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?

...and i'd defend your right to make those points, though not the name calling, have i called your opinions childish, bitter or stupid?

But the polling shows 70/30 in favour of my POV, that doesn't make it right of course but does prove that at least on MN, people still want fairness in taxation.

The tax system arguments are irrelevant because the thread has never been about evasion, i ve said time and time again, RS has broken no laws, i just happen to think those laws need changing.

His earnings were X and he paid Y in tax, it works out at 22%, its been widely reported and he has not challenged his own tax return summary.

I also think the leader of the UK should invest in the UK, though i accept thats up to him & can't nor should it be legislated for.

Part of the problem is the press are saying “earnings” when capital gains are not actually earnings. It’s very misleading.

A man has paid the correct tax liability, he has not used any reliefs or tried to dodge anything in any way. If anyone on this thread had the same level of income and gains, they would pay the same tax. It’s a non story.

though not the name calling, have i called your opinions childish, bitter or stupid?

I didn’t call you names. I wouldn’t care if my suggestions were called stupid etc it’s an opinion. It happens on MN all the time. I’ve obviously agreed with a diff poster on their very measured posts regarding the unfairness of this system so you should probably pay better attention before calling me ‘a Tory’ ( as an insult, so watch your own name calling ) or imply I think the current system is totally fair.

@GPTec1 “I just don't see why someone with earnings of £5m should only pay tax at 22% over 3 years, with investments in the USA, you clearly see that as a good thing and something to encourage.
The rest of us pay tax on higher earnings at 40 to 45% “

You clearly are not wanting to understand basic maths nor the tax system.. No one, not even you, pays 40/45% on all of their earnings and income. Just like you, and most people in the UK earning over £52k, Rishi will have paid 40% on some of his earnings.

Once again basic and rough maths.

• Total gross Income = £70,000
• Pension contributions @6% = £4,200
• Taxable pay = £65,800
• Personal allowance = £12,500 - Tax rate nil, 0%, nada, none
• £12,500 - 50,000 = £37,000 - Tax rate 20% = £7,500
• £50,000 - £65,800 = £15,800 - Tax rate 40% = £6,320
• Savings interest £1,500 - Tax rate 0% on £1,000 40% on £500 = £100
• Interest on ISA, premium bond winnings £2000 - Tax rate 0%

Total income (£70,000 + £1,500 + £2000) = £73,500 Total Tax (£7,500 + £6,320 + £100) = £13,920 £13,920 / £73,500 x100 = Effective tax rate 18.9%.

@Foreversearch I don’t think the OP wants to understand the pretty basic maths and tax band info repeatedly being posted because they keep repeating the false claim he only pays 22% for all of it.

Controversial point perhaps but I want a PM/Chancellor who utilises legal avenues to pay less tax. I don't mean complex barely legal loopholes, but someone who knows how to look after their own money is more likely to look after ours.

@Whaeanui I know but 72% think the op is not being unreasonable. It’s shocking that so few people grasp basic maths.

I know @Foreversearch and it’s a real problem!

Here you go...

This is what you wrote earlier:

You’re childish. I didn’t call you stupid, your suggestion is though. It really just seems like you hate the tories, hate anyone richer than you and are generally bitter

A fairly comprehensive list of name calling.

I said a Tory Trait didn't even imply you... and in any case, Tory is a common enough name for the party/members etc, i doubt many know of its (one of) original meaning "Robber"

Trying to make the equivalence of £5m vs £70k or to fair, £210k. (over 3 years)

There is none & as the 40/45% bit of Sunaks earnings over this 3 year period is tiny, the vast majority of the 5m was via an overseas investment trust and subject to CGT at 20%.

Basic maths indeed!!!!

I'm well aware of the UK tax bands but again, pointing these out in the context of £5m is not necessary, most working people on PAYE are well aware.

@GPTec1 Financial experts say he must have many millions in this USA based trust. Does our British PM invest in the UK or only in our competitors? I would expect the British PM to be investing the majority of his wealth in the UK. I think the leader of the UK should invest in the UK.

