..to want to say to those who are whinging about the 50% tax rate

[vic77en]

..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?

wanna my full time salary is at the higher rate (but I've gone part time so just below). DH is a higher rate payer (as in 40%)

A few others on this thread have said they are. Not sure of your point.

We have a government made up of very rich individuals telling people to suck it up when it comes to cuts - they haven't got a clue but foray stop them doing it.

foray?! I meant doesn't!

I'm torn. I am - or was? - a socialist. Let's say a socialist at heart.

But I earn a lot of money. The reality of parting with 50% is painful - I do feel stampy footed about giving up much of my hard earned wonga. It's painful.

But overall, YANBU.

Erm, emjyc I said I read a lot of economics, I love it, enjoy it, follow it. Should I need an economics degree to make statements based upon what I've read?

"If the rich want to bugger off to, oh, I don't know, Brazil, and shell out for private security and hijack insurance instead of tax then good luck to them, their selfishness won't be missed."

The idea that a large capital outflow would have no consequences is absurd

L*leares agreed... I don't know who said that but it's bonkers.

Quite shocked at the idea that you have to be a banker to earn £150k. Look around you at the chair you're sitting on, the food you're eating, the tea you are drinking etc etc. Commerce is alive and well and thriving all around us.

There are lots of ways to alleviate tax if you have your own business. Pay yourself a minimal salary with NIcredits and then take the rest in dividends at 10% tax for example...

Loads of people in IT, the law, accountancy etc earn 150k+.

Leares, OK, 'a large capital outflow' would have consequences. But my point is that there this imaginary exodus wouldn't occur, because there are other reasons besides tax benefits that people stay in the UK.

AlOuiseg, why is it far out to compare sectors? My base point is that there is no correlation apart from an imaginary one in the minds of (generally) people who earn quite a lot, between hard work and financial gain. As WillBean pointed out, we value different types of work in this society in different ways. Huge numbers of people in this country - the majority, probably - work hard in sectors where making large amounts of money just isn't in the frame.

Those on the 50% tax bracket have a much higher quality of life than most of us, the only discomfort they have to live with is the bee in their bonnet about paying 'unfair' amounts of tax, according to a self-constructed notion of 'fairness' in which they deserve to keep more money, which is backed up by self-serving arguments that justify some people having and keeping enormous wealth.

At the heart of it, the idea that anyone 'deserves' to earn more than £150k p/a actually doesn't make sense to me, when others in that society, through no lack of hard work, struggle to be able to afford to put dinner in front of their kids every day. There just aren't enough resources in the world for that kind of inequality. No-one actually needs £150k p/a as all of us living happy productive lives on way below that will testify. And having worked for and with very very high earners before, I'm well aware that there are a myriad of ways to avoid earnings over the 50% threshold showing up for tax purposes. But the 50% tax level is at least a symbolic leveller, and I like the principle that corrects astronomically high wages for the wider benefit of society.

As a thought experiment: Imagine your salary was raised to double, but that at the same time you were taxed at 50% so in effect your take-home pay and your quality of life remained the same but your tax contribution was a much higher proportion of your income. Would it make any meaningful difference to your life? No. The only reason it rankles is when you construct a belief that because of factors x, y and z (make them up) you deserve more than you're getting.

Thing is a large capital flow can happen quite easily when the amount of poeple we are talking about is so low.

Also I cna undertsnad the notion of not deserving your earnings if the work you do is the same whatever...but for many of us, our earnings are directly linked to how much effort we put in. The more graft, the more cash. Less graft, less cash. It's not as though the cash comes for somehting that you'd just be doing annyway iyswim.

Quodlibet, is your name a reference to music or a (rather pleasing) "Whatever!".
I struggle with the relative value of jobs/pay etc but do admire those who risk their own money to set up businesses etc. Surely they deserve a premium if they are successful?

word.....what a stupid thing to say. Your income is directly connected to how much effort.....so is a nurse, a care worker, a non earning carer.....oh no, they get paid a lot less.

grovel.. Entrepreneurs are not avoiding setting up business due to income tax, ffs, they would pay corporation tax.

Posie, I am a Chartered Accountant and understand tax perfectly well. I was addressing Quodlibet's point about no-one deserving/needing to earn more than £150k. Clear? FFS.

The capital flow happens anyway - look at Sir Philip Green, Tory advisor, who squirrels his money away in Monaco.

