Total nonsense, and that’s from someone who will benefit (just). I have no time for lazy folks who can’t be arsed working and are content to claim benefits, but let’s be honest, that’s a tiny minority .if you earn 50 k you don’t need 500 quid extra a year. Another reason I will never ever vote for the tories.
I don’t like paying tax, but am mindful I am in a very privileged position to have to do so. I work hard, but no harder than folks getting paid half what I earn.
+1
You could always give the extra money to charity. Then you can claim it back on your self assessment and pay less tax next year 😈
Ok, this is a serious question. If you are lucky enough to benefit from this obvious bribe, but still think that it’s wrong in principle, what would be the best thing to do with the money?
Give it to a charity that provides a need that you care about and that the government is underfunding. That way your money is being used directly rather than going into the government pot to just give more to the rich.
As an aside I don't understand why we have tax bands, I'm sure it just encourages those that can afford it to avoid paying tax. Surely just set it at 25% or whatever for everyone. I suppose you'd have to increase the living wage to offset it, hmm this is getting complicated. Also avoid taxing the same bit of money twice e.g. income tax then VAT. Just have a single point of tax.
But yeah also the child benefit allowance based on the single highest wage is bonkers, should be based on household income.
Dunc
Give a high earner more money and they won’t put it under the mattress, they will spend it which benefits the economy etc etc.
I presume you know what a weak argument that is. It's just a selfish justification. If you gave the tax break to poorer people then it would be back in the economy a hell of a lot faster than if it goes to someone comfortably off. Generally speaking the poorer person would indeed stash less of it "under the mattress" by necessity. And saying that poor people and the economy benefit significantly by giving money to the rich is just insulting.
Whats wrong with incentivising people to earn more money ?
People are incentivised to earn more money regardless of this tax break. If you get a pay rise you get more money, simples. It's not like the old stamp duty where pushing you into a different band means the higher rate applies to the full amount.
Ok, this is a serious question. If you are lucky enough to benefit from this obvious bribe, but still think that it’s wrong in principle, what would be the best thing to do with the money? Ruling out the send a cheque to HMRC option for now.
There is no best thing, everyone has their own personal justifications don't they. Support friends and family who are struggling? Support those who work for you but may well be on the breadline? Donate it to a charity, join a progressive political party (lib dems, greens, snp).
Actually why is there no mention of the lower end tax bracket rise ?
That doesn’t benefit the lowest paid / poorest in the UK. That is just as disgusting.
Or is that ok because the OP and most people here will benefit from that tax break ?
I didn't mention it because I think it is generally a good thing. As it helps people who need it.
As an aside I don’t understand why we have tax bands, I’m sure it just encourages those that can afford it to avoid paying tax.
The system is inherently unfair, not by design so much as an accident of fate. Money is non linear, ie if you earn less than you need to get by, you go into increasing debt, conversely once you get over a certain amount, then you have some to spare and you can use it to invest and make more money.
So progressive tax systems attempt to take this into account.
Kryton discussing with 5plusn8
If you post it in context you know what it means – its a sarcastic quote aimed at the person that suggested they wouldn’t notice and extra £800 or so. e.g. It’d be nice to be so comfortable that you don’t notice an extra £800 in your pocket.
Crumbs kryton. This isn't that hard to understand. The whole point of this thread is that it's wrong to give this extra £860 to someone who is so comfortable that they don't notice an extra 800 notes in their pocket.
Yes, and the person I referenced stated they would even notice an extra £800 in thier pocket, to which my reaction was “that must be a nice place to be”.
I don’t know why the fuss. One minute high earners are slated for the latest tax benefit, next minute me being critical of someone well off enough to brag about that and I’m the bad one.
The whole point of this thread is that it’s wrong to give this extra £860 to someone who is so comfortable that they don’t notice an extra 800 notes in their pocket.
Exactly, which is why I thought it was a little uncalled for.
One minute high earners are slated for the latest tax benefit, next minute me being critical of someone well off enough to brag about that and I’m the bad one.
1) Many high earners did not choose the latest tax benefit, in fact the middle earners eg 50-150k are more likely to vote for prgressive taxation like lib dems or greens, it is the poor and the very rich who vote tory.
