Jeremy Corbyn

only if you ignore the % part of the % calculation

Yes, people earning £80k can afford to pay more, and at a higher percentage rate too, greedy ****ers...

Oh wait, they already do.

Based on the Salary Calculator website with 3% pension contribution:

£20k basic
Tax = £1,580
NI = 1,420

£40k basic
Tax = £5,460
NI = £3,820

£80k basic
Tax = £19,740
NI = £5,120

Seems to me that the top 5% are already puting in at least 8x what below average earners put in. Isn't that how it's supposed to work, why does it need further changes?

well of course they pay more already. The point is more money is required for public services and it has to come from somewhere. One of those places is from tax from earnings and the best place to take from is the top 5%.
Again, if you earn £80K you are lucky (for all sorts of reasons) and paying more tax than someone who is unlucky seems fair enough to me. Someone earning £80k doesn't work 7 times harder than someone earning £12K do they. They are lucky to be getting overpaid in that regard.

When you look at taxation and inputs you also have to remember that the more you earn the more you can benefit from things like tax free pension contributions, share schemes etc. you can manage your tax better.

As a simple question if we need to raise more taxes should it come from those with the most or the least?
If you earn 81k you may be slightly worse off than a couple earning 40k but your partner could easily work to match that couldn't they - up to £11,500 in fact so that argument seems to be a weak one.

I think it's a perfectly reasonable, and sensible thing to do. We need higher taxes, that much is obvious.

+1

Someone earning £80k doesn't work 7 times harder than someone earning £12K do they. They are lucky to be getting overpaid in that regard.

A very good point. I earn over £80k and probably average 35 hours a week and have a very cushy work life balance (the higher you go, the easier it gets as you have much more autonomy and can manage your own time)...

I earn over £80k and probably average 35 hours a week and have a very cushy work life balance (the higher you go, the easier it gets as you have much more autonomy and can manage your own time).

Wtf are you doing? You must never admit this and are supposed to say you work hard and deserve all you get and the low earners should just work harder.

This is where the younger generation find out why Tony Blair was so successful at getting elected, while Michael Foot was not.

Conservative landslide.

Can you explain why you think it is right for one person to earn £80K and another £12K?

Hmmm i'll have a go at this one.

-Some jobs have much more training and skills required?
-Because some jobs have far more responsibility and pressure
-Because some jobs create far more wealth than others
-Because some jobs are absolutely critical to scociety and only certain individuals are capable of doing them

i could go on..

Someone earning £80k doesn't work 7 times harder than someone earning £12K do they. They are lucky to be getting overpaid in that regard.

no they dont work 7 times harder but noones going to suggest thats why they get paid 7 times as much....

FYI, 12k p/a is less than the minimum wage for a full time employee...

Corbyn probably knows the best they can hope for is merely disastrous, so is making sure he can't be accused afterwards by his momentum chums of not being having been radical enough.

As a Care Worker, albeit one with a posh title:

tpbiker - Member

Hmmm i'll have a go at this one.
-Some jobs have much more training and skills required?
-Because some jobs have far more responsibility and pressure
-Because some jobs create far more wealth than others
-Because some jobs are absolutely critical to scociety and only certain individuals are capable of doing them

I think the job I do fits these criteria.

Lots of training, far more than people realise.

The 'wealth' created is pocketed by the directors.
They tend to buy Porsches and big houses in Cheshire with it.

I'm legally responsible for people's lives.
There are hundreds of situations every day where a simple mistake can hurt or kill someone.
Moving and handling, administration of meds, incorrect record keeping etc.

My job is 'critical to society'.
If we don't look after your relatives, who will?

Only certain people CAN do it.
Try it if you don't believe me.

Educational attainment is irrelevant - lots of care workers with degrees, lots with minimum qualifications.

Most people won't entertain the idea of looking after their own flesh and blood.
I think guilt about this is one reason why we are largely ignored.

Now you tell me I'm worth no more than £8.00 an hour.

Can you explain why you think it is right for one person to earn £80K and another £12K?

As others have said, there are loads of reasons.

I spend a significant time away from home, sometimes in conditions most people would consider completely unacceptable. I do a job that few people are qualified for or have have the relevant experience. Not saying the qualification is particular difficult, just not many people go that way. The experience is more critical and even fewer people with my quals go that route. I eanr more than £80k. So basically supply and demand.

