Income tax - top 45% rate scrapped! Bonkers!

[HoppingKangaroo]

The 45% top rate of tax (which currently applies on earnings above £150,000) will be scrapped entirely. How will this help the economy? It will just add to the government debt and it just helps out the very weathly.
Why not have more help for the poorest in the country and not have tax cuts for the very wealthy.

Sorry, this mashed-up nonsense is not based in reality.

The reasons for low productivity are in large part due to lack of investment in health care, lack of investment in education, lack of investment in regeneration, lack of investment in transport.

It might comfort you to call for a 'kick up the backside' but it is nonsense. We currently have high vacancies and low unemployment. We have left the EU and have no plan for how to mitigate the economic harm that is causing.

Oh wow! That is an absolute lie. Many hedge funds are moving IN to London, anticipating the Tory regulation bonfire.

The mass exodus of the financial sector certainly did not happen in any shape or form.

The haters are back. Bitter remoaners and the usual doom mongering. You can tell they don't actually live anywhere near London, and spend most of their time being paid to sit at home and scroll by the top 1%!

Oh come on. Let them have their rant, its rude to introduce facts and logic to the discussion.

No, and nor did I need to to end up being an additional rate taxpayer.

My children will be going to state school too, and I’m comfortable with their prospects. If they are willing to take advantage of their education and choose and then work at their careers then there’s no reason that they’ll not do well too, whether they want to go into something that pays well or not.

With regard to whether I personally would pay more tax in order to achieve a fairer society, yes I would. Gladly

Bur how much more Mrs and until what point?

You say you don’t want total wealth redistribution, so even you have your limits.

What are your limits and why? Why not more? How is that fair? You’re not sharing enough, you’ve got more to give … (playing devils advocate here, I don’t believe that, but you have intimated that this is your view many times).

And why are your limits more (or less meaningful or relevant) than somebody else’s whose is lower, or indeed higher?

I think it's a very good question as to why people's basic needs are not being met, and no, I don't believe that it's all the fault of the higher rate tax payers in the slightest.

The reasons are varied and complex, I think. In many cases, government policies over many years are to blame. Many of the poorest people have deficit budgets where they simply don't have enough money coming in to meet their basic needs. Many are unable to increase their income due to poor mental or physical health, disability, caring responsibilities, learning difficulties, poor skills, low literacy rates, poor digital skills, lack of confidence etc. Many may have grown up in chaotic families and they may live chaotic lives. Of course, in some cases, there may be a lack of personal responsibility, or self inflicted issues like substance abuse etc. Some may even be workshy, but I believe that they are a small minority. There will be many more contributing factors that I have of course failed to mention.

Our education system has failed them. Our welfare system has failed them. In many cases, their parents have failed them as well. We have not done enough to address the needs of children growing up in poverty and to promote social mobility. There are no easy answers, but dismissing them as "low life living off the state" as one poster did above is not helpful.

I don't think I have said anywhere that I want 100% redistribution. I am not a communist and I wouldn't want to live in that kind of society, but I do want to live in a society where people can feel confident that their basic needs will be met. A progressive tax system where the richest pay a higher proportion of their salaries makes perfect sense to me.

I'm sorry if you're frustrated by my failure to put an exact percentage on how much I think people should contribute. I just don't think it's that simple. I probably wouldn't ever go beyond 50% as a top rate, but equally, I would have no ideological objection much lower rates if the economy can bear it. The yardstick for me is based not on what people pay at the top, but how much they're suffering at the bottom. While we have people living in real poverty, depending on foodbanks for their daily needs, I think it is very hard to argue that rich people should contribute less.

As it is, I'm not even arguing that I want the highest earners to be paying more than what they have been paying. I'm merely saying that I see no reason why they should pay less.

@Kissingfrogs25 are the hedge funds moving into London, because the pound is dropping through the floor?

Out of curiosity if London is such a good place to do business why has Rees Mogg moved his gambling business to Ireland since Brexit?

The lifetime limit on pensions of £1,073,100 is a much bigger disincentive for higher earners in the UK than 45% tax on income over £150,000.

Really? Astute financial businesses are moving to a country that’s become an economic basket case? With a currency that’s dropping like a stone? A stock market that’s heading south? I can quite easily live 60 miles from London and see that’s utter bollocks. And I pay for myself.

I find it a bit sickening - but also kind of funny - how Liz Truss will benefit from the 45% tax rate (and Kwasi Kwarteng probably will as well?) It’s just so self-serving. And they’re not even trying to hide that anymore - they’re being so open about it. Ugh.

He was the Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party at the time.

It’s simply not true to claim that the Conservative Party supported Brexit; there were MPs both for and against it, as there were in Labour.

Why the fuck would they ever work if 'every basic need is met'?

You do know that includes Sky TV, cigarettes and free healthcare, dental care, prescriptions, schooling, food and every bill paid, not to mention housing and indeed many other benefits besides.

Where on earth is the incentive to actually get up out of your bed and do a day's work?

Have you worked out how much she’ll benefit by?

Why the fuck would they ever work if 'every basic need is met'?

I think you may well have nailed why so many Tory MPs do so little work for their constituents.

I'm not stating that my limits are more relevant than anyone else's. I am merely stating my opinion that, while we have people in this country living in poverty, those who have more than they need should pay more.

I don't actually know how much we'd all have to pay to eradicate poverty. Nobody has ever really been brave enough to try. But do I think it's right that I can afford to spend on luxuries while some other families can't feed their children? No I don't.

This with bells on, you lot only get to earn what you do by the stagnation of wages of the rest of us and it just is redistributed upwards. The fact you think you are then doing us a favour by paying 40% (as if that your net take home pay isn't even considered when monstrously high wages are negotiated) is fucking laughable.

of course you do Blossom.

Yup, so many financial institutions big and small in London are expanding and some. London can not be replaced - it is the bedrock of the entire global financial market. It always makes me laugh that so many people seem to not realise how important London actually is in the real world.

£2,969.88 maximum but she has to pay to live in Downing Street and so probably less.

The financial markets and London are the real world.

Hilarious.

I am going out now, and will leave you to screech about how unfair it is, and why won't those nasty rich people keep handing over half of their salaries every month. I am done. I am glad she has taken this decision, I sincerely hope it pays off and she has more support than you imagine.

None of this is an accident. All of has been planned for some time, we need to deliver now.

Well if you had you’d know full well that intelligence and work ethic are definitely not something that wealthy families pass down to their children.