Forum menu
To be slightly more serious, I guess the numbers on that website are wildly different to most polls, I’m not sure why it comes up so high on Google searches.
Not sure about the Google question, but another polling expert was asked what's going on with electoral calculus stuff and his theory was that their model is not paying enough attention to the don't knows. Based on historical voting data, other polls attempt to convert don't knows to either not voting or voting for someone.
You may not feel well off but you are better off than the other 85%.
Every single time this comes up on here, everyone completely ignores other factors. A young professional couple on £50k EACH are much better off than a single parent with three young kids on £50k on their own in the South East.
So basically Sunak had a deprived childhood because he couldn't watch The Simpsons?
Ok.
I'm looking forward to this interview tonight, the Tories know it's going to look bad. I'm excited.
How old is he again? I watched it on Channel4.
kelvin
Full Member
How old is he again? I watched it on Channel4.
Older than he dresses. 😉
Surely it'd then also depend on where the young professional couple were? If they were also in the 'South East', say in Canary Wharf, then maybe not?
As Kelvin says, 50k is well above average/median income. Yes you might be feeling the squeeze.....have a think how it feels if you're earning less 50k. Its more than I've ever earned in 2 years, let alone 1! Good fortune means that in the last couple of years, this isn't something that I've needed to worry about.
Only a socialist mindset could think that it is fair that someone who has worked their way up to a tragic wage of 50k, which equates to £700 something a week take home pay, barely enough to pay the monthly bills, feed and clothe the kids and dog and keep of roof over their heads, should have a greater proportion of their pay removed by the state than someone earning 49,999 and below.
I think most people these days think it is fair that the money that the higher paid get to "keep" is greater than the money those lower paid get to "keep". An old fashioned socialist would balk at that. You're looking at the wrong side of the equation. The better paid will remain better off... under Conservative, Labour, LibDem ... or indeed Green(E&W) proposals.
Of course, the tax rate for someone earning £50001 is going to be almost the same as that for the person on £49999, with just £1 charged at the higher rate.
Can you afford Sky telly? I think that’s the benchmark today
While I think those that can afford to pay more tax should pay now tax the current tax system with vat, income tax, ni and more, and multiple boundaries with different rates, is overly complicated and with too many people in strange or unfair nominal tax positions. I'd like to see serious reform looked into, not just tinker with a few bands or rates.
As someone who earns over 50 k I wouldn’t consider myself well off tbh. I use to think I was. My mortgage has gone through the roof, as have my bills. After all my monthly direct debits have gone out, and I’ve paid for food, I have around 70 quid a week for ‘luxury’s’. I save nothing. My savings have disappeared over last 2 years. This is not to say I’m not far better off than many. I genuinely don’t know how I’d survive on £30k without downsizing my house or remortgaging (and I live in one of the cheapest parts of the country)
if they raise tax then fair enough, but its not justified imo until they go after all the tax dodgers, folks who have wealth without earning it (ie inherited), fat cats, and companies and corporations that make huge profits for shareholders at the expense of the rest of society
more than twice what I’m on, and four times what my other half is on
if she’s working full time and on 12.5 k she’s getting paid well under minimum wage
She's not full time, she can't be. I'm not going into that though. Wish I hadn't mentioned it. Lots of people in that situation.
kelvin
Full Member
She’s not full time, she can’t be. I’m not going into that though. Wish I hadn’t mentioned it. Lots of people in that situation.
Lifes complex, you don't owe us an explanation my friend. 👍
greyspokeFree Member
Of course, the tax rate for someone earning £50001 is going to be almost the same as that for the person on £49999, with just £1 charged at the higher rate.
I think grimep is fundamentally misunderstanding how taxation works
As someone lucky enough to be on a salary not much over 50k, with my wife earning considerably less and doing 95% of childcare with 4 kids and living in the SE...... I can confirm that its not easy, but I want a decent healthcare system and services that work for everyone so yeah paying tax is something Im willing to do.
and for 'roughing it' kudos we dont even have Netflix !!!!!!!!
I can confirm that its not easy, but I want a decent healthcare system and services that work for everyone so yeah paying tax is something Im willing to do
absolutely agree. However the fact it’s ’not Easy’ kind of proves the point that you aren’t ’well off’. You are however in a far better position than many. it also massively depends on your circumstances. A household with 2 people earning 35k will be far better off than a single parent earning 60k
10 years ago 60k would have had me absolutely rolling in cash. The state of the country now, not so much.
