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.

if beanieb is right you have lost any sympathy I (n)ever had for you.

I wasn't "lambasting" the OP - I was saying it was sad, yes of course it's bloody boring at times (full time SAHM here ) but to use it as a reason for them both not working (ie he might actually have to look after the children occasionally "shock horror" ) just feels sad to me.

policy the sick child weakened my resolve too.Light weight lefties

noddy

one small sick child and you all turn to mush

TiggyR

It's true that the poorest do pay proportionally more gross tax than the rich.

I have posted this elsewhere, but here are the figures given in answer to a parliamentary question about gross tax levels.

In the 2004/5 tax year households in the bottom bracket earnt an average of £8,376 and paid an average of £3,564 gross tax - about 43% of their total income.

People in the top bracket earnt an average of £84,357 and paid an average of £29,420 in tax - about 35%.

There are complex reasons for this (and part of it for sure is tax avoidance) and I'm not an accountant or a statitician, who could probably give you a more nuanced answer, but part of the answer is because if you buy a box of tampons, or a packet of fags, or a pint of beer or whatever, the tax you pay is pretty much the same regardless of your income.

So someone earning £10k a year will be paying £1 tax on their box of tampons, the same as someone earning £300k a year. But the £1 is obviously a far higher percentage of the poor person's income.

Also the poor are likely to spending almost all their income on goods (which generate VAT). Whereas the very rich will spend some on goods, but will also save, purchase property, invest, employ others, etc etc.

This is very, very simplistic and perhaps others can expand on the point - but the figures speak for themselves and are taken from Hansard.

i dont' think that loophole works anymore. If you live and work in London you pay UK tax. and there's the non-dom penalty if you claim you really live overseas.

spicemonsters

'high earners have had it good for a long time'

a lot of higher earners have worked bollocks off on shit pay for a 'long time'

I worked out that to lose half of your salary in tax and NI under the new regime of 50% over £150k means you're earning £1.35m.

Cayman Islands tax dodge systems are under attack now, thank goodness. International governments need the tax revenue and are finally getting tough(ish).

I don't know if I am right at all, like I say my maths is awful. I wonder if someone with maths skills and a knowledge of different tax bands could work out how good a good year would be based on the statement 'its the fact that DH feels that only taking home half (and in good years yes it will be half, or very close to it) of his paypacket is removing our choice '

ie - for what you take home to equal what you pay in tax, under the new tak level, how much would you have to be earning? That would give an idea of a 'good year'

tax not Tak.

suziseis - I don't understand your post.
a lot of higher earners have worked bollocks off on shit pay for a 'long time'

If you're a higher earner then you haven't been on shit pay surely? Or perhaps you have a totally different view of shit pay from me. I'm confused.

As well as paying the same rate of VAT. Lower earners pay much higher % of their income on Council Tax, Road Tax etc.

"I worked out that to lose half of your salary in tax and NI under the new regime of 50% over £150k means you're earning £1.35m."

blimey!

OK, YoungVisitor, I see where you are coming from on that. Don't necessarily agree with the argument/logic but at least I understand it now!

Suzieis

'a lot of higher earners have worked bollocks off on shit pay for a 'long time''

err but their not anymore. If they ever have.

In fact I was rounding my percentages - if you earn £1.35m you pay 49.62% in tax and NI

If you earn £1.85m you pay 49.99% in tax and NI.

That is assuming a straightforward employee with no pension contributions etc (which lower your tax bill).

I find it ironic that the OP is moaning at having to pay too high a proportion of her income (or her husband's) in tax when actually as TiggyR says the low earners actually pay proportionally more tax. Whats more they dont have their nice house and two cars to show for it.

It is quite shocking and even sad that someone would conider leaving the country for the sake of a few thousand pounds. I earn much less than you as a teacher but gladly gave up much more than that in order to improve my family's quality of life.

I have been a 40% tax payer and happily and quite proudly paid my extra tax. In the past I have been in the situation where my husband would have been a 50% tax payer. I can say hand on heart I would not have minded.

I do agree that people often go into professional occupations knowing the terms and conditions so it seems daft to bleet after the event. Although having said that I became a teacher not having a clue how much I would be paid I just knew I wanted to teach. I would happily earn less if I though it would help the economy or pay more tax again of I thought it would help. Our country is in a mess and we need to work togther to sort it out. Those on lower wages cannot afford to pay more tax, people like me and certainly people like you can.

My only issue is that as Hula said ( she is a wise woman) I am not sure how much money it will raise and this is about headline grabbing. People are angry with bankers and this seen as a way of getting back at them.

noonki

people are saying hugh earners have 'had it good' for a while

what i am am saying is not ALL high earners have had it good for a while

many have been lower earners working their way up

theyoungvisitor, that knocks my socks off. Very impressive!

"By SuziSeis on Wed 22-Apr-09 21:56:23 spicemonsters

'high earners have had it good for a long time'

a lot of higher earners have worked bollocks off on shit pay for a 'long time' "

And a lot of people on lower income also work their bollocks off....so....sorry that is a rubbish argument....