You do realise it’s proportional don’t you?
No, really, thats a shock!
No, really, thats a shock!
Lol, we'll he conveniently forgot that when he wrote his post....
Typical of the “lower earner” argument, is that it would appear higher earners are privileged for their success.
You keep using the word success, like you're referring to achievements. Would you not agree that you could just as easily, in a lot of cases, replace 'success' with the word 'luck'?
You keep using the word success, like you’re referring to achievements. Would you not agree that you could just as easily, in a lot of cases, replace ‘success’ with the word ‘luck’?
Yes sure. Some people are more successful, luckier, generally on a higher rung of the ladder than others. So what? You can be bitter about it all your life, or you can crack on with what you have and enjoy yourself the best you can. For some that will be harder than others, some will get/deserve help, some won't, but thats life. Ranting on the internet in a jealous rage waving our willies' over factoids who's right/wrong won't change it.
Kryton - my point is that taxation and the services it supports allows society to function. This benefits everyone - not least more wealthy people who wouldn't be in that position without a functioning society.
Just take education ( which you mentioned a couple of times). Without state education you would not have a modern workforce - even the most basic work requires literacy and numeracy and most requires much more sophisticated skillset. Without good state education society is doomed to a low skill, low productivity, low wealth economy.
The fact that some people, who have benefited most from an educated society, choose to privately educate their kids doesn't diminish the much wider benefits they receive from an educated (and wider functioning) society.
Sure, old dog, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just stating that the services you describe are the same for higher earners and lower earners. Yet the higher earners contribute more, and the knives come out when they' get a little more - £700 approx - back.
It'd be more of a understandable argument if a person paying £40k in tax to the revenue vs a person who pays £20k in tax got double the amount/standard of services and then got a bigger let off. But they don't.
Would you not agree that you could just as easily, in a lot of cases, replace ‘success’ with the word ‘luck’?
its worth noting that, however fair, a headline giveaway to 40% earners (who are likely tory voters anyway) is 7x cheaper than a giveaway to the 20% earners (source : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40117521 - 29.3m vs 4.2m on the 40%) - so if the whole value of the giveaway had been at the 20% level, it'd have put the base rate up to approx £13k (+/- £25 or so) and saved everyone £104, or spot on £2/week (apologies if my maths are wrong).
FWIW the 'high earners pay less proportional tax' thing is (IMO) a load of b******s. its based on the idea that higher rate earners don't spend all their money, and therefore don't spend as much vat as a proportion of income, however the money gets spent at some point, by someone, and surely attracts VAT at that point in time..
Higher earners have more to lose if the country goes tits up.
Perhaps they should be investing more to ensure that doesn't happen.
Typical of the “lower earner” argument, is that it would appear higher earners are privileged for their success.
What about a teacher, nurse, healthcare worker or such like who are very successful in a field that is vital to our society but not rewarded.
Yet the higher earners contribute more, and the knives come out when they’ get a little more – £700 approx – back.
Personally I'm happy for that to be spent on Education, Health or social care. They need it more than I do at the moment.
What about a teacher, nurse, healthcare worker or such like who are very successful in a field that is vital to our society but not rewarded.
Er, they have pay grades? A Head teacher earns more than I do, and is certainly in the higher tax bracket... senior level Doctors? Same. My MIL a local government social worker, also in the higher tax bracket.... And that's be the same for my own private sector job.
Sorry your argument was what exactly... invalid?
Personally I’m happy for that to be spent on Education, Health or social care. They need it more than I do at the moment.
Then donate it. You don't have to keep it.
Come on Mike. Don't be naive. Your worth is measured in how much you earn and how many shiny things you own. Healthcare workers and teachers are all just losers who clearly lack ambition
As a proportion of there income, higher rate tax payers t\do pay more as a proportion of their income.
No they don't.
Sorry your argument was what exactly… invalid?
Walk into A&E and tell them about your tax break and how you are worth it. You have picked on the minority examples there, wonder why....
Then donate it. You don’t have to keep it.
How do I pay more into the state?
If you can't spot the government are bribing you then you need to look a little closer and question how you earned your success.
A Head teacher earns more than I do
By definition, the vast majority of teachers cannot become headteachers.
My MIL a local government social worker, also in the higher tax bracket
If she's higher tax bracket, then she will be the head of service, responsible for a significant number of staff and a large budget.
Right, time for the next cherry pick.
By definition, the vast majority of teachers cannot become headteachers.
By definition, not all Sales people (my job) get to be higher earners...
As a proportion of there income, higher rate tax payers t\do pay more as a proportion of their income.