We pay more tax that at any time in the last 60 years or so, and while I don't mind contributing, I would like to be reassured that 1. My taxes* are used to provide compassionate, useful, and available services, and 2. that before I'm asked for more money from my earnings, other avenues - business taxes, windfalls, taxes on assets, inheritance and even perhaps re-nationalisation of things to make them more affordable, have been fully exploited.
*yes, I know.
grimep has long been twitching my troll radar and isn't doing a lot to change that view today. But if they aren't, then they fundamentally misunderstand how the higher rate works.
We pay more tax that at any time in the last 60 years or so, and while I don’t mind contributing, I would like to be reassured that 1. My taxes* are used to provide compassionate, useful, and available services, and 2. that before I’m asked for more money from my earnings, other avenues – business taxes, windfalls, taxes on assets, inheritance and even perhaps re-nationalisation of things to make them more affordable, have been fully exploited.
and 3 - aren't being funnelled into the pockets of the already rich.
Ha it's bonkers isn't it. How much did his education cost? The net result of which, is that he thought that it was a good idea during a GE campaign to leave the 80th anniversary of D-Day to record a political broadcast in which you say that inspite of going to one of the most expensive schools in the country, you had to do without as a child because you didn't have Sky TV 😳
Maybe we should just abolish private schools on the basis that they're ripping off rich parents 😂
Only a socialist mindset could think that it is fair that someone who has worked their way up to a tragic wage of 50k, which equates to £700 something a week take home pay, barely enough to pay the monthly bills, feed and clothe the kids and dog and keep of roof over their heads, should have a greater proportion of their pay removed by the state than someone earning 49,999 and below.
Except you're wrong.
This is how indirect taxes look as a proportion of disposable income. I.e even once you've taken out the bigger mortgages of those top earners, they only pay less than 10% of the remainder in tax. Whereas the poorest are paying 3x more as a proportion of their disposable income.
That's what's not fair.
Sauce: Those socialists at the ONS.
www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/theeffectsoftaxesandbenefitsonhouseholdincome/financialyearending2022
Forget about the is 50k a lot or not bobbins, it's a distraction.
What we need is to tax income from assets more proportionally compared to the level of income on paye.
That above graph is something that Labour need to unleash into the wild & mobilise people with the promise change those percentages.
and @grimep you're wrong about thinking that a sprinkling of socialism is bad for those of us lucky enough too be in the top percentiles.
I work in my well paid job designing things that make stuff to sell to people (aka engineering).
The more of the country is lifted out of poverty, the the more stuff they can be sold, the more things are required to make stuff, the more I need to design and the more I get paid.
It's a better outcome than all the money flowing up the pyramid which eventually always causes it to collapse.
What we need is to tax income from assets more proportionally compared to the level of income on paye.
Absolutely this.
It’s insane that we’re taxed substantially far more for working than others are for sitting on their arses and just accumulating wealth simply because they have capital, so own (valuable) stuff
what @llama said.
they love it when everyone fights/argues amongst themselves about who has it the worst.
35k-55k-75k....whatever, everyone thinks those above should be paying, its totally understandable but the 'proper rich' (however you want to define that) are hovering up assets. the entire system is designed to minimise the tax they pay on them which leads to them using the extra money they have hoovering up assets.
I have a feeling that reforming housing would do a lot more for the disadvantaged than reforming tax. The problem though is that a lot of richer people might actually lose out.
Ed still on holiday
He seems to be having more fun than Rishi! though.
I have a feeling that reforming housing would do a lot more for the disadvantaged than reforming tax. The problem though is that a lot of richer people might actually lose out.
Agree, but could at least be offering some things that go towards it.
That above graph is something that Labour need to unleash into the wild & mobilise people with the promise change those percentages
This is the foundation of the (less than perfect) Scottish progressive income tax rates.
I'm in the fortunate position of earning enough that I would keep a lot more earned income south of the border. But I'm fortunate to earn what I do, and appreciate I'm contributing to public services so do not object.
Totally agree on a much more progressive tax system which looks at overall wealth, rather than earned income. EDIT: and this has to include Council Tax/local property tax. We need to develop a less complex system than we currently have too.
