Labours Increase in personal tax over £80k

[OliviaPopeRules]

So Labour have finally announced their 'moderate' tax increase for people over £80k.
These changes mean that if you have a household where one person earns £150k you will pay tax of £58k approx. but if you have a household of 2 people earning £75k you will pay total tax of approx. £37k.

I appreciate a lot of people will think tough shit, you earns lot so screw you but can someone really explain to me how this is not just a tax to punish.

And yes I understand people on lower incomes and disability support and other benefits need to more support and I personally have no problem paying extra tax but this makes the tax system so unequal for couples/ families with only 1 person working.

I know what you mean Rufus. It feels completely wrong to me to have the next generation saddled with the perpetual debt label. If I had been writing the Labour manifesto I would have been done with it and added 5% to the 40% tax bracket to abolish it and make the point that higher tax rates should reflect higher earning power rather than higher educational levels. - this didn't seem at all radical when I started paying tax.

Very true how

It works out at 62% if you earn between £100,000 to £120,000. Then drops back to 40% when you get above £120,000.

So when I was in that bracket, I worked my arse off all year to earn an exceptional performance bonus. I mean regular 18 hour days; only took about 10 days holiday all year; spent most nights at my desk or networking. And 62% of it went on tax. Did I bother again the following year?!

Whereas if it had been taxed at 40% it would have been worth it. Result to treasury - £0.00 when it could have had £4,000.

But how if I go to university, get a degree and end up earning a higher salary as a result why should I not pay.
Equally why should people who haven't attended university pay extra taxes.

If higher educational levels don't result in you having higher earning power, then doing a degree is not a very good use of your time or money and perhaps prospective students need to think about that ahead of time.

i don't think the current fee system is perfect, but neither do I believe £11 bn should be spent giving a subsidy to mostly middle class people when we have so many other things to pay for.

i don't think the current fee system is perfect, but neither do I believe £11 bn should be spent giving a subsidy to mostly middle class people when we have so many other things to pay for

I agree

Blair's idea of everyone going to university has a lot to answer for.

You can despise high earners all you like - the cold and brutal truth is that someone paying £7,000 a month in tax is more useful than bleeding heart principles and £700 a month!

No Sionulla you do not get it.

I do not despise anyone despite what you might think.

But your high earner is not just paying in £7000 a month in tax and gifting it to the state with no benefit to themselves or their families, they are also using the resources provided by the state... Obviously this is the case if they use the NHS, state education, policing, bin collection, etc.
In fact even if they only use the private health care system they are still benefitting from an NHS trained medical team. I have worked in both the NHS and private sector and I promise you the private sector is often very lax in terms of providing staff training and development. It is entirely reliant on the skills and experience gained within the NHS [and indeed some staff return to the NHS to update those skills that they cannot readily gain or hone in the private sector].

Higher rate earners are often benefitting from the labour of those who are paid a lower salary in society and also subsequently less tax. And they benefit from living in a society where there are people willing to do these jobs, not necessarily for financial renumeration. It is important to recognise that imo.

And Abit please don't 'comrade' me either

Right - and it is recognised. By making contributions. Which NOBODY is saying they shouldn't do. The question I asked you in response to your post was, what is a "fair share"? Because you don't seem to think even 62% is enough in some cases!

Your posts do reek of despising high earners, sorry.

I've been a life long Tory voter. But Corbyn has got me seriously interested.
I wasn't in favour of brexit, but if we're going for a big change then why not go the whole hog?!

the whole hog? We're facing an unprecedented shock with brexit, adding another unprecedented shock to it if Corbyn got in (the IFS uses the word 'unprecedented' when talking about the impact of a lot of Corbyn's policies) is making the gamble even bigger.

It would vastly increase the chances of a bad outcome, IMF bailout, austerity max etc.

That's why, much as it pains me to say, as much other stability as we can muster IS what we need whilst brexit is going on. I'd rather it was centre-left stability that guaranteed the rights of the poor, but I can't have that option it seems.

the whole hog? We're facing an unprecedented shock with brexit, adding another unprecedented shock to it if Corbyn got in (the IFS uses the word 'unprecedented' when talking about the impact of a lot of Corbyn's policies) is making the gamble even bigger.

The promise of nationalisation of the national grid seems to be unravelling at a rate of knots and it seems to depend on who is talking as to where they stand on benefit freezes.

Your posts do reek of despising high earners, sorry.

You are entitled to your opinion but you are wrong.
I do not despise high earners so long as they do not think they contribute more to society purely by dint of their financial contribution.

And that they recognise that those who can afford to pay the most should pay the most.

The question I asked you in response to your post was, what is a "fair share"?
I think the tax levels that are proposed in Labour's manifesto seem fair and entirely affordable for those on a high income. Are you saying they are not... or is it that those who are incentivised by financial reward won't bother to work so hard because they will not receive enough money to live on, whatever they feel that figure might be?

and it does matter that they are incompetent - we'd need a hugely competent team of people with enormous expertise to deliver labour's manifesto. Most of them are sat on the back benches. The only economist of any repute (Blanchflower) that tried to work with them gave up very quickly - the headline of his guardian article 'i advised Corbyn's economics team to learn fast. They didn't.'

So not exactly the dream team to pull off massive changes, are they?

Instead of a tax increase then why doesn't anyone who earns over 80 thousand nip down to the nearest council estate and take with you a couple of lorries full of essentials like food clothes computers for the children to be able to study etc. Wonder how many of those 80grand earners will do that then?

Oh and just another thought, if you had to pay 35 thousand in tax that amount would take my daughter on minimum wage 4 years to earn. Puts things in a little bit of perspective doesn't it?

And if you can't manage on 160 thousand a year with 2 working and earning 80 grand a piece perhaps you should take evening classes in economics so you can learn to manage on such a meagre wage.

sionella

Makes a valid point

When she lost 62% of her bonus she wasnt insentivised to do its again

Is 62% not enough?

And yes I appreciate that its only on a portion of the wages

I get minimum wage and work a very part time, i would absolutely make sure that i wasnt hitting any of those cliff edge taxs

And as i have said i don't disagree with higher taxes depending on the increase...i just think that these 'cliff edges' should be amended

And although everyone in theory can practice tax management (no idea if its called that but i like the way it sounds now i have typed it ) its blindingly obvious that the more money you have the more you can do it. And by that i mean people on much more than the mystical 123k

how on earth would that work in practice, sostenueto? It would be unfair when not everyone got the same - I'm sure flat 1 would love a new coat when flat 2 has been given a computer - it would be patronising and you'd have no idea of knowing what was being used as intended and what was being flogged.

So yeah, I think I'll stick to paying taxes, donating to food banks, helping at the soup kitchen, giving to charity and sitting on the board of the 3 charities i do work for!

Rant over bye bye till 5 years time with no NHS inflation at 20% and no more state pensions. Live long and prosperous.

Sostenueto - And maybe your daughter could take evening classes and earn more than the minimum wage with her new skill set?

Wonder how many of those 80grand earners will do that then?

Again a bit more contempt for the evil rich people. You have no idea how much money they give to charity or what they do to help people but assume away.

I don't think anyone said they couldn't manage on 160k pa.

sostenueto

To be honest i bet more of them would be happier giving a few computers to the local school or something like that rather than paying the tax

As has been said before, I don't think anyone would object to paying a bit more if they knew that it would go to the right places and that it wouldn't be the tip of the tax increase iceberg. There is no way that JC's policies give that encouragement.

Hence people looking for the escape raft!