Does earning more than £60k a year make you rich especially in London?

[Payinglotsoftax]

Labour has said that as part of their manifesto they will target earners over £60k for higher taxes. My personal view is that Jeremy Corbyn targeting those earning more than £60k a year will target some families without a high standard of living particularly in London and the south east. AIBU?

It's all relative though. In my neck of the woods £60k would be considered to be at the upper end of the pay scale.

According to this heatmap average house prices in our area are £162k. Our 4 bedroomed detached house cost £285k 13 years ago, and hasn't gone up very much in value.

In London £60k won't go very far.

I live in London and £60k does not make you rich believe me.
However it depends where in London you live and your lifestyle.
There is rich and poor everywhere .
I'm in the middle and never take anything for granted.

There are ways of mitigating the 60% in between the £100-£120k by trading off taxable earnings.

Many corporate positions will help you do this until you jump above that pay grade.

That 60% is the highest tax band in Europe.

MsJuniper the question would be then (not MY question mind you, just the usual one levied at those at the other end of the scale) why should you live in London? Workers commute, extended child care can cover the greater time out of the house, jobs exist elsewhere in the country, why should anyone get to live in London if a more highly taxed 70k can't cover it? Where are all there people saying "you can't afford to live in London, you'll have to move"?

Yes, quality of life would reduce, you'd feel poorer (you might well be poorer) but it's what's expected at the other end the income scale when the country decides these families will have to make do with a bit less.

If you're employed in say a bank and are earning £150k+ there's no way you can avoid PAYE, you are an employee and you get paid at the end of the month same as the employees on £20k. I'm sure there are ways around this if you are a business owner or self employed by utilising partners allowances and making them nominal directors or having a clever accountant but when you are employed in a big corporate you're paying your taxes same as anyone else. That's not a problem BTW it's as it should be it's just to explain that nothing magic taxwise happens to employees who are high earners

It's subjective isn't it? If you're on £60k and struggling, you're going to say "it's not rich".

From my perspective - we get £60 child tax credit a week and that is it at the moment as we are moving and there is a 3 week gap between DH's job ending and mine starting, so no opportunity to claim any other help during this 3 week gap - £60k is very, very rich. Unimaginably rich, especially if that's just one person's income. We're in the position at the moment of going without food, to ensure that DD eats, so it does seem rich.

One person's rich is another person's comfortable and another person's struggling. I don't think it's fair to tell anyone else that their perspective of rich is wrong.

Epoxy Your comparison doesn't quite work. Someone whose benefits have been cut is reliant on the State and so cannot afford to be choosy. As harsh as that sounds. A high earner has earned their money and can be choosy ... they are complaining about their own money after all. Someone on benefits is complaining about free money given to them.

Yes I know it's not easy to move etc , but just had to reply to your post.

Our work is London-centric. Neither of us could get jobs in our chosen professions outside of London unless we moved abroad.

But that's besides the point. London should be affordable for everyone who wants to live here. It is the UHNW folks who have made it the playground for the super rich and driven central prices sky high.

Ah Spice I knew that would be someone's retort, as if the low earners are given their money and the high earners earned theirs. Although my point doesn't require people to be on benefits for it to be relevant, people on here regularly tell those on low incomes that they "can't afford this and that or to live there" or whatever else. Those people have earned their money too.

But essentially the difference between us is the right and the left world view, fundamentally. There is less and less difference between the two (earned vs. benefits) as you move left on the political spectrum, because in a socialist world view we are all contributors to society and should all contribute as we are able. People on benefits are not penalised as contributing less (whose to say they are, or that it's their fault, if they're looking after dependants or disabled or just temporarily fallen on hard times), they are purely asked to contribute as they are able. High earners are not lorded as "more worthy" because the people who primarily benefit from their hard work and higher earning are THEM. They are simply asked to contribute to society as they are able.

The conservative (small "c") world view is one of greater personal independence, less taxation and social contribution in favour of personal reward for personal endeavour. I just don't feel that way. No matter how comfortable or wealthy I were I wouldn't be comfortable if my countymen were living in what I believed were uncivilised and inhumane conditions in our shared nation, no matter how much harder I felt I worked than them. I wouldn't be very proud of myself or my nation. I'm not just working for myself and my family, I'm working for my broader nation family, and the better I do in life the better I want life to be in Britain; not least for those who have a much harder life than me, lest my children fall on hard times too.

It is when most of your living costs are covered by expenses.

Why is anyone who is grafting for every penny seen as 'more able' to contribute than those who inherited or have made massive profits through property? I will never understand that.

I guess I just have to accept that wc people - who don't have the opportunity to inherit or make gains through property - are NOT allowed to progress under Labour.

