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 :-)

Olivers don't know which benefits they were getting, but 1) JSA is taxed.
2) I don't know anyone who gets that amount. DD and I are both disabled, we get nowhere near that and struggled with heating this winter. That's the reality, not the shit that Channel five make up.

Try
www.entitledto.co.uk/
To find out the real, actual levels of benefits available.
It can be quite an eye opener, and settle most benefit level arguments once and for all.

Oliversmum

There is CGT on sales of residential property other than an individual's main home. People who need to move or want to move will sell. Why is it ok to tax someone's employment but not the increase in value between when they bought and when they sold a house? If I buy $10,000 worth of shares and sell them the same year. Why should I pay less tax on the increase in value, than if I would on employment income?

Buy to let owners can claim a mortgage interest allowance. This is being phased out. Thanks to George Osborne.

"If people could deduct rent from their tax bill then you would be also able to deduct mortgage payments. So people would buy a bigger property because their payments would be lower and the rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer"

I am not saying that housing costs should necessarily be tax deductible but that if they are deductible they should be deductible for everyone. In my view Buy to let landlords should not get a mortgage interest allowance to reduce their tax liability on rental income from residential property. Similarly reintroducing MIRAS for owner-occupiers would be unfair on renters.

People who need to move or want to move will sell.

But would they, or would they just rent the house out. Swap the mortgage from a residential one to a larger btl one. That way they get a small income and a lump sum to buy another place with.

In rl I do know some who get the top £500 per week benefits as well. They were getting a lot more at one stage.

Why is it ok to tax someone's employment but not the increase in value between when they bought and when they sold a house

Would the taxman give a rebate if the property ended up in negative equity

Also why wouldn't you if you are then taxed on the value increase turn your main residence into a Limited company and claim gas, electric, insurance, new kitchen back against tax.

Also why wouldn't you if you are then taxed on the value increase turn your main residence into a Limited company and claim gas, electric, insurance, new kitchen back against tax.

You can now, but you'd have a taxable benefit in kind on the value of your home which would make it prohibitive as it would be a huge tax bill. Not to mention, your "home" would have no income, so there'd be no profit to set those costs against. If you don't understand how limited companies tax works, then you really shouldn't post comments about them!

But you are suggesting taxing price increases for someone's main residence. Wouldn't the price increase in value of the home be the income all be it not untill the house is sold.

missed, we used to have inflation consideration (known as indexation) for capital gains tax when CGT was at 40% not 28% as now. So we need to remember that. Now UK inflation is 2.7% a rise in value of a home of 2.7% means it has stayed the same vaoue. Apply that indexation over 20 years etc... now we don't do that any more at all so people are taxed on "gains" which are not gains. I think that tax change was a big mistake. I would have rather kept 40% CGT and 40% upper rate of income tax so there was no difference between the rate of upper income tax (as it then was) and CGT but your capital gains had that deduction for inflation.

I don't support CGT on people's homes as usually they move because of work and any gain is illusory. Also if they downsize (not that I will and my parents never did - they died in their house and we paid inheritance tax) a lot of that gain might be from money they paid in. People forget this. We sold our last house at a loss in the 1990s crash in London and any equity in it was there because we had put it in out of our taxed income. My own house now -my husband on our divorce got a lot of the equity out of it - enough to buy him an unmortgaged house even! I had a £1,.3m mortgage on it all those years ago. I have had a repayment mortgage for 30 years which is now paid off. That capital in the house has already been taxed at my highest rates during the 30+ years I have continuously worked full time. have not sat back and gains millions in equity rises but anyone looking at my house and me might assume I am like my neighbour who indeed has lived in her house for 40 years, has a very low income - state pension etc and no carpets but a house worth presumably about £1m. I am not sure it would be fair to make her pay an annual property tax other than the £3k a year council tax we already pay. When she dies her children will give 40% of £1m to the state in inheritance tax or whatever it will be by then.

Olivia the national debt has tripled under the Tories.

Not true, it has gone for approx 1trillion when the coalition came to government to 1.7trillion as at December 2016.

What else could they do, cut more and tax more and make the economy worse so that interest on the debt would increase.

Sorry wrong thread!

Not true, it has gone for approx 1trillion when the coalition came to government to 1.7trillion as at December 2016.

Moreover, it was only a third of that with Labour in the mid 1990s, so it was Labour that trebled national debt over their so-called "prosperity" years!!!

Let's drop the arguing about the word "wealthy". Some people think that whether you are wealthy depends on what pay you take home; others think that it depends on how much you have left after your charity donations, and perhaps some other outgoings. It doesn't seem worth arguing about the meaning of the word here.

Let's coin these words: "wealthy1" (takes home big pay packet); "wealthy2" (lives a lavish lifestyle because no expensive and necessary outgoings, or large charity donations).
Perhaps Corbyn would agree that he is wealthy1, and so should pay more tax. I take it that he was just saying that he wasn't wealthy2. This is all totally consistent. How can you label him a hypocrite on this basis?!

Perhaps the people who oppose the Labour party have some good arguments, but when they jump on this and cry "hypocrite", it makes me question their judgment!

But, going round in circles here, why is he not wealthy because he chooses to donate to charity, but I (let's say!) am wealthy because I go out and buy a designer handbag every month? He may be more worthy but certainly not more wealthy .

They need to thrash out where some taxes/benefits are based on household income and others are based on individual income. That's another tier of unfairness.

Why should someone earning over £80k be taxed more if their spouse doesn't work, compared with a two income household where both earn £40k, and not only aren't affected by the proposed tax rise, but also aren't affected by the loss in child benefit for individuals earning more than £50k. A two income couple earning £80k is just as "wealthy" as a couple where just one earns £80k - why are their taxes/benefits different?????

But, going round in circles here, why is he not wealthy because he chooses to donate to charity,

According to his published tax return he doesn't even pay that much to charity. On income over £100k, he pays around £6k if I remember rightly. Hardly grounds for him to claim the moral high ground!!!

Corbyn owns a London house presumably without a mortgage so is wealthy. Has his "mansion" (i.e. London flat) tax survived into the new manifesto?

I notice on threads like this, posters do insist on putting inverted commas around things such as 'workers' and 'hard-working' when they refer to people earning £80k+.
Is the assumption that people earning that wage do not work hard,or indeed work at all?
Or is working the preserve of people earning under £80k?
Or is it just a silly affectation?

Working physically harder, probably not.
More responsibility and stress, probably

Those £80k earners are the fucking upper class who would have the rest of cleaning their toilets and raising their brats if they could.

Some posters here might think £80k makes them perfectly average, but only amongst their own sickeningly wealthy circle. Come down here where the rest of us live.

Look at this poster above. This £80K figure is ludicrous. It's got people like the above thinking that someone on £85K is some kind of millionaire yacht-owning bastard whilst someone else (eg my friend) who earns £50K in public sector but has just inherited a £1.4 million property is a wonderful hard-working credit to society.