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?

I'm not making it personal, I'm writing towards ALL of those who threaten this leaving thing.

Which countries compete for high earners by PAYE tax?

Seriously, most people who threaten this are in no way as globally mobile as they think they are, and even those who do move, often quickly return.

The countries listed below by pp

But it’s not just PAYE. Other taxes including CT impact behaviour for businesses

I do know what I am talking about. It is literally applicable to the industry I am in. You don’t know what you’re talking about - you’re just making it personal.

@whistleblower99 I do know what I'm talking about, the vast majority of people are not as globally mobile as they imagine. I wasn't making it personal, I stated that above.

It might be applicable to you in your industry, but this is in no way representative ( or even going to be anywhere near) a majority. Like I said, people like to think they are far more special than they are, most would be replaced in a week if they died tomorrow ( even earners in the top 0.1%)

@EasternStandard but CT isn't to attract "high earners" who make their income through working is it? Yes it influences behaviour but it isn't there to attract people who are on high incomes to relocate there. This is why I asked for an example of a country that does this ( although I suppose Dubai etc might be but that isn't really to attract people who are high earners from their jobs).

It really is in STEM areas. As in - the skills we need and the skills we have a shortage of. We aren’t globally attractive and countries are falling over themselves to attract the talent and taxes paid. Hence the whole national service for cyber. I am sure that will have the global talents queuing up.

Taxes impact all behaviour whether you are an individual or setting up a company or choosing where to base your global HQ

Or where to retire with wealth or be a non dom

Advisors make a load helping people / companies decide

It’s a competitive market trying to attract the above

"Taxes impact all behaviour whether you are an individual or setting up a company or choosing where to base your global HQ"

But this isn't the same as taxes being set to attract high earners though, that was a different point, from which you appear to be back peddling as you can't show me a country which has done this.

It is a competitive market when you consider CT and other elements, but the link between CT and FDI/Domestic investment has declined and many economists think other factors are more important.

However, this still isn't your average PAYE earner in the top 1% (which is what we are talking about when we discuss "high earners") moving and operating in the exact same job because the tax rate is more favourable elsewhere.

I have the list is below

Can you scroll back?

PAYE for high earners is not the same rate in all countries

Oh and this just jumped out at me from the OP

"I'm in the 60% tax bracket"

No, that might be your marginal tax rate, but only if you include loss of personal allowance, your actual tax rate, your average tax rate, is far lower than that.

People here do some amazing arithmetic to make it look like they are paying far more tax than they are.

@EasternStandard I have scrolled back, I can't see a list.

I think it was @whistleblower99 who talked about lower PAYE

Again, do you think a nurse would be more of a net contributor if he were paid ten times as much?
Because according to your logic, the answer is yes.

Quite!
I am on a large salary (160K) and am well aware that this is in large part because the system has given me that chance. Of course, I owe more to society.

If the nurse was working in the private sector then of course he or she would be more of a net contributor to the exchequer.

If the nurse worked for the NHS, the net benefit to the exchequer would be negative due to having paid out a higher wage.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Is it that nurses make a net contribution to society that can't be measured in money or that we need to reduce government pay to help balance the books?

You seem to be missing the difference between paid by the state or private sector

Who is funding higher state pay?

Do you work in the public sector?

Can you be “a bit more of a net contributor”? Surely it’s binary - either you are or you’re not. It’s like being a little bit pregnant.

As said, the net contributor figure is a load of old cobblers anyway, we could of course use shadow pricing to put costs/benefits to society into the calculation, but then the Masters of the Universe who think we should bow down to their munificence wouldn't come out as well as others that they believe are beneath them.

Not as much as many are missing that even people like me who are well paid rely on a society that educates and cares for the people who are a large part of why we are well paid.
The people who benefit most are those that get rich by owning things yet would count as contribting by the logic put abut here..

This is hard to follow

I’m wondering how you posted as you did, and thought it was down to working in the public sector

How much you pay in tax does not reflect your contribution.
It is a ridiculous measure.
My net contributions to the wealth of society and society as a whole were probably more when I was working three jobs and earning about 20% of what I do now (and less than 20% of hte tax).

What makes me laugh about this thread is the way that high earners think they are uniquely talented and irreplaceable.

I was a high earner. You are likely talented and hardworking, but you are also lucky and replaceable. If you go, there may be gnashing of teeth for all of three months before you are replaced and the ripples of your existence ate gone.

For every one of you, there are ten champing at your heels to take over if you go.

That's the whole point of the unlimited skilled visa migration the Tories have implemented to let in 1.2 million people per year.

You didn't create wealth, you sold your skills in a marketplace that existed before you and will exist once you are gone.

Meanwhile, other people clean your offices and hones, edycate your children, look after your elderly and sick,. These other people take your rubbish away, grow your food, pave the roads you drive on, provide the energy you use and the water you drink.

You are not an isolated island of brilliance and uniqueness. You are part of a completely interdependent society. Your skills are marketable right now and sell for a high price. If your industry goes pop or your skills become obsolete, you may find yourself on the other side of the street, reliant on healthcare or other services.

This idea of international shipping for tax benefits. You can move to the Middle East where they are riding an oil boom. But apart from that, you will be lucky to get a lower tax rate in Europe, and you'll be lucky to get a visa for the "New World" like the USA.

But honestly, you don't scare me with your "threats". Please do leave, taking your entitled, selfish attitude with you. You're not the sort of person we need in this country where our wealth is becoming more unequal by the year. We need grafters, not spoilt children.

@anon666

Brilliantly put, I've said similar in an earlier part of the thread.

I'd also add that there is no such thing as a "wealth creator" they just respond to the demands of the market using available resources, if they hadn't done it, someone else would have. We need to stop the deification of high earners, they exist BECAUSE of how society facilitates them not in spite of it as they claim.

I don’t think people get how tax policy actually changes behaviour and overall attractiveness of a country