To think getting less than 50% of your pay is crazy?

You could sacrifice your very high wage to give low paid workers a salary increase then you'd pay the same tax as them 👍

The "marginal" tax rate on earnings over £50k is 42% plus eventual loss of child benefit when between £60-£80k.

The marginal tax rate on earnings over £100k is 62% plus the immediate loss of free childcare hours.

Those figures are just income tax and NIC. You'd need to add in the student loan repayments too if appropriate.

That's exactly why the likes of higher earners like doctors choose to work part time so that they can keep their wages below £100k.

That's why it's so damaging to the country. We need to encourage such people to work more, especially in professions where there is a shortage of workers.

To be honest, as someone who is very pro-taxing the well off, I don't think we should be removing these things from higher rate taxpayers. Every parent should be eligible for free childcare, and everyone should get their full tax free amount. Free school meals? Every child.

It would make the system far less complicated, for starters. It would also cut out the ridiculous argument that people who pay in don't get out (which they do. Even if they don't claim a state benefit in the whole of their working life, they rely on the labour of others in their society who are supported by those systems. We're all part of it and we rely on eachother for society to function).

From MSE's calculator:

I don't think it's misleading at all, in actual fact a wide range of economists have identified this as a failure in the tax system. The impact of the marginal tax cliff edge (including loss of free childcare) in reducing GDP and overall tax take is well acknowledged. The impact of stamp duty on downsizing is also well acknowledged. Rather than relying on your personal experience/judgement you could instead rely on the existing research that exists?

You don't see the link between tax and regulatory systems for profits/risks and banks lending to property? Forgive the simplification there are rules around bank liquidity and risk requirements which impact on bank lending and the return on the banks capital from doing so. These regulations impact on risk/profit of different types of lending due to required liquidity reserves for different types of loans, changes to regulations and liquidity requirements can increase/reduce lending to for instance residential real estate or businesses. Being more radical Richard Werner also has interesting suggestions about methods of restricting bank lending to real estate to prevent residential asset bubbles and skew lending towards productive assets.

I thought it would mean they're paying less tax - presumably that's what they find most galling.

I also read it and assumed per year despite it clearly stating otherwisee. 7k a month is more than enough for anyone.

I totally agree. It's a horrible system, so unfair.

At this point, I want to suggest that the burden of taxation which funds all the issues closest to our hearts, including but not limited to children, disabled people and seniors, and their health needs and actually the solution is to put 1p or 2p on the basic rate of rate, so every tax payer chips in more. It is more straightforward that if you declare income of £x, there's a 35% chunk taken in tax... no matter how it is acquired... so charged on capital gains too. Stop paying UC, which is a subsidy to (usually) big businesses who suppress hours, eligibility for pensions and sickness benefit, which would cut into shareholder dividends, which in turn make the pension funds/wealth we shall all need and spend in retirement. At which point we shall discover which businesses are truly viable because they can finance a true living wage... Sadly, I fear it would collapse too many small businesses that teeter on the brink of insolvency.

One of my siblings' employers tried it.

They realised that the overseas workers didn't have the knowledge.

Luckily broadband was just about in every home so the union negotiate that a way to save the company money and keep the knowledge but also to keep their members employed was to get everyone to work at home. This did mean that about 5% of the workforce had to go as they had no space to work at home.

So yes lots of jobs can be done overseas but things like knowledge, skills, data security and customer service means they don't always leave it that way.

Your point being? Outsourcing overseas is bad for the UK economy and customer service, completely agree.

Oh stop whining, OP. You? have student debt - your choice - and are putting a healthy amount into your pension - also your choice.

Whoah whoah wait. I read that as £15k a year. Now changing my vote. Very very unreasonable!!

No it's not a big difference, as they would only pay the higher tax band on the proportion over £50k, not the whole amount. The cliff comes over £100k.

People don't hate high earners but it seems as though you expect people to thank you for paying your taxes. Lots of people on low salaries prop this country up doing essential jobs such as care work. Your alzheimer's research is so valuable, but someone caring for an alzheimer's patient is really valuable too but this isn't reflected in their salary.

Plus I don't think you can say very high earners "are holding the country up", because there's way fewer of them than the middle earners who are paying the 40% rate!

And there's a lot of high earners who manage not to pay their dues.

Why would you be better off? You only pay higher rate tax on the salary OVER the tax bands you don't pay it on it all. You'll get the same tax free allowance as everyone.

People who earn less don't necessarily work less hard.

Surely there's a huge difference for the person earning £50k or just over? I mean they might as well stick at £49k! That's a bigger jump!!

But it's not just 5%, you lose you tax free allowance on top, so it's a big jump. I'm not saying I'm not happy to pay it. But these kinds of salaries come with so much sacrifice. There are so many haters, but we are essentially holding the country up.

What if the work can be done by a person/firm from abroad???

Well the point is it has worked horrendously badly and has cost commuters a lot more than it should have done. But in any event is not a tax. Nor are water rates a tax because it goes into private companies not to state coffers.

I don't think banks lent to fund house purchases because of tax and regulatory systems as much as they were a safer and probably more profitable investment. And I don't at all see how this relates to foreign investment in UK property which is far more related to their making massive profits and not having to pay taxes like stamp duty unlike most UK residents. Whatever housing costs are in no way a tax and you're being ridiculous to include that in your tax computations.

I don't think people don't trade down in the UK because of stamp duty. That's not my experience. They don't trade down because of this mentality that their home is their castle and they don't like to move. I know lots of people who stay in enormous houses with just two people in them because they don't like change.

It's muddying the waters to include the loss of a benefit as a taxation, which is why I imagine you use marginal tax rates. However, in my view there is no entitlement to benefits and we should concentrate them in the hands of those who financially need them. So again using the loss of potential benefits when calculating your tax liability is misleading.

Don't think you can now!

All the whinging over 5%!!!

Goodness I was just on a thread where the OP was asking for a board for those well educated people who earn over £100k and so are actually able to understand high brow concepts such as tax (she wasn't actually one of them as she only earned 80k, but there you go). If you haven't checked it out you really might want to, by the sounds of it you could be bezzy mates.

'The higher earners may use private education, and have private medical insurance, but that doesn't mean that they are not relying on the general public being educated, fit and well.
A higher earner may have been educated privately, but it's very doubtful that everyone they need to earn has also been privately educated.
It's an absolute fallacy that people who don't directly use some services don't get indirect benefit from them.
Again with the welfare state, a higher earner may never need to use that safety net, but it is there in case they ever do. People's circumstances do change.
Society would be far worse if there wasn't a safety net to stop people starving and freezing to death.
If people are feeling peeved, then it's their misunderstanding and lack of knowledge that's causing it.'

All of this.

Countries with more equal economic positions are happier than those with massive inequalities. I just don't understand why people would want to see people without decent healthcare or able to keep warm just so they can keep even more money in the bank or have even more weekends away.

And before people say anything about envy, I have had a very nice lifestyle and am happy to pay tax so we don't live in a country where people are sleeping out in the streets.