain why research shows people from all over the income distribution have a tendency to place themselves in the middle of the pack when asked to guess. We all know some people who are doing better than us and some who are doing worse.

Even the indisputably prosperous are prone to this. Consider the FTSE 100 chief executive who is awarded a compensation package of £4m a year. Rich? Not when you consider that the boss of an American company earns five times as much.

What about the investment banker who extracts a bonus worth tens of millions of pounds from his employer? Well off? Not compared to that banker’s hedge fund or private equity friends who might earn ten times as much. And so on right up to the billionaire classes.

When political commentators react like scalded cats to the very suggestion that someone on more than three times the average income could be labelled well off, there is a problem. When we are inundated with chin-stroking discussions in the broadcast media (even among public broadcasters like the BBC) about who can fairly be considered rich, that tells us something important and troubling about whose financial interests the essential channels of information in our society are, directly or indirectly, serving. And it’s not those who really are in the middle.

There you go. I am sure you will appreciate re-reading that, as it apparently supports your view of the world. I'll look forward to seeing you at the next climate change meeting, too.

Davy_Jones_II

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.

I’m in the bracket that Labour wants to go after, on a couple of counts. Given the chance that they may form a government I’ve moved my tax residency out of the U.K. to the country that I spend half the year in.

My total tax rate has dropped from 46% to 34%, in a country that most in the U.K. would accept is a social democracy that we could learn some lessons from, so it’s not as though I’ve legged it to a tax haven.

The idea on the Left that they have first claim on my output or productivity isn’t one that sits comfortably with me, so for now I’ll step away, and take my whole tax payment with me, not just the extra that is being threatened.

Davy_Jones_II

westernpromise wrote: »

So between those who leave and take their tax payments elsewhere, and those who can't be expropriated of what Labour needs because they've not got it, the money is going to have to be robbed off someone else.

As above, I’m one of those who’ve taken my tax off to a country that seems to appreciate it more.

I’m not happy with the increases that the Conservatives have hit me with in recent years, let alone what Labour would do, so that’s it, I now only pay VAT, duty etc in the UK, and nothing on income tax.

If the Conservatives drop the top rate back down and remove the various penalties around pensions etc. then I may we’ll move my tax residence back.

It doesn’t even need to be less than my current rate, just not so far above.