To reduce hours when labour win election

[Parttimeplay]

I fall into the “60%” tax bracket. With the upcoming elections and knowing the government always hammer the middle ground….woudlnt it make more sense for me to cut my hours for a more relaxed life, eligibility for childcare, reduced tax?

Nope. Closing the loopholes that mean you can take in enormous amounts of money from rent but having overseas companies holding them. Hiding profit. Paying yourself dividends.

This guy was a very successful city trader. He made millions. He expressed pains it really clearly.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXP8gH0wddE&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwhatsapp.com%2F&embeds_referring_origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwhatsapp.com&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&feature=emb_title

Here you go. This is why we need to tax wealth (if our goal is to reduce inequality and create a fairer society - which equals a happier society with less crime so I’m in). Labour aren’t planning on doing this by the way.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXP8gH0wddE&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwhatsapp.com%2F&embeds_referring_origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwhatsapp.com&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&feature=emb_title

No. That’s not what I’m suggesting. Wealth that brings in money which isn’t then taxed fairly because people use clever (and legal) loopholes like basing the holding company in a tax haven or paying themselves in dividends. This ex city trader explains it better than me.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXP8gH0wddE&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwhatsapp.com%2F&embeds_referring_origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwhatsapp.com&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&feature=emb_title

This will as @worriedaboutthefuturenow notes push more wealth out of the country.
Thats why no party will do this.
We simply can’t afford to do it.

If you own a house on UK soil, bring in money from the house on UK soil, you should be taxed properly on that income. Move if you like but you should still pay tax.

If the wealth is all at the top and there is little chance of that distribution changing then fine. The ‘wealth’ can leave. I’m happy enough with that. Trickle down economics doesn’t make us all better off. It makes lots of people worse off and in poorer health. I’m not a ‘socialist’ and I’m doing ok. Mortgage paid off, decent salary so can afford to work part time. But I work with families and see the abject poverty that’s out there. I also know that inequality isn’t good for anyone. Crime rises the wider the gap. Mental health deteriorates the wider the gap.

We have to lessen the gap and create more equality for everyone’s sake. Lots of the wealthy feel the same.

I’m also in favour of policies that lesson that gap
I would assume, therefore, that the tax on education which will widen the gap is not something you are in favour of.

So they shouldn't tax private education because it will be mean a fraction of privately educated children will no longer get that privilege? It reduces the size of the super privileged group ? And that's bad ?

We need to uplift state education not pander to the privileged few

Have you read the full thread?

Explain

If you have a look at threads on this subject you will see many of the people who use private schools are not the super rich sending their kids to Eton people.
Many have SEN kids or use bursaries and exhibitions.

With one child a couple earning a joint salary of £50,000 ( 25k each) can pay for private education and on other threads people have noted they earn less. If they receive bursaries they could do it on less aswell.
Its these people, however, whose kids will have to be taken out of their schools.

So yes a tax on education, which btw isn’t done in any other country, will widen the gap and take us back to the 70s.

Universities could easily be the next institution that are taxed. The Government consider Universities as Private. Technically they stand between public and private but the Government still consider them private.

I would also say that if we want to fully lesson that gap within education then grammars and all forms of academic selection should take a hit too.

Finally, still waiting for Labour to do some real calcs on whether the policy makes any money 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Kandalamas saved me the bother. 👏

If your child doesn’t have ALN and could be educated in a state school then choosing private IS a luxury. I chose to pay for that luxury as I am VERY clear on the privilege it buys you. It gives you a MASSIVE advantage. Paying a bit of extra tax to put back into the system is a small ask.

Students pay fees for University. Different kettle of fish.

And if you are going to mock Labour on costings you are drawing on an old trope that really doesn’t stand. Just look at the wasted money in the last decade. Billions. The Tories claim that they are the economic guardians and Labour are fast and loose with country’s finances no longer holds water. The current Government have absolutely failed in terms of the economy and managing finances. Look at how much money was wasted on the now abandoned Rwanda plan.

Grammar schools are free at the point of access. Not comparable.

This just sounds like those privileged few grasping at straws to avoid paying that little bit extra.

Nope. Kandalama has just put some spurious arguments forward that don’t hold water.

Oh well.
A lot of parents at our schools were not super wealthy, far from it and I think PP is speaking from experience as well.

