Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

303 replies

Indigoo03 · 23/09/2022 18:57

Any opinions?

OP posts:
Fladdermus · 24/09/2022 10:54

We're higher rate taxpayers, just, and of course we'd love to keep more of our income. But we'd love it more to know every child is getting a decent hot dinner at school, that everyone who needs an ambulance gets one in a timely manner, and that elderly people aren't freezing to death in their homes. That's why I'd never vote tory, because I'm not an evil fucking bastard.

Quincythequince · 24/09/2022 10:54

lannistunut · 24/09/2022 10:50

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.

No. I said increase in take home pay as part of total salary, which is what you were calculating when you put the 1% forward

But you want to leave it eh?

lannistunut · 24/09/2022 10:55

Quincythequince · 24/09/2022 10:52

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.

I think that is a pretty hypocritical position to take given you have been posting about how others do not understand the maths.

I can't tell you how to post, that is why I phrased it as a question shall we leave it? and you have decided no, as is your right.

cakeorwine · 24/09/2022 10:55

ImNotGreta · 24/09/2022 10:52

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?

And there are many who won't.

Just people, young adults, older adults, just earning the average wage and paying their taxes. No PIP, no UC, no child benefit.

And struggling to get by in this expensive country

Quincythequince · 24/09/2022 10:56

Increase in total salary (your suggested figure) when taxes as part of this band.

If you argue like this with people who also agree that this is a shit move, god forbid trying to discuss things with you if there is a slight disagreement.

You came at me making barbed comments, and trying to pick on little things.

You lost!

Move on.

lannistunut · 24/09/2022 10:57

bellac11 · 24/09/2022 10:53

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

I agree. I reported the offensive post above.

Quincythequince · 24/09/2022 10:57

lannistunut · 24/09/2022 10:55

I think that is a pretty hypocritical position to take given you have been posting about how others do not understand the maths.

I can't tell you how to post, that is why I phrased it as a question shall we leave it? and you have decided no, as is your right.

I am not censoring, or trying to censors people’s posts, I am disagreeing with them. Completely different.

LOL. Here you are again 😂

lannistunut · 24/09/2022 11:00

Quincythequince · 24/09/2022 10:57

I am not censoring, or trying to censors people’s posts, I am disagreeing with them. Completely different.

LOL. Here you are again 😂

No one is censoring. I asked a question. Yes, here we both are again.

SudocremOnEverything · 24/09/2022 11:01

cakeorwine · 24/09/2022 10:48

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?

None. But a single person with no dependents is going to find £30k a lot easier to live on than a family of 4 will. Aren’t they?

This is part of the problem with thinking in terms of median income at household level. Household composition varies enormously. As does the cost of living in different places.

A monthly take home pay approaching £2k (that’s what a £30k income translates to) might be really quite comfortable or really challenging depending on a whole range of factors. It might even make for a more comfortable lifestyle than a family on double that income has. Neither of them
are getting any ‘subsidy’ though and that’s probably ok.

Fladdermus · 24/09/2022 11:02

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.

Back in the 60s and 70s councils had a statutory duty to house all homeless people. They don't now, only those classed as particularly vulnerable. I think is was in the 80s it was changed but my memory is a bit cloudy.

SudocremOnEverything · 24/09/2022 11:02

The them being the single person with no dependents on £30k and the family on double that. No ‘subsidy’ and, taken in the round, that’s probably ok.

SudocremOnEverything · 24/09/2022 11:04

Fladdermus · 24/09/2022 11:02

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.

Back in the 60s and 70s councils had a statutory duty to house all homeless people. They don't now, only those classed as particularly vulnerable. I think is was in the 80s it was changed but my memory is a bit cloudy.

There were also a lot of people living in really shocking conditions. Being housed didn’t mean warm and dry. Or having beds.

There was more council housing but it wasn’t necessarily a utopia.

cakeorwine · 24/09/2022 11:04

None. But a single person with no dependents is going to find £30k a lot easier to live on than a family of 4 will. Aren’t they

No shit.

But the original comment was about people on £30k being subsidised.

Not household income

Goldenbear · 24/09/2022 11:05

It is a complete

cakeorwine · 24/09/2022 11:06

This is part of the problem with thinking in terms of median income at household level. Household composition varies enormously. As does the cost of living in different places

I am very aware of that difference between household income, individual income and also household equivalised income if you want to throw that into the mix as well.

Plus the cost of living in different places.

SudocremOnEverything · 24/09/2022 11:09

cakeorwine · 24/09/2022 11:04

None. But a single person with no dependents is going to find £30k a lot easier to live on than a family of 4 will. Aren’t they

No shit.

But the original comment was about people on £30k being subsidised.

Not household income

Some people are. Depending on the household composition though.

The differences here matter. A young, single man on £30k living in Leeds is probably feeling quite comfortable on his income. He’ll feel less comfortable in London though. A single mother of 3 with childcare costs may not be able to afford to keep working on it, even with UC and CB as a subsidy.

ImNotGreta · 24/09/2022 11:14

cakeorwine · 24/09/2022 11:04

None. But a single person with no dependents is going to find £30k a lot easier to live on than a family of 4 will. Aren’t they

No shit.

But the original comment was about people on £30k being subsidised.

