Jeremy Corbyn

At which point they will likely determine that having defined "Rich" as people earning >£150K in 2010, and >£70K in 2017, it will be defined in the future as anyone earning >£35K.

As rich is subjective and not exactly scientific it is best not to use it. It also seems very emotive for greedy right wingers.

I would use the average salary as a base and use multiples of that to determine what tax rules to apply. It also adds the perspective required.

#Jambanomics! 😆

Showing up your entire online persona to be utter balls here Jamba! 😆

Meanwhile - Bernie Sanders has just started a 3-day tour of the UK and is getting some positive press for Corbyn.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bernie-sanders-jeremy-corbyn-endorse-general-election-2017-labour-brighton-speech-donald-trump-paris-a7768226.html

I don't really want to get too involved here but the marginal rate of tax on every extra pound earned over £80k could be 54.8p in the pound. So reluctantly I'd have to say I can see where Jambas coming from.

Is that what he's saying?

I missed that in his ramblings.

Besides, why shouldn't that be a fair rate?

As rich is subjective and not exactly scientific it is best not to use it. It also seems very emotive for greedy right wingers.

Which is funny because it came straight out of the mouth of John McDonnell who has a very nice £1.5m pension pot he hasn't paid a penny towards. But sitting on £1.5m you haven't paid for yourself apparently = "working class hero".

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/apr/19/how-much-earn-rich-70000-labour

could you take 5 minutes to address the comments about corporation tax as its tedious to see you move to a new subject when your grasp has been shown to be weak
its like people dont want to have any understanding they just want to state an opinion irrespective of the facts

just5minutes
Which is funny because it came straight out of the mouth of John McDonnell who has a very nice £1.5m pension pot he hasn't paid a penny towards. But sitting on £1.5m you haven't paid for yourself apparently = "working class hero".

For someone earning £80k every £1 they earn at that level is taxed at 54.8p hence my calculation. When people talk about salaries and earnings they talk about the gross salary of the employee so adding in employers NI and expressing that relative to the stated salary is the right calculation in my view.

This is wrong because the 54.8p is taken out of a 112.8p cost to the employer of [s]employing that person[/s] raising their salary by £1. If you're going to add it to the tax you have to add it to the salary too. That gives a marginal tax rate of 48.6%, the employee taking home 51.4% of the cost [s]to employ him[/s] of £1 increase in salary(58p out of 112.8p).

What comments? The only comment is from Lifer who said there are other factors but didn't say what they are.

Junkyard - lazarus
If you do not understand the issue you are trying to explain to us then please dont try and explain it to us.

here is a simple [ and suitably right wing explanation] for you

[url] https://www.ft.com/content/ca3e5bd2-2a7e-11e7-9ec8-168383da43b7 [/url]
"Surely if the rate makes no difference to actual receipts there would be no point?"
Straw man no onw has said they make no difference they have said other things also make a difference as the article will explain to you.

JP Morgan: Theresa May losing the general election would be good for the pound
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/thersa-may-tories-losing-good-pound-labour-win-economy-markets-jp-morgan-analysis-a7763596.html

AlexSimon - Member
JP Morgan: Theresa May losing the general election would be good for the pound

According to [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38013723 ]BBC News.[/url]- [b]JP Morgan pays $264m to settle China 'bribery' probe[/b]

So you are referencing another corrupt institution? They are all over the news you know ... 😆

So JP Morgan are saying it is good for pound because they want loads of money? 😆

Yes, it shows that they are already turning on their own 🙂

Ahem:

- Corporation Tax receipts in the last full year were a record £56Bn - with the rate now standing at 19%. So reducing the rate brings in more money.

Not if it's enforced.

AlexSimon - Member
Yes, it shows that they are already turning on their own

😆

[url= https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/28/the-insufferable-hypocrisy-of-the-guardian-on-corporation-tax/#7e724b175969 ]The Insufferable hypocrisy of the guardian on corporation tax[/url]

All this talk of tax has reminded me... the Labour manifesto also mentions they'll be using the 'Robin Hood' tax, which seems like a bloody good idea:

Bear in mind this video is 7 years old, so the idea has been floating around unused for quite a while for some reason...

