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

Aegis

Davy_Jones_II wrote: »

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.

I doubt this very much. You can't just "move your residency", there's a statutory test that takes into account nights spent in the UK as well as the number of significant ties you have to the country, and as a UK Leaver, you can require a minimum of 16 nights in the UK to remain resident. Moving residence is a drawn out process and usually requires a lot more effort than just making a decision to change country.


In short, I'm afraid that I don't believe you, and think you're just saying this to try to demonstrate the Laffer curve in action.

Pennywise

GreatApe wrote: »

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.

You might find that hard. A lot of people want 2 or 3 part time jobs rather than a full time one. It's not just employers who benefit from saving Eers NIC - employees benefit too! A worker with 2 jobs earning £6k each pays no employee NIC, but a worker with 1 job earning £12k does pay it. Lots of people don't want full time hours because it reduces their benefits so will only work part time to keep their wages low enough to qualify for tax credits, which also leads to free prescriptions, council tax reliefs, housing benefits, etc etc.

One of my clients has a small supermarket. He would love some full time staff, but none of his part timers want to work longer hours - he's asked them many times. They won't even work extra shifts to cover holidays/sickness, etc., so he needs a "pool" of casual workers to cover as and when needed. Some of his part timers have been there 20+ years so clearly happy with the status quo.

Herzlos

Malthusian wrote: »

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

No, I'm accusing Corbyn of applying a fair taxation system. I know the right wing rags are screaming about how Corbyn wants to steal all of the wealth of the hard workers and pass it to the layabouts and foreigners but it's just not true.


We're talking about a sub £5/month tax increase on those earning £81,000/year (nearly 4 times the average), scaling up to an 11 point increase on tax for those who could only be regarded as super rich. Few of which I can see being driven to bankrupcy over it (though some may be chronically overstretched), whilst likely not being enough to leave the country or stop generating money.

westernpromise

Herzlos wrote: »

We're talking about a sub £5/month tax increase on those earning £81,000/year (nearly 4 times the average), scaling up to an 11 point increase on tax for those who could only be regarded as super rich.

Which will not raise anything like the amount required.

To get into the top 1% you need to make £160k a year. After tax, people on £160k have £96k left. They can't afford £113k in extra income tax.

So nobody on £70k to £160k is going to be contributing the required pro-rata £113k a head.

So it'll have to come off those on more than that. But that means instead of £113k off 5% of the taxpaying population, it's going to have to be 5x as much - £565k - off 1% of the population.

And guess what? They haven't got £565k lying around waiting to be robbed either. And the handful that have aren't going to stay here, to be robbed and hated, when they could take their income to, oh, Singapore, or Hong Kong, or Barbados, and pay 15% income tax.

Meaning the free money is going to have to be robbed off someone else. And it's going to be you, quite quickly.

scaredofdebt

Increasing the minimum wage to £10 per hour will see income tax and VAT receipts increase by a few billion, plus the savings in benefit payments will be handy too,

The government found £500Bn pretty quickly to bail the banks out, this talk of Labour taxing everyone by £2k a year+ is #projectfear.

westernpromise

scaredofdebt wrote: »

Increasing the minimum wage to £10 per hour will see income tax and VAT receipts increase by a few billion, plus the savings in benefit payments will be handy too,.

No it won't, because that pay rise is a deduction elsewhere. It is not revenue neutral because if someone's not worth £10 an hour, they'll just get sacked.

So it will increase unemployment and the benefits bill and add nothing to any tax receipts. Classic Labournomics.

In fact, given that the top 5% haven't got the £733 billion Labour needs (nearer £800 billion now including the WASPI bribe), people on minimum wage are going to have to be taxed harder, i.e. start paying some.

Pennywise

scaredofdebt wrote: »

Increasing the minimum wage to £10 per hour will see income tax and VAT receipts increase by a few billion, plus the savings in benefit payments will be handy too,

It will also increase inflation, so the people on minimum wage will be no better off. Basic economics: supply & demand. If there's more money floating around, prices increase.

scaredofdebt

Pennywise wrote: »

It will also increase inflation, so the people on minimum wage will be no better off. Basic economics: supply & demand. If there's more money floating around, prices increase.

Same argument when the minimum wage was first introduced, the inflationary effects were minimal.

Same argument when QE happened and the BOE printed £500Bn, very limited inflation.

We can afford an increase in inflation as it is so low currently.

scaredofdebt

westernpromise wrote: »

No it won't, because that pay rise is a deduction elsewhere. It is not revenue neutral because if someone's not worth £10 an hour, they'll just get sacked.

So it will increase unemployment and the benefits bill and add nothing to any tax receipts. Classic Labournomics.

In fact, given that the top 5% haven't got the £733 billion Labour needs (nearer £800 billion now including the WASPI bribe), people on minimum wage are going to have to be taxed harder, i.e. start paying some.

I think the £700bn figure is bogus and the £800bn even more so. Where are these figures from?

In any case, UK treasury currently spends the thick end of £1tn per annum, even if the £700bn is correct over 5 years, that's a relatively modest increase of around 10-15%.

It's fashionable to bash Labour's economic policies even when the facts show they are better at managing the economy that the Tories, brainwashing is amazing.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-qa-which-party-has-a-better-track-record-on-the-economy

The Tories always try to run the economy like a household budget, which it isn't. If you look at how austerity has affected UK wage growth, you'll see that the treasury is about £50bn a year shy of income/VAT receipts due to this policy.

phillw

westernpromise wrote: »

Which will not raise anything like the amount required.

Maybe he's hoping for the remain bonus to pay for it.

Conservatives spending isn't costed at all and for political reasons they can't even admit the brexit deficit.

But the opening post is a load of misinformation twaddle. You're assuming they are going to raise the money in the same year they pay it, they never said they would do that.