Agree that more parties should be calling clearly for this, particularly Labour, Lib Dem and SNP.
IIRC Green already suggest it.
they love it when everyone fights/argues amongst themselves about who has it the worst.
35k-55k-75k….whatever, everyone thinks those above should be paying, its totally understandable but the ‘proper rich’ (however you want to define that) are hovering up assets. the entire system is designed to minimise the tax they pay on them which leads to them using the extra money they have hoovering up assets
This is so true. I think I've got to the point where I don't really card what happens in this election. Labour will win, but inherit a shit show which they can't resolve within 4 years even if they had brave, excellent ideas.
And given that the rich control the stupid, the Tories will be back in at the next election because that is our default position within the UK.
I can't see how anyone who looks at the last 6 years can have any other viewpoint really. But nonetheless keen to hear it....
I earn a reasonable amount, live in a very cheap area and am doing ok but don't know how we'd afford to have kids.
I'm happy to pay my taxes (yes I'll moan but....)
There does need reform. I know a couple of very wealthy people who pay way less than me. In fact on paper they should be getting all sorts of benefits. Also a few self employed who operate a two tin system. They do a good job of minimizing tax paid on declared earnings but also have an envelope that is always pretty full.
The system needs simplified and enforced.
Grant Shapps warning about a Labour 'supermajority'
Well of course he is, he's going to lose his seat along with scores of other Tory MPs who perhaps ought to have ganged up against the far right if they wanted their party to survive. Idiots. Good to their hubris wrecking the party.
Ed Davey is really living his best life - he's going to be exhausted by the time this campaign ends - maybe with a broken bone or two as a souvenir.
It’s insane that we’re taxed substantially far more for working than others are for sitting on their arses and just accumulating wealth simply because they have capital, so own (valuable) stuff
couldn’t agree more. I don’t object to paying more tax. I object to paying more than my fair share. And what I mean by that is people far richer and with far more assets than me pay proportionally far less. If more tax needs raised, by all means tax folks on 50k more, so long as those with huge nest eggs and assets tucked away are also paying accordingly
And if I’m paying more, I expect to see more. Better services, an nhs that isn’t on its knees. I truely resent the thought my hard earned is, rather than being used for bettering society, finding its way into already rich peoples pockets.
Grant Shapps says a super-majority would be bad for accountability.
This from a man who ran three aliases to conduct his fraudulent business, threatened to sue on of his own constituents for revealing those aliases, then (when his bluff was called) backed down saying he had "over-firmly denied" using those aliases.
Accountability.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Can you afford Sky telly? I think that’s the benchmark today
There was a time when the bourgeoisie considered having Sky TV or a large television terribly déclassé. I think that attitude ended at about the time The Sopanos came out, maybe a little after that.
There was a time when the bourgeoisie considered having Sky TV or a large television terribly déclassé.
Yes, who wants one of those ghastly dishes defacing the facade of their lovely Georgian townhouse?
Well I know it's been suggested before but I'm in favour of a single much higher tax figure along with a much much higher tax threshold.
how long before Lil' Ol' Rishi, looking at fun loving Ed, thinks yeah I can do that and jumps out of a plane without a parachute! 😕
We’re very good at taxing productivity and very bad at taxing rent-seeking and other asset-based wealth leveraging. It’s no wonder we have a productivity crisis and a housing market that consumes our earnings disproportionately.
Can we have Ed Davey pictured riding a mountain bike please?
Even better get him an instructor for a couple of hours to teach him to jump first.
There was a time when the bourgeoisie considered having Sky TV or a large television terribly déclassé. I think that attitude ended at about the time The Sopanos came out, maybe a little after that.
And that makes me sad. I also pine for the days when having an ageing Volvo estate with moss round the windows and tartan rugs in the back was a signifier of proper breeding too.
https://twitter.com/WeAreCyclingUK/status/1800540891175882993?t=wwcG3jGA-yhqgXfzZxLOFA&s=19
(2) In a diversion from the government’s 2020 Cycling and walking Investment Strategy (CWIS), the Conservatives are de-prioritising active travel and pushing for a new ‘Backing Drivers Bill'.
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
I've always been amused by what different people have in mind when wanting to tax "rich" people.
