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:
ImNotGreta · 24/09/2022 10:22

cakeorwine · 24/09/2022 09:11

You use the word subsidies.

Tell me how?

Unless you mean education, NHS?

Here’s the data. As it shows, the median household income rises several thousand pounds due to taxes and benefits.

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/theeffectsoftaxesandbenefitsonhouseholdincome/financialyearending2021

lannistunut · 24/09/2022 10:22

Quincythequince · 24/09/2022 09:56

The increase in pay is 5%, not 1%z

Tax is dropping from 20% to 19%.

1% drop in 20% total is 5%.

I am talking about the % increase in take home pay. The increase £ of take home pay for someone on £20,000 is under £200.

You are talking about % change in tax rates in a way that is really not that useful, whilst your maths is correct.

The choice of tax change is deliberately regressive.

SplitterBug · 24/09/2022 10:23

Aargh

IFS analysis suggesting all those earning less than 155 K will be worse off...

(MN didn't like my less-than sign)

ImNotGreta · 24/09/2022 10:24

cakeorwine · 24/09/2022 09:20

You seem to actually have no lived experience in term understanding those you perceive as ‘rich’ in today’s climate with three kids, a mortgage etc and what they do/don’t do with their money

I have fuck all sympathy for people earning over £150, 000 who get a massive tax cut

Which is fine, but you can’t then expect them to feel any sympathy for you either or to be happy subsidising you.

lannistunut · 24/09/2022 10:24

ImNotGreta · 24/09/2022 10:22

Here’s the data. As it shows, the median household income rises several thousand pounds due to taxes and benefits.

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/theeffectsoftaxesandbenefitsonhouseholdincome/financialyearending2021

Has this had pensions stripped out or not?

Most people go Shock at the benefits bill but then once pensions are removed it is <meh>.

ImNotGreta · 24/09/2022 10:26

cakeorwine · 24/09/2022 09:26

But what people on here (who don’t understand basic taxation) are saying is that money not collected via tax cuts should somehow be given to those who earn less. A tax redistribution

I am saying that people who are on salaries that are currently at the lower end of the tax scale should have been the ones to benefit instead of the ones at the top end.

If we have several billion pounds of tax cuts to make, it should have been done to give those at the lower end of the tax scale more take home pay.

I don’t agree, and fortunately neither does the government.

lannistunut · 24/09/2022 10:26

SplitterBug · 24/09/2022 10:23

Aargh

IFS analysis suggesting all those earning less than 155 K will be worse off...

(MN didn't like my less-than sign)

Yes - and even WORSE now that the £ has dropped because every fucking thing we import (all the luxuries like flour, petrol, and gas) will cost more thanks to the pound dropping thanks to this fucking stupid budget.

Quincythequince · 24/09/2022 10:26

lannistunut · 24/09/2022 10:22

I am talking about the % increase in take home pay. The increase £ of take home pay for someone on £20,000 is under £200.

You are talking about % change in tax rates in a way that is really not that useful, whilst your maths is correct.

The choice of tax change is deliberately regressive.

That’s rathe the point.
Correct maths matters.

Absolute sums also matter.

Quincythequince · 24/09/2022 10:28

ImNotGreta · 24/09/2022 10:24

Which is fine, but you can’t then expect them to feel any sympathy for you either or to be happy subsidising you.

Yep!
Fuck the rich eh?
Until you need them (which you do)

cakeorwine · 24/09/2022 10:28

ImNotGreta · 24/09/2022 10:14

Because, on average, they receive more in tax credits and benefits than they pay in tax, and these are paid for by taxing higher earners.

That’s pretty much the definition of a subsidy, taking money from one person and giving it to someone else.

And yet there are many people on that income who don't get those.

Some do
Some don't

And it's a real shame that there are people who earn the MEDIAN income in a country have to get support just to get by.

But that's a whole other discussion.

lannistunut · 24/09/2022 10:29

ImNotGreta · 24/09/2022 10:26

I don’t agree, and fortunately neither does the government.

This government don't agree, no. That is why we are going to have a bigger recession than necessary and why the markets have reacted so badly.

Societal incomes are a pyramid. Most people are at the bottom. They have to have enough money to drive the basic economy. Without that we are all fucked.

