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

[soapbox]

????

I don't know why you can't string a sentence together twinkle. But you don't appear to be able to, first class degree or not. I could of course say something about degrees not being what they used to be but that would be unkind.

I agree, I was personal but your swingeing attacks on the majority of the population for not earning what your DH does were hugely obnoxious. But please do report my post. I'd be thrilled.

And a round of applause to PCSmum

Sorry Quattro but I already said on this thread that I had no patience with rich folk who whine about the cost of living in London.

How do they think their cleaners manage?

I think the NHS is FANTASTIC.

It has it's stagnant backwaters and faults, but I visit American boards where parents have children needing similiar treatment to my DS, and even though they are wealthy people with big policies, the money runs out. They have to choose between orthotics or physio..long-term expensive treatment eventually ruins their families. This year we have had the best treatment available in the world.

Maybe that does shine the light in the incentive route: in Scandinavia they seem to maintain incentive whilst paying bigger taxes than us. But they do get very od benefits - like the full year maternity benefit etc.

But here, people would be moaning about 'I'm child-free and my taxes fund this ridiculous aternity benefit'.

I suspect that this relationship with incentive is cultural, and individual. Some people do seem to need a high level of benefit fo themselves, rather than society as a whole, in order to wnat to be the best at what they do.

That strikes me as a bit pathetic. Isn't there ANY sense of a job well done is it's own reward? I suppose that if the job has no enjoyable visible outcome , maybe not.

And I don't think I am looking at this from my own personal perspective.

I don't live in the UK. All this is immaterial to me. I am looking at it from a political, humane perspective.

PCM - yes, sorry - I'm certanly not at war with you

I don't agree that we all want value for money from our government.

Just take a look at this thread. Compare two sets of responses:

1. The people who said "Yes let's tax the bastards until the pips squeak or they emigrate"

2. The people who said "Erm this governments been really pretty wasteful and should direct its energies towards managing the economy better".

You will find that the first camp is massively bigger than the second. I think that people think of taxing the rich by default, rather than focussing attention on making the government spend money properly and only for the public good.

I think the people who are footing the increased taxes desperately want the government to stop behaving profligately because otherwise their tax bill goes up.

Another thing to possibly think about is where the people earning loads actually get their money - one of the dads at school earns mega mega mega bucks. HE is an advertising type - owns an advertising company. Employs a team of psychiatrists to profile people's vulnerabilities in order to exploit them to sell them stuff - eg - new mums, paranoid about weight, losing husband / partner, concerned about babies safety - cue lots of ads playing on those insecurities in order to sell them stuff they don't need. Teenagers - eating disorders - diet type paraphernalie. I could go on. In my view he should be paying pretty much all of his earnings back in taxes to compensate for the massive amount of problems he is causing. Just becasue you earn loads doesn't necessarily mean you are a net contributor

I think you're being a bit simplistic quattro. I don't want to tax the rich until the pips squeak but I think our higher rate tax payers should contribute in line with other EU countires. I also think we should look at what our taxes pay for. But that is a lot harder I'm sure you'll agree and will take a lot of unravelling.

I actually think we should chuck the entire system up in the air and start again. We need something like the scandinavian system. We have a canker at the heart of our country though as a result of ancient class divides and it's going to need some work to overturn that.

But that's for another thread I suspect

Ho ho. ROFLMFAO at the idea of high earners (in hilarious parody of those terrible benefit scroungers the Daily Mail likes to whine on about) deciding that it just isn't worth it to work for their measly salaries after tax. Am tickled by that.

Well, I'm sure the cleaners of the rich have their familes nearby, Beachcomber, in order to compensate their dreadful salaries. All of them, naturally. Because it would be far too strange, as Quattrocento seems to imply, that people could earn so little without any support and live in London, wouldn't it?

Hence my comment Quat on politics of envy being used to mask the governments mistakes in handling the economy.

Going back to this morning. TheBlonde ? all those public servants in the article you linked to are the headline grabbing ones, therefore they are all on a very good wage IMO. The ones who are NOT headline grabbers (ie most of us) are left by the wayside, and yet they too do excellent and essential work.

I?d suggest that actually yes, local councils do need to pay top staff that much to attract people away from the private sector. Also do bear in mind that these people are responsible for millions of pound of public money. happywombles statement that ?I don't think it would be harder to run a council than a school and I don't think School Heads are payed more than £100,000? is nonsensical and smacks of ignorance. The local council runs all the schools, and the entire education department of a council is only one of many aspects to their work!

