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.

Again that is blatantly untrue

Again, show me where they are going to reverse them then. I have asked twice now.

www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2017/may/16/what-would-labours-manifesto-cost-pledges-money-guide-details

£2bn of additional funding for universal credit for review of cuts and how best to reverse them

Firstly that won't be enough and secondly it doesn't definitely say they will.

Piglet which party do you feel best represent your views?

Honestly? None at the moment.

Maybe LibDems.

As I have said numerous times I have never and won't vote Tory. I can't and won't vote Labour with Corbyn and there is only really LibDems that stand here so it's either that or spoiling my ballot

^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.^

For the 50% or so of families with children, subject to TC / UC and any other part of the Benefits system there is NO such thing as financial independence - indeed the system frequently forms fictitious relationships between former tenants etc to suit itself.

The rich get to be financially independent and jealously guard their privilege. The poor are systematically penalised for forming relationships.

The lack of any serious challenge to the benefit changes is a problem for me. Labour going after its core vote of trade unionists and public sector workers is how it reads.

How do those moaning about nationalisation being funded by debt think acquisitions are funded in the private sector? If United Utilities wanted to purchase Severn Trentham Water, for instance? That's right, they'd fund it with debt.

How much more sensible for the state to do so, given how much more cheaply the state can borrow money.

How much more sensible for the state to do so, given how much more cheaply the state can borrow money.

What happens when the rate goes up?

Where are the figures for how much it will cost the country to purchase all these things? We aren't talking small change down the back of the sofa here.

BBC's Simon Jack did a piece on re nationalisations yesterday. The general thrust was that the private company profits should be adequate to service any debt for acquisition. The issue comes down the track when the profits disappear through higher wages, subsidised pricing and either public sector over investment or creeping inefficiency.

Who would lend to corbyn's Britain?

How do those moaning about nationalisation being funded by debt think acquisitions are funded in the private sector? If United Utilities wanted to purchase Severn Trentham Water, for instance? That's right, they'd fund it with debt.

That's an extremely simplistic way of taking about corporate buy outs...

How much more sensible for the state to do so, given how much more cheaply the state can borrow money.

As you are only looking at the rudimentary elements then even with Keynsian economics it is widely accepted that you have to be in control of the deficit spend, unless you want to become Zimbabwe/Venezuela

Who would lend to corbyn's Britain?

Last time I asked this question I was met with "we can just print more money!!!"

I earn over first threshold and don't have a problem paying 45% over £80k.... yes, I'll be a bit less well off but its fairer than squeezing the more vulnerable. If that's all it took to pay for Labour's spending promises - and there was a reasonable expectation that the revenue raised would be sufficient - I'd seriously consider voting for them.... but it's not.

Labour's overall spending promises and their funding are just not credible in my opinion.

I would imagine (hope!?) that most people who earn a good wage would actually be happy (willing!?) to pay a bit more tax for the good of society. I would be, as would the vast majority of people I have spoken to about it (higher rate payers). But only if certain conditions are met:
a) the really rich also need to be taxed properly and can't not be able to get around it all with expensive advice and clever schemes, which isn't the case. Why should those on 80k pay more when those who have 80million pay nothing!?
b) there has to be some faith in the system that the money will be spent as promised and not wasted - I like a lot of the policies that Labour are proposing, but I do not think for one single second that the people currently leading that party could implement those policies effectively; and
c) all of the policies need to be going to the actual good of repairing the nation's broken infrastructure (NHS, education) or for those who actually need it (the disabled, poor). Some of the proposals - like free school meals for all and getting rid of all tuition fees etc. - should in no way be a priority, because they will offer a benefit to those who don't need it (along with some who do).

What I don't understand is why there can't just be a sensible party offering sensible policies? We don't need all of the things Labour are promising to get this country back on track. We also don't need the vile levels of austerity introduced and perpetuated by the Tories. Why is there nobody bloody sensible, running on a decent middle ground!?!

As you are only looking at the rudimentary elements then even with Keynsian economics it is widely accepted that you have to be in control of the deficit spend, unless you want to become Zimbabwe/Venezuela

Indeed, the ignorance of those who blithely say that we can borrow at will to fund our government spending is scary.... and that seems to your typical Labour's core supporter. It seems they almost do actually believe there's a magic money tree!

Government debt is a good thing... if spent to invest in the economy or smooth out economic up and downturns, but only if affordable.... Government debt is only as cheap as it is because they haven't let spending run out of control.

The fundamental position of the labour manifesto is to raise money through higher taxes for the rich and put that money into public services. If you are for then vote labour. If against then don't. What's the point complaining about the manifesto. You don't have to vote for it if it is so ghastly.

I won't be voting for it Fruit.

The fundamental position of the labour manifesto is to raise money through higher taxes for the rich and put that money into public services. If you are for then vote labour. If against then don't. What's the point complaining about the manifesto. You don't have to vote for it if it is so ghastly.

If you want to make it into a simplistic argument then I presume you have no problem with life long labour voters rejecting Labour, "tax the rich more" has a lot of connotations that you are free to ignore, just don't blame the election result on the bogey man of the "right wing press"

Plus if you think that raising taxes will not affect everyone then it is alos a naive viewpoint.

If you buy things Labour's tax rises effect you. Who exactly do you think ultimately pays corporation tax?

If your answer is just a wave of the hand and say something along the lines of shareholders and directors

What do you think companies do when inflation hits?

When it affects them all across the board, then you will see far more price rises in line with the rise in tax.

What I don't understand is why there can't just be a sensible party offering sensible policies?

Perhaps because this is politics we're talking about, and - at least IME - the types attracted by political power are often the sort you wouldn't want to see in control of anything ... either that or they put themselves forward with good intentions and then get corrupted by the process

It's naïve to think that, if Corbyn does get in, and he does fuck the economy, that the rich will simply stick around to pay for it.

Where are they all going to go, Switzerland?

Okay so all those earning over £80,000 / £123,000 are suddenly going to uproot their lives because they are being to ask to pay a few thousand more tax that they can adequately afford.
That may mean leaving elderly relatives behind, uprooting children from school, leaving friends and established social circles, moving house, etc, etc,etc.

Maybe some will... but otherwise I think it is highly unlikely to occur on a massive scale. Not a good enough reason / scare tactic to not implement the policies within this manifeso imho.

Sorry, hadn't RTFU when I posted above...
I did not mean to be dismissive of your DH's company's proposed move to Switzerland if Labour win... but I still stand by what I said, that for the majority of high earners moving out of the UK will be impractical and undesirable.
FWIW my DH is a high earner but in the over £80,000 bracket not over £123,000 bracket. We both feel it will be worth it to pay a bit extra tax to try and bring about a society which looks after all.
As I said in my earlier post, financial renumeration does not always correlate to higher value to society. And if someone is already well compensated for the work they do then they should feel ethically obliged to support those who work for the public good and/or need more assistance to lead a healthy and productive life.
The existance of food banks, cuts to disability benefits and social care budgets, increased homelessness is a disgrace in modern Britain.

Sorry Rhyader's husband's company's proposed move ^

Good luck to him in Switzerland....I think you'll find the cost of living is far far higher....and he will have to pay his employees a higher wage too because they don't have tax credits there. Lots of family in Switzerland and all pay rent on nice houses from their salary. Even the younger less qualified ones.

High earners certainly understand they have benefited from our society. I think they will be more than happy to share the burden that has so far fallen on the sick, poor and disabled - schools and healthcare.

Corporations are here because of our consumer economy, our educated workforce and our stable legal system. They will understand.