EDIT - guess that's your answer JY

Chewkw operating with a 4 year delay today

Of course once you hit £100k the marginal tax rate jumps to over 60% (employee marginal tax rate and higher again if you add in the employers tax which is a tax on the job) due to loss of personal allowance.

Factually and logically incorrect.

If it's really true that jamba has a job in finance, and not just washing bottles, it's frightening to think that such people are in charge of my pension.

Factually and logically incorrect

Of course once you hit £100k the marginal tax rate jumps to over 60% (employee marginal tax rate and higher again if you add in the employers tax which is a tax on the job) due to loss of personal allowance.

Although completely avoidable up to £140k as you can just use salary sacrifice pension (up to £40k pa) to bring your PAYE salary down to under £100k.

Lifer - Member
Chewkw operating with a 4 year delay today

Actually, for once he's right.

In which case I apologise

chewkw - Member
Lifer - Member
Chewkw operating with a 4 year delay today

You mean people know this for so long yet still support them? It's even worst innit.

Ahem.

I once saw the unfortunate and delusional David Icke being interviewed by Terry Wogan.

After Icke announcing that he was the returned messiah, the audience broke into laughter.

Icke's expression indicated that he thought he'd scored a point, so Wogan leaned across, patted him gently on the knee and said:

"David, David... they're laughing AT you, not WITH you..." 😉

Actually, for once he's right. The personal allowance is withdrawn for incomes over £100k at the rate of £1 for every 2 earned. That has the effect of making the marginal rate of income tax for income £100-120(ish)k 60%.

But saying that marginal rates of tax is what everyone is talking about when they talk about tax is nonsense - it's generally used by people to moan 'I pay 50% tax' as if that's what they pay on all their earnings.

The haves moaning about being hard done by, must admit makes me feel really sorry for them... 😕

Get a bit of perspective ffs...

But saying that marginal rates of tax is what everyone is talking about when they talk about tax is nonsense - it's generally used by people to moan 'I pay 50% tax' as if that's what they pay on all their earnings.

Have you noticed that they always want to talk about income tax, and not all the other taxes that disproportionately hit poorer people?

Mr Woppit - Member
Ahem.

I once saw the unfortunate and delusional David Icke being interviewed by Terry Wogan.

After Icke announcing that he was the returned messiah, the audience broke into laughter.

Icke's expression indicated that he thought he'd scored a point, so Wogan leaned across, patted him gently on the knee and said:

"David, David... they're laughing AT you, not WITH you..."

Just referring to this example of Icke. (not referring to anyone on the forum including meself)

You do understand that most celebrities are not really that concerned about others views don't you? They have thick skin and that's their job ... to look like a fool, be a fool, to be fooled and to fool others. 😆

not all the other taxes that disproportionately hit poorer people?

interesting thought - do you think that Petrol, for example, should be subject to more progressive taxation than the punitive rates applied across the board at the moment? Cheaper for poor people and more expensive for rich people?

Beer? Fags?

interesting thought - do you think that Petrol, for example, should be subject to more progressive taxation than the punitive rates applied across the board at the moment? Cheaper for poor people and more expensive for rich people?

Beer? Fags?

VAT should be removed from essential items such as food and clothes (with a limit where it is applied - Basic food and clothing are essential, a Chanel dress for £2000 is not.)
To account for losses of VAT on the essential items, much higher VAT should be placed on luxury items (say 50%). This would make it harder for the rich to avoid taxes while reducing tax for the poorest.

sounds like a great idea ninfan! 🙂 we could give people a purchase card based on their tax code.

A wealth / land tax would be better...

interesting thought - do you think that Petrol, for example, should be subject to more progressive taxation than the punitive rates applied across the board at the moment? Cheaper for poor people and more expensive for rich people?

Beer? Fags?

I think we should revise Council tax so it has higher bands, abolish NI and incorporate it within income tax, remove higher rate tax relief, increase inheritance tax, increase fuel duties to cross-subsidise public transport, and remove VAT from at least some clothing.

That'll do for starters.

Who decides who's poor and needs subsidising and who's rich and needs to pay more? I'd say I fall in the middle but I've had mates on benefits call me rich (and only half jokingly) and I assume someone like Alan Sugar would wonder how I manage to survive day to day on my lowly income.