My problem with is with relative pay in local authorities. In recent job evaluation exercises it has been most noticeable that the salaries of the people at the top went up whereas many of those nearer the bottom ? ie the ones who actually do the work - went down. Local government pay policy is crazy.

The fact is that people who work in the commercial and financial sectors are motivated by money, therefore they demand high salaries in return for working hard. And so would I if my only purpose in life was to make money for others. Public sector workers need no such financial incentive to work hard ? the proof is in the hours and hours of unpaid overtime that we all do.

I also just wanted to make the point, in case anyone is under a misconception, that public sector final salary pension schemes (certainly the local government one) are contributory schemes.

And lol at, once again, finding another Twinkle on a thread arguing a completely opposite point of view from my own.

Anna said;

"If taxation is too high, people can't be bothered to work because the rewards for their labours become insufficient. That's all."

Then these people are either lazy, greedy or in the wrong job frankly.

Let's just consider ourselves lucky as a society that the vast majority of people don't work under this premise.

QC - No, not wholly my perspective! I DO live in London, and I earn more than £24k - but less than £50k. I have a mortgage, I have had to pay f/t childcare....but whereas somepeople (not you as ar as I can see) berate less wealthy for not working hard enough or whatever, it isn't strictly necessary to live in a house that needs a £450k mortgage! unles you have more than 4 kids, perhaps. It's CHOICE to live in a big expensive house. (and my house is nice, has a garden etc)

Anyway - that example was about how 5% of a lot has less impact than 5% of a pittance. Which i believe stands.

I don't know whether the hike is the ight thing or not...butSURELY those experiencing it can't realistically expect the rest of us to offer sympahy and hankies and come round with a casserole, can they?

Absolutely, Beachcomber. I think they'll earn rather less if they don't work at all.

quattrocento- how how how how can you feel beleagured? You have loads and loads more dosh than 99% of the population and your tax bill is going up 5%, not up 60%! I am honestly discombobulated at your apparent belief that you are poor and unable to manage on limited funds! Why do you think like this, d'you think? Did you have a very tough time financially as a child and worry you could lose it all at any time?

Going back to the argument about the enormous benefits that very wealthy people bestow on society - is it then, impossible, that a society could function without a proportion very very rich people?

Totally agree with blu 21.43

Plus, I believe in proportional taxation and in a state delivering value for money, as much as I'm uncomfortable with the expression...

OK, I see the thread has moved on too much while I've been out all day doing my public sector job. Well as long as post has been read and taken on board that's the main thing, I guess.

Let's try a little pilot project to see if we can do without high earners, Blu. Let's pay all the earnings of the people on this thread into one bank account and divide them exactly (after tax, natch) and see if we all survive.

You know what I'm getting from this thread; a thread I came into with no particular predjudice against high earners?

I'm getting that we cannot all be high earners.

Not because we are not clever enough. Not because we are not hard working enough. Not even because we don't get the same opportunities.

But because if we all want to be at the top of the heap and only look out for ourselves then society as we know it falls apart.

Nobody benefits.

I read it TM

It can function, I feel. See, in the Scandinavian countries the gap between people with a high income adn those with a low income is actually smaller than in the Us or the UK, for instance.

Let's have a mumsnet revolution. We can shoot all the greedy bourgeoisie after they've had their last fags (or just expel them if we're feeling a bit squeamish for actual violence), and pool all resources into the mumsnet collective. From each according to her ability, to each according to her need.

Quattrocento your post of 21:36 is ludicrous. Nobody needs a £450,000 mortgage even in London, and nor did they even in 2007 at the peak of the market. You are making the classic toddler's mistake of confusing want with need. Can you really not see this?

And, as others have said, it is perfectly possible to believe in progressive taxation at the same time as being critical of the way the government has handled the economy. I don't understand why you are setting up this false opposition. I am particularly critical, for example, of the way that the government allowed the banking industry to indulge in the excesses that resulted in this disastrous situation - all in the name of "wealth creation" .

Twinklemegan - you have contradicted yourself. In your post you start by saying the heads of councils need huge salaries. Then you say later on that it is the workers who earn less at the council who are actually doing the work and not being paid enough. Therefore surely those at the top of the council are paid too much and the junior workers too little?! I don't see why you need to pay over £100,000 to attract the best people. Heads of councils do not study for years to get professional qualifications like doctors do they?