A lot of people seem to consider it to mean anyone whose yearly income is more than a couple of their own monthly paychecks, or whose lifestyle they can relate to but see that it's a bit better than their own. So you have even 27k salaries and 7 year old Golfs being viewed as rich by some.
Grant Shapps says a super-majority would be bad for accountability.
Geoffrey Cox has just said ‘the country is sleep-walking into a one party socialist state’ 😂😂
Sounds good, presumably he is not talking about Starmers Labour party though.
you have even 27k salaries and 7 year old Golfs being viewed as rich by some.
So it shouldn't be government's role to politicise and weaponise the fact that wealth is naturally relative. Big state making things "fairer" by raising taxes does the opposite. I remember being homeless, with no transport and holes in my trainers and at no point did I think the situation would be improved if only some people were taxed more.
There was a time when the bourgeoisie considered having Sky TV or a large television terribly déclassé. I think that attitude ended at about the time The Sopanos came out, maybe a little after that.
Exactly. A couple of pages back you have someone calling free channels "Council TV" - which is the exact opposite of the meaning of that delightfully snobby phrase (eg. see todays Guardian). As a public school boy I can guarantee having Sky would not have been not aspirational to Rishi, it would have been an insult. I would say that's why he chose it as an example - in his mind it would demonstrate he's down with the common man.
I remember being homeless, with no transport and holes in my trainers and at no point did I think the situation would be improved if only some people were taxed more.
That is down to what is done with money rather that tax.
It's ironic that Europe is increasingly voting to the Right, but as the Tories are being punished for not actually being right wing, Britain will lurch in the opposite direction as the only alternative option are Reform who are too new to get a foothold in parliament
They do a good job of minimizing tax paid on declared earnings but also have an envelope that is always pretty full.
HMRC have a service you can call to get it looked at.
A lot of people seem to consider it to mean anyone whose yearly income is higher than theirs by more than a couple of their own monthly paychecks
Added bold bit for clarification. But I think people above knew what I meant.
Reform who are too new to get a foothold in parliament
Do you mean that their name is too new?
Next month will mark Nigel Farage's eighth attempt to get into parliament.
That obviously covers a good few years. Nigel Farage has been around a very long time, everyone has known about him and his constantly renamed parties for a very long time.
Yeah, that’s definitely what they’re being punished for alright.
Look how support for the Tories collapsed and never really recovered after Liz Truss's mini budget.
I am sure that grimep considers that Liz Truss wasn't right-wing enough.
but as the Tories are being punished for not actually being right wing.
I do think it’s brilliant that that’s the conclusion most Tories seem to have already reached, bless ‘em
The political wilderness beckons…..
" Labour will win, but inherit a shit show which they can’t resolve within 4 years even if they had brave, excellent ideas"
Labour don't have to resolve things within 4 years but they do have to show they have started resolving them and the world will be a better place if they're allowed to continue doing so. If they don't, they'll let the Tories, or someone worse, in for another 14 years...
I’ve always been amused by what different people have in mind when wanting to tax “rich” people.
A lot of people seem to consider it to mean anyone whose yearly income is more than a couple of their own monthly paychecks, or whose lifestyle they can relate to but see that it’s a bit better than their own. So you have even 27k salaries and 7 year old Golfs being viewed as rich by some.
Whenever I've had a discussion on tax with someone - they almost alway agree that wealthier people should pay more. And usually think that the threshold for that is a little above the salary they hope to one day get themselves! In otherwords - people who earn more than me should pay more. if you you a fairly new teacher or nurse on £30K then perhaps that threshold in your head is £40something - becuase you can see how to progress to that without a major promotion. If you are an experienced teacher or nurse already on £45K - then you think you should be able to be promoted to deputy head / very senior nurse without getting punished! So probably think 60k! Ask a 35 yr old software developer on £60K and they'll say its really the six figures people who should pay more! Ask the guy on minimum wage - anyone getting £27K is rich...
I'm always surprised that we really just have two rates of tax ~ 20% and ~ 40%. Its quite a dramatic jump. Personally I think it should probably be taxed as a household income though. Two people on 45K pa are paying less tax that a couple with one earner on 90K and one on nothing. If they've got a couple of kids that will be even more obvious.