This policy absolutely favours MC people - and the annoying thing is your average MC leftie, with their nice house near a nice school, won't admit it.

I've supported my family on a total household income of £8.8k pa before now, and that included mortgage payments so it's hard to see how £70k pa isn't considered wealthy. I don't live in London, but do live in a city.

Of course all my statement above proves is that it's all about perspective. I think if you've got it, you allocate it, you tie it up, you commit to spending on an ongoing basis, you fund a lifestyle. And you don't see any of it as spare. Everyone does exactly the same thing there, it's just funding different things and ways of being and standards of living.

Epoxy why shouldn't average-waged people live in London? Should it only be for the super-rich?

"Why not move?" is always a question asked on MN - I grew up in London (Z4) and want to stay near family for my son - both in terms of family relationships and also help with childcare. That's the only reason.

If you read my posts I have said that I support high taxes for high earners and I agree with the socialist principles as set out by a pp. I appreciate the amount we do earn - five years ago we lived on less than half that so I know well what it's like to live on mw or benefits. It's just that 2 people on average London wages cannot buy even a small home and the shared ownership system is not managed as well as it could be as the homes are overpriced. We were renting but the house we lived in was sold so I spent a long time looking into all our options.

The question was whether it was reasonable to tax people more on salaries over £70k when London costs of living are so high and my answer would be yes.

How though purple? How much was your mortgage repayment when you were earning £8.8k a year?!

histinyhandsarefrozen how about a massive hike in inheritance tax (say 75%), a clamp down on tax evasion (concentrating on very high net worth individuals and corporations) and a tax on high earners?

It sounds as if you just think you shouldn't have to pay tax on your high earnings because you label yourself working class for some reason - you bring class into every single thing post.

Crumbs* you appear to be labouring under the wilful delusion you live in a meritocracy - which very obviously isn't true.

Sorry that should be a tax increase for high earners - deleted part of the paragraph and pressed post too early.

Full time job two income household to get mortgage, switched to part time student, part time work. Had a surprise baby, happily, then unhappily became single parent within weeks because XDP 'can't do babies'

Mortgage was 2/3 of my monthly income, as it is for many folks on here doing the breakdowns. I paid it, after a fashion. Often not on time. Russian roulette with the other bills. A trip to court once. Didn't have hot water or heating for nine months. But I took care of my DC and I kept the house and I completed my studies and I got a better job and a better DH. But still, my household income was £8.8k. It happens.

Crumbs taxing spending penalises the worst off and rewards those who hoard their wealth without contributing to the economy.

The very poorest, who have to spend most of their income on basic living already pay the largest percentage of their income in tax because of VAT and other non income related taxes.

It sounds as if you just think you shouldn't have to pay tax on your high earnings because you label yourself working class for some reason

Oh that's rubbish. If your policy is chasing down working people's salaried income and NOT people's inherited assets and NOT capital gains and NOT self-employed people's tax evasion and NOT corporate tax avoidance and NOT dual income house-holds who often far out earn 70k, then don't kid yourself that you are 'chasing rich people'. Rich people are going to do fine with you.

This is having a go at an easy target - and most people can see that.

MsJuniper I wasn't suggesting the "why not move?" argument was my argument; I hate it when i see it in relation to high earners, low earners or benefits claimants! I was only pointing out the inconsistency of opinion held by many and using your situation as an example, which perhaps made it seem as if I were setting out my stall in opposition to your own - sorry!

If your policy is chasing down working people's salaried income and NOT people's inherited assets and NOT capital gains and NOT self-employed people's tax evasion and NOT corporate tax avoidance and NOT dual income house-holds who often far out earn 70k, then don't kid yourself that you are 'chasing rich people'.

I'm no expert so I'm not going to get looking up links and what have you, but I'm pretty sure Labour have policies regarding all of the above...

The good thing for those who think higher earners should move out of London (just for arguments sake!) is that many will be moving to Dublin, Berlin, Paris, etc as Brexit takes hold.

Ah I see Epoxy. I think we broadly agree!

I don't think anyone is really bothered about a few high earners leaving the country tbh

Yes, histinyhandsarefrozen you are correct. And then London will be ripe for takeover by wealthy foreign investors. Oh the irony. It will be devoid of a beating central heart even more than it already is.

I categorically would not stay in the event of increased taxes (property, inheritance, assets, or income over 70k) unless I knew that the increased taxation was going towards a more equitable society. And so far, it is not.

I agree entirely with epoxy but I will be damned if I will stay and face higher than 47% tax and see it go to line the pockets of the rich and watch a further and further segregated society.

And no, we don't live in a meritocracy. It is farcical to think that we do. The UK has the 2nd lowest social mobility of the developed world. Only topped by the good ole USA.