What do you think of the 5% tax hike for those earning more than £150k - good or bad?

[soapbox]

????

that was to twinset btw.

TSAP - yes indeed. As can be seen by this thread

Yes but QC, the bottom 90% of earners in the UK are earning LESS than 50k...

I dread to think how low the bottom 50% income percentile is: would you like me to find out?

QC I'm sure the teachesr, nurses, policemen etc are thrilled that you think so highly of them

Isn't it those earning less than £25k or whatever the median observation was in that study?

The thing about income richness is that it really is only income. You come slap bang against the reality of the difference between income and capital when you come to buy a house in London.

There are lots of retired people primarily who are capital rich but income poor. A lot of income rich who have mega mortgage millstones around their neck probably don't feel terribly wealthy ...

It's a touch under 19k for 2006, doubtless slightly more for 2008.

So...

50% of all people earn LESS than 19k a year an contribute 10% of the tax burden

90% of all people earn LESS than 50k a year and contribute 78% of the tax burden.

Therefore, despite the sterling contribution of the super-rich contributing their 22%, the bulk of income tax in this country is paid by those earning UNDER 50k. Middle income and low earners.

Not sure exactly what your point is QC - you seem to be saying that there are an awful lot of people who are very underpaid in this country and I can't believe that's what you meant!

I don't think quattro was slating the teachers etc, I know lots of people pay more tax than me but I know that I contribute in a different way to the system. The system needs high earners and people like me to work in the system.

Ducky "I'm sure the teachesr, nurses, policemen etc are thrilled that you think so highly of them"

How on earth have you got from my posts to the fact that I allegedly dislike teachers, nurses, policemen ...? What are you talking about?

I thought QC was saying that the high earners pay the bulk of the tax and support the rest of us layabouts whereas in fact as wilf has just pointed out this is far from the case, but I may have the wrong person - maybe it was theseriousone I was thinking of in which case sorry for my confusion (its my public sector brain, it doesn't work v well )

lol ducky.

Hang on Wilf, the bottom 50% of the population (that's half, you know) contribute precisely 10% of the total income tax bill.

Not that I want to term the bottom half as a bunch of layabouts (those were your words) but they ain't paying much tax ...

some of these are teachers, nurses and policemen

TSAP - in response to earlier comment:

"Someone did say quite early in the thread that the only people who support the rise are those who don;t earn the cash.

Not at all - I earn the amount to get the higher tax, and as I said earlier i dont mind the rise in tax if it helps people who genuinely need it

I am engaging in a debate with Will who is arguing that the middle income people pay more tax. This is not true. Will, you are talking nonsense when you claim

"Therefore, despite the sterling contribution of the super-rich contributing their 22%, the bulk of income tax in this country is paid by those earning UNDER 50k. Middle income and low earners."

Here, are the statistics again:

The top 1% of earners contribute 22% of total income tax (these are people who earn over £100k)
The top 10% of earners contribute 50% of total income tax (these are people who earn over £50k)
The top 50% of earners contribute 90% of total income tax (you have supplied figures showing that these are people who earn less than £19k.)

The reason that you are talking nonsense is that you are claiming that people who earn £50k and under are middle income earners. In fact your own statistics show that middle income is around £19k. Therefore those earning middle and low incomes (the bottom 50%) have contributed only 10% of the income tax take. So therefore, higher than average earners (those earning above £19k) are paying 90% of the tax bill.

You were (deliberately?) distorting the where the average was in a ridiculous attempt to prove your own point.

Ha, gotcha.

'bunch of layabouts' was indeed MY term, not QC's. But I hope you can all see, in context, that I patently do NOT believe low income earners are. And I am grateful to them all for propping up the public sector

And QC patently thinks something else.

Oh come on! you know you're beaten...

you wanted to argue - as did the other apologists for the rich on here - that top [shouting] TOP earners - ie all those who will be clobbered by the tax rise - were the ones propping up the public sector and govt expenditure.

And I have clearly [CLEARLY] demonstrated this is not true.

You're engaging in smoke and mirrors trying to claim that 19k is average. Of course it is if you mean median.

But weren't using that scale of reference when we started out were we?

I will not let you move my goalposts, you Renaissance capitalist dog, you.

ducky,

This is an area where misconceptions abound, like Wilf claiming that taxes are mostly paid by middle and lower income people, when in fact taxes are mostly paid by higher income people.

I honestly have no idea why you have suddenly decided to take offence about an academic debate. I have never once mentioned doctors, nurses or whoever.

triffictits it was not you.

Wheelybug on Mon 24-Nov-08 19:03:51
Obviously those who earn it aren't going to think its fair and those who do earn it won't be happy.

well of course people who earn less pay less tax, that's obvious but the fact is the people you are claiming are not contributing enough are the people who look after the rest of us and enable us to have decent well paid jobs

Not read thread but general consensus on prog I was listening to on R4 earlier was that those with such an income would

1)Provide a "Drop in the ocean" in terms of tax revenue gained in comparison with actual debt the country has

2)Have clever lawyers who would wangle it so it would be declared as capital gains tax instead.

Society needs both don;t really see what there is to fall out over.

It is a good job we are all different and motivated by different things

"you wanted to argue - as did the other apologists for the rich on here - that top [shouting] TOP earners - ie all those who will be clobbered by the tax rise - were the ones propping up the public sector and govt expenditure."

I'm interested that you know what I wanted to argue ... Why don't you look at my posts? Because that isn't the case that I have argued. I've simply demonstrated that the top 10% of taxpayers contribute precisely 50% of the income tax collected. You can always try that stunt of twisting the facts and trying to argue that the average is somewhere on the 90th percentile to prove your point ... Oh no, you already tried that and I rumbled you ...

sorry TSAP.... I thought you meant me and I wanted to make it clear I do not begrudge it at all!

Thank you for clarifying though!

Well said TSAP. 'Society needs both' We all actually need each other.

No probs triffic I could not remember who said it tbh and I know I would not want people thinking that about me.