to think 51% tax is ridiculous, and already to be planning to move to Asia

[hedgiemum]

Namechanged. Married to someone who earns well in excess of £150,000 a year, though neither does he earn 7 figures.
He is still quite young in his career - a recent promotion to a senior position, but has not been earning this kind of money of long, so we still have a mortgage and haven't saved large amounts (what we have saved is through his pension which is no longer going to be particularly worth doing.)

He phoned me a minute after end of budget to say he'd watched it with his boss whose reaction was that he would move the company (not a bank, but in finance) to Asia. Probably Hong Kong - 12% tax rather than the 51% we'd be paying here.

Seems like a kneejerk reaction, and clearly we can afford to pay more, but boss doesn't feel he'll get good productivity from staff if they are getting to take home less than half their income. Plus it decreases ever-present risk of them being headhunted by companies in lower-tax economies.

AIBU to be PLEASED (I used to hate tax exiles.) Partly because it just does not seem fair. Partly because this country has been run so badly by New Labour of whom we had such high expectations, and the medical care we have received has been shite, the local schools are shite, the roads are insanely busy and yet is costs so much to live here.

SJisontheway - I wholeheartedly agree with you. I earn nothing like £150k either and will pay more tax under this budget. I have a pretty big social conscince too, even though I am a filthy capitalist. I just fear the extra tax will be wasted. I say again, the worst thing about our tax system is that it so unfair to the poorest in society and traps them in poverty and on benefits.

However, I am a realist and know that many high paid City workers will leave - it is just the way the world works.

hedgie needs a wedgie and her man a knockout punch.
greed ain't cutting edgy when we're in a credit crunch.

"those earning in excess of £150,000 have largely opted-out of the public service system, since they can use private schooling, healthcare etc, so why should they be hit with even higher taxes?"
and to cornaflake:

Because for the vast majority of high earners, the income they make will at some level be generated by either a workforce or a consumer who is not paid enough to 'go private' and relies upon the NHS and state education to be able to live on low enough wages to allow emplyers to pay lower salaries and / or have enough disposable income to spend money in the 'food chain' the directly or eventually supports the salary of the high earner. The argument above ONLY works if the person who has opted out and 'gone private' exists in an economic bubble in which every single member of that economy is also paid enough to do without state provision.

Soit ios perfectly fair - and infact econimically expedient - for higher earners to pay beyond thier own personal use of the state provision.

But in fact an air ambulance and complicated emergency surgery on the NHS (as could well happen in an emergency even for the most committed BUPA member) would be good value for even 51% taxpayers!

DS has had 10s of thousands of pounds-worth of very high level surgery under the NHS - and one day he will probably spend much of his working life and disposable income in the service of a higher-rate tax payer's salary...somewhere in the food chain! Hope they appreciate it - graciously

they won't be taking home less than half their income

The higher tax level only applies to earning after the first 150K

yaNbu

150 is too low

tax the bollocks off over 250k

LOL at fircone working "200 hours a week" - PLEASE let that be a joke ...

Love the way the Op think her DH is utterly irreplaceable. If everyone who earns over £150000 moves to Asia it means that lots of people still left here will get a promotion. Or am I missing something?

'tripping over the corpses of starved children in the streets of Britain, as is the case in many parts of the world. '

And, is a part of Britain's past that will hopefully forever be consigned to history.

sorrento, I am sorry about your daughter's issues.

But I think you are misunderstanding a little.

dd1 cannot communicate. if it is left to the state to educate her, she never will. she will never be able to make a choice, and will have little control over her life, if she does not get the help she needs.

I am not just talking about private schooling - she needs a highly specialised school - which would (at the age of 4) cost around 35k a year. and those costs will naturally rise as she gets older.

I am trying my hardest to make sure she gets the help she needs, but we cannot afford it all - there's speech therapy, occupational therapy, sensory issues, dietary issues and health implications. help in any one area would be enough for me, but she is not entitled to any of the above, partly due to her age, but mostly due to ridiculous criteria.

none of this is going to get any better, and that is why it irritates me to be now paying even higher taxes.

fircone start a campaign to Mr Darling about inheritance taxi will be first to sign it

too right - domain of the über rich - ensures they stay that way so annoying

thanks, riven. I am glad that your dd is getting what she needs at school - at least someone is

as you say, it is tricky.

dd1 cannot go into mainstream school, as it is not suitable for her. standard private schools won't take her. state special schools are few and far between (and there are fewer places available each year).

so private special school it is, at least for now. and that is hideously expensive.

and, like you, we have a special diet to fund.

if any of this help was forthcoming form the state, I would be over the moon. But it isn't, and I doubt it will be - standard postcode lottery, which really shouldn't happen.

