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.

Olivia I think I read somewhere this morning that there's a proposal to limit fees charged by letting agencies - which I think already happens in Scotland?

Interesting Rose about the effect of SDLT on second homes. In a way I suppose you would expect that to have the most effect on central London property as the amounts are pretty huge. Lower down the scale I'm not sure how much landlords have been deterred from buying - although at least they do now have to pay more than the competing owner occupier. As you say, it's a balancing act - nobody wants to crash the property market!

But you might have expected more election attention to the problem - even if only "we will look into this, and review that, and come up with some policies, and do some things which will make it easier to owner occupy." I would have thought would be popular with those under 30s currently destined to rent for ever.

Yep so if you earn 150k you will pay 5% extra on 80,000-123,000 = 2,150
And 10% on 123,000 to 150,000 = 2,700.
So total is 4,850 so basically 5k.
Hope that makes sense.

the triple lock though is a guarantee the coalition shouldn't have made:

'It was a guarantee to increase the state pension every year by the higher of inflation, average earnings or a minimum of 2.5%.'

The fact is the UK is an aging society and with a lot more people living into their eighties and nineties, the government has to pay the state pension for much longer than originally envisaged. In short, it can’t afford the triple lock.

Especially coupled with the increase in health spending on the same pensioners.

some - are sceptical that increasing spending always results in a commensurate improvement in public services

You can certainly add me to that list. Through work in the community I have more experience of jaw-dropping local authority waste than I care to think about, and still the only thing it occurs to them to blame is "the savage cuts"

To be fair, there are times when service cuts really are the result of a lack of funding ... but there are plenty more where this excuse is simply a cover for incompetence or worse

Yes, it's hard to believe it simply got overlooked. There are no politicians who would want to crash the housing market - you'd think - but there are lots of people who think they would love to see it happen!

So all these nationalisations are going to be paid for by massive borrowing
Why would we need massive borrowing, we're not buying back the railways etc we own them already, we'll just keep the profits instead of letting a private company have them

Puzzled - completely agree. A very good friend of mine is a headmaster. A few years ago, he worked his arse off to keep his school in the black. Others in the same LA didn't and ended up in the red.

How did the LA deal with it? Paid off the debts accrued by the other schools, and slashed my friend's budget! Totally back to front logic and quite typical of a certain type of public worker who simply isn't dealing with money in the same way as the private sector would.

Exactly Rose - crash no, weight it in favour of owner occupiers yes - but obviously it's difficult to get the balance right.

Still, the cons did introduce some tax measures in that direction - I find it puzzling that neither party is talking about introducing more. For many (the under 30s and their parents) it is a very significant issue. More btl tax changes could be a vote winner - though of course also a vote loser amongst other sectors, so perhaps the calculation has been done that it's just too risky to have as an election topic. Or perhaps all the pol parties think they need to wait and see what the effect of the interest deductibility tax changes is this year - as they have only just come into effect.

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

well presumably the person who isn't woking in household one can go and make up the shortfall if they are so desperately in need of money.
and i think its more unfair to take money from disabled people, myself. so if thatsthe choice? i'll take it.

This is a good example. Whilst it isn't tax, it shows how useless councils can be at spending money well:

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/portas-pilot-towns-wasted-grants-on-items-like-a-1600-peppa-pig-costume-8494026.html%3Famp

Great - and what if they have kids? What if the cost of childcare means that they would actually lose money by the second parent going back to work? How is that going to encourage parents, esp mothers, back into the workplace?

This is a good example. Whilst it isn't tax, it shows how useless councils can be at spending money well:

This is also a good example of disinformation and derailment techniques used by those with an agenda

Its not even the tip of the iceberg. What is the cost of the triple lock? Billions. What will happen when all these utilities are nationalised and unions get more power. We then become responsible for all the investment in those utilities, people will want lower prices, unions will demand higher wages. Who is going to pay for that? The Royal Mail was sold off because it wasn't profitable, no one sends letter anymore. Who is going to pay for that? Cost of Brexit? No mention of it. Who is going to pay the increased debt interest, where is the costings... The magic money tree is dead now!

And did anyone watch JCs speech, he said he would end the freeze on benefits. One hour later a spokesman has done a u-turn. So anyone happy the rich will be getting free university, free school meals and the poor get nothing more in benefits.

typical of a certain type of public worker who simply isn't dealing with money in the same way as the private sector would

Indeed

I won't break your heart with endless examples as it's just too depressing, but speaking of schools may I offer a local one which needed some windows replacing. Because it's a fairly sensitive victorian building the Head approached some specialist renovators who wanted £2000 for the job ... and was then told by the LEA that their workmen could save them a lot of money by repairing the windows instead

For £6000

No, Just. It is a perfect example of how money can be misspent. Try opening your mind from your little agenda!

and i think its more unfair to take money from disabled people, myself. so if thatsthe choice? i'll take it.

Yes but that is not necessarily what the money is going on. Free school meals for all primary kids regardless of income, no university fees, nationalising water, throwing money at the NHS which probably won't fix the issues.

Apart from all that they just won't get the revenue in.
Policies to reverse any disability cuts, income support cuts, increase public sector pay to a level set by an independent body are all reasonable but everything announced is just too much and unsustainable and along with CT rise will kill the economy.

Maybe transparency in school budget and spending is a good idea, so all the stakeholders (aka parents) know where the money was spent.

Also tax receipts are by necessity a bit of a crystal ball job. For example, you predict you will raise £X. But if the economy tanks, and lots of those earners lose their jobs, have pay cuts or relocate, how do you make up the shortfall?

If you raise CGT, you are predicting how many people will continue investing and selling. But if the economy and Brexit make investing here unattractive, again, where is that shortfall coming from?

A bit - I think it might be more transparent for academies? Not sure on that though!

www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9230

Sorry if it's been linked already.

Hi all,

We just wanted to hop on to say that it's not really on to accuse folk of posting with an ulterior motive or hidden agenda. If you think that someone is not posting with genuine intentions, please do report it to us rather than posting on the thread, as it just derails. It also comes across as troll hunting and that's not really what we're about.

We know this is a fraught subject, and one that evokes strong feelings on all sides - but if there's one thing we could all do with in this political climate; it's a bit of peace and love.

Thanks

Noted Katherine thank you for the heads up

Olivia you're actually opposed to NHS funding? What data backs up your claim that investing in health (sorry "throwing money at" health) "probably" won't help? Whereas "throwing money at" rich people by keeping their taxes nice and low will, I guess!

Why don't you read what I said. I never said I was against funding the NHS. All evidence to date shows throwing lots of money does not help. There is a fundamental problem with the NHS, social care and mental health that will only be solved if all parties come together and come up with a solution and stop politicising it.
Wow what a novel concept people keeping money they have earned. Rich is a a subjective judgment and should not only be based on how much money you earn.

All evidence to date shows throwing lots of money does not help.

Deliberately underfunding helps less