So people earning over £80k are wealthy, unless they are JC??

[usernamealreadytaken]

In an interview with Julie Etchingham, JC apparently said he's not wealthy, despite earning over £130k p/a, because of WHERE HE PUTS HIS MONEY (but he's not going in to that!). AIBU to think this is the most ridiculous statement he has managed to put out in recent weeks?

Given that Labour want the wealthiest in our society (earning over £80k) to pay more taxes, what Good Reason could he possibly have to not include himself in that bracket? Discuss :-)

They'll find out who's wealthy when the truly wealthy fuck off, the economy tanks, and their number of people earning over £80k plummets.

Where will they all 'fuck off' to?

Just curious.

trouble is ou need to look at net income. People over 43k already pay more tax anyway, plus more NI, plus no entitlement to any enefits - get a bit higher no child benefit. You have this middle income swathe that are battered as they are considered rich by those on significianly less and yet there is no understanding that if you earn 20k you then are entitles to WTC, often free prescriptions, housing benefits and other perks that actually equalise your net income after the deduction of certain costs that they have to pay but those on lower income don't. I have seen both sides of the fence and more income is easier (no contant justifications and form filling) but really stop being so green eyed

Our household income is £38k and we pay for our own prescriptions. All of that money is earned, no benefits. If one of us was earning over £80k, we would be rich.

*Where will they all 'fuck off' to?

Just curious.*

You mean all the doctors, teachers etc who are supposed to be emigrating?

You mean all the manufacturing businesses who've moved production to China?

You mean all the internet-based businesses who've moved to tax havens?

What about all the wealthy who live abroad but literally "commute" back into the UK for as few days as they can get away with to avoid being UK tax resident (Didn't David Frost do that - fly in for his Sunday morning TV program and then fly out again?).

What about all the actors, pop stars, authors, sportsmen, etc., who've officially "left" the UK and are now tax resident in other countries? Do you really think all the pop song writers really move to Switzerland for "creative reasons"???

A bit like JC can send HIS DS to Grammar, but you can't.

Except he didn't want to. So much so that they ended up getting divorced.

Indeed. I have given examples on here before of a single mother working full time on a fair whack of salary - say £50k which means £14k tax NI, £14k child care full time childare for her toddler to fund and London rent to pay say £14k a year, who can have less left (whilst the child is a toddler) than her twin sister with baby who has never worked and has her housing paid for or who does work but in low paid work.

However as you get up the pay scale of course it is without doubt you are better off when you earn more even when about 50% is taken in income tax and NI on your upper income and you lose the personal tax allowance too.

I do not accept that the rich have to pay more tax. We have never in British history paid so very much tax actually and the problem the state has is not that many people are very rich so you need measures which hit a lo of middle earners like removinv child benefit or tax credits or high national insurance for white can man to raise a lot of tax. If you just tax the tiny amount of very rich people you don't raise much tax. There are not enough people in that category.

We shoudl be looking at what we can scrap and make cuts over. Most of us have loads of suggestions but the state never wants to put them into place. As soon as anyone gains power they just want a power grab and a bigger and bigger state. They never want to roll back the frontiers of the state and give people more freedom.

Common sense and reality disappear when people are consumed with envy/jealousy!

If you just tax the tiny amount of very rich people you don't raise much tax. There are not enough people in that category.

At last, someone who understands the maths of it all!!!

John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church, died poor because of his charitable works.
“If I leave behind me ten pounds, you and all mankind bear witness against me, that I have lived and died a thief and a robber.”

(1) JC said that his salary didn't make him wealthy because of "where I put the money" - I assume he's referring to some sort of charity type arrangement.

(2) "rich" and "wealthy" are incredibly subjective, personal terms that mean entirely different things to different people. £80 is objectively, factually, a high income - anyone arguing otherwise deserves heavy duty mockery. the edge of the top 5% cannot ever be sensibly categorized as part of the "middle". but I've no problem with people choosing to reserve words like "rich" or "wealthy" for say the top 1% or even higher.

This is not envy/jealousy. Everyone virtually needs to be taxed. Currently low earners pay a higher proportion of their income through taxes because of tax such as vat. If we want decent public services, we have to pay for them, and that takes tax.

And yes, of course top 5% of earners are well off. But then I understand statistics.

He said: 'I consider myself adequately paid, very adequately paid for what I do.... What I do with it is a different matter. I consider myself well paid for what I do and I am wanting to say to everyone who's well off, make your contribution to our society.'

So he's acknowledged that he's well paid, and he's not trying to exempt himself from taxes.

Did he say where he puts his money?

If it goes to charities, and he doesn't keep it, then I will agree.

i would interpret it differently

£80k is a high earner

Wealth is not based on income but on accumulation of income/ assets over time

e.g. a non earner who inherits £2m is still wealthy

someone who earns £80k and spends £81k is in debt and not wealthy but does have a high income and make choices about how they spend it

Income tax is based on income not wealth
there are some taxes on wealth (CGT, inheritance etc) but the rhetoric around politics seems to blur the 2.

We shoudl be looking at what we can scrap and make cuts over.

Exactly. But unfortunately, the politicians and civil servants are so politically embedded that they can't see the wood for the trees. They are so wedded to state control that they just can't contemplate perfectly good alternatives.

