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.

@Redpony1

I'd love to have any holiday full stop.

Also Labour want to abolish tuition fees so he wouldn't have to save as there would be no debt.

My OH and I work full time and hard too and go above and beyond, as do lots of working people who are just managing.

Labour has suggested to throw my money at the system, but the exact use of that money besides more of everything and expansion of the state do not come through to me as best use of money. Free school meals for all children? Free university tuition?

I agree that more funding is needed but they are not convincing me that they know how to turn that into better performance.

I'd be interested to see if corp tax is based on profits.

All Corp tax is based on profits. No profit = no tax which is how Starbucks wriggled out of it - but doing their accounts so they made no profit here.

but=by

Free school meals for all children? Free university tuition?

Investing in education for all - never a priority for Tories, but welcome for me.

@lizzyj4 imagine being in your situation on 20k a year?

What a lot of people are missing is that whilst they may pay more in tax, they will get back in better public services and more help in other ways.

I think high earners all understand that they have benefited from society.

Also Labour want to abolish tuition fees so he wouldn't have to save as there would be no debt.

Not strictly true. You still have to live when you get there.

@Blaaaaaaaah I wouldnt be. I live in London. I earn 23k, if I earnt 80k I'd be living very well indeed.

The money would be better spent on reversing the cut on Sure Start or State Scholarships for university education in my opinion. Show us that Labour is also about work ethics and aspirations and working to get something and just not expecting freebies, then I will vote for them.

I don't like the free school meals for all or free tuition - and do I trust them to be able to deliver that and keep delivering that? Hell no, I won't be stopping saving for tuition fees based on the idea that in 12-16 years time when they are that age Corbyn's policy will still be in effect, should a miracle happen and the poll slide is reversed.

I don't believe labour can pay for everything in the manifesto based on this tax rise, it'll be the tip of the iceberg.

Given that the very wealthy already contribute a large % of tax receipts, I imagine that the "soak the rich!!" thing will mostly appeal to those who'd have voted Labour anyway

Trouble is, they need something to bring a lot more voters to their side, and I very much doubt this is it. Sneering about less trips to Waitrose is all very well, but it's not going to bring us the effective opposition we badly need

I don't get it.

• This tax will not raise the money expect as it will change behaviour so if Labour are to pay for everything they want they will end up borrowing more money.

• The problems in the NHS including mental health and social care do not just need a load of money thrown at them they need fundamental change (they do need more money but that won't solve the problems). Parties across the board and try and come up with a solution and stop politicising it (all parties not just Labour).
• The increase in CT will also lead to many companies leaving the UK, again reducing the tax take and it will also impact the economy and will again result in more borrowing if they are to pay for these pledges.
• The fantasy about tax evasion and avoidance is just that, the last 7 years has seen the most aggresive level of legislation around tax avoidance and evasion for corporations. There just isn't this magic tax evasion/avoidance income to be mopped up. Even if you accept the tax gap analysis by HMRC the vast majority of this 'missing tax' is from small and medium enterprises, not the large evil corporates.

nInachu - thanks, but I've been there and worse. I still don't think that justifies taxing me more and more at every possible opportunity. The policy OP is referring to is grossly unfair to single parents.

Why is anyone so naive as to assume that "paying a bit more" will result in anything other than the state pissing it all up against the wall?!

Rather than placing additional taxes on those who pay for private healthcare and education, the state should consider subsidising it? The net impact would be to reduce the burden on the state.

And if Labour thinks that the most pressing need in the state education system is to provide free meals to all kids, how can anyone give them any credibility on this?

I agree that it does seem unfair that households earning the same amount of money can have such a difference in the levels of taxation , I say that as someone who earns no where near the amounts spoken of. PPS saying that they don't feel sorry for such high earners are missing the point that 2 x £75000 earners are even better off. But, we have individual taxation and a recent thread showed most people preferred so don't think there's a way round it.
But it's true at any stage of taxation, 2 x 25k earners are better off than 1 50k earner, the figures are bigger because the wages are higher.

I can imagine single parents on 150k would feel punished for being single as well as a high earners but I'm sure they'll cope.

Unlikely to be a problem given labour won't get in.

This tax will not raise the money expect as it will change behaviour
It won't change mine - I will just pay up.
The increase in CT will also lead to many companies leaving the UK
Since so many multinationals manage to dodge any CT why would they need to leave?

This is scare tactics and making excuses for companies and individuals not doing their bit.

Labour want to increase our household tax and potentially reduce my husband's access to employment.
They're still a better choice for society and us. Tories are only any good for the actual top earners and land owners. But they spin a good yarn to older middle class people that they're the only party. That's why you get all the shit on here for daring to be anuything other than a ranting tory.

AnUtterIdiot (unfortunate handle in this context, hope everyone treads carefully if answering your post directly!) - I completely get your point, and I too would much rather spread my risks, help reduce damaging inequality and invest in a better outcome for everyone via higher taxation on the social-democratic Scandinavian model. But it's a question of trust in government to make the right decisions and timescale. If I'm faced with a choice between a state school on special measures or high-performing private schools for my children, I'm going to take the latter because, while it might take 25 or 30 years to get all schools up to a good standard, I have only 10 years in which to get the best educational outcome I can. It seems that Danish politicians still enjoy a high level of public trust, and voters feel confident in their state; but I don't think we've felt that for a social-democratic government since Blair's years. And then it got blown on foreign policy adventures. I wish it were different, but I don't see a Corbyn cabinet having the nous to solve our difficult problems (Diane Abbot, anyone?)

Given that the very wealthy already contribute a large % of tax receipts, I imagine that the "soak the rich!!" thing will mostly appeal to those who'd have voted Labour anyway

Again, nobody is out to "soak" anyone. Higher earners understand that they have benefited from our society.

It's similar to the child benefit rules. A couple earning 50k each can still claim child benefit, one person in the household working and earning 60k has to pay all child benefit back/ not claim.

wasonthelist
Won't change mine either, but it will change others
On the CT point, there is no large scale anti-avoidance that people dream of, see my point above about all the new provisions brought it.

Higher earners understand that they have benefited from our society

And society has also benefited enormously from them, not only in the huge amount of tax most already pay but in further VAT receipts on their high spending, provision of jobs from those who are employers and much, much more

nobody is out to "soak" anyone

Sorry, but I remain to be convinced; the very obvious underlying communist agenda has gone too far for this to be taken on trust

Higher earners understand that they have benefited from our society

In what way have they? Makeourfuture