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.

Have a look at the financial times for income inequality, in particular
www.ft.com/content/24e88c30-bc5f-11e6-8b45-b8b81dd5d080

What about the very rich?

Surveys are good at capturing detail on the incomes received by most UK households. However, they struggle to pick up people with the very highest incomes. To look at what is happening to them, researchers have turned to other sources of information — in particular, tax returns.

Using such data to work out what incomes the very richest receive is not an exact science but it has been attracting a lot of effort from researchers in recent years. This has been led in the UK by Sir Tony Atkinson at Oxford university.

Such analysis suggests the gap between the very richest and everyone else continued growing after the early 1990s. The top 1 per cent received 9.8 per cent of all income in 1990. This rose to 15.4 per cent by 2007. The effect of the financial crisis means the share of income received by the richest 1 per cent has since fallen but was still at 12.7 per cent in 2012, the most recent year for which these data are currently available.

So we cant yet find out what has happened to the richest under this government, although quantitative easing certainly helped them more than the poor.

"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?"

What on earth do you think they're inheriting?

Spouses and children of deceased tenancy holders who lived in the house get the right not to be evicted, that's it, they still have to pay rent.

They don't get a free house, they get to sign a new tenancy agreement if they weren't on it so they're not homeless as well as bereaved. If they then can't pay the rent, they'd be treated like any other tenant.

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?"

That really isn't how it works!

Only certain kinds of people, and only once. Usually it is Husbands who had their name on the tenancy and when he dies, the wife has the right to stay. No chance of inheriting the right if it is not your main home.

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

In practice I agree - only a minority will have to do so, and even then it may only be a small proportion of the value. In principle, not so sure - the reaction against the proposal today has been interesting. Very vigorous.

In one way it is more of an inheritance tax than the lab and lib dem proposal to reduce the threshold (unless they were going to go down to £100k which I doubt) - but only payable by those who need very expensive and long-term care. The wealth of the fittest survives! While the weak have to pay. £100k is a very low threshold where property is concerned (I know it was previously 23k for care homes, but that affects fewer people).

Anyway, we will see soon enough how it affects voter turnout.

If you have £100k even in equity in your house I don't see why you should pay for your care. Isn't it £23k anyway under current law? Even 30 years ago these were the rules. Quite a few people don't even need end of life care and most do not have enough assets even to pay inheritance tax anyway.

Yes £23k if you go into a care home, but until now the value of your house has not been taken into account for domiciliary care. So the rules are now going to be more generous than they were for those in care homes (threshold goes up to £100k) - less generous than they were for those staying in their own homes and needing care.

Yes, I think a lot of people do take the 'why shouldn't you pay' view.
What is interesting is that some of those those who don't take that view are/were? Con voters. It's possible TM has underestimated their reaction - people on internet below the line comments sections saying they now won't vote or will now vote UKIP (who have slammed the proposal). Equally it's possible that they will still eventually vote Con despite their annoyance, after it has died down.

And also lots of mners saying it's a good policy - so maybe they will vote Con instead and cancel out any lost votes!

Apparently 6/7 people die without ever having had social care either domiciliary or in a care home.

That change will simply force more people into care homes.

how, brasty? It will still be cheaper to have home care in general I think.

Not only that most people would prefer to stay in their own home if at all possible.
I know I would.
As someone who would be affected I am all in favour to include assets when care at home is needed and would still vote conservative.
I think people on MN and in RL underestimate how one's attitude to money and wealth cghange as one gets older. It is all about quality of life and if they take away the triple lock and the WFA I will be worse off (current income circa £12k a year and everything to pay for as I live alone) but I think we can no longer (as a country) live beyond our means and I am all for fairness.

117 - ah that explains it - it's about care in your own home. I thought that had virtually gone anyway.

I had absolutely no idea the local authority provided those with equity in their house with care at home when you had savings and a valuable house! My father didn't get this in Newcastle when he was dying with dementia at home. My mother didn't either when she was dying at home. They had to pay and use life savings. May be different local authorities differ or it is hard to get the local authority care or perhaps it depends on the level of care you need.

If the local authority does it free currently why do we have so many companies locally advertising to provide these services? Anyway I am obviously wrong and that this will come a shock to those living at home.

"If the local authority does it free currently why do we have so many companies locally advertising to provide these services?"

I think because people already have to pay if they have savings over £23k. Which would be quite a significant number of pensioners in some areas. (Plus there may be an income threshold - so people on occupational pensions etc are excluded - I'm not sure about that.)

Also I suppose people may want to pay for more care than the council assesses as necessary?

So if your df had savings of more than £23k he would already have had to pay, I think?

The