Although saying all that, I thought I was getting the chop a few weeks ago. 😳

FWIW I would happily pay 45-50% on my higher tax band. We need more money to pay for more expensive and high tech society we live in. It's not free and the money has come from somewhere, so tax the "rich" not the "poor".

I have no problem with people earning as much as they want, or can, but those people who do earn the higher salaries should accept their social responsibility to help, financially, a little more than those worse off than them.

No one it talking about equalisation of wealth, just higher contributions, which seems fair.

Social responsibility?
Doesn't exist anymore.

We need to blame someone, it's a lot easier and much, much more fun.

As a Care Worker, albeit one with a posh title

Well, people like you can access food banks for fee supplies so you shouldn't complain. Really - how is it that the PM can make such comments and not be strung up from a lamp post, but Corbyn is pilloried for suggesting that the rich pay a bit more?

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/income-tax-statistics-and-distributions

I think you'll find that the top 5% of earnings are already contributing disproportionately. but of course they don't vote labour, and it's an unpalatable fact that nobody wants to hear.

From that table, the top 10% of earners contribute 1/3 of all revenue, the top 5% contribute a quarter.

^ doesnt that show then that the top 5% have a disproportionate amount of income so can afford to give a bit more?

The point is more money is required for public services and it has to come from somewhere.

&

We need more money to pay for more expensive and high tech society we live in.

To me this is commonly believed tosh.

If some government departments can't perform their function with the billions that already gets assigned to them, then I doubt they would do any better with a bit more on top.

That's not to say that many public facing services don't need more funding to replace knackered kit, or to hire/train staff. How much money is wasted before it gets to where it is actually needed?

On top of that I believe the government now spends £10 billion p.a. on PFI repayments. How many times over does the public need to pay for projects? If the Guardians figures are correct we will have speant £80 billion for £10 billion worth of investment in NHS related projects alone. That's just one department, the RAF tanker fleet will cost £10bn for less than £3bn worth of hardware.

I'm well aware you pay more for something on tick, but who on here would pay £1.2million in total for a £200k house?

We should be on the streets the way public money has been speant, and instead people think we should throw good after bad by taxing those who already pay more, more. Bonkers.

I think Corbyn is just chasing a few votes on this one, and has no real plans to tackle the problems facing public spending.

From that table, the top 10% of earners contribute 1/3 of all revenue, the top 5% contribute a quarter.

That's exactly how it should be.

That table also shows that the top 50% are paying the lowest % of the total tax revenues for the last 20 years and the bottom 50% the highest %.

That what needs correcting.

I think everyone should pay the same percentage of tax, whether you earn 15K or 100K. I have never understood the argument that just because you earn more you should somehow have to pay more via a higher percentage rate. Why should it be at a higher percent rate? Never understood that, If you did well at school, went to uni, got a great job, or set up your own business straight out of school and became very successful, why should you pay lots more tax? Why does any of that mean you should be paying more than someone that sits on a checkout or works in a factory. None of these jobs are better or worse than the other, but why more of a percentage of your wage has to be taken off you. Everyone should pay more tax for better services but not more of a percentage of your wage.

BTW I am a avg income earner who didn't do well at school or go to Uni, the upper tax brackets don't apply to me...

Never understood that, If you did well at school, went to uni, got a great job, or set up your own business straight out of school and became very successful, why should you pay lots more tax? Why does any of that mean you should be paying more than someone that sits on a checkout or works in a factory

stumpyjon - Member

It might start off with the top 5% but it'll soon increase. Then again we're back to the stupid situation where a single earning household of 81k will be paying the new rate whilst next door with two 45k earners bringing in 90k still pay 20%.

What's wrong with that? If it's taking 2 people to bring in the same earnings as one, why shouldn't they get a break? You say it like their circumstances are comparable but they're really very different.

Because society needs to be funded, the more you earn the more you can contribute.

Again, isn't that how percentages work anyway?

Because society needs to be funded, the more you earn the more you can contribute. Are you suggesting that somebody earning 20k taking home 16k should take less home?
If you earn 200k you take 116k and can pay a lot more into your pension (tax free) along with a lot more.

I understand it needs to be funded and think all should pay (plucked out of thin air) 25% tax rate. I am suggesting exactly that, someone earning 20k takes home 15k, someone earning 200k takes home 150k.

Not a universally accepted view I know but I have never understood the need to penalise richer people to nearly half their earnings.