We all have different experience and lived knowledge of the subject I suppose so we’ll have to agree to disagree

High quality SEN education should be available to all not just those who can afford to pay for it

Comparably, if you can afford school fees, you are, by definition, wealthy. Most people can’t even consider it as an option. It’s a luxury and should be taxed as such. I don’t buy that large numbers of kids will have to go to state school suddenly. I just don’t believe that will happen.

The country spends £10 billion on SEN every year. You have to question where it’s going if it isn’t enough. It’s over 15% of the entire school budget.

Go for it OP, though that would be quite the drop in household income, and you’d have to get rid of savings too.
Perhaps it’ll give you a bit of perspective?

Labour consider you to be comfortable. You have children at private schools, which most people cannot even think of affording (only about 7% of children go to private schools) - the 4k extra you mention is what some people have to live on for 3 months. I am afraid Labour will not do some things that need doing, such as tell the teaching unions to stop moaning about the phonics screening check; to pay doctors and nurses more and train more of both; to at least attempt to re-nationalise public services such as railways, and the utilities which are currently holding us all to ransom and the private ownership of which prevents proper planning and use of resources. Mind, I do not think that you are worried about paying heating bills, but some people are and will turn off their heating even on the coldest days to save money because they dare not have a large bill, or have their Direct Debit increased, because they will fall into debt, have to have a pre-paid meter which unfairly charges them more per unit than you pay by DD. Try to imagine their position rather than that you might pay 5p more tax on some part of your marginal income. The Conservatives have done some despicable things for most of the population. Their only pluses so far are that they want to stop illegal immigration (surely something everyone wants?) and that they are less susceptible to gender-woo than Labour (the LibDems and Greens are a lost cause as is the SNP). I loathe the politics of envy but some people need a Labour government to help redress the balance just little in their favour (not mine, unfortunately - I may also find myself paying more tax).

Wow that’s a high %.
Its worth noting the Govn do not give money to Private schools for their SEN kids except in very extreme circumstances. So if they move State, that’s an extra bill for the tax payer. Again.

Recent posters are proving what a dog whistle policy the school fees thing is. It’s a huge red herring to encourage politics of envy under the guise of equality. We can’t have that so why should they. It’s not even what the op was focussing on. Dropping hours because of the tax system is already happening. It will get worse with dog whistle policies surrounding fees, income tax and pensions.

Facts are quite simple. Not everyone has the intelligence or capability to study and compete in the highly skilled jobs market. That’s just a reality. The only two options would be to dumb the whole nation down and we are doing a good job of that or let everyone earn the same. That’s communism. We are already hugely behind other countries for salaries in skilled trades. Hence the panic for cyber recruitment.

Uncomfortable truths. The huge majority of taxes are paid by higher earners on PAYE. Not the millionaires or billionaires. The workers who have done well in good careers. The tax system means that higher earners on PAYE - pay some of the highest marginal rates in the world with cliff edges everywhere. Our tax system is thus - it discourages work at certain points. A tax system where you can be worse off for working more is a fundamental failure. The issue is that is what is happening; the people who are funding the country with taxes are then discouraged from working more, taking that promotion or bonus. Hence why they had to change the pensions because not only was it harming productivity - it was removing consultants from our wards.

We also have one of the highest state dependencies in the western world. We can’t afford it and we have to borrow each month to pay the bill. Discouraging those who contribute from working more is a terrible idea. Scandi countries often so respected on here - get that. Hence free childcare, no tax on any education and the majority are expected to pay higher taxes. Not a tiny minority.

Anything that discourages higher earners to either work less or leave is an absolutely terrible idea as we can’t afford it. Without net contributors, we don’t have anything.

As I posted on the thread the other day - we are not an attractive country to skilled workers. Skills we need. Our taxes are high and our salaries are low. For example a cyber job - 100k here and 250k in the USA plus more benefits. These kinds of jobs are essential in today’s modern world. That’s why the government is panicking because all of our talent in these fields are leaving or dropping productivity.

If the work needs doing, you can have 2 people getting a good wage if one person doesn't like earning in the top 5%

There are sone some specialist skills that as a country we have failed to train enough people to do, but we should fix that not pander to the pity party of those earning extremes

there is also a lot of research that shows just how far you can push people before your tax receipts start to go down

We aren’t little Britain now. We are competing with the brain power and offerings of other countries who offer much better packages and lifestyles for in demand skills.