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.

Right, so we should just keep chucking money into a bottomless pit without ever taking steps to try and make it more workable? Ooook.

Olivia I'm not basing it on what I earn. What made you think I was? I'm basing it on what the average person in the UK has, and what the average person in the world has, compared to someone earning £80k+ pa. What evidence can you present to suggest that investing in (sorry, "throwing money at") health doesn't help?

Rose, that'd be a great point if anyone had suggested taking mobsters to improve the NHS. But they haven't. So it isn't.

Mobsters should have read "no action" (!)

Mobsters might be more effective.

It needs an overhaul and it needs more money - that way the money can go to the right places!

What evidence can you present to suggest that investing in (sorry, "throwing money at") health doesn't help?

The last 20 or so years. The extra NI charge that Gordon Brown brought it that would supposedly pay for the NHS.
Are we just going to keep increases taxes forever to pay for the NHS.

This is an interesting read:

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-manifesto-conservatives-costings-promises-a7738721.html%3Famp

Surely one great difficulty in any reform of public spending - NHS, local authorities or anything else - lies not so much in dealing with concrete figures but with the mindset involved?

It is, after all, much easier to blame "cuts" than to look at what contribution your own actions have made to the problems, never mind taking responsibility for them

The extra NI charge that Gordon Brown brought it that would supposedly pay for the NHS

An excellent example, Olivia, and another instance of deceitful taxation policies being used to garner headlines rather than anything more useful

Forgive me, but I can't resist re-quoting the infamous Sir Humphrey here:

"Prime Minister, the Treasury doesn't work out what they need to spend and then think how to raise the money ...they pitch for as much as they think they can get away with and then think what to spend it on"

I know from experience that the NHS was better when it was getting more money.

What evidence is there that starving the NHS, oh sorry cutting funding in real terms, leads to improved health care?

I know from experience that the NHS was better when it was getting more money

Fair enough, I take that at face value. Personally I haven't noticed any difference but possibly don't use it enough to know. But we can't just keep paying more and more tax forever. There needs to be fundamental reform. I have no problem with extra money going in but it needs to be on the basis that there are changes.

I would also say there has been no decrease in the money going into the NHS in the last 7 years in fact there have been year on year actual increases but there has perhaps been an slow down in the level of increased funding going in year on year compared to previous years.

Not really - on 150k you take home 7.5k a month - so 6k is nearly a month's salary - I don't think anyone would consider a month's salary chicken feed.

Don't disagree per se with extra tax but anyone who says that 6k is 'chicken feed' or 'nothing' really needs, in the common parlance of mumsnet, to give their head a wobble

Back to read the rest of the thread

Rising population and people living longer also mean that it needs more and more money. But often the people who arrive here haven't been here long enough to contribute and the people who are living longer are no longer contributing. Plus all the amazing advances in medical treatments are more expensive than treatments used to be.

In 1997 the spend was 55bn and by 2008 it was 110bn. How can we possibly pay to double the NHS budget every 10 years?

Sorry should read 2007 not 2008

I hope if the Tories get in, they will have the balls to bite the bullet and sort out the PFI contracts by either capping the exisiting ones, or paying the companies off with a one time, that's your lot payment to end the contract. That should then free more money up for the NHS.

As to the less trips to Waitrose comment, falling sales = staff cuts, so those working in the stores get hit, as do the suppliers. Why can't people see that?

Puzzledandpissedoff sounds about right 😂

Re PFI yes I really shops someone can sort them, they are now of the biggest problems For the NHS

The whole manifesto just reads like a happy clappy story book of "everyone can have as many free unicorns and diamond shoes as they want, there is an infinite supply and everything is lovely and and the other party are just big smelly meanies for not letting you!".

Unlike a lot on here I don't believe the Conservative Party are comprised of hundreds of monomaniacal individual humans who deeply, instinctively loathe anyone with a disability or health issue etc. That's not to say I am their number 1 fan or don't think their own manifesto isn't equally bullshit.

But of either option, I do feel they have the fiscal knowledge and pragmatism (not to say experience) to drag us through the brexit shitstorm and get us out the other side as intact as possible. It's not going to be pretty or nice. But then I didn't vote for it and most people who did won't be here for the real after effects anyway.

Sadly, this la la land for everyone that labour are promising is utterly unrealistic pie in the sky - we just don't have the money for it all, however lovely it all sounds.

One of the problems with taxing a couple as one entity is that it would require disclosure between the parties of financial information.

It's taken years for women to have full financial independence in relationships and I would hate to see that end.

all the amazing advances in medical treatments are more expensive than treatments used to be

While this is true, isn't it also the case that many suppliers get far too easy a ride, knowing they can get away with charging sums beyond all reason because of the almost complete lack of negotiating skills - or even sometimes common sense - of those doing the buying?

DH earns around the 150 mark and I am a higher rate (but not anywhere close to 80k) earner. In the extremely unlikely event that labour win we would leave the UK. With extra taxes on health insurance etc we will be paying more than 500 extra a month in tax which given that our rent is 2k is fairly substantial for us.

To be honest the main reason is that his company (finance) have said that if there is a financial transaction tax which is proposed in the manifesto then the company will move the jobs to Switzerland. Even if they bottled we would take it as a signal that we are not wanted here - at least for 5 years or so, so that we can save up for a house deposit.

We would be affected fairly significantly (dh is a high earner, I am in a key worker type role and fairly low paid). We both think we should pay more tax, but I'm disappointed with a poorly thought out uncosted manifesto. I'm not really sure it will benefit those that most need support. Sad really.

I'm not really sure it will benefit those that most need support. Sad really.

They have chosen to get rid of uni fees but not change the benefit freeze. Very strange choice and one that will probably come back and bite them.

but not change the benefit freeze.

Again that is blatantly untrue