I have never understood the argument that just because you earn more you should somehow have to pay more via a higher percentage rate. Why should it be at a higher percent rate? Never understood that

We all need a certain amount of money to live off once that is earned it is disposable income. Those with the highest earnings have the most disposal income so they need the money least so they pay the most.

it would be daft to tax a billionaire at the same rate as MW worker.

IME the hardest jobs i have ever done also paid the least.

I have never understood the need to penalise richer people to nearly half their earnings.

20k takes home 15k, someone earning 200k takes home 150k

A person on 20K loses 50% of their disposable income

the person on 200K loses 26%.

Essentially if you do it your way you give money to the better off and take it from the poorer off. WHY?

The reason we do it is to transfer the burden tot hose who have the broadest shoulders in order to give more money to those less well off

once we have finished the rich are still much better off than the poor even though they paid more tax [ total and %].Its one of the prices of being a winner in life if you want to view it that way.

it would be daft to tax a billionaire at the same rate as MW worker.

Why? do the police and fire brigade come to his house quicker or something? Better roads and railways and libraries for the well off are there?

I have never understood how folk understand that folk get paid more yet dont understand that they then have to pay more tax

Again, isn't that how percentages work anyway?

I have never understood the need to penalise richer people to nearly half their earnings.

It's called paying your share...

It's called paying your share...

...and that of many others.

To me this is commonly believed tosh.

It really isn't.

I agree that various governments have wasted money and the PFI business was an absolute scandal.

However, the PFI thing happened because we demanded modern hospitals and a better service, however no one wanted to pay more tax and the PFI money could be hidden off the balance sheet.

It was described to me as the government equivalent of buying all the stuff for your house from Crazy Georges.

I'm with Junky on this. (Twice is as many weeks who'd of thought it? :-))

Once you have your basic needs financed, the rest is really an indulgence. Pissing it away on ridiculous £100k off-roaders to take the kids to school and the like.

Off course you should pay more tax.

Well that provoked debate. The selfish comment I made was in reference to the clear populist direction of this Labour policy, someone else must pay for the improvements in state services. If it's that vital we increase funding everybody should be asked to pay more. As an aside I can't remember a time in the last 20 years when public services weren't about to go into melt down due you lack of funding regardless of who was in power.

Back to the main issue though, as Paul Johnson of the IFS said today a bit more tax on the top 5% isn't going to fund all of Labours spending promises by a long way.

For the record I'm some way off 80k per year but I don't see why my income is any more relevant to the debate than someone on 20k demanding people on 80k should pay even more.

Final point, why is there differences in pay, because that's the system we have, market forces determine salary in the most part (senior execs excepted granted but they're earning a little more than 80k). It's democracy, if you want some sort of Marxist state you'll need your to sell that to the voters, at the moment Corbyn's communist lite polices don't seem to be that popular.

@Junkyard, you have no idea where my moral compass points, to make assumptions based on one post is pretty poor, debate the points I've made, disagree, provide alternative views and facts but leave the personal insults out.

If it's that vital we increase funding everybody should be asked to pay more.

As an aside I can't remember a time in the last 20 years when public services weren't about to go into melt down due you lack of funding regardless of who was in power.

you have no idea where my moral compass points, to make assumptions based on one post is pretty poor, debate the points I've made, disagree, provide alternative views and facts but leave the personal insults out.

I suspect the answer is a mixture of your own moral code and where you sit on that disparity

It was not meant as a personal comment on anyone, never mind a personal insult, it was meant as a general point and the other was a broad statement.

I have been guilty of doing these in the past and i am trying to stop. it was not intentional in this case and I apologise

Thank you, a well reasoned response.

I think the point about those being able to pay more is important and that would include most people who earn. Agreed there are people struggling to survive on minimum wage jobs or above who can't afford more but I would suggest the point at which people can afford to pay more is well below 80k per year, it just wouldn't be popular for a politician to say so.

As for austerity putting public services where they are I'm not so sure it's all about money. The constant reorganisations, changes of policy and general lack of clarity about what public services are for has done way more damage to services and morale. All politicians have been guilty of this although the Tory free school policy has taken stupid decisions to a new level of waste and unintended consequences.

This whole tax the rich rubbish is empty class war rhetoric which avoids dealing with the real issues we have about use of resources and what we should and shouldn't be funding.

