Rishi pays tax at 22% and NI.

[GPTec1]

This really, £5m in earnings, tax 1m, rate at 22% and no National insurance.

Not bad is it? yet all we get from the 'right is "the wealthy pay enough already"

Do they?

I bet all those on/or have been striking in NHS, education, rail would love an overall rate of 22%.

Should we all pay tax at 22% ? regardless of earnings?

However, I think they are directionally correct in arguing that taxation of unearned income is too low relative to taxation of earned income.

Yes I agree.

Turns out Keir Starmer only paid £100k of taxes and Rishi paid ten times as much. He contributed less but calls Rishi out. What a hypocrite. Could never vote labour ever again because of things like this.

Eh?

I wouldn’t say it’s hero worshipping, just recognising that those who pay colossal sums in tax have paid more than their way regardless of the %.
You can't ignore the percentage though! especially when lower earners are paying a higher percentage of their income in tax how is that fair? And just because something is "legal" doesn't make it just. I also do not agree that these multi millionaires are creating wealth and jobs because it is simply not true. The economies that do best are those that encourage and support entrepreneurship and support small businesses that employ and are loyal to their local communities and pay decent wages. The big corporate multi nationals are a disaster there's no loyalty they drive down wages, terms and conditions and will leave the minute they can produce their products cheaper elsewhere. The ripple effect of middle earners feeling the pinch and cutting back on their spending has the biggest impact on the economy. The rich will always be rich regardless

Shocking levels of ignorance on how taxes & a progressive tax system work on this thread. Heaven help us.

We are all paying tax rates - percentages on our earnings.

To look at a particular fixed sum and saying that is better/worse than another fixed sum without taking into account overall earnings and at the rate they are being taxed is really naive.

Isn’t the reason it’s lower because people have already paid tax on money they’ve earned before investing..

I also think someone who has managed to become wealthy may be a good person to run the country

I find this point of view utterly depressing. The assumption that someone is inherently capable, or even exceptional, because they have "managed" to be born into a wealthy family is not grounded in reality.

The economies that do best are those that encourage and support entrepreneurship and support small businesses that employ and are loyal to their local communities and pay decent wages. The big corporate multi nationals are a disaster there's no loyalty they drive down wages, terms and conditions and will leave the minute they can produce their products cheaper elsewhere. The ripple effect of middle earners feeling the pinch and cutting back on their spending has the biggest impact on the economy. The rich will always be rich regardless

yep. That’s why I was saying it’s better to have 50 teachers on £50k rather than one banker earning £2.5m. Those 50 teachers will spend their money, better if they spent it in SMEs/local business and more people benefit as a result. 50 people will spend more than 1 as there’s only so much you can consume.

So we need an economy that values middle earners, not a few high net worth individuals.

Not if they were paid by dividend. Or inherited their wealth.

I agree. Especially when you look at how Rishi made his money. Worth reading into the 2008 banking crisis. Utterly depressing

They've had better education and opportunities to become a good PM and also they probably have the connections and polish that we need. Is it fair! No! But life isn't fair.

I don't want to waste my vote on someone who worked for the civil service all their lives, since that probably means they're lazy.

He paid less tax, because he earns less. Percentage wise he paid more
of his income than Sunak.

Starmer paid a lower marginal rate of tax on income than Sunak.

Sorry but you are comparing apples and oranges, UC is not earned money so they are not "losing"anything, they are just entitled to less help..a lot of us are not entitled to anything, so should we say we are "losing"

Starmer earned £126k and paid £43k in tax, so 34%, Sunak's was 22%

Nice try @Emotionalstorm

Lets be serious for once!

@Emotionalstorm lol.

In 2021/22 Sunak’s income amounted to £329,561. Income tax paid thereon was £120,604, so marginal rate of 36.5%.

Starmer’s income for 2021/22 amounted to £126,607, tax paid thereon was £43,103. Marginal rate of 34.0%.

Both then paid CGT at the relevant rates

Which is what you would expect as Sunak would have paid a higher level of tax for his income over £150,000.

This is what the BBC reported:

Tax Paid
£227,350 on total earnings of £1,018,389 in 2019/20
£393,217 on total earnings of £1,777,581 in 2020/21
£432,493 on total earnings of £1,970,992 in 2021/22

He has also seen his earnings almost double in 3 years.

I'm not familiar with your numbers, Sunak "earned" 5m in 3 years, hardly likely that in one of them he "only" earned 329k.

He still contributed less overall despite complaining about how public services is funded. I think that's a bit rich.

Are*

It’s more complicated than out pay slips

I ignore headline grabbing facts like this there purely done to stir shit

Its tax paid on £5m of investment income not PAYE, those rates do not apply in this instance.

Sure his MP/PM salaries would fall into this tax bracket.