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 understand the desire to encourage children from all walks of life to go to university, but even if we scrap tuition fees for those going, somebody (ie the taxpayer) has to pay for it. Given that there are a number of students who finish university and then never use their degrees fully, should we not change our mindset around a university education being in some way superior to an apprenticeship or even just college and work? Stuff what Eton and Roedean think is best, since when do we need to keep up with the Joneses on a national scale?

Sostenuto sounds like an amazing DGD you have there, hope you can help make her aspirations a reality and she can work in her chosen field.

Not only has may screwed the young in this country but now shes going to screw the old just as hard, I get so frustrated think its time to back away from the politics threads

www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/theresa-may-conservative-tory-policy-older-people-pay-for-social-care#comments

As one of the 'olds' I think it is the right thing to do (and yes I have assets of more than £100K) - there is no god-given right to pass on mega-bucks to your heirs if you need care currently paid for by the taxpayer and you have money to pay for them. My late mother spent many years in a good care home and it cost most of the value of her house. So be it.
Re triple lock and winter fuel allowance - so many times the 'youngs' beat us over the head about these when with a bit of perspective the triple lock of say 2% increase in the basic state pension (circa £7.5K per year) is 2% of not very much and the £200 per household per year goes nowhere near keeping the old warm so scrap it (that said I will miss it but heyho)
Just maybe if we pay for the extra help we need it will be of a better quality.
They are not specifically targeting anybody - the young and families have had it too good in the past (as have some of the elderly) time to not promise the earth and bring a bit of reality into the situation.

I'm a waspie, one of those unfortunate women born in the early 50s. I cannot get my pension for another 2 years. I will be 66. My friend born in 1949 gets her pension of £180 a week, a free bus pass and the heating allowance, owns her own home, is a widow and in great health. I am severely disabled currently on ESA, shortly to be reassessed and I get a lot less money than my friend. I am in fear of losing what little I have but that apart who's need is greater? I worked for 40 years full time, do not now own my home (divorce etc). When I do get my pension it will be about £40 less than my friends. If the triple lock is removed I will get even less.

Not only has may screwed the young in this country but now shes going to screw the old just as hard, I get so frustrated think its time to back away from the politics threads

Well that's the thing isn't it? When we focus on the Tory disasters in education, healthcare and No-Plan Brexit, we forget about the thorough thrashing they are giving our older citizens.

Those over £80,000 will pay up to an extra £1000 in tax...
£100 - £123k pay £1000 - £2725
£123 - £150k pay £2725 - £5425
£150 - £200k pay £2725 - £7925
£200 - £500 pay £7925 - £22925
£500k + pay £22925 +

Re triple lock and winter fuel allowance - so many times the 'youngs' beat us over the head about these when with a bit of perspective the triple lock

Exactly.

Now it's going people are up in arms about it.

I personally don't see what is wrong with means testing fuel allowance etc.

That's £20 a week seawitchy. If your earning 80 grand or more it's a drop in the ocean.

Agree about fuel allowance I'm severely disabled and I don't get it.

FFS can you imagine how utterly shit the transport network and utility companies would be run by the same self serving wasteful dickheads who run our NHS?

Sea - except they won't. Because corbyn won't get in.

Because corbyn won't get in.

We prognosticate on here a lot. What if? Maybe? Well if...

What we know:

• The Tories have said they justify all these spite-filled, targeted cuts because they are the party of responsibility...that they will "bring the debt down".

It has increased

• The Tories say they are the party of stability in an unstable world.

Brexit with absolutely no plan at all.

• The Tories say they have changed and that they want to help those in most need.

Cuts target the poor, disabled, schools, the aged - no mention of Bankers or Playboys.

• The Tories say they know how to do things efficiently.

Universal credit wastes millions and millions on private contracts. Over budget, poor computer system... no end in sight

"I can tell you now that I would much rather pay higher taxes in a society with free decent education, free decent healthcare and free decent social care than pay low taxes but have to pay for that stuff directly. I'd rather give money to the state to access economies of scale that I can't possibly access on my own, even as a high earner"

I pay more tax under Labour governments and am proud that I can afford to do so. Sadly most people who benefit from Tory tax cuts do not give to charity, even Thatcher said she was disappointed with that. Sorry to link to the mirror but first up on google www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/poor-people-give-greater-proportion-5470014

The Tories have ruined the economy - GDP dropped, debt massively increased and you can only claim they cut the deficit if you compare with what it was after the bank bailout, the deficit was smaller under Labour than it has been since.

The funding the NHS has been given barely keeps up with population change, doesnt cover the costs of an elderly population and is set to be cut soon for probably the first time in its history. So plan to self-fund your care in future.

The deficit would have reduced further and faster under Labour because if you cut benefits and throw people out of work you cut tax take. I dont agree with everything in the Labour Party manifesto but giving money to low wage earners means you recover substantial amounts of it in tax, VAT and lower benefit payments It actually costs a lot less than most people think because of the offsetting savings. Sadly hardly anyone - including a lot of economists - understands public finance. The Tories have accepted minimum wage increases after initially scaremongering about how bad it would be because they know (but cant admit) that it's beneficial to the economy.