No they don’t.
got a source? I'd love to have a poke to see if its actually true once spending in old age and benefits (which effectively reverse tax burden) are taken into account
By definition, the vast majority of teachers cannot become headteachers.
true, however they can (and should, if they are best in their field) become leading practitioners, for which the pay scale is £40-68k before TLR payments (an optional, additional £500-13000)
https://neu.org.uk/advice-and-resources/pay/pay-scales-2018-9
then she will be the head of service, responsible for a significant number of staff and a large budget.
She isn't.
Its funny how the lower earners never think of the fact that other people might be paying for the state services that they consume, because thier wage bill doesn’t cover it.
For the record I'm a higher rate tax payer...
How do I pay more into the state?
make a patriotic gift. not many do...
https://www.ft.com/content/4b3e6db0-e57a-11e7-8b99-0191e45377ec
true, however they can (and should, if they are best in their field) become leading practitioners, for which the pay scale is £40-68k before TLR payments (an optional, additional £500-13000)
and seriously
WTF does that have to do with equality in the tax system. If those teachers get to that pay grade do they feel they need a bung from the government or would they think it better spent on education and lower paid teachers?
Of course at 50k you could have saved yourself some tax by paying alittle more into your pension, another tax benefit which yields significantly more to higher earners.
For the record I’m a higher rate tax payer…
Tsk... 😉
By definition, the vast majority of teachers cannot become headteachers.
Do you honestly think the vast majority of say bank workers for example are in the higher tax bracket? Trust me, they aren't... They'll earn less than a teacher.. By quite a bit.
Some people's seem to think that in the public sector there is no way to earn a good wage, whilst in the private sector everyone just turns up to work and gets paid 40k a year. Utterly clueless.
I find this outrage about what is a pretty minor amount on a headline very funny.
the man delivering the budget is known as mr spreadsheet for his attention to the numbers. Personally I think this is a good thing
now he is expecting the treasury revenue to increase despite the collapse of the high street and many other factors. If he can potentially give out this cash and all the other money he is stinging us somewhere else. I can’t see the trend yet but have not reviewed the full package. We gonna get screwed it is always the case
of course he could just be throwing numbers out there to look good knowing that in March there will be an emergency budget unless we are still in the full status quo with the EU...
She isn’t
If she's earning enough to pay higher rate tax, then she isn't a social worker. Local authorities don't even pay that much to team leaders.
Do you honestly think the vast majority of say bank workers for example are in the higher tax bracket? Trust me, they aren’t… They’ll earn less than a teacher.. By quite a bit.
Where did I say that they are? My comment was a response to Kryton's tedious cherry picking.
Some people’s seem to think that in the public sector there is no way to earn a good wage
I'm in the public sector and earn a good wage. HTH.
It certainly seems a budget to try and buy a few votes with the change in tax breaks. Especially the increase in the higher rate starting point. I've got to say that it seems odd given that the Scottish tax break points are remaining the same. It's funny how tax rates are not decreased these days but the tax break points are used to give tax payers money back.
The "one-off £400m "bonus" to help schools buy "the little extras they need" is offensive in all sorts of ways. It sounds like giving a tip or something instead of addressing the real funding shortages in schools.
Finally tightening up the IR35 rules seems like a good thing.
Kryton’s tedious cherry picking.
Of what exactly? I genuinely thought my posts this morning where quite generic to the subject...
got a source? I’d love to have a poke to see if its actually true once spending in old age and benefits (which effectively reverse tax burden) are taken into account
I can't find it right now, but the government releases an annual report of household income and expenditure, broken down by income decile. IIRC only the poorest and wealthiest deciles see a significant shift in total taxation, with everyone else about the same.
Of what exactly? I genuinely thought my posts this morning where quite generic to the subject…
Seriously? It was suggested that nurses and teachers perform a rather important role in society, while not earning a fortune, and you decided to talk about head teachers and your mother in law.
For the record, I earn pretty well, but I'm not arrogant enough to believe that it's all down to my own endeavours, or that I'm more successful than someone who earns less, or that I shouldn't pay some more towards the common good from which I've benefitted.
If she’s earning enough to pay higher rate tax, then she isn’t a social worker. Local authorities don’t even pay that much to team leaders.
Depends on location and speciality. I knew social workers paying higher rate tax in that London 15 years ago... is probably not the norm but market forces made them jack up salaries as everyone was quitting.
As above if you are in the middle nothing much changes. Everyone has a different perception of low middle and high though...