Two people on 45K pa are paying less tax that a couple with one earner on 90K and one on nothing. If they’ve got a couple of kids that will be even more obvious
I’d agree, however not sure how practical that would be to administer. The arguement could also be made that if one of the family choose* to stay at home it brings its own benefits, both financially (ie child care) and otherwise.
For example, In Scotland a couple on 30k each would be 5k better off than if only one of them worked on 60k. Obviously some if not all of that would be offset depending on circumstances (child care savings, not having to travel etc)
* not everyone is able to work
I’m always surprised that we really just have two rates of tax ~ 20% and ~ 40%. Its quite a dramatic jump.
It's not because of how marginal tax rates work. If you were earning right up to the 20% limit and get a pay rise of £1000 then you'll pay £400 more tax and take home £600.
(Not saying this is you btw, but) Too many people think a 20% rate up to £50k and 40% above that would mean if you earn £50k you pay 20% of that, so £10k in tax, and if you earn £50,001 you pay 40% of that, so £20k in tax. When in reality at £50,001 you'd pay 40p more tax on the £1 extra and take home an extra 60p.
The thing is - tax is an emotive topic. As most are saying, there is an acknowledgement that the wealthier should shoulder a bigger burden "as they can afford it". But we have no agreement on where that boundary is. It's also not as simple as deciding that those who have a lot of wealth in, say property, should be taxed on that wealth because, in a lot of cases, it's only paper wealth. It could be a substantial property that, perhaps, they inherited. Or that they bought in better times and were lucky. But that wealth does nothing for them day-to-day. They aren't earning money from it - as they aren't selling it. I am fortunate in that I currently earn a reasonable salary. My wife is on a zero hours contract and earns little more than pocket money. For me personally, while I believe we should have better (make that functioning) public services and that I am ok with the principle that those who earn more should pay more I also feel that I'm already doing that. I despair at the waste of public money through either inefficiency, stupidity, dogmatism, the general failure to find good administration or a combination of all of them. It's easy for those on lower incomes to say that those on a higher salary should pay a higher proportion because, like most situations like that, they know it doesn't affect them. It's someone else paying it. We do need a complete overhaul of the taxation system to make it simpler, more efficient and fairer. I don't know exactly what that looks like though!
I also pine for the days when having an ageing Volvo estate with moss round the windows and tartan rugs in the back was a signifier of proper breeding too.
I'm afraid those days are gone now and little Crysanthemum's school drop-off is now marred by people driving those frightfully garish Teslas.
Yesterday I was happy to see someone keeping up the tradition of antique dealers/French polishers/fine carpenters driving ancient Volvo estates.
The other factor is that at £50k your NI contribution goes down to 2%. So combined tax and NI of 42%.
Which was a change introduced not all that long ago IIRC. Previously, once you got to the higher rate tax band you didn't pay any NI on the additional earnings
I think a bigger problem than tax is where the money flows. For example (MMT fans close your ears) we use tax money to give to poor people to pay their rent, but that goes straight into the pocket of rich people directly and/or when they ultimately sell the property they've invested in. The ability to buy a house to let means you are taking poor people's money, and the ability to do that means that house then becomes more valuable to other rich people, making it harder for those poor people to buy their own houses and get out of the trap they're in.
When you think about it, that's pretty ****ed up.
Grant Shapps says a super-majority would be bad for accountability.
It's nonsense to be honest.
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1800790479644324339
Ian Dunt has written a very good book on Westminster...
a super-majority would be bad for accountability.
That claim was made on this thread about a week ago.
However big the Labour majority the government will still be accountable to parliament in the first instance and then ultimately to the electorate.
The Tory Party does not have some sort of indispensable role in the democratic process.
Given Starmer's propensity for sacking off socialists and installing dubious placemen (sic), he'd probably regard a large majority as strengthening his hand and carry on accordingly.
The Tory Party does not have some sort of indispensable role in the democratic process.
Well put. Opposition, within parties and between parties, is key. But the Tories don't need to be at the centre of anything. Other parties can grow or be built. Remember, there was a time when we had no Labour party.
ffs you'd thought the leave campaign had achieved a supermajority the way they imposed the most damaging brexit possible on us, going by that if he ends up with a 400 seat majority he could abolish the royal family with the house of lords if he wanted and the right would have shit all to say about it.