Threads

See more results

Topics

Usernames

Mumsnet Logo
Please
or
to access all these features

Income tax - top 45% rate scrapped! Bonkers!

1000 replies

HoppingKangaroo · 23/09/2022 12:29

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.

OP's posts:
Please
or
to access all these features

Am I being unreasonable?

AIBU

You have one vote. All votes are anonymous.

justasking111 · 23/09/2022 14:27

Ohsugarhoneyicetea · 23/09/2022 12:59

Its disgraceful, we have highest poverty, highest inequality and lowest pensions in western Europe. The creatures in power in this country do not seem to have any humanity. They revolt me.

Um statistics on this or you really need to travel more.

Please
or
to access all these features

Luckydip1 · 23/09/2022 14:29

I honestly think most of the detractors on here would be happier in communist Russia where everyone is treated the same in theory.

Please
or
to access all these features

lannistunut · 23/09/2022 14:29

So apparently this will benefit 660,000 households, average £10,000 per household, costing taxpayers a total of £6.6Billion each year Shock

This really seems quite bad value for money. The markets also think it is a bad plan as the pound is dropping again.

Please
or
to access all these features

OriginalUsername2 · 23/09/2022 14:29

worriedatthistime · 23/09/2022 14:21

I do think those that can work should be being made to work though its not right that some dob't or do minimum hrs . This may be a minority but it happens my neighbour told me he works the min to keep them off his back, fully capable of working
Then maybe their could be more for the disabled and those who genuinely cannot work through no fault of their own

How would that work when there’s already millions of pounds of unclaimed benefits?

Answer: it wouldn’t.

Please
or
to access all these features

trusslepuff · 23/09/2022 14:30

It's insane.M I genuinely can't think of a good reason to do this other than perhaps they're hoping lots of high earned come (back!?) to the U.K.

Please
or
to access all these features

lannistunut · 23/09/2022 14:31

Luckydip1 · 23/09/2022 14:29

I honestly think most of the detractors on here would be happier in communist Russia where everyone is treated the same in theory.

Oh yes, definitely. I can think of nowhere I would rather live than 'communist Russia'.

There is absolutely no middle ground between 'cutting tax for the very richest only' and 'communism' Hmm

Please
or
to access all these features

Lassie76 · 23/09/2022 14:32

Anyway this is only for England, Sturgeon is not changing the top tax bracket.

Please
or
to access all these features

Getoff · 23/09/2022 14:33

The trickle down impact of tax cuts for the rich was already discredited back when I was reading Economics in the early 80's.

According to economist Thomas Sowell, in one of his Youtube videos, no economist has ever claimed that "trickle down" actually exists/happens/works. He reckons the phrase is only ever used by the left as a straw man to attack the right.

So it can't have been discredited within economics, because it was never proposed as something that might be true.

(I suppose what might have happened is that some economist debunked something said by a non-economist)

Please
or
to access all these features

DisforDarkChocolate · 23/09/2022 14:35

I agree with it, but not for the same reasons the cut was made. 40% tax is enough from any income.

I also think a lot of people avoided this by upping their pension contributions etc.

Please
or
to access all these features

YouSirNeighMmmm · 23/09/2022 14:35

Mischance · 23/09/2022 12:41

The much vaunted "trickle down effect" of these policies is a theory only; and LT is prepared to test this on the entire population and risk the lives of poor people.

Does anyone really think any benefit of these policies will trickle down to them?

It is not a theory. It (the extreme right neo-liberal form of capitalism) was an economic policy created in order to benefit the very wealthy, that comes with a justification that it benefits everyone. When the policy first came in under Reagan and Thatcher there was no reason to suppose it was true, but we have four decades of research now to show categorically and 100% that it is not true, wealth does not trickle down. Wealth trickles up which is why you need to have redistributive policies or accept that huge numbers will be in poverty and many more will be poor, and even the wealthy upper middle classes will be more and more screwed compared to the super-rich that the policy is designed to benefit.

