Why wasn't 40pc rate reduced or income tax thresholds raised?

[Indigoo03]

Any opinions?

Also changing that awful personal allowance taper at £100k-£125k would have been more useful for many before changing the 45% band.

@bellac11 I've read scrapping the top rate Cody's around £2b

So do you accept now that the median household receives more in tax credits and benefits than they pay in taxes? It seemed that you didn’t previously.

They’re refusing to publish OBR’s advice and forecasts which points at them ignoring it altogether and wanting to avoid for criticism for doing so - they’re either not interested in being responsible or have a very different view of it from reality

If you have 20k taxed at 20% you pay 4000k

If you have 20k taxes at 19% you pay £3800 tax.

They take home 1% extra pay yes, but they pay 5% less tax.

In the context of tax cuts, which is what we keep talking about, those figures matter.

If you look at the 160k figure earlier, the worker brings home an extra £500 which using your logic is 0.3% increase in pay brought home in this band.

So on the face of it, who’s doing better with these tax cuts?

Absolutely the rich end up with more because they earn more.

Overall percentage, it’s less Of their earned money they retain.

So do you accept now that the median household receives more in tax credits and benefits than they pay in taxes? It seemed that you didn’t previously

Some do.
There are plenty of individual people who earn that amount of money - who don't get tax credits and benefits

One of the things about giving more to the people at the bottom of the income distribution is that they do spend it immediately. More so than the people at the top. And they spend it on different things.

This matters quite a lot in a situation where inflation is a real problem. And particularly inflation in the cost of pretty basic stuff: good, fuel, etc. The issues driving this are complex and not easy for the treasury (or the BoE) to manage. Some of them are totally self inflicted with the whole brexit debacle too. 🙄

Increases in income at the lower end of the income distribution are likely to go towards paying for this basic stuff. So may exacerbate the inflation problem. Especially where supplies of food or gas are limited by the various big issues going on.

At the upper end of the distribution, the money might, possibly (I’d imagine the government hopes) go into services and goods that support the economy in ways that don’t exacerbate inflation in the cost of basic stuff. These households can meet their basic needs and already do. So they are likely to spend additional disposable income on other stuff.

That is probably also a factor in the mini-budget choices. But it’s m not really going to convince me that it’s a good idea or the right thing to prioritise.

Can you explain why I would want to be taxed to subsidize someone who views me like this?

Why, given how unpleasant you are, should I have one holiday fewer to buy you nice things?

There’s nothing evil about this.

Well obviously.

In the same way you can’t generalise them ‘rich’ either. Why many on here are doing

I did say 'shall we leave it?' @Quincythequince

I understand the maths. You are just explaining back to me the figures I explained to you upthread.

You do not seem to be able to understand that the chancellor could have made a different decision, so the impact on take home pay was less regressive. Maybe it suits you to pretend this is just 'maths' rather than politics.

The budget is a bad budget, both ethically and economically.

Because the wealth you have in the first place isn’t earned it’s fucking stolen!

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63005302

This article quotes the 45 billion figure although does say that its up to 2027, so over the next 5 years. Im also not sure, because the article isnt clear, whether that cost is just from the announcement yesterday or from other tax changes which were already in the pipeline

Either way, its going to cost us a lot of money which we now have to borrow and thats on top of current borrowing to get us out of the covid/brexit shit too.

Due to the lower rate tax cuts I take home more money next year, to the tune of 800 quid but thats already swallowed up by higher petrol and fuel costs, without looking at food or extra mortgage costs!!!

You seem to accept average figures when they suit you, but to refuse to when they don’t. That’s dishonest.

As a cohort the lowest three quintiles receive more in tax credits and benefits than they pay in all taxes.

I don’t know why you don’t want to accept what is an unarguable fact as per the ONS data.

In the same way you can’t generalise them ‘rich’ either. Why many on here are doing

£150,000 is not a bad income though. I guess that you don't have to worry too much about heating and food costs.

They've never been for middle class people. It's all pantomime and people fall for it every time.

You seem to accept average figures when they suit you, but to refuse to when they don’t. That’s dishonest

If someone is single, no kids and earns £30,000 - what support do they get?

Aso @Quincythequince

I think your figures are wrong: If you look at the 160k figure earlier, the worker brings home an extra £500 which using your logic is 0.3% increase in pay brought home in this band. Increase in take home pay is over £2k on £160k I think.

Well the pound has fallen through the floor. I've a fair bit in $ so I'm cashing in so at least there's that🙄

This !!!

They are for the 1%

The same 1% who should have their ill gotten gains taken off them

I suspect reinstating the personal
allowance to those earning £100k would save substantially on admin costs related to all those additional tax returns from
people on PAYE who just earn over the £100k threshold and don’t have complex tax affairs of any kind.

The system is shit. And the issues at that £100k threshold are really, unnecessarily stupid.

But still, in the current context, I don’t think tinkering with the tax system design at the upper end of the income distribution should be the top priority. I’m not even convinced that changing the higher rate threshold should be a priority (and that would benefit me).

It just doesn’t feel like the right thing to do. And that’s important. Regardless of the technical issues around managing the economy, how the changes feel in the current circumstances does matter. Obviously we all want to directly benefit from tax and benefit changes. But I cannot see my household as anywhere near the front of the queue for that right now.

How 'nice' is it to support such erosive economic policy that sees people dying of hunger and illnesses brought on by not being able to afford a roof over your head! We are a well off family so I'm not coming from a place of bitterness, these tax cuts are going to benefit people in my family but they are voting Labour next time as no one wants to live in this kind of society! I took my child in to our local South east city centre last weekend and the number of people in shop door ways, sleeping on benches with shelters is such a frequent site now. One poor woman had lost her shoes and was in a tearful state asking if anyone had size 6s. I overheard her say to a security guard that they had fallen off as she tried to escape a security guard at another shop who had accused her of shop lifting. Unsure what the truth is but what have we come to. I was speaking with my parents and they don't recall endless homeless people in the 60s and 70s, especially not young women. They were politically active and people didn't put up with this.

We need everyone to contribute for our economy to grow, ' a rising tide lifts all boats'....

it’ll depend on their circumstances, but they could be receiving PIP to pick one example.

Why this inconsistency though with you being willing to accept cohort data only when it supports your point of view?

Then stop coming back at me, and then saying leave it.

I will respond to a hanging comment which implies I don’t understand things, like it or not.

Don’t tell me how to post.

Yes, this is a problem for anyone earning below £150,000 as only once above that level is the tax benefit of these changes sufficient to offset the rising prices caused by the £ drop (because most of the tax cut is the removal of the 45% rate).

This is really worrying for the whole economy.

Its people like you that make the left wing look foolish and not worth having reasonable and rational discussion with

You undermine arguments that we are trying to make about wealth distribution, people like you are why Labour have lost elections and now we're left with this shower