To wonder if Labour actually will be any better?

[Baabaagreysheep]

I think like most people I am keen to see the back of the current bunch, but I am not confident that anything will massively change for the better. Maybe that’s a bit pessimistic, but I feel that while some things will improve some will get worse - and some sort of at the same time, so I’m expecting my salary to go up but also my workload to go up!

Thinking back to when Labour were last in power it was another world, really. Interested in views.

It’s so poorly thought out

Labour policies don’t add up that’s one of the main issues - on the ones they’ve talked about so far

They don’t, no, and honestly I do think Starmer at least is very aware of this, but he’s also keenly aware of having to appeal to the Labour base who do not want a ‘red Tory’. Hence the populist bones being thrown that don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Oh dear me

I agree the middle and top on PAYE are squeezed, I don't agree the answer is to cut public services or lower the personal allowance so the lowest earners pay more tax.

The super rich don't pay PAYE and a lot of them spend a lot of money looking for ways to minimise their tax bill. Its been shown that "trickle down" economics doesn't work. So I don't see why this fear mongering about "millionaires leaving" exists as a reason not to tax them. Decent people pay their taxes. We should expect them to contribute fairly to the country they live in.

Tax the non doms. Close the loopholes, yes including private school VAT exemption. Tax dividends at income tax rates.

Don't sit there wringing your hands about the poor people earning over 100k having to pay higher tax on their bonus....it's ridiculous and out of touch (and I say that as a top rate tax payer)

And I, Alyso, look forward to the scales falling from your eyes on your social tourist adventure into the heart of darkness that is life on the dole. Do report back.

You’ve missed the point again. No-one is going to earn more to take home less. That’s what happens between 100k and 150k ish now if you have two children. This has been explained clearly by the financial article linked above.

This results in people working less and paying more into pension. This results in less tax take and an unsustainable public funding model. This has been proven, time and time again. The chancellor has been warned about this multiple times and ignored it.

The point is - people are changing their behaviours and it’s resulting in less tax take. Less for all.

Yes. I think they were burnt by Ed Miliband who was ahead in the polls but lost

It’s a big shame as any opposition would have a fairly open goal atm, we could have a party that comes in to properly tackle it

Then I'm sorry you find yourself in such reduced circumstances. As you will be.

And all the time ignoring things like Starmers
pension perk and Blairs tax avoidance.

The Conservatives introduced the 'pension perk' in 2013. So I guess you can't possibly vote Conservative.

The Prime Minister's tax return is a good example of this. He pays a smaller proportion of his income in tax than a nurse would theirs.

For the sake of clarity.

Paying 100% tax on an income of 101,000 would mean paying 101,000 in tax.
No one is doing that. Paying over 100% in tax on an income of 101,000 would mean paying more than 101,000 in tax.

Again - for the sake of clarity read the article above. It is from a financial reporter. If you have children and earn one penny over 100k - you take home LESS than before. You lose so many tax perks that actually you take home LESS. In the case of 2 children, you need to earn about 50k to break even. That means there is an effective tax rate of over 100% for some on earnings over 100k. You’ll even see the article describes this as ‘effective tax.’

It’s really not complex to understand. The chancellor commissioned research on this and it is proven to reduce tax take. He has been told and ignored it. This is why Labour are backtracking on lowering the 45% threshold. It makes no sense and COSTS money.

I mean, maybe he should crack on if he wants the welfare system to collapse.

So no one will be paying 100% tax on their earnings.

But rather some people on large earnings may pay more tax if they earn more.

It still does not explain why a nurse will pay a higher proportion of their income in tax than the current Prime Minister does.

So - please correct me if I’m wrong - a tiny number of high earners with children under five are affected by an anomaly in the tax system due to poorly thought through measures introduced by the current Conservative government, have I got that right? The same Conservative government that thought it was an excellent idea to remove child benefit from a single parent earning more than £50k but allowed two parents earning £49k each to keep it - those are factual statements, are they not?

And these measures, both the product of a Conservative government, are being presented as evidence for the folly of voting for a Labour government? That sounds eminently sensible.

You forgot to say that some people pay over 100% in tax even though that is logically nonsense.

I read your article. It isn't an "effective tax". People earning over 100k with children at nursery lose the free childcare aspect . So for 2 years they are worse off. Personally I don't see why I should be subsidising the riches childcare. And if they can afford private school they can afford nursery. It's not a tax, any more than paying for private health care or school is a tax.
Also - people need to be saving for retirement so incentivising paying into pensions is a good thing.

Finally - this is a conservative policy. So not sure why it's relevant to this thread.

Honestly. I'm playing the worlds tiniest violin for these parents. Earning 3x the median salary and whining about having to pay nursery fees. I had 2 children in nursery, paying fees when I earnt a quarter of that and didn't expect the state to subsidise it.

It's MARGINAL tax, not total/average tax.

It's perfectly possible to work, say, an extra shift, and be worse off as you lose more than you've earned for that extra shift in terms of tax/nic on the wages, loss of some personal allowance, loss of free childcare, etc.

Just the same as can happen at lower end of the scale when someone on benefits loses more than they earn due to loss of benefits such as housing benefit, free prescriptions, free dental care, reduction of tax credits/universal credit, loss of discounted council tax, etc., plus tax and NIC on their extra "shift".

That kind of thing drives behaviour that's detrimental to UK PLC as it's a real disincentive to earn more/better yourself.

I'm an accountant, I see it virtually every day - people take steps to reduce their income to be better off, whether it's refusing extra shifts, paying a bonus into a pension scheme, or whatever - the end result is less tax/NIC to the treasury.

It's exactly why tax revenue fell when Brown introduced the 50% income tax rate and grew again when the Tories reduced it to 45%!

No one ever said you lose 100% on ALL your wages - it's on the "extra" when you're wages/income is just above one of the stupid thresholds/cliff edges.

Shooting self in the foot is how economically illiterate idiots operate. Keep going after the taxpayer for more freebies, and soon you will be whingeing about being in even bigger trouble.

It's MARGINAL tax, not total/average tax.

Then posters should not say that people are paying 100% tax or over 100% tax, because they are wrong.

And this is why universal benefits are easier to manage. But politically unpalatable - "taxpayer freebies"

Anyway, why is this relevant to a discussion about whether Labour will be worse? These are all Conservative policies

No one ever said you lose 100% on ALL your wages - it's on the "extra" when you're wages/income is just above one of the stupid thresholds/cliff edges.
Someone did actually say some people were paying an effective tax rate of 100% which is what confused everyone....