2) I was not bragging, I was pointing out that I didn't need, nor want a tax rebate, do you want people on side for your argument or not?
3) Do you think it is morally wrong to work hard, take your opportunities and be lucky?
Ok, this is a serious question. If you are lucky enough to benefit from this obvious bribe, but still think that it’s wrong in principle, what would be the best thing to do with the money? Ruling out the send a cheque to HMRC option for now.
Give it to a remain campaign fund or a foreign charity, then tell any working class Tories you know.
I don’t know why the fuss. One minute high earners are slated for the latest tax benefit, next minute me being critical of someone well off enough to brag about that and I’m the bad one.
Forgive me if I've got this wrong. I can't retrawl the thread on this shit phone.... but he wasn't bragging.... he was making an honest and admirable point. He acknowledged that he was in a lucky enough position to benefit from this BUT he still thinks it's a bad thing.
I think he and you are essentially saying exactly the same thing.
This thread would be pointless if it was 'just' a bunch of low rate earners complaining about high rate earners getting more money. But the fact that various high rate earners have been 'brave' enough to chip in and agree makes me think that it really is an evil thing.
Only one or two people have said anything good about the break, which gives me some heart.
Good old STW logging people out when they’ve posted to a thread.
Maybe the extra £500 a year could go to investing in a forum that works for its users 🤣
I somehow doubt it though.
Give it to a remain campaign fund or a foreign charity, then tell any working class Tories you know.
Like.
@thegeneralist - thanks. That's exactly what I was saying.
But the fact that various high rate earners have been ‘brave’ enough to chip in and agree makes me think that it really is an evil thing.
crocodile tears.
I said in the other thread we had about the same topic..
I’m in the higher rate tax band and I think the Tory’s have made a political decision to gain votes.
Thats all.
Its lip service to satisfy thier incompetence and general lack of any social reasoning.
I’m in the higher rate tax band and I think the Tory’s have made a political decision to gain votes.
The weird thing is that the people who it will likely benefit the most, will likely not respond in the way the Tories want. However it is well known that people on lower incomes hate tax. I am not sure why, I think its possibly because its always seems like a huge chunk of money to them, and possibly they aspire to higher incomes, that they view these cuts as a good thing.
Also the tories don't care if the middle income earners do or don't change their vote as they represent a small minority of the country. This is aimed squarely at the people who will benefit from it the least - much like brexit...
e.g. It’d be nice to be so comfortable that you don’t notice an extra £800 in your pocket
Im sure everyone would notice an £800 wedge, (or actually nearer £500) but it doesn't work like that. It's an extra £40/month on a take home of around £2500. Low wage earners, the genuinely poor or public services would notice that a lot more!
It’s an extra £40/month on a take home of around £2500.
^This.
I will benefit from this but I certainly won't notice.
The tax break should of been given by raising the personal allowance.
Give it to the people who need it.
Personally, I think it's bloody hilarious. I've given up caring about Turkeys voting for Christmas.
Let them have it their way guys, don't feel too guilty about it, they wouldn't give a shit if you and your family were thrown under a bus because of Brexit.
I'll benefit from it, but only just, it puts me very close to dropping out of the 40% bracket all together, which would be a bad thing for my pension contribution tax relief, childcare vouchers and upcoming C2W purchase, however it could all balance out if my company car tax was cut in half..
I do think its wrong though - i'd rather they'd raised the 20% threshold a bit more as it would have helped everyone, especially those who need it more than me.
This won't change the way i vote though - i'll not be voting for either the Tories or Labour as neither are fit for office at the moment.
Extra £500 is £100 VAT when spent (on full VATable items), more money to the business they've spent it on, more money for investment or maybe salaries, more tax from income, more money spent by employees and VAT on their spending, etc.
Effectively it may make little or no difference to the tax man. Less take in one area may be more take in another.
Though if everyone just saves the money and invests it, then that's another matter, though playing the long game the tax man still gets it in the end, unless they move offshore.
Extra £500 is £100 VAT when spent (on full VATable items), more money to the business they’ve spent it on, more money for investment or maybe salaries, more tax from income, more money spent by employees and VAT on their spending, etc.
Effectively it may make little or no difference to the tax man.