'The more graft, the more cash'. There are only a select few, in certain industries, to whom this applies indefinitely. Lucky them - what a lovely standard of life they can earn for themselves if they work hard. If a teacher works harder the outcome generally isn't more cash - it's that their pupils reap the benefits. Why should that earnings potential continue indefinitely for those lucky few who are well-placed enough to keep earning exponentially? Explain to me why anyone needs over £150k p/a?

Weird post then, to say about premiums and deserving if you set up business with respect to income tax.

Am back and skipped over the parts with accusations of racism and soaking the rich.

novice of the day "The fact is that every UK company that has moved hq over the last 2 years has said that 50% tax was a factor. Can't remember off the top of my head but WPP".
WPP are based in Ireland and are relocating back to the UK.

californiaburritoSurely, you'd be fucked off if people richer than you were legitimately paying less tax (a lower marginal rate) than you. Yes, surely everyone is, but that is always going to happen when the very wealthy can and do find ways to legitimately avoid paying tax whilst the majority of low, middle and high income earners do pay it.

TPP "Besides the point is that unless you're earning a fortune over £150k the tax increase makes little difference, and then if you're earning £500k plus I can't see that 10% income tax rise on 60% of your income, or whatever, would make you move countries.....you'd still be fabulously well off. Adn, as said time and time again, when you get to millions per annum you are far too clever with tax to pay so much!!" This

Wannabe "I wonder, how many people on this thread saying that certain people within the 40% bracket should pay more earn enough as a couple to fall into the 40% tax bracket?" I used to pay 40% tax when I worked f/t. My partner pays 40% tax. I'm not saying "soak the rich". I'm not even saying we should tax the rich more than we are doing now. I'm saying we shouldn't be giving the richest 300,000 people in the country a tax break now while the remaining 60 million struggle.

The no one needs argument is a complete non starter it's so ludicrous.
No one needs more than three meals of rice and peas a day.
No one needs more than a simple small house with one fire.
No one needs more than two changes of clothes a day.
No one needs a holiday.
No one needs more than one very old car.

Need I go on?

Those that earn plenty pay plenty. In tax, services, goods etc. Keep taxing the rich and the poor will suffer. The well off pay support the welfare state, the NHS and education. Yes, everyone pays too but the well off support it disproportionally.

Agree "no one deserves" is a silly argument. Success and innovation should be rewarded.

Posie, loads and loads and loads of people earn over 150k. 100's of top managers at my firm do. Not just Barings Bank guys, anymore, you know !!
At all the firms that dh has ever worked many Heads of Dept were on that salary. A poster earler said about expenses, £400 rooms, £3.5 k flights. Our barclaycard statement is over nearly a million a month. thats alot of flights and bottles of wine, you know !!

Yes, over 300,000 people earn over £150k. However to not manage on that you have to be incredibly dim with money. I believe I mentioned that my DH is in sales, loads of people at his company earn that figure and above. I don't believe I said people didn't earn that much.....however for those that the 10% extra over £150k actually makes a real difference are far far fewer. Like I illustrated £200k is only an extra £5k tax, fuck all really.

Its too early to say whether it should be kept or scrapped. We won't know how much extra revenue it has generated til January/February time, once we do know that figure we can assess whether it has
a) generated extra revenue
b) whether the extra revenue is worth any potential negative trade offs such as a disincentive to entrepreneurship

i think there are many/some jobs were reward and effort dont relate but there are many where they do.

i work rediculously hard. if i didnt earn a very good salery or i wouldn;t bother. and i would sack staff. instead of hiring in a recession.

i dont mind paying 50% in theory but then i use all the legal angles to mininise the tax i pay.

Guy Hands, one of the UK's richest private equity partners emigrated to the Channel Islands to avoid UK tax at 18%. It doesn't need to be 50% to trigger avoidance behaviours, but 50% does seem psychologically important.

In defence of VAT: it's not a progressive tax in the UK due to the various exemptions and the zero rate. Higher earners pay way more in UK VAT as a % of their income than lower earners because VAT isn't levied on essentials such as rent and food, and at only a reduced rate on utilities.

BTW the government collects around £100bn per annnum from each of income tax, NIC and VAT. The other taxes are all much, much less important.

"i think there are many/some jobs were reward and effort dont relate but there are many where they do.

i work rediculously hard. if i didnt earn a very good salery or i wouldn;t bother. and i would sack staff. instead of hiring in a recession.

i dont mind paying 50% in theory but then i use all the legal angles to mininise the tax i pay."

Can I assume you are a headteacher?

Not with that grammar!!