That is why this budget has left everyone quite Confused - there was not one single thing to help the bottom 50% spend more money. Expect job losses and business closures to follow.

cakeorwine · 24/09/2022 10:30

Quincythequince · 24/09/2022 10:28

Yep!
Fuck the rich eh?
Until you need them (which you do)

And the rich need other people.

We all exist together.

lannistunut · 24/09/2022 10:30

Quincythequince · 24/09/2022 10:26

That’s rathe the point.
Correct maths matters.

Absolute sums also matter.

My maths is also correct, we are doing different sums Confused

Quincythequince · 24/09/2022 10:31

cakeorwine · 24/09/2022 10:30

And the rich need other people.

We all exist together.

I agree.

But I’m not on here slagging of those who rely on the state, and I’m more than happy to pay my taxes!

Didfernt sentiment from the other direction, you included!

Quincythequince · 24/09/2022 10:32

lannistunut · 24/09/2022 10:30

My maths is also correct, we are doing different sums Confused

If you are talking about tax savings. It has to be elegant to the amount being taxed.

5% increase in tax home of taxable money - not 1%.

Words matter. Don’t obfuscate.

lannistunut · 24/09/2022 10:32

cakeorwine · 24/09/2022 10:30

And the rich need other people.

We all exist together.

Quite. It is a society and the people at the bottom need to earn enough to drive the economy so that the rich can earn at the top.

You can't grow an economy with basically half the population unable to spend, which is the situation we are looking at. It will not benefit the economy if I put a bit more in my pension/ISA/whatever.

ImNotGreta · 24/09/2022 10:33

TakeawayManAlan · 24/09/2022 09:48

Because tories to a man (and woman) are all fucking cunts

That’s not really true though. It’s generally the case that they are nicer people than those on the left.

Let’s be honest here, you aren’t going to be stabbed or robbed walking through Canary Wharf late at night but are pretty likely to be if you try the same in a Labour stronghold estate in Hackney.

TakeawayManAlan · 24/09/2022 10:34

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

TakeawayManAlan · 24/09/2022 10:34

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

roarfeckingroarr · 24/09/2022 10:35

I'm a Tory and I'm really annoyed about the decisions made yesterday.

Stamp duty changes - good
Abolishing top rate of tax - not a priority
Bankers bonuses - not a priority
Not increasing 40% threshold - WHY?!

It's a budget for the mega rich, not the aspiring working and middle classes. It's a lost opportunity.

lannistunut · 24/09/2022 10:35

Quincythequince · 24/09/2022 10:32

If you are talking about tax savings. It has to be elegant to the amount being taxed.

5% increase in tax home of taxable money - not 1%.

Words matter. Don’t obfuscate.

After this comment I now doubt your maths understanding full stop. You have spent a lot of time saying other people don't understand but you seem not to yourself.

My posts above are clear enough, the increase in take home pay for someone on £20k is 1% and the increase in take home pay is 4.5%. Either you think that is good or bad. I think bad.

You think... who knows?

Shall we leave it there?

Quincythequince · 24/09/2022 10:35

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Oi!
Pack it in.

cakeorwine · 24/09/2022 10:35

lannistunut · 24/09/2022 10:32

Quite. It is a society and the people at the bottom need to earn enough to drive the economy so that the rich can earn at the top.

You can't grow an economy with basically half the population unable to spend, which is the situation we are looking at. It will not benefit the economy if I put a bit more in my pension/ISA/whatever.

It's also about the entire country.
An education system for people
Health care
Child care
Infrastructure

Without all this stuff, we wouldn't have a country where rich people can earn money.

ImNotGreta · 24/09/2022 10:36

TakeawayManAlan · 24/09/2022 10:08

Ok but the point is anyone on 160k should be paying way more

Never mind the cunts on 500k, 1m, 10m etc

EAT THE RICH AND FUCK THE TORIES

In your opinion much tax and NI should someone on £160,000 per year be paying?

bellac11 · 24/09/2022 10:36

wobytide · 24/09/2022 08:41

Scrapping additional rate cost £2bn and benefits 629,000 people

Taking another 0.5% off the basic rate would have cost £2.5bn and would have benefitted 34million people

Both measures would have given a similar amount of money back into the economy to be spent.

But they chose the option that only benefits a few. On purpose

I saw on the news this morning that the changes have cost 45 billion.

Where are you getting the 2 billion from?