Food banks, to be honest I don't have enough knowledge to know whether the increase in use is due to their availability or genuine need. To assume because they are being used equates to austerity effects, causation and correlation are different. The cost of housing though is a clear issue that needs to be addressed, the appalling lack of regulation of personal lending during the Blair/Brown years resulted in sky high house prices and subsequently rents. It's going to take brave politician to sort that out.

"You could use Labour's number"

Fine, post it, I couldn't find it.

[IMG] [/IMG]

Grum where is that from?

Jack straw was Blackburn MP then so i assume its from him

I just google the first few words.
[url= https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/04/can-anybody-find-significant-difference-mays-policies-british-national-party-manifesto-2005/ ]https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/[/url]

Sorry yup forgot to attribute.

Food banks are NOT increasing in numbers because of demand fuelling a free for all, you have to be referred by a doctor, the DWP, the NHS, other professional bodies.
People Will suffer starvation before accepting the stigma that goes with their use. Parents will avoid using them due to fear of interference from Social Services removing at risk children.
Government figures for food bank use only includes The Trussle Trust, all other organisations, and there are lots, aren't recognised for official figures.
And despite all that above, their growth is exponential

"Back to the main issue though, as Paul Johnson of the IFS said today a bit more tax on the top 5% isn't going to fund all of Labours spending promises by a long way."

This is the crux. We all have an opinion on 'fairness' it's totally subjective.

A more useful discussion is 1) Will 80k earners chipping in 30k each be enough for what's planned. 2) Will taxing the top 5pc to that degree raise revenue, sacrifice revenue or be revenue neutral. (Where does it move things on the Laffer Curve.)

Given that (IIRC) the 50p tax rate was roughly revenue neutral. That's probably a clue how this policy will pan out.

Labour haven't said this is the only tax change they are making though, they are also changing capital gains, corporation and inheritance to help fund their policies

A more useful discussion is 1) Will 80k earners chipping in 30k each be enough for what's planned.

Blue herring.

The cuts to PIP and other disability benefits aren't likely to cover all future costs either.
I don't remember anyone having to point this out.

I was struck by how entirely similar Theresa May’s discourse is to that of the British National Party candidate I fought in Blackburn in 2005. That led me to turn to the BNP 2005 Manifesto, and I can see little significant difference between it and current Tory policy.

The British National Party in 2005 advocated:

– Severe cuts in immigration
– Leaving the EU
– Bringing back grammar schools
– Increased military spending
– More “security” and “strong leadership”
– Foreign policy driven by “British national interest” not human rights
– Reduce development aid

Interesting, heres a few he missed:

[i]A ban on postal voting
Ban the conducting or publishing of opinion polls in the last three weeks of an election campaign,
each of our traditional Saints Days would be made Public Holidays in the nations in question,
Schools in England will be encouraged to celebrate May Day
We support the re-introduction of corporal punishment for petty criminals and vandals, and the restoration of capital punishment for paedophiles, terrorists and murderers
We are wholly committed to a free, fully funded National Health Service for all British citizens.
Owners should work, and workers should own - BNP supports the gradual assumption of worker ownership through their pension funds.
Abolition of income tax
abolish TV licence
abolish road fund licence
renationalisation of public transport
introduce a special tax on companies that evade paying other taxes in Britain by out-sourcing jobs to factories and call centres overseas
fund research into renewable and quasi-renewable energy sources and transmission systems, such wind power, solar power, wave power, hydrogen fuel, and the pebble-bed nuclear reactor.
reintroduction of National Service
not permit the growing of GM crops.
withdraw from NATO[/i]

Saints days as bank holidays? Withdraw from NATO? Anti GM crops? Renationalise public transport? Workers ownership of firms? Taxes aimed at tax dodging international companies?

How very Jeremy!

at the moment Corbyn's communist lite polices don't seem to be that popular.

For a start they are not close to communist polices but whose to say they are not that popular?

If people took a second to think about what would be best for them they would suit the majority of people. Unfortunately people don't think and are easily led into thinking Corbyn is some sort of communist who will take us back to the 70's - with your comments I would put you in that camp.
As it is, we will get a May government where we have no way of knowing if her policies are popular as she doesn't seem to have any. Being strong and stable is not a policy....

I understand it needs to be funded and think all should pay (plucked out of thin air) 25% tax rate. I am suggesting exactly that, someone earning 20k takes home 15k, someone earning 200k takes home 150k.

You need to do the maths. The above example would give you £55k from tax whereas with current system you would be getting much more than that. That means you would have to raise the tax to around 40%. DO you really think someone earning £20k should pay £8K in tax?

