..to want to say to those who are whinging about the 50% tax rate(394 Posts)
..that they should fuck the fuck off?
At a time when lots of people are really struggling with high inflation, 20% VAT, high unemployment, lack of living wage etc etc.
If you're earning above the 50% threshold you are well off and can afford it.
I used to earn enough to pay 40% tax (this was before the 50% rate came in and I was nowhere near the 50% threshold) and did not begrudge paying this. If NI and VAT were factored in, over 50% of my income went in taxes. I still had high disposable income.
Rather than giving their views airtime, there should be a massive PR exercise on the benefits to all of us of living in a civil society where there is an economic safety net, NHS, free education (for under 18's at least still...)
AIBU or not?
YANBU but I do think taking half of someone's earnings in tax is rather steep, whether they can afford it or not, if it were me, I'd whinge. I do think its right though, especially in these times..... I understand people's gripes. I have a couple of rich friends (they're nice too) who don't use many services at all, yet are paying more than me for the use of them. It doesn't seem fair, but they are not struggling and being a bit lefty see it as a responsibility of the more well off to support society so it can cater for the less well off.
I don't mind people moaning about anything really, and as for giving them 'airtime' that is one thing that is perfectly fair and as it should be.
As I have never earnt enough to pay any tax the 50% doesn't concern me. I am worried though that a lot of really high earners will just find another way around it and register themselves as offshore or reduce their wages so they don't reach the threshold. We could lose a lot of tax that way.
I think it is more important to chase up the big banks and businesses who still owe us tax as well
I pay 52% tax, which of course sucks - but I am lucky enough to be living in a country where I see a return on my money. That's the difference I think.
The trouble is that if you pay 50% tax, you are also, in all likelihood, working extremely long hours at a difficult and stressful job that leaves you little time or energy to enjoy the fruits of your labour, and you will need to outsource (ie pay for) a lot of services to keep your family show on the road.
YABVVVVVVU. And clearly know nothing about economics AT ALL.
But there are also lots of people who do that Bonsoir and earn nowhere near the 50% tax threshold-nurses etc come to mind.
[netsmums type clapping hands thingy] sorry but I agree with op.
MajorBumsore - nurses do not travel overseas for half the month and work 80 hour weeks when they are "home".
There are many economists that think 50% is a good system.....some even want more. Ten European countries have top tax rates at or near 50% and Switzerland is not far short. Besides this rate applies to about 1% of UK tax payers, about 328,000 people. How much difference do these people really make?
Bollocks about working very hard too, Bonsoir, I know people working 8-6 five days a week on over £200k. And bankers and money movers don't work in any way as stressful a job as people working for a lot less.
YABU. I don't hit the 50% tax bracket either, but I know how I feel about how 1/4 of all the time I spend in work is for tax. If I knew that every hour's overtime meant that I only actually saw half my pay for it I would have a hard time finding the motivation to do the overtime, or even work hard for a better job/pay raise.
"Besides this rate applies to about 1% of UK tax payers, about 328,000 people. How much difference do these people really make?"
Possibly quite a lot, actually...
Bonsoir - yes, I agree that if you're earning over £150k you probably are working long and stressful hours. But bringing home £100k or more can probably afford a cleaner and a gardener? Full-time nanny would be a big chunk out of it I agree, but would 40% v 50% really make that much difference to you?
banana - I agree, I don't know much. I understand there is an argument that it drives away job creators and reduces the tax they would otherwise contribute and the jobs they may create. As far as I know, HMRC haven't yet quantified whether the 50% rate is generating incremental tax revenues or not. What I believe is that we should all adjust our thinking of paying tax from a position where it's a cost to us with no benefit to a position where we can see how society as a whole benefits. Why is this unreasonable?
Well 25% is nowhere near 50%. And if you were earning £150k or above only the wage above £150k would be at 50%....
Does anyone understand how tax works?
Lots of things only affect a few people.. are you proposing some kind of threshold for 'matters' - I suspect that might not turn out how you'd expect.
It isn't about how hard you work, or how much disposable income there is - it is just very unfair to single people out and penalise them because their pay happens to be above a certain threshold.
If you are near/just over the threshold there is a big incentive to ensure you are under the radar and if you are very wealthy you are a non-res and exempt from this sort of tax.
It just seems such a knee-jerk reaction to an issue and I just think that there are fairer methods for the govt to obtain tax revenues.
No I'm not mouthing off, not my style, just stating a fact of rates of taxes hubby had to pay years ago.
One place we were living/working at the time, regardless of what salary you had the rate was 59.9%. When you made about 30,000 a year, we weren't left with much afterwards and always (somehow) had to be pay more after the calculations were all done.
That meant that from our 30,000, 17,970 went for taxes and we were left with 12,030 for a family of 4 and still having to pay extra, they were so greedy!
So frankly, none of them should complain about first of all having over 150k a year and ONLY having to pay 50%.
150,000, 75,000 goes for taxes, geez we would have been in hog heaven still having that amount leftover, with as usual a world-class budget, we would be having one hell of a savings.
Myself pre-marriage & motherhood, I recall a time when we received a raise at work, first year 5% and the following year 6%. Everybody was elated most of them went yipee! But at the end of the day it meant that my monthly expenses each went up by the same amount! So, I had 5 major expenses to deal with that each went to up by 5% bottom line = 25% and then on top of that the following year, yeah you got it, they all went up by 6%, so I ended up with nearly 40% less after two years of what was credited as the best pay raise for years .....
Really? At the end of the day, these high price money makers are complaining with their belly close to exploding size. Remember the expenses scandal recently? Some of us worked for the government as civil servants for years and never ended up having the privileges they had. No one got their nappies paid by hard working taxes, we paid them ourselves, one car, one mortgage, all the petrol, groceries etc. So, if someone should complain it's us down the pyramind to force these high-earners to pay more not less.....
"Because they can afford it" is terrible logic.
If my neighbour has 2 cars and I don't have one - shall I steal one so that we can have one each? Because my neighbours can afford for us to have one each?
Nope, not a lot. The government get £2.7 billion extra revenue in taxes. If those people had these funds as disposable, unless they were idiots, they probably wouldn't be pouring it into the economy saving jobs. They would be keeping it so not to lose their homes, which probably have enormous mortgages.
Chunkypickle - thanks for illustrating my point. You "lose" 1/4 of what you earn in tax. But you don't. You're funding schools and hospitals and policing and social workers and foster parents and .....
Would you rather live in a place without these things?
i just assume that the 50 top economists, or how ever many it was, know a bit more than I do and I would be prepared to wager arent saying it to be controversial
Good Lord, yes, I understand how tax works.
What I'm saying is, if I earned 150k, then every hour over time I do (which would be money on top of the 150k) I only take home half pay for. If I go for another job, everything above the 150k only benefits me 50%.
yes, 25% is half of 50% - and if 25% is painful, then I imagine 50% is twice as bad.
There's no incentive to keep under the threshold unless you're a greedy wanker.
You only pay 50% on income above £150k, so if you earned £175k you still take home at least £12k more, which is more than some people earn.
Chunky, noone earning £150k gets overtime, they gets bonuses and commission or dividends.
Join the discussion
Please login first.