1. Having lived and worked in the US for a large part of the 21st century it would not be surprising if he invested in the US, probably through the companies he worked for, and it would not be surprising if he still held some of these investments.
2. US based investments do not solely invest in US companies, just as British based investments do not invest solely in UK companies.
3. Do you realise that the CGT he paid is probably because he sold some of these US investments, possibly to reinvest in the UK (including paying UK companies to improve the electricity supply to his house).
4. The timing of capital gains is totally up to the investor. If he had not sold any investments in a particular tax year, he would have no gains and would have paid no CGT. In 21/22, if he had delayed the sale for a few months into the next tax year, this would have meant he paid £120,604 tax on £329,561 - an equivalent rate of 36.6%.

A fairly comprehensive list of name calling.

No it isn’t. Having your behaviour critiqued is not name calling. Your behaviour here is childish and the suggestion earlier about investments was silly when nobody in the UK only spends or invests within the UK. Nobody. You are singling out one person and holding him to a higher standard than you hold yourself.

@GPTec1 I note you have not responded to my rebuttal of your totally false claim that a nurse on £33k pays tax at 33% when the fact is it is from 19% to 22.6% depending on personal circumstances.

You have also not responded to my illustration showing that paying CGT at the same rate as the taxpayer pays income tax, under the system that existed through the Thatcher, Major, Blair and part of Brown's administrations would result in a very similar tax payment.

It seems you prefer to ignore FACTS that go against your dogma.

Read the thread, i acknowledged it in another post, i name tagged you.

So yet again, you re wrong on that too.

Read the thread, i acknowledged it in another post, i name tagged you.

So yet again, you re wrong on that too.

No, you are. I looked through every comment on this thread you’ve made and you haven’t tagged or quoted @jcyclops till your last post.

@GPTec1 Please give the time and date of your post where you acknowledged it and tagged me, or are you making up your own facts again.

Your bit invested in this aren't you?

To the best of my memory i did but if i didn't i'll say it again, i was wrong on that and apologise @jcyclops

Its ag reat pity you can't acknowledge you called me a series of names and apologise too but i'm the childish one! ha.

Thank you for the apology.

No problem, i think i read 33k but saw 33% - now that really is stupid of me!

Your bit invested in this aren't you?

what? By commenting? Oh get a grip

To the best of my memory i did but if i didn't i'll say it again, i was wrong on that and apologise

Easy to check your own posts, it took me less than a minute, no real investment at all.

Its ag reat pity you can't acknowledge you called me a series of names and apologise too but i'm the childish one! ha.

I did not call you names. I called you out on your behaviour. It is coming across angry and childish to me. Calling someone names would be saying ‘ you’re an idiot’ ‘ you’re just a Tory’ ( as an insult ). You seem quite invested in just me and my comments yourself.

So you are wrong twice, admit it, but still attack me as too invested for pointing it out. Okay 🙄

Its there in black and white, you called me childish, hateful and bitter, not the argument & you can't admit it or apologise.

I think going back over many pages and reading what has been written on a particular comment not even involving you is a bit invested, how you would know if i'd tagged jcylops is beyond my knowledge of MN i'm afraid, rather odd.

You keep replying and quoting me and i respond, its how a forum works but you ve also lost sight of the argument and are now just calling me names.

So might be time to walk away from this as most people agree with me, not you, so i'll take that as a positive.

Like I said, childish behaviour. You can’t tell people how to respond or how many times they can respond. You’ve been shown by the other poster to have been wrong on some things and are simply deflecting by repeatedly accusing me of name calling. Like I said, get a grip.

"His earnings were X and he paid Y in tax, it works out at 22%, its been widely reported and he has not challenged his own tax return summary."

It's an important distinction to make - earned income does not include capital gains. Capital gains are that and are not part of earnings. Which is why there are different tax rates.

You need to read and understand the substance of the figures not just the click bait articles. He has been taxed correctly, and as any other person who has these sources of income would be.

Like another poster pointed out, the level of cgt paid now, at lower tax rates, was broadly similar to what would have been due at higher rates, but with the uplift in value for inflation. The only difference is the article would have said he paid tax at a higher rate on the taxable portion of the gain.