Please
or
to access all these features

MrsBennetsPoorNerves · 23/09/2022 14:38

YouSirNeighMmmm · 23/09/2022 14:35

It is not a theory. It (the extreme right neo-liberal form of capitalism) was an economic policy created in order to benefit the very wealthy, that comes with a justification that it benefits everyone. When the policy first came in under Reagan and Thatcher there was no reason to suppose it was true, but we have four decades of research now to show categorically and 100% that it is not true, wealth does not trickle down. Wealth trickles up which is why you need to have redistributive policies or accept that huge numbers will be in poverty and many more will be poor, and even the wealthy upper middle classes will be more and more screwed compared to the super-rich that the policy is designed to benefit.

Exactly. It has been tried and tested, and it didn't work.

Please
or
to access all these features

Badbadbunny · 23/09/2022 14:38

DisforDarkChocolate · 23/09/2022 14:35

I agree with it, but not for the same reasons the cut was made. 40% tax is enough from any income.

I also think a lot of people avoided this by upping their pension contributions etc.

Indeed, people take action to avoid paying high marginal rates of tax. The tax take from higher earners fell when the highest rate was introduced (50%) and increased when the highest rate was reduced to 45%.

There are numerous "cliff" edges where marginal tax rates are stupidly high, such as the £50-£60k range and the £100-£125k range. People take action to avoid them, such as paying more into pensions, reducing working hours or, for the highest paid who can afford it, move abroad!

Please
or
to access all these features

YouSirNeighMmmm · 23/09/2022 14:39

DisforDarkChocolate · 23/09/2022 14:35

I agree with it, but not for the same reasons the cut was made. 40% tax is enough from any income.

I also think a lot of people avoided this by upping their pension contributions etc.

I think 40% tax is enough for earnt income, but if you money wasn't earnt it comes from investments or the fact that you earn a cut of multi-billion pound deals the 99% tax can be appropriate. Not always, but can, in extreme circumstances. 50% to 60% tax on unearnt income from rich people is absolutely fine.

Obviously people should be encouraged to pay into pension funds, but only up to the point that they can have a fairly decent life-style in retirement. If people want to live in the lap of luxury in retirement then the money to pay for it should be savings and investments, not a pension with a tax break attached.

Please
or
to access all these features

OutWalkin · 23/09/2022 14:41

People vote for Tories and then get surprised when they get tax cuts and reduced public spending.

Please
or
to access all these features

Delectable · 23/09/2022 14:42

Deguster · 23/09/2022 12:51

It won't make a jot of difference to anything - less than 0.01% of the population pays at a 45% rate.

The optics are rather odd though.

I doubt the percentage is that low. So many people I know are at the 45% (I'm not); I just don't see how they can be that rare.

Please
or
to access all these features

forinborin · 23/09/2022 14:42

YouSirNeighMmmm · 23/09/2022 14:39

I think 40% tax is enough for earnt income, but if you money wasn't earnt it comes from investments or the fact that you earn a cut of multi-billion pound deals the 99% tax can be appropriate. Not always, but can, in extreme circumstances. 50% to 60% tax on unearnt income from rich people is absolutely fine.

Obviously people should be encouraged to pay into pension funds, but only up to the point that they can have a fairly decent life-style in retirement. If people want to live in the lap of luxury in retirement then the money to pay for it should be savings and investments, not a pension with a tax break attached.

That's right. If you tax income from multi-billion pound deals at 99%, everyone will surely fall over themselves to do those multi-billion pound deals, and it will be simply amazing for the economy.

Please
or
to access all these features

Starfreeze · 23/09/2022 14:43

I am pretty much politically neutral when it comes to political parties nowadays but this has made me unbelievably angry!

What a fucking insult to everyone else in the country. And what a fucking slap in the face to all those struggling just keep warm and put food on the table.