It also goes back to the fact that why is the one person earning £200k, 10 times more than the person on £20k. Market forces, going to Uni BS aside are they really worth 10 times as much?
My thoughts are no they are not, whatever they are doing, so while I cannot stop them earning £200k I can take a good proportion of it to distribute fairly. They are then left with £100K, still 5 times more than the person on the lower wage.

"Labour haven't said this is the only tax change they are making though, they are also changing capital gains, corporation and inheritance to help fund their policies"

Nobody's disputing that. The question still remains: Is it enough.

You disputed it a few posts ago:

A more useful discussion is 1) Will 80k earners chipping in 30k each be enough for what's planned.

So why did you bring it up in the first place?

I would suggest the point at which people can afford to pay more is well below 80k per year, it just wouldn't be popular for a politician to say so.

This. I'd like to know where the magic line is so I can stay the right side of judgement.

This. I'd like to know where the magic line is so I can stay the right side of judgement.

That would be impossible...

...Single earning household, or double? Kids or no kids? Much of a mortgage - depends when you got on the property ladder, how long have you been earning, how much debt etc.

What sounds like a large wage could very well be just-about-managing to someone else, no?

Nobody's disputing that. The question still remains: Is it enough.

[url= https://www.ft.com/content/dfe26fea-300b-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a ]FT Do labours plans balance[/url]

Guess we'll know more when they publish their costed budget

Paywall

Weird, works for me

You disputed it a few posts ago:

I was using an electric screwdriver with a toddler nearby and also typing that post on a mobile at the same time, so it didn't get the attention it deserved! 😀 I was aware there will be other tax rises apart from income tax (corporation tax has had a lot of press), so yes I should not have said tax increases in general.

The FT article is behind a paywall for me too. It's only £1 for a 4 week trial and you can pay by paypal, so I think I'll change the habit of a lifetime and stump up.

It's not just you, it appears to be endemic.
🙂

It appears that double standards apply.

You don't believe it, it's patently absurd, it deflects attention from the issues, but it's anti Labour so let's crack on.

The FT article is behind a paywall for me too. It's only £1 for a 4 week trial and you can pay by paypal, so I think I'll change the habit of a lifetime and stump up.

Because I've already got a log-in it won't let me have the 1£ 4 week offer... 🙁

You don't believe it,

I might believe there's a ton of spare cash available for HMRC to harvest - I haven't seen the numbers yet, which is what I was asking for this morning.

EDIT: 'it' defined.

You've already said you don't stand by your post, make your mind up!

Sorry, noticed your edit, my initial post was ambiguous.
I don't have a screwdriver, but I am watering the garden.
🙂

I'm sure I read somewhere that 34 pence in every pound paid to your local council goes towards the pensions of council employees.
I wish I didn't have to fund the majority of my pension.

Try this for the FT article
[url= https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:c9HW3GXEFDUJ:https://www.ft.com/content/dfe26fea-300b-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk ]https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:c9HW3GXEFDUJ: https://www.ft.com/content/dfe26fea-300b-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk [/url]

A more useful discussion is 1) Will 80k earners chipping in 30k each be enough for what's planned.

sargey - Member

I'm sure I read somewhere that 34 pence in every pound paid to your local council goes towards the pensions of council employees.
I wish I didn't have to fund the majority of my pension.

1) Government cuts to local authority funding means that your council tax is also a significantly greater %age of their overall balance sheet than 7 years ago. (Particularly if your local council is labour-controlled and your area has a poor conservative vote in general elections too -although the government will dispute this till they are blue in the face the conincidence is quite compelling.)

2) They are reducing spending all over the place by quite extraordinary amounts: you can close libraries, move to fortnightly bin collections, farm out road repairs to crappy subcontractors etc but cutting people's pension repayments is not so simple to enact. Therefore pension payments represent and increasing percentage of their budget (which is increasingly from you personally not the government) because it is not falling in line with cuts to services and current staffing levels.

3) if its anything like the NHS pension, then the story goes that there is no pension 'fund' as a load of money that exists saved up for pensions. -pansion payouts come from this years budget not money saved up 30 years ago. Mine is just like an extra bit of tax that the DOH spend on other stuff in the hope that in 26 years time they will be able to pay me back as if they had actually put it away somewhere to save it for me.