That's my take on it. at first glance it seems a bit mental but could easily be as near as damn it revenue neutral. I can't see how it can possibly cost 2.8 million, unless literally everyone sets fire to the money they save.
Tax is largely about finding the sweet spot on the Laffer Curve, and Labour's response suggests it's not as mental as it seems:
Portillo made the point on "This Week" that it could be politically dumb. A lot of voters want the deficit reduced - we're currently paying 8% of tax spend on interest payments, I'm sure many voters think there are better things we cold be doing with that cash.
. I can’t see how it can possibly cost 2.8 million, unless literally everyone sets fire to the money they save.
It's costing 2,700 million
Even if it's all spent on UK taxed items then you don't get it all back, spend it on amazon from abroad or German bike shops then only the post office gets a little bit. Spend it at Starbucks and UK sees very little of it...
If all people do is pay off a little debt then it's not much of a win.
Spend all of that down the ladder a bit and you get more benefits for this who really need it.
Extra £500 is £100 VAT when spent (on full VATable items), more money to the business they’ve spent it on, more money for investment or maybe salaries, more tax from income, more money spent by employees and VAT on their spending, etc.
Effectively it may make little or no difference to the tax man. Less take in one area may be more take in another.
This
The interesting thing to me is that Labour have said they wouldn't reverse it, but would introduce another rate at 80k . Do they recognize that 50k isn't necessarily 'rich' anymore?
Portillo made the point on “This Week” that it could be politically dumb. A lot of voters want the deficit reduced – we’re currently paying 8% of tax spend on interest payments, I’m sure many voters think there are better things we cold be doing with that cash.
Reducing the debt makes much more sense than raising the higher limit threshold as theoretically everyone would benefit from less wastage on interest payments, but it's not exactly selling the 'Austerity is Over' message.
I'd rather it went directly into education or health but I doubt there's much political capital in 'look what you could have won ..'
In addition to the more spending argument its one that could easily be made if you used the cash to employ more nurses. coppers and teachers.
Same budget gave a 1 off 50quid per pupil bunus for secondary pupils for extra stuff like books and all the other stuff underfunded at the moment.
The met are taking the government to court over funding cuts and selling image rights to fund policing.
This is all about priorities.
Raising the 40% band, by more than inflation, is a way to counter salary stagnation, and the effects that has on the economy. Of course, cancelling the upcoming insanely harsh cuts to local authority budgets would be far more productive… the priority here is well off... not sure it's a bribe, but it shows government priorities… cut the state and offer tax cuts…
It’s costing 2,700 million
No chance. That would require no behaviour change at all and nobody to spend any of it on *any* taxable item. It Small changes in tax *do* shift revenue along the laffer curve, no matter how unlikely it seems from anecdotal evidence.
Givj g a high earner more money and they won’t put it under the mattress, they will spend it which benefits the economy etc etc.
Nope, they'll just save it or stick it in their pension (speaking personally).
NB Plenty of studies have shown that tax rebates to the rich cause less spending than the same amount given to the poor, where nearly all of it gets spent immediately on essentials like food and heating.
No chance. That would require no behaviour change at all and nobody to spend any of it on *any* taxable item.
That is the government figure in the budget papers. Its the direct tax take it they are giving up on to hope they get part of that back.
As said you could get much more for your money spending that on health, education etc or debt reduction as suggested above.
Do they recognize that 50k isn’t necessarily ‘rich’ anymore?
Double the average UK salary.
Extra £500 is £100 VAT when spent (on full VATable items)
I think your arithmetic is wrong there.
Double the average UK salary.
I'm not denying that.
I'm only commenting on the fact that Labour wouldn't reverse the increase, or even bring in a lower limit (a la Ecosse)
As an aside I don’t understand why we have tax bands, I’m sure it just encourages those that can afford it to avoid paying tax. Surely just set it at 25% or whatever for everyone. I suppose you’d have to increase the living wage to offset it, hmm this is getting complicated. Also avoid taxing the same bit of money twice e.g. income tax then VAT. Just have a single point of tax.
But yeah also the child benefit allowance based on the single highest wage is bonkers, should be based on household income.
IMHO a complex income tax solution is great for getting the masses to argument amongst themselves about what's 'fair' and notice we don't tax wealth, only income (by and large). If you're really rich, you stay rich, and so do your descendants forever more.