Not household income

Yes, and, on average, people on £30k are being subsidized. You still seem to not understand this.

The bottom three quintiles are subsidized by the top two. The tax burden in the UK falls nearly completely on the top quintile of earners.

cakeorwine · 24/09/2022 11:15

SudocremOnEverything · 24/09/2022 11:09

Some people are. Depending on the household composition though.

The differences here matter. A young, single man on £30k living in Leeds is probably feeling quite comfortable on his income. He’ll feel less comfortable in London though. A single mother of 3 with childcare costs may not be able to afford to keep working on it, even with UC and CB as a subsidy.

Well, yes.

Obviously.

But when someone says that people earning £30k are being subsidised, then that's not true. Some get support. Some don't get support.

I do think it would be very interesting to look at how much money people do actually have left after essential costs. There are many people in this country who don't have much money left and who struggle to get by. And many people who are doing very well, thank you.

cakeorwine · 24/09/2022 11:17

Yes, and, on average, people on £30k are being subsidized. You still seem to not understand this

That word 'on average' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

And you seem to have forgotten that without people in the lower income brackets actually working, then the people in the top brackets wouldn't get money either.

Goldenbear · 24/09/2022 11:17

SudoCremOnEverything, no utopia but better than dystopia- the tax cuts for the very rich, with imagined benefits that you have to hope will arise (but most probably won't) so you are left with economic policy that is for illustrative purposes only!

SudocremOnEverything · 24/09/2022 11:32

But when someone says that people earning £30k are being subsidised, then that's not true. Some get support. Some don't get support.

That’s true at any income level. Some people can still get support on astronomically high incomes. Because PIP is not means tested.

There’s probably a point at which you decide the hideous application process is never going to be worth it though. And, let’s face it, wealthy people who qualify for PIP are probably a fairly small proportion of the overall population that qualifies for it.

But it is the case that tax and benefits is pretty complex because society is full of complexity.

GertrudePerkinsPaperyThing · 24/09/2022 11:33

They only want to give money to the rich, is why

SudocremOnEverything · 24/09/2022 12:30

GertrudePerkinsPaperyThing · 24/09/2022 11:33

They only want to give money to the rich, is why

They’re not giving them it though. They’re just taking less from them in taxation. It’s an important difference.

It is still an incredibly stupid policy choice but it isn’t a ‘handout’ to the rich; it’s a tax saving.

If a shop is running a promotion at 25% off and then decide to offer an extra 5% off, they’re not giving the customer anything. They’re charging them less and making less money from them. The same thing happens when the government reduce tax rates - you just have to pay them less.

I think that the PAYE system stops people from properly recognising how taxation affects them. We just see our take home pay as what we earn in lots of important ways. We don’t really pay that much attention to the tax. If we had to set aside the tax ourselves, transfer it to the government from our own bank accounts and file tax returns about it, we’d probably feel more that this was a paying less thing rather than a getting more one.

Council tax, which we do have to pay direct to the local authority feels a bit different. A reduction in council tax feels like a we are paying less rather than receiving anything. But most of us experience income tax very differently.

Changes in benefits are increases or reductions in what the government gives out. Whenever there’s a tax cut (that doesn’t benefit us in particular), taxation gets framed in a similar way. It’s almost as if the income is the state’s money to start with and the non-taxed portion is what the state gives people, rather than what’s left after they’ve given the state the taxes owed from their own money.

It doesn’t necessarily work the same where when they raise taxes in ways that increase our own tax burden. That’s usually framed as taking our money away. Interestingly the same logic doesn’t apply when people who earn more than us have their tax burden increased. That money was somehow the state’s and, of course, they shouldn’t be giving handouts to the rich.

ImNotGreta · 24/09/2022 12:51

GertrudePerkinsPaperyThing · 24/09/2022 11:33

They only want to give money to the rich, is why

My tax rate dropping a little is not anyone “giving” me money. I get no money from the state.

Where my money is actually coming from is employment. I have a job, and my employer pays me money for that.

The state then takes about 46% of this, uses a little bit of it for the services I use, and redistributes the rest. Trying to claim that this is the state “giving” me something simply isn’t correct.

BasicDad · 24/09/2022 12:58

Maltester71 · 24/09/2022 08:49

Our household is relatively high earning.

We both work in the NHS.

our specialities are in demand and we are constantly asked to work extra. We have the capacity to do so, but why would we work extra when tax thresholds mean that our hourly rate would be effectively slashed?

I would rather have the time to myself.

the number of medics who retire early as a result of the lifetime allowance is a very worrying situation. Scrap the allowance and the vast majority of them would work longer, not only doing the much needed clinical work, but also paying tax!

i started work 30 years ago, We saw a financial advisor and made plans for retirement because We wanted to take responsibility. Our plans were then screwed over when the government made successive decrease to the lifetime allowance.

i have never personally understood why the government disincentivised people from making adequate provision for their retirement.

Squeezing the LTA and the pension contribution taper is designed to move high earners into EIS and VCT funds to invest in UK businesses/economy.

They are riskier than typical pension funds, but at those levels, most can (and should) afford the risk.

I have no problem with LTA at £1m. It's an upper baseline that not many will achieve. Set it higher, and it takes money out of circulation.