4) How did you calculate that 34% of your council's tax take makes the 'majority' of these peoples' pensions payments? How many pensions, and of what value are they paying out for with that notional 34% (our local council employed thousand and thousands of people in the 80's and 90's, most of whom had pensions and many of whom are now retired.

If you assume the average income for £80k plus earners is £100k, and the tax rate at £80k moves from 40% to 45% you get a net increase in tax contributions of £1,000 per person. You can fiddle around with the numbers and % above but [b]you will struggle to get to £30k.[/b]

Yup, that's the problem.

Going with the £1,000 per person. Assume ~1.6 million people. That's 1.6 Billion. You just can't generate significant cash by taxing the 'rich'.

But it helps.
Presumably like those disability cuts 'helped'.

Except no one will die because of it.

That, plus bringing an end to all this austerity rubbish, would go some way. No one is saying it's everything, but it's a start.

plus bringing an end to all this austerity rubbish, would go some way

Yes, spending more would definitely cost less, it's worked every time in the past after all.

Yes, spending more would definitely cost less, it's worked every time in the past after all.

...and yet somehow insisting we are spending less these last 7 years seems to have increased our national debt by just over 50%. [url= https://fullfact.org/economy/has-uks-debt-doubled/ ]uncomfortable truth here[/url] Has money just got more expensive these days?

Try this for the FT article
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:c9HW3GXEFDUJ:https://www.ft.com/content/dfe26fea-300b-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Ta much appreciated. So the cash can come from increased revenue forecast in 2018/2019.

But it helps.

I suspect a lot of people were expecting something a bit more significant than 0.2pc of the national budget. Blair trebled the NHS budget to £94bn over 10 years. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4555344.stm)

Yes, spending more would definitely cost less,

yet spending less now costs more in the future, see education & in particular sure start dentres etc

Has money just got more expensive these days?

Well we did lose our AAA rating so in theory it should have. But ironically uncertainty makes bond more desirable so seemingly it doesn't matter.

Yeah, but

Yeah but nothing.

The right wingers on this thread would not condemn the cuts to disability benefits until pressed to do so, and then how many did so?
One or two of you?

Mention something that would affect your income and it's as if someone has suggested we all take up recreational bestiality.

It's obvious where priorities lie, and it's doesn't reflect well on any of you.

Rusty Spanner - Member
But it helps.
Presumably like those disability cuts 'helped'.

Except no one will die because of it.

I think youll find that all the appeals to wrongly applied sanctions has cost the taxpayer far many £millions than the sanctions "saved"

(not a go at Rusty, just clarifying)

Tory mentality.

A Tory MP has been blasted for claiming emergency food parcels should not be given to people because they could become reliant on them.

Paul Maynard, who works for Minister of State Oliver Letwin, said people could start going to food banks out of habit rather than helping themselves.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/conservative-mp-paul-maynard-food-2335762

(not a go at Rusty, just clarifying)

No worries, I didn't think you were.

I don't think the disability cuts were just about the illusion of cost saving.
They were about punishment.

A softening up exercise for the demolition of social security.

Once its gone, cue much threads of STW middle management privilege types gnashing of teeth as the Precariat feed their kids by preying on the weak -
Their bike sheds

Be careful what you wish for, Welfare is an insurance policy of many facets

The 'Yeah but' in my post relates to text recently deleted from a recent post.

Would the poster involved care to respond?

ninfan - Member

Yes, spending more would definitely cost less, it's worked every time in the past after all.

Darling & Brown post 2008 Global crash economic turnaround, much? Damn. There goes that selective right wing memory again

Going with the £1,000 per person. Assume ~1.6 million people. That's 1.6 Billion. You just can't generate significant cash by taxing the 'rich'.

Very poor maths going on there. The £1,000 is for the person on £100k, they are at the bottom of the 5%.
The average is around £160k from memory so you would get a few times that in extra tax. Plus the extra tax should be even higher than that above say £150k and tax should be 60 or 70%.

Now you are going to tell us that someone earning £200k per year (around £10k net per month) is not rich either.

"The £1,000 is for the person on £100k"

The £1000 didn't come from me, I don't think it's even a real number just that poster's ballpark guess.

The FT article posted by greentricky answers one of my two questions, and I'm not sure the other one has a definitive answer, so I'm happy.

Morning.

Care to respond to my post?

Plus the extra tax should be even higher than that above say £150k and tax should be 60 or 70%.

I fear we've been here before