I knew Liz Truss would be bad but this is disgusting. Her campaign should have been ' Vote for Liz for regressive tax policy!'

Please
or
to access all these features

Starfreeze · 23/09/2022 14:45

Lassie76 · 23/09/2022 14:32

Anyway this is only for England, Sturgeon is not changing the top tax bracket.

Wales doesn't exist in your map of Britain, does it?

Please
or
to access all these features

gatehouseoffleet · 23/09/2022 14:45

justasking111 · 23/09/2022 14:27

Um statistics on this or you really need to travel more.

This sounds about right for Western Europe. Which countries do you think have a wider gulf between rich and poor than the UK?

Please
or
to access all these features

Badbadbunny · 23/09/2022 14:45

YouSirNeighMmmm · 23/09/2022 14:39

I think 40% tax is enough for earnt income, but if you money wasn't earnt it comes from investments or the fact that you earn a cut of multi-billion pound deals the 99% tax can be appropriate. Not always, but can, in extreme circumstances. 50% to 60% tax on unearnt income from rich people is absolutely fine.

Obviously people should be encouraged to pay into pension funds, but only up to the point that they can have a fairly decent life-style in retirement. If people want to live in the lap of luxury in retirement then the money to pay for it should be savings and investments, not a pension with a tax break attached.

But the people with multi million pound deals can arrange their affairs to avoid tax, and 40% of something is better than 99% of nothing. Multi millionaires will simply move abroad to avoid paying 99% tax rates.

It's exactly what happened in the 70s when most UK authors/artists moved abroad to avoid the 90%+ tax on "unearned" income as that kind of income (royalties etc) was regarded as unearned. There were very few who stayed in the UK and took the tax hit.

Please
or
to access all these features

itrytomakemyway · 23/09/2022 14:45

I can only conclude that the Tory party is no longer interested in winning the next election. The plan is to make as much money for themselves and their cronies as they can before we next go to the ballot box.

The bankers earning bonuses and the top paying tax payers and the first time buyers looking at houses over half a million just do not have enough votes between them to keep them in power. We can only hope that all of those people who were conned into voting Tory last time now realise that the Tories were never on their side. Let's wait and see how voters feel after this winter of massive fuel bills.

Please
or
to access all these features

Leilu · 23/09/2022 14:46

Starfreeze · 23/09/2022 14:43

I am pretty much politically neutral when it comes to political parties nowadays but this has made me unbelievably angry!

What a fucking insult to everyone else in the country. And what a fucking slap in the face to all those struggling just keep warm and put food on the table.

I knew Liz Truss would be bad but this is disgusting. Her campaign should have been ' Vote for Liz for regressive tax policy!'

Were you this angry when the top rate was at this level under Blair and Brown, but the top earners still had their tax-free allowance, could still pay much more into their pensions and NI contributions were not levied on higher wages?

It seems strange that many people were fine with the highest earners paying less than this for all those years under Labour but are upset by them paying more now.

Please
or
to access all these features

Leilu · 23/09/2022 14:47

gatehouseoffleet · 23/09/2022 14:45

This sounds about right for Western Europe. Which countries do you think have a wider gulf between rich and poor than the UK?

Sweden has higher wealth inequality than the UK.

Please
or
to access all these features

Quincythequince · 23/09/2022 14:48

MelodyPondsMum · 23/09/2022 14:17

It's possible to have all those things and pay tax. Ffs

Higher earners already pay tax, and a lot of it.

The basic arithmetic on this thread is appalling though.

Someone on 160k a year will not be £10k better off.

Please
or
to access all these features

FuchsAndMöhr · 23/09/2022 14:48

forinborin · 23/09/2022 13:55

That is still approx 1%, not 0.01% as you said.

No it’s not 🤣🤣🤣

Please
or
to access all these features
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.

Sign up to continue reading

Mumsnet's better when you're logged in. You can customise your experience and access way more features like messaging, watch and hide threads, voting and much more.

Already signed up?