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

[soapbox]

????

If people earn what they are 'worth', why is a carer in a nursing home paid so badly? To the point that home owners have been protesting about immigration policies because they rely on cheap, easily exploited immigrant labour?

Because the 'worth' of caring for the physical, emotional and intellectual needs of a vulnerable elderly person is at least as much as a management consultant and a lot more than the big swinging dicks in the finance houses who it turns out couldn't even add up. IMO.

If the bins aren't collected, the graves aren't dug or the trains don't run, society notices a lot faster than if a management consultant takes a day off. Not that I've got anything against individual management consultants, but the relative rates of pay are bizarre, IMO.

but the NIC is only an extra 1%

Wilfsell - i mentioned in my post most low earners are in receipt of some kind of benefits so yes of course they contribute but not on the same scale as the high earners. And yes they're a minority but many of them earn considerably more, therefor contribute considerably more. People who are earning millions for example. I never said anything judgemental about people who earn less, more whatever. Some people on here are seriously judging those who earn more as all being greedy horrible people.

It is about generating work/money for others though, not about moral worth.

I shouldn't have to. It makes total sense.

If someone earns £200K, they are paying another £10K in tax per year.

If I really have to prove it to you, then I'll get the figures of how many people earn how much money, but if he didn't think it would (i) get him a bit of cash and (ii) be a vote winner, I don't suppose mr. Darling would have bothered.

The 40% tax bracket, FWIW, kicks in at a whopping £34K. Woozers. I do wonder why I went to University for 6 years and have 3 degrees. Might as well have just signed up for income support and saved myself the bother.

edam - because the jobs you mention are actually low-skilled jobs that can be filled by people with few (or no) qualifications, immigrants etc and which don't add much value (however worthy). So their value to society is low.

Jobs that require skills that are rare and that add a lot of value are well-paid...

I intend to cut my hours so I only earn £149,999.00. DP intends to do the same.

S'what I said earlier KatieDD.Who gives a monkies about the people stuck in the middle?

Edam. You make a good point: Make that to the LABOUR govt. They are the ones adament the only way out of this is to SPEND MORE. It's madness.

What you say is true and makes much sense but we are going in the opposite direction.

If you do the maths it wouldn't be half their income (obviously it couldn't be if the top rate was 45% + 1% uncapped NIC), but it would be a significant proportion.
But as others have said there are very few people in this country who actually earn more than £150k, as a percentage.
It is a long time since I did economics, but wasn't the tax rate for maximun tax-take 60%?
FWIW, as an accountant, I KNOW that some of my clients would go overseas if the tax rate got too high, in some cases taking their personal wealth (and tax take), in others taking jobs aswell.

"Jobs that require skills that are rare and that add a lot of value are well-paid... " Hmm. Tell that to university lecturers, won't you, Anna?

Swedes, I guess that post was sarcastic, but I think you might find it MUCH truer than you imagine.

there is more than 1 way to skin a cat andn all that.

And i agree it's the middle earners who get the worst deal really.

OH fgs - half income indeed - I'm a high earner, 6 figures but not over the £150k threshold and I was doing a back of fag packet tax calc today to estimate my tax bill and it came in at 34% of my income. Admittedly being self emplyed I pay lower NI (and get fewer benefits) but NOBODY in this country pays half their income in taxes. The maximum rate you will suffer is 41% on income above £40k. And I'm a chartered accountant so I have a slight clue.

dont be silly wilfsell, the figures dont stack up let alone make a pyramid.

Lecturers in business schools are quite well paid, actually .

And i agree it's the middle earners who get the worst deal really.

If someone earns £200K, they are paying another £10K in tax per year.

than what? Do you mean with the latest tax change? Because it makes a difference of 2.5k per year I think

Swedes

But not lecturers in other subjects, Anna. Or does anything other than business not count? And besides, not all business school lecturers are well paid...

If someone earns £200k they're paying an extra £2.5k tax not £10k. They're paying 40% on the £50k above £150k at the moment - at 45% that would be £22.5k.

'yay tax the rich'...even if only to make being a big earner less appealing.

You are also taxed on other factors such as company car, company credit card etc.

it's not coming in till 2010, is it? why so long anyone know?

The 40% tax bracket, FWIW, kicks in at a whopping £34K.

£40k actually - £6,035 personal allowance and 20% on the next £34,800.