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.

libra you were rofflingly funny somewhere else

anyway it's obviously because they feel that the "less fortunate" could be where they were if they made the same effort

right or wrong, I'm sure that's why

erm not sure if you are being sarcastic but if not glad to make you smile!

You are probably right but I don't understand how anyone can think like that. Somewhere on the way up to that salary level many people will have taken advantage of our free schooling system (that includes Uni for many on here) etc, healthcare or benefit system.

I think my expression "less fortunate" is a poor choice because lots of people on a lesser salary or not able to work because of various valid reasons won't see themselves as less fortunate. So apologies if I offended anyone with that statement.

I'm moving from SE Asia to London

By the way - there are very few jobs here in Singapore. They tried to fire me after I had my baby, Mr Bonkers is coming back to London -- although he never felt the benefit of the tax as he paid a hypothetical higher-than-uk tax and got paid in pounds. Effetively his pay ell by a third in the last 16 months because of the exchange rate.

Just so you know, rent is EXORBITANT here in Singapore (and Hong Kong) and there's effectively a dual economy, so living expenses are still high for Ang Moh, sometimes higher. Little things like shopping in the market, foodstalls...

The cost from scratch to cook a lasagne is about 90 bucks here - 45 pounds! A Medela Swing breastpump costs 220 pounds, a Bugaboo about a grand...Marks & Spencer is a premium brand here and clothing costs 30pct more.

Anything European costs a fortune, school fees are very expensive, travel isn't cheap, healthcare not cheap (my birth cost 30k dollars)

I'd go for the change of life and experience, but it ain't cheap. Not cheap at all.

Oh, a normal car costs about 30 grand - nothing posh and second hand.

So although I paid little tax when I was working here (about 13 pct) I more than took up the slack with cleaners/healthcare/shopping/travel

I am not bitter about taxes helping out people less fortunate than us. Especially for those whose circumstances are out of their control.

I am bitter about people who feel the need to comment about how much we earn or what we can afford to do. At my poorest moment with 2 dc, utilities being cut off and struggling to pay for food I never once begrudged those on high wages having more than me. It just made me more determined to get to the place I wanted to be.

"anyway it's obviously because they feel that the "less fortunate" could be where they were if they made the same effort"

You nailed it. I am not talking about people with disabilities or personal circumstances that prevent them from work opportunities. I am talking about those who could spend less time worrying about what other people have and try to determine their own life.

tiredemma - nothing exciting. I process mail. It is backbreaking, mindnumbing, dirty work. People treat mail boxes in the street like rubbish bins.

Gmarks- I thought it was something far more exciting

no I wasn't being sarcastic

I can see both sides -- I can just see that that is the way people could think. In fact I can imagine that the ones who have "worked their way up" could be even more resentful of "welfare scroungers" (please these are not my thoughts) than those who've had it come to them more easily.

I don't know. Sometimes that's an impression I get.

spokette way, way back! I'm glad you had such a positive experience but you can't extrapolate that to all third world countries, but I think you said that anyway. There are some cultures which don't have that built in alms thing and it can be brutal. I suppose it doesn't matter for the debate but it's just westerners are greedy, Third World people are more altruistic -- that grates a little bit.

Gmarks you seem to be changing your mind about what you are bitter about. It's a good thing that not everyone who works hard needs a high renumeration otherwise your children wouldn't have teachers and your aches and pains wouldn't get seen to.

Riven - precisely - especially if they decide to use their hard earned wealth to fund a private care home - as they're paid even worse than the public sector ones (hard to believe given that public sector care workers are paid so little - but often true)

'Why are people who have to pay a higher rate of tax so bitter about helping out people who have been less fortunate than themselves?'

Especially when proportionally little of tax monies even go towards this.

Ever tried to do a job like banking, investment management, financial planning in a country ravaged by war? Or terrorism?

A peaceful society costs. A lot. Keeping a society free from attack and peaceful allows what we know as civilisation, and that includes being able to progress to do jobs like banking.

Knowing there's a road to get your kid to school, or a public transport system that works, so you can spend your time getting yourself to work.

Knowing there's little chance of your kid getting kidnapped at school or on the way two or from, or yourself to or from work, that you can rely on your staff to do these functions and not kidnap your child for ransom.

Supermarkets that have reliable stock so you don't have to worry about what you'll have for dinner, or where your staff can spend relatively little time preparing dinner and perform other functions.