The Danes have high public spending and are happier - you can have a scoiety that works for all or one where even the greedy are miserable.

and the NHS used to be one of the mst efficient services in the world and the envy of the world. But when starved of funds it cant be www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2016/01/how-does-nhs-spending-compare-health-spending-internationally

makeourfuture all these spite-filled, targeted cuts

I have met quite a few MPs (all colours) in the course of my work. I can confirm they are actually all real human beings with families and loved ones and friends and everything.

Do you honestly, genuinely believe there is a group of people sitting in a back room deciding how best to personally screw over other people just for shits and giggles? That they are working out ways to be the most spiteful and hate filled they can be?

Real people, real civil servants (i.e. the much lower paid people down the rungs - the ones who make most of the laws and rules happen, with the MPs as figureheads. The civil servants like you and me. You think these people are deliberately out to get you and have decided en masse to create polices just to personally kick you in the balls?).

there is no god-given right to pass on mega-bucks to your heirs if you need care currently paid for by the taxpayer and you have money to pay for them

No, far better to spend all your money on holidays and fast cars whilst you can, and then rely on the state. Why should widow/widowers lose their family if they have no money to pay the tax

Socialist parties want everybody to be equal, but how can we be equal when some people are expected to pay for themselves or lose their home and others are not? Those in Council houses can inherit a tenancy without having to "pay" for it if the tenant dies, so why should this be different for those who have worked and paid for their own home?

Succession rights when a council tenant dies

The right for someone to inherit a tenancy when the tenant dies is known as succession.

A council tenancy can only be inherited once, unless the tenancy agreement allows for more than one succession.

Your right to inherit a council tenancy depends on:
■your relationship with the tenant
■the type of tenancy they had
■when the tenancy started

If you inherit a tenancy, it will be the same type of tenancy as that of the person who died with the same rent and rights.

The council may ask you to provide evidence about who you are, your relationship with the tenant who died and how long you had lived with them.

There is no such thing as society - Margaret Thatcher

Don't forget that many of those who will be affected by IHT will be those in London who have seen property prices rocket but who bought 30-40 years ago, and now have a property worth potentially millions but little or no income or savings.

I've also met quite a few MPs - and even ministers. Yes they have families but unless you have a lot of money they dont see their families in the same way as yours. Their families usually have private education and health care.

Civil servants have to work with the parameters they are given and will be well aware that any proposal that would put a majority at risk will be rejected. The cuts are targeted so they have less effect on Tory voters. It's not for "shit and giglles" but it is a ruthless lust for power.

Well, they won't have to pay upfront user - the cost will presumably be a charge on the house to be repaid when they die. Picture the headlines when that day comes.

(Not saying I agree with the policy - but it does address the asset rich/income poor issue)

i agree with the policy - and i say that as someone who will otherwise inherit a nice sum from my parents' house. We can't have everything - would I rather inherit money in my 50s, or have my parents draw on their housing wealth and the money not spent by the government for their care going towards education or health spending?

Inheritance doesn't really change lives in most cases, because by the time you typically get it, you've paid most of your mortgage and your DC are well through their education. So it, what, lets you retire a bit earlier.

"Inheritance doesn't really change lives in most cases, because by the time you typically get it, you've paid most of your mortgage"

I think that may be changing a bit though - more and more millennials can only get on property ladder through inheritance (skipping a generation, or dparents passing it on). So inheriting at the right time can be life changing - particularly with huge property prices in SE/London. Not that that is in the slightest bit fair I agree - what happens to those who don't inherit?

isn't it true that we have the most unequal society since the 1920s for IHT? We all pick our preferences in the vote but I'd rather we ring fenced education which really can change lives rather than my right to inherit 000s when my kids are nearly offhand!

As I say this I'm cringing at the thought of all that lovely money slipping through my fingers, hehe :)

since there was some discussion of the economy - everyone should read why "quantative easing" actually made the rich richer positivemoney.org/how-money-works/advanced/how-quantitative-easing-works/

and the economist positivemoney.org/how-money-works/advanced/how-quantitative-easing-works/

We have the least income inequality we have had for 30 years actually. Even the Guardians knows this
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/10/uk-inequality-working-people-pensions-ons

There are a lot of myths on all sides being peddled as facts in this general election. I am confident that we will be safest at all income levels in Conservative hands.

As for paying for care even 30 years ago when my children's great grandparent died it was an issue- you could not even then just sell your house and get the care home fees paid for the council, I remember it from that time. Then when my father in 2008 was dying of dementia at home he spent £130,000 on carers at home and died at home. No NHS care there (even though he worked as a doctor for the NHS for about 40 eyars).

Paying for your care out of the value of your house is not a major issue for most people.