Truthfully though, it's not as clear as it looks - you get the odd chap who humblemoans that they have to pay 40% now, and 'lazy' or 'normal' people only pay 20% (honestly, I've heard that, from a friend).
It's simply not true. For a start if you don't consider NI you're a mug, it's a 'stealth' tax because for some reason we think it's somehow paid into a different pot just for JSA and State Pension, it's not.
The government deduction rates for 'most people' are really (these are the current ones):
0%
32%
42%
Because NI is 12% up to higher rate and 2% thereafter - 20% and 40% is enough for people who don't pay higher rate to think that the 'rich' pay much more, and 32% and 42% is close enough for people who have to pay it, to live with it.
And we all pay the same rates for the same amounts, if you earn £50,001 from next April, you'll only pay 42% of the last £1.
That is the government figure in the budget papers.
I'd be interested in seeing how they calculated that number and what estimates they used for what the 'saved' cash would be spent on, and what changes in behaviour would occur.
The 40% tax band was once originally the preserve of the very wealthy directly employed professions i.e. senior doctors, lawyers etc.
The failure to move the band in line with inflation over the last decade effectively pulled 1-1.5m extra people into the tax band - which now means many teachers, police officers etc are now classed as “rich”.
The guardian reported in 2014 that more than 1m people now pay 40% than would have paid the rate based on Labour’s tax and spending plans in the 2010 election ergo the 40% have made a disproportionate contribution to reducing the defect during a period when those on benefits and the retired saw incomes maintained.
I think your arithmetic is wrong there.
£83.
In addition to the more spending argument its one that could easily be made if you used the cash to employ more nurses. coppers and teachers.
Thats never going to happen. The money would simply be spent on reforming outdated service contracts and propping up failed PFI’s. Not a single £1 will be going towards new positions for humans in any public service.
Better get used to that fact that more £’s do not create Jobz.
The comment about people’s attitudes towards political parties changing as the get older is true, proven and in my situation valid.
Once a stout Tory Blue Neck with a centerist attitude, now a Pure Liberal with social awareness and conscience... 🤣
That extra £500 I’ll receive will be spent on increasing my charity payments I make each month.
Do they recognize that 50k isn’t necessarily ‘rich’ anymore?
Double the average UK salary.
Still doesn't make anyone rich. Just shows how shit the average salary is.
I am extremely privileged, Mrs Gob and me have a very good joint income.
How a young family, particularity in the SE, with 2 or 3 kids can get by on £50k a year and have any quality of life is beyond me. By the time you have paid the mortgage or rent on a house, gas, council tax and electricity. There won't be much of your £2500 take home left. Run a car and try and have a holiday and then there can't be enough.
Graph time!
When thresholds dont move you get a "fiscal drag" that due to inflationary increases in, say income or prices, captures increasing parts of the population. That might well be fine, but it does reinforce the notion of what someone thinks as "rich" is arbitrary. As one might think someone earning over £44k in 2010 is rich, but is someone earning over £43k in 2016 as rich or poorer? Which threshold defines "rich"?
Since 2010, an extra 1,500,000+ have been redefined as "rich". many of them by their inflationary pay rises taking them over an arbitrary threshold. It is unlikely their lifestyles will have improved or their disposable income increased, but they now qualify for paying higher rates of tax then they used to.
In fact just as this thread shows, one mans definition of Rich is another mans sauce. or something
EDIT: BTW the IFS analysis is pretty clear. The increase in the higher rate will take c.300k people out of the higher rate tax bracket, however if the higher rate threshold had grown with inflation since then 900k people (of the 1.5m above) would not be paying higher rate tax.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/13655
How a young family, particularity in the SE, with 2 or 3 kids can get by on £25k a year and have any quality of life is beyond me. By the time you have paid the mortgage or rent on a house, gas, council tax and electricity. There won’t be much of your £1250* take home left. Run a car and try and have a holiday and then there can’t be enough.
*Approximation....
*Approximation….
Exactly. The point I was making, that £50k a year is nothing if you have a family and want to do more than just "exist".
£25k a year? You would be skint.
£14k a year a living wage? Not at all.
I know, so take the list of priorities and decide where it should be spent.