I only just creep into paying higher rate income tax (obviously only on a very small part of my earnings), personally I feel I contribute enough revenue to the country and the fact I have almost zero savings means others are benefiting as well from whatever I take home, sure some of that goes abroad but a lot is in the UK.

VAT should be removed from essential items such as food and clothes (with a limit where it is applied - Basic food and clothing are essential, a Chanel dress for £2000 is not.)
To account for losses of VAT on the essential items, much higher VAT should be placed on luxury items (say 50%). This would make it harder for the rich to avoid taxes while reducing tax for the poorest.

You do realise thats how it all started out? Halcyon days, where push along lawnmowers were 'standard' rate VAT, powered ones a higher VAT rate as they were "luxury goods", Car parts 'standard' but Caravans 'luxury' - it was an utter minefield and cast aside for that very reason.

Food is already excluded, as are childrens clothes - surely the point of VAT being a percentage is that you pay more tax on Chanel than Primark anyway, so it seems to me to needlessly overcomplicate it, and probably be impossible

Of course - only once we are out of the EU do all these options become possible 😀

Who decides who's poor and needs subsidising and who's rich and needs to pay more?

IMHO th ebest method is either

1. A multiplier on the average wage or household wage
2. A percentage point at which you exclude say the bottom 75 % +

It wont reach unanimity but its really not rocket science to do this

FWIW the 80k is the top 5% of earners Surely we can actually call them rich?

To account for losses of VAT on the essential items, much higher VAT should be placed on luxury items (say 50%).

Mountain bikes? 😉

A wealth / land tax would be better...

Again, interesting.

So, if I spend all my hard earned on coke and hookers, I pay no tax - I'm skint because I have no wealth left, but if I save it up I'm now 'wealthy' and have to hand it back to the government?

If I live in a council or rented house on benefits, the government pay my rent in my retirement - But if I work and buy my own house, I am now 'wealthy' and have to pay the government in order to punish me for my own prudence.

I can see that working out well in the long term....

FWIW the 80k is the top 5% of earners Surely we can actually call them rich?

The problem with words like rich/poor is they mean different things to different people and the standard of living associated with a salary has a lot to do with where you live.

I can see that working out well in the long term....

No tax scheme copes with all extreme/daft user cases...

Given that most well off people have a lot of assets, it is much fairer, in that those with more pay more.

And no, you don't hand all your wealth back, you just pay a small percentage as part of the social contract.

ninfan - Member
So, if I spend all my hard earned on coke and hookers, I pay no tax

Only due to the stupidity(or complicity depending on how you look at it) of governments that allow the black markets a free reign.

Given that most well off people have a lot of assets, it is much fairer, in that those with more pay more.

The point is though that assets don't necessarily relate to income or cashflow.

Plenty of retirees who are theoretically well off/asset rich but, particularly given the reductions in interest rates and and annuity rates, have little disposable income.

If you take that away, then wheres the point in saving at all? they might as well just spend it on expensive holidays and then rely on the welfare state in retirement.

The point is though that assets don't necessarily relate to income or cashflow.

They can always be liquidated though eg older people in large houses can, in theory, downsize.

There is no such thing as a perfect tax scheme and any change has winners and loosers. Currently we just hike indirect taxes which disproportionately hit the poor, which is morally indefensible.

If you take that away, then wheres the point in saving at all? they might as well just spend it on expensive holidays and then rely on the welfare state in retirement.

Again, a deliberately daft example. No wealth tax would be 100%, so it would never tax it all away. As for living off just the state pension, no one who can afford not to, would choose to do so.

surely the point of VAT being a percentage is that you pay more tax on Chanel than Primark anyway, so it seems to me to needlessly overcomplicate it, and probably be impossible

May seem over complicated to you, but then guessing you are not scraping around to be able to get enough money to buy Primark clothes.

ninfan - Member

If you take that away, then wheres the point in saving at all? they might as well just spend it on expensive holidays and then rely on the welfare state in retirement.

Rather than languish in peoples accounts accruing interest.

Have you looked at savings rates recently? 😉