Take libraries in our county. The county council saw their budget being cut and without proper public consultation/scrutiny decided to close a load of village libraries. There was ZERO thought given to alternative uses, revenue raising opportunities, etc. In the past, we know local groups had tried to rent the library rooms but were always knocked back. Our library was closed at something like 3 days notice. So how much did County save? Well, not a lot, as the staff were redeployed to another nearby library (so no wages saved) and the cost of running the building was less than £10k per year!

Since it's been closed, there is now a village community group desperately trying to save it from sale and re-open it on a voluntary basis, i.e. voluntary librarians running it on a scaled down basis, with fund raising via renting out rooms to local groups etc. It's had dozens of offers of support from local people wanting to help run it, it's had dozens of letters of interest from local groups/businesses wanting to rent rooms in it. But trying to get any information from county council about it is like pulling teeth - the council officials are absolutely hopeless, they won't even answer phone calls, won't return emails, etc. Even local councillors are tearing their hair out trying to get them to communicate!

To far too many people "more money" is the only answer they can contemplate. It's completely stupid and completely wrong. There are so many public sector buildings that are grossly underused, so many opportunities for revenue raising alongside public service, yet the politically driven managers and officers just can't get that through their thick skulls.

So I see he is looking to tax the top 5% and use it to save the NHS. Apparently he needs to raise £37,000,000,000 for it. That is a lot of money to squeeze out of anyone over 80k. I wonder will we see interest rates of 70%+ again. Corbyn and McDonnell could easily describe a 20+% rise as modest.

That is bound to have a major effect on our country, the 'rich' already pay more tax than ever before, if we reach a tipping point and that collapses the country is f**ked.

Could people working in the SE downsize to a smaller/cheaper houses so they can afford the massive tax rises? Would it be better to quit your job and get one earning less?

I think Corbyn owns his London house rather than rents it. Probably at his age he doesn't have a mortgage. I imagine he would have to pay the Labour annual property capital confiscation tax because of the valoue of his home in Islington when it is brought in. I hope his salary as PM would be sufficient to cover that tax otherwise he would have to sell his home although I suppose if he gets housed in No 10 he could rent out his islington house and use the rent to pay the Labour London property capital tax.

Maybe there are too many public buildings grossly underused, but not where I live. And if staff were redeployed, they were redeployed to vacant posts. That is what redeployment means. So they would have had to fill those posts anyway. So yes wages were saved.

it's very british isn't it, this poring over who is wealthy and the criteria, this £80k figure has attracted so much attention and many threads.

If an MP's salary is 74K (I don't personally know) saying over £80K is actually worse as they will just avoid the increase...I think any other income being expenses so tax exempt?

Anyway JC and not being wealthy - he is - he has a choice of how he spends his money.
Having money - being wealthy is all about choice.
If he wishes to give it charity he can choose which charity to support. If he chooses to live in a mansion or a bedsit it is his decision.
Also with money, he can live more cheaply. He can pay for things straight away - like car tax/insurance etc. Not only pay less but also not have to spend brain space on remembering to pay every month or balance his money. He can buy in bulk -and from the supermarket rather than the more expensive local shop. He won't have a prepay energy meter. Won't need to borrow money for a new washing machine etc. If he really said that he doesn't have a clue about the real world and how lots of people on restricted incomes live. How much easier it is to be frugal if it is by choice.
Yes he will pay the extra tax...but that isn't the point -if he does give his money to charity he will just give less -his lifestyle won't change.
We all know the more money you have the more you can afford for financial advice to reduce your tax bill.
He doesn't come from a blue collar background , he went to grammar school, grew up in a seven bedroom house in the country etc - seems more middle class than working class. I suspect he doesn't actually know what it is like to struggle for money - what it is to be poor with no hope.
He seems like a champagne socialist - representing the 'metropolitan elite' socialists not the actually working class who the labour party was founded to represent. (The modern labour party -and in fact the trade unions - remind me of the pigs in animal farm...)
I like some of the ideas in their manifesto (I do think someone leaked it on purpose to raise the profile) but I don't think they can pay for it ...I don't think it is realistic. I think they know they can't win they are just trying to get as many seats as possible - so a bit like the Lib Dems and tuition fees - you can promise the world if you don't think you will need to deliver on it.

As to him being principled - I really don't think he is. He was anti EU but (half heartedly) supported remain. Anti trident and nuclear power but now he is back tracking. Even the NATO thing. He is tempering his views and towing the party line to be more electable -and that isn't principled. (Although I do think it is hard to be party leader, electable and principled...I think the last person who was was probably Margaret Thatcher. Maybe John Major. Before the majority were career politicians like Tony Blair. Gordon Brown was pretty principled as well actually...but too much of a career politician... )

Toeing not towing - not sure if that was autocorrect or a typo but wrong and something that irritates me when I read it ...

Peterhouse - lots of options if you're rich! A fair few options if you're in that bracket that JC thinks is rich. Personally I've looked at Switzerland, the Caymans and a couple of other places. I don't want to move, but if JC gets in, I'd rather go at the beginning, rather than watch his impossible idealism take the country back to the dark ages.

(For the record, I'm no tory lover either. I'm really really stumped as to what to do at this election. Might have to be LD - but then I can't bear Farron either...)

It seems to me that pretty much everyone is happy to pay more tax for the NHS, though. Why don't they just allow people to make voluntary tax donations for that??

or an NHS tax - so people can see that this tax rise goes directly to the NHS, I liked that idea personally.

I would support an NHS tax.