The “one-off £400m “bonus” to help schools buy “the little extras they need” is offensive in all sorts of ways. It sounds like giving a tip or something instead of addressing the real funding shortages in schools
I think it really demonstrates the disconnect in government (and the Westminster Bubble generally) in how they perceive things, and how things actually are. I don't think that in their world of private healthcare and education, they've any real concept of how a decade of cuts has impacted on education and so many other areas in public life.
Or if they do perceive it and just don't care? In which case its just like beating your wife consistently for a decade then one day bunging her twenty quid an telling her to go and buy herself something nice
For those trotting out the same old "high earners always get more nonsense" Have a read of this, it is a few years old and written by David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?
The paying customers?
How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.
The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For the record, I earn pretty well, but I’m not arrogant enough to believe that it’s all down to my own endeavours, or that I’m more successful than someone who earns less, or that I shouldn’t pay some more towards the common good from which I’ve benefitted
Neither i am. You’ve clearly judged me on one piece of internet text. There was another thread a week ok about peoples savings within which I posted my employment life story to date, maybe you should read that. I’m doing alright now but very aware it could come crashing down at any minute, I’m very much “the middle” in the main.
It wasn’t me that mentioned Head Teachers, and I used my MIL as an example of a public sector employee in the higher tax bracket where it was alluded by Mike that such a thing might not be possible - since vindicated by others.
@hooli - very good!
Depends on location and speciality. I knew social workers paying higher rate tax in that London 15 years ago… is probably not the norm but market forces made them jack up salaries as everyone was quitting.
I just had a quick look on Guardian jobs for social care in London, over £50k. The adverts were mostly for service leads and directors, with a couple of team managers.
Neither i am. You’ve clearly judged me on one piece of internet text.
It's how you come across, to me and others here.
others here.
Oh, I didn't realise you talk amongst yourselves about me 🙂
You mean arrogant? Ah well, I apologise for my writing style then because that really isn't the case.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
There's no evidence this actually happens it's just a hypothesis put out by the rich every time someone mentions tax.
It wasn’t me that mentioned Head Teachers, and I used my MIL as an example of a public sector employee in the higher tax bracket where it was alluded by Mike that such a thing might not be possible – since vindicated by others.
Nope you misunderstood the point. It was simply that there are a lot of people earning low incomes doing very important jobs. they are amazingly successful and work really hard for their low income. Going on about higher rate tax payers in the public sector has nothing to do with it at all.
For those trotting out the same old “high earners always get more nonsense” Have a read of this, it is a few years old and written by David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
He didn't write it. It also doesn't work as an analogy, because the poorest person wouldn't be able to afford a beer, while the richest person would be drinking champagne on his private jet.
Nope you misunderstood the point. It was simply that there are a lot of people earning low incomes doing very important jobs. they are amazingly successful and work really hard for their low income. Going on about higher rate tax payers in the public sector has nothing to do with it at all.
A fact I never refuted, or deny to be the case and fact is a life I've lived for the majority of my working life (although my jobs have been very low on a level of importance) so I'm not sure why you are raising it as an objection against me? And FWIW, I never started the higher rate debate, others did. In which car perhaps they'd take your advice because every time one of these types of threads appear, someone wades in with how unfair it all is. Of course they are welcome to their opinion yet as we are seeing here its pretty much unsubstantiated.
I'm just going to add for honesty, that up until my recent mental reform I'd have been banging on about unfairness in an uneducated way also, but these days I'm being a tad more pragmatic about what I'm experiencing within my family circle, and not devoting too much thought to what I'm not, with some exceptions.
For the record, I earn pretty well, but I’m not arrogant enough to believe that it’s all down to my own endeavours, or that I’m more successful than someone who earns less, or that I shouldn’t pay some more towards the common good from which I’ve benefitted.
glad to hear you'll be sending any reduction in tax you pay back to HMRC. apparently all you have to do is write a cheque and tell them what you would like it to be spent on.
Wah wah wah I want my money for me!!!
I deserve it and the poor deserve to be poor, **** em!!!
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.There’s no evidence this actually happens it’s just a hypothesis put out by the rich every time someone mentions tax.
Yep all those tax havens across the world where you meet ex-pat Brits, they are just there for the nice weather
true, however they can (and should, if they are best in their field) become leading practitioners, for which the pay scale is £40-68k
Our larger than average comp has more head teachers than lead practitioners, they cost too much.
I can't see many rich people fleeing Britain at present, can you? Seeing as post-Brexit London will effectively become the worlds biggest tax haven.
They may swan off to one of their other homes while the chaos unfolds, but I'd imagine that as a way of paying as little tax as possible, the Brexit process will be looking pretty advantageous to your average non-dom oligarch