A society where doctors and dentists can go private and then you don't have to spend two days walking to get to medical help and risk your life on the way or worry about how you're going to source clean water en route.

Do you think that's free?

Have you lived in a place where that is not so and seen how many suits you see trooping into offices to make a big salary?

How does one who's so ignorant that they don't or can't realise that a) a peaceful, well-functioning society is the only reason thy are even priviledged enough to be able to focus on earning and not waste time worrying about their very lives and health b) such a peaceful, well-functioning society requires an enormous amount of money to run even get to the point where they're renumerated so handsomely?

Honestly, do people who are so well-compensated really think taxes are all about helping those less fortunate themselves?

I hang my head in despair!

The mind truly boggles.

yeah expat but people see themselves

a. paying school fees
b. paying private medical
c. bins not emptied regularly
d. police not doing job
e. etc etc got to go

i don't hold with it but that's a way of looking at it

ROFL. So that's where the additional tax revenue will go to - cleaning the streets from child kidnappers and keeping the war in Iraq from coming home to roost.

And here was little ol' me, thinking they needed the money because their own incompetent policies bankrupted the country.

P.S.: One way to make sure your country doesn't get "ravaged by war" is to avoid starting wars of convenience. And this would actually save you money.

You know, bored, they're very, very lucky that's all they've got to moan about and see.

They really are.

And woefully ignorant and insular as well.

Because if the police really weren't doing their job they'd be the first to know about it, as a high-earner would likely be first against the wall, IYKWIM.

I mean, if I were a kidnapper, I wouldn't waste my time with someone I know didn't have the means to pay any ransom.

And yet they're the intelligent ones?

Sorry, I forgot to add arrogant next to ignorant and insular.

Cote's always got a response like that. Funny, coming from where you do, too.

But not surprising on such a thread.

What is that supposed to mean?

Oh, Cote, you've given enough of your background away on here.

And my bad, tbh, because I wasn't seeing it from the point of view of the Middle East, but from a Latin American one, as in, government by warring cartels.

My apologies, we all have our biases.

Sorry, wee man is getting fractious atm.

What she said.... times two

Into logical fallacies this fine morning, aren't we, expat?

First came the red herring ("but keeping streets safe costs money, and your kids are safe from kidnappers etc"). Invalid argument, of course, since gangs weren't kidnapping kids before and streets won't be any safer with this additional tax revenue, all of which will go to keeping the country financially afloat.

Then came the ad hominem - attack the opponent, rather than the argument. Where I come from and what you (mistakenly) feel that means has zero relevance to the debate, of course.

Agree with megbusset

I honestly have no idea why people think they can't live a very blessed and lucky life on 150k !!! You are basically saying "I am really well off but it's NOT ENOUGH, I NEED MOOOOORE!"

It sounds awful, sorry

Sorry, had to deal with DD last night so have only just saw the responses to my thread.

This is going back to an earlier part of the thread (so apologies) but call me naive, although I know that there has been a history of socialism in the UK, I would be surprised if most people currently classified the UK as a socialist country. Of course, it has socialist aspects - universal healthcare, state ownership of public services, a comprehensive welfare system supporting millions of people etc... But I do not believe (until now) that the Labour party could be considered to be a socialist government. Socialism by its nature implies economic equality for all individuals, even through means of income redistribution and I don't think that Labour has supported this view until now. I thought that the break with the old Labour way of doing things was what New Labour was all about, or am I wrong? I ask honestly as an American without the historical background here... Isn't this view what got Labour into trouble the last time?

What bothers me most is the purely cyncial, political nature of the tax rise. It will raise little money in the whole scheme of things, and it is obvious that Brown's government has done this for political reasons (to put the Tories on the spot) and not because it will actually make a difference to the huge hole that this Government has got this country into. Everyone is talking about the 50% tax rise, and not the other parts of the budget which are shocking.

If I could direct my increased taxes to something worthy (ie better schools, better healthcare) I would most certainly do it willingly. But I fear that it will go into the big pot of waste - perhaps I will buy another Labour PM a sink plug. How's that for putting my money to good use.

Hedge do you actually have children?
If so, you and your dh are incredibly selfish people.

Your motivation to move is purely selfish greed. To keep as much money as you possibly can. Will your kids be happy in Asia while you are counting your cash?