Question time man top 5 percent.

[refraction]

Did anyone see the man on QT asking about tax?

Apparently he doesn't even think he is in the top 50 percent of earners.

All doctors earn more apparently and solicitors.

How out of touch with reality?

He didn't come across well and very out of touch.

My favourite bit is where the poor turn on the rich guy. So true to life.

High earners don't just pay more taxes, they also opt out of using public services such as state schools, dental and doctors. Increasing taxes is actually a false economy. The only thing it does is appease the left leaning and win their votes. Increase taxes will make a lot of people move abroad or they will just readjust their spending by taking their DC out of private schools, hold onto their cash under higher interest rates and use more public services such as dental and doctors.

I used to work in international recruitment. Most of these people were aged between 30-50, earn't between 100 and 300K a year and were highly skilled and educated. Without fail they cited high taxes and low quality of life for leaving the UK. Both DH and I lived overseas for 20 years and are happy to go again if after a long commute and a long week we have nothing to show for it.

That's great.

Which are the countries with lower taxes for the high paid?

For the moment, we will park the idea that starving public services leads to higher quality of life.

That’s the question I keep asking @PigletJohn and nobody will answer it. Tax rates in the whole of Europe are higher than ours. Someone was even off to Denmark the other day!

they also opt out of using public services such as state schools, dental and doctors

Right, but I'm guessing they still drive on public roads, rely on our police and army, use our legal system, enforcement of contract law, consumer and business rights etc? They benefit from living in a democracy, which has associated running costs. They benefit from the work of various public bodies e.g.enforcing standards of food hygiene or environmental standards. The teachers in their public schools will mostly be state trained. The doctors in their private hospitals will all be NHS trained. If they are ever in a serious accident it'll be an NHS ambulance, NHS paramedic, and NHS A&E they use, because private hospitals don't offer that kind of service.

And, indirectly, they benefit from the poor and vulnerable in their area having support. The whole country benefits economically and socially from having fewer people in poverty.

If someone on £80k PAYE, currently paying at the most; £25k in income tax and national insurance contributions (dependant on pension contributions, which would drive that down overall), isn't paying their "fair share", can someone explain to me what a "fair share" is then?

Love all the people going "it's "only" another £x more a week" when praising Labours proposals, yeah £x a more week, on top of someone already paying £480 a week for their contribution to society. "Fair share" seems to mean "you just keep paying more, because I don't want to". Ironically I would actually support 21% tax rate, as mentioned on other pages, I can't abide Labours current, 6th former level of class war divisive bullshit.

"Fair share" seems to mean "you just keep paying more, because I don't want to".

This is rubbish. There are plenty of people who would be affected by the change who don't object to it. My household certainly would.

"Fair share" seems to mean "you just keep paying more, because I don't want to".

But that's not what's happened here, is it? Lots of people earning less than £80k have said they'd be happy to pay more for better funded public services.

The UK is a low tax economy, it is a myth that a huge brain drain will occur of taxes are raised. Some may leave, but they will have a limited choice of tax havens to go to, and these invariably suffer from huge inequality, poor workers rights and low regulatory standards. Of course if you're rich enough these won't bother you...

We have a progressive tax system in the UK (for the most part - sales tax/VAT* is an exception), and personally I think that that is the fairest way. It's not about envy or jealousy or having a go at anyone - we all have to pay for our society somehow, and everyone benefits from having a stable society, even those who choose to use some private services.

Even after tax, someone on £80k is vastly better off than someone on £30k.

*I would be in favour of reducing, or possibly abolishing, VAT on the basis that it's a flat, regressive tax, and make up the difference with increased income and wealth taxes.

Good post yesterday Xenia, very true.

@lovemylot1
That's exactly the point. You decided to have 3 children knowing you'd have to pay lo her for childcare. Ultimately you must have made this decision because the joy that came with another child overcame the financial implications.

Other couples might also have wished for a 3rd child but decided that the financial constraints were not worth it.

So is it fair that the latter should be financially penalised so that the former are in a better financial position for having chosen to have that 3rd child?

I'm sure it will become clearer when @ChristmasAngst gets back and answers my question.

Paid up to 17% tax when I lived in Singapore and 5% sales tax. No other taxes. When I lived in HK (still IMO one of the best places to live in the world, but perhaps not at the moment), I paid 12% tax.

Dontdisturbmenow

I didn’t really decide to have three children but anyway.

When the same argument is applied to the benefits system it is quite rightly called out but you seem to think it’s ok to apply to me.

I urge people to look a bit more closely at the rest of the labour manifesto and then look at socialist regimes both past and present and think very carefully.

The most egregious far left regimes gained power by inciting class wars.

Think about whether the slogan ‘for the many not the few’ is inclusive. Do you really want to support a regime which is trying to cast hard working people out?

How can “For the many, not the few” be anything except inclusive?

Because it isn’t !

Do people on lower incomes not work hard?

Mrsmaisel I assume you are talking to me, there are hard working people in all income brackets of course! Nothing in my post says otherwise.

Because it isn’t !

You’re going to have to do better than that to convince me.

The comment about there being no lower tax countries than the UK with its upper rate of 45% tax and 2% NI = 47% (plus 9% student loan for some etc etc) is a bit strange. there are lots of them - I now people who moved to Zug in Switzerland for lower tax. Monaco is well known bvously. Bulgaria 10% flat rate. I had a property in Panama for a time and as far as I remember although I earned nothing there I think their rates are quite low and it's nice and warm too (may be 25% upper rate compared wiht 47% UK). Singapore - mentioned above. Lots of mumsnetters move to Saudi, Dubai etc for their husbands' work and pay much less tax there or rather their husband does.

( Sweden doesn't even have inheritance tax any more.)

It just isn’t - it excludes ‘the few’

It is exclusive and inflammatory.

If it said ‘For the many, not just the few’ then that would be inclusive.

Think about how (as far as I can see) all that is being discussed about the labour manifesto is this tax increase. It is not accidental.

It’s diverting attention from the rest of their policies and also causing division amongst people.

causing division amongst people

That ship sailed in June 2016.

love, most people vote based on the pound in their pocket at the end of the day. However the other Lbaour policies are equally as horrible from the silly confiscation of 10% of company shares (to give workers up to $£500 but not the shares themselves) and thus reducing the value of ordinary people's pension funds (people's funds, low earner's funds for those who are in an auto enrolment or other pension) invest in the very companies Labour will strip.

Then think of the massive nationalisation of so many companies and much else.

And yes good point for the many not the few is the opposite of inclusive. It does not include me. I am dirt no Labour's shoe because I pay so very m,uch tax and earn a fair bit. They hate me. They would rather everyone had a lot less money than high earners remain. They want us all down to the lowest but similar point as each other like in Soviet Russia at its worst.