I think what's hard to take is that I know it's going to do nothing whatsoever to help public services. It's a PR jobbie that won't raise anything enough like the revenue we need.
I think it's very easy to criticise those high earners and I'd take it from some poor bugger working their arse off cleaning a hospital. But it's hard to listen to public sector workers on very nice salaries, and sick pay and holday entitlement, and healthy , guaranteed pensions, taking the moral high ground.

Thing about IHT is that both your parents have to be dead before you get it. So it's unlikely most people will get to 'enjoy the cash' until they have reached middle age or beyond, by which time they be well established in their careers and not depending on parents money anyway.

Most people across the social and financial spectrum do want to help their kids out. The impulse to do so is not unique to the uber wealthy.

I am in favour of this

Re the removal of the personal allowance over 100k - I guess it will just mean that no-one will be paid between 100k and 105k - pay rises will take into account the fact that the allowance will be lost (otherwise it would be an effective pay cut)

Sorry, as someone who works extremely hard in the public sector, with a Dh who also works extremely hard in his job, with a joint gross annual income of under £28,000, living in greater London, two kids, a thirteen year old car, a mortgage, no hoidays abroad etc, it is really hard to sympathise with someone who slags off the public services in this country, whilst complaining that they don't want to pay anymore of their money, in the form of income tax, to help fund it!

I really resent the implication that only those who earn high salaries, work hard. there are many, many people who slog their guts out, sometimes in the crappiest of jobs, and earn nothing like the £150k that your Dh does, OP. maybe if someof those higher earners weren't so keen to minimise the tax they pay, our public services would be better funded and would therefore improve to a level more in line with what you think they should be.

And whatever you may think about paying for private healthcare etc, it is not the private health sector that will be attempting to save the lives of those involved in accidents etc. No, that will be those hardworking paramedics, funded by our taxes!

Nancy- hysterical, really? It's the logical extension of unbridled capitalism- some people swim, a great many more sink. Some of the most third world countries have a flat rate income tax of 10%.

And of course what actually happens in real life third world countries is that many of those who are extremely fortunate realise that they are because all their staff commute in from unspeakable and insanitary slums. Conscientious employers in the 3rd world donate a lot of their 10% taxed income to their employees and families, and to maintaining them after they've become too old to work, and helping their kids with school fees, and hospital bills etc. Only the most callous would leave their poorest employees unsupported in countries without free access to these things.

Non-conscientious ones fear for their lives and belongings on a daily basis.

Incidentally, on a historical note, that's what almshouses in Britain were for- housing retired retainers. Most hospitals were funded by wealthy people with a social conscience, as were orphanages and many of the schools the super-rich now send their kids to.

But we don't live in a third world country - we live in a country with a welfare system.

The situation you describe is tragic but to repeat my earlier posting it would never happen in this country.

Well, it would happen if we didn't have redistributive tax.

Duchesse I would be only too happy for my tax to be spent on the poor but rankly I don't want it spent on bombing said third world countries and paying for my mate's six weeks holiday a year - CPS clerk.

paying for your mate's 6 week hol? whaddya mean?

to op...

i dont think its quite as simple as you put it, go happily to asia with my blessing and pay your whatever % tax and soon see the rest of it going in private medical insurance, private schools, save more for old age because you wont get free nursing care when you cant wipe your own a*rse

hold hand up and say yes i know before i get flamed left right and centre (all political scenarios covered there) that our welfare system is FAR from perfect but it exists.

OP - if I were you I would be glad our welfare system exists - your DH could need it soon when his comapny relocates to the far east abd realises that it is cheaper to employ someone there than pay all your relocation costs.

Riven your post is humbling.

I will be badly effected by this budget. Up to £30k a year.

Am I happy about it ? Of course not.

But I am sure my accountant will find a way to avoid some of it anyway.

I just feel that if I am going to redistribute my wealth I could have a say where it goes. To people like Riven please take everything you need to improve the quality of life you provide for your daughter.

To some others I know and could mention get off your lazy arses and make a contribution to the society that funds you out of thier hard earned money.

Not directed to anyone on this thread at all as I havent even read it all.

Its just that we all know it will not go to those who need it most.