quite, I don't earn enormous amounts, but enough not to get any benefits. My Mrs had to give up work due to various reasons, and it's entirely possible that a couple earning the same amount combined gross as me will be entitled to benefits, get 2x the personal allowance etc etc

edit: and the above is of course before any further tax rises

 

I'm not quite sure why you keep reading stuff in my posts that just isn't there?

When did I say that success in life is measured by money?

You're coming across as extremely judgemental and with a large chip on your shoulder.

 

Leaked Labour draft manifesto, oh dear. Re-nationalise everything and borrow to the hilt.

 

It doesn't say anything of the sort. Unless you have more details than the news outlets that I've seen?

 

Don't get me wrong it's completely out of step with where the electorate are. That said let's judge it on what it actually says, rather than completely inaccurate comments like 'nationalise everything'.
You are a an effing hypocrite btw, you whinge and whine about bias news comments, then trumpet bs yourself.

 

Not verbatum, but that is how it will be painted by the press and opposition.


I actually think, if properly managed/controlled, trains and power grid should be under the control of the country

It never going to be done by Labour

 

The problem with increasing the taxes for the highest earners is, firstly its a relatively low number of people compared to medium and lower earners, and secondly they are the people who are anyway doing everything they can to minimise their taxes. So while its a very popular policy for most people, the reality is it does very little to increase tax revenue. The 1p increase to the lower rate will always bring in more money then any increase to the highest rate!

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload.../Table_2.5.pdf

You can see the highest earners pay virtually all the tax

 

You looking at the average figure or total? According to that table those on 30k/50k provide the most tax

 

That's my point! Yes, the highest earners have the highest tax bill, but there are so few of them, the total revenue from high earners is eclipsed by the revenue from the masses!

 

I see Jezzas got new suit

Mus be confident !

 

Gotta love Labours policies

They've pretty much painted a picture of solving every problem in the country by taxing the highest earners a bit more.

 

Paul Nuttalls - of the Ukips - on the telly.

 

 

Yep. It gets bandied about lots. I've done it on at least one occasion.

"...Nothing......nothiiiing..."

FAF

 

But I think........!!!!!!!!!

 

Because 80% of British people are closet racists.

 

High earners and company directors etc should pay more tax, after all they can afford it... regardless of how much difference it makes... every mickel makes a muckel... also need to reduce all this tax avoidance by the super rich... they can also afford to pay more... if nothing else it will reduce the burden on the common man / woman.

Too much injustice in the system, I'm the perfect example, paid in for 27yrs cant get a bean until I'm 67 because my wife earns too much... and she's not on anywhere near £80k... how is that fair when people like my sister and her husband have paid in bugger all and get hand outs left right and centre because they just play the system and have done since they were 18... it's just wrong however you want to look at it

 

and there is a study somewhere that i remember reading that stated
if all corperations and big buisnesses paid a genuine 15% corperation tax instead of avoiding as much as possible then no one earning less than 25k per year would pay any tax not the current 12.5k, therefore making most of the population miles better off, and guess where they would spend all the extra money they would have, ?
YOU GUESSED IT WITH THE BIG BUISNESSES AND CORPERATIONS,]ITS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE IS IT
but they just can't bear the thought of us minnions being better off so the merrtgo round continues

 

Your so right!!!Work hard ,save,buy a house............then get sick or unemployed and it's all taken away before you get a bean.If you rent you get it paid immediately & indefinitely. Have a mortgage you wait 9 months & only get the interest paid for just 2 years.You try not paying your mortgage for 9 months & see if you still have a house.If you need a care home you can kiss goodbye to all the assets you have worked all your life for.

It's such a con sold too the masses.

 

Classic Stew.

 

Ok, so you want to increase the tax on those earning over £80k AND you want to reduce benefits?

 

I've not said I want to reduce benefits... but I do think that those that pay in are entitled to get some of it back when in need and it shouldn't have anything to do with how much their partner earns.

Out here in Croatia if you don't pay in you can't take out and what you receive and for how long is related to what you paid in... which is fair in my opinion. There are of course provisions for those unable to work for what ever reason.

As for the more tax thing I wasn't specifically aiming it at people on £80k more those avoiding tax via fancy accounting, it's not fair that the poorest segment pays the highest proportion... while those on high incomes are able to work the system to avoid paying... Baring in mind that the higher rates only apply to the proportion of the income that exceeds the £80k I don't see what the problem is.

P.S, I applaud anyone that is doing well for themselves and don't begrudge them reaping the rewards from their effort and hard work... but they also need to share some of that wealth with those less fortunate, far too many people getting stupidly rich while the vast majority live hand to mouth.

Don't know what current figures are but 20yrs ago it was something like 300 people owning half the worlds wealth... which is just ridiculous... I doubt it's gotten any better for the rest of us over the past 20yrs.

 

I agree that the wealthiest should pay their fair share of tax and in many cases more tax. The problem is that even though most of us agree on that we all think that the definition of wealthy is somebody who earns more than we do lol.

I doubt anybody on about £80k a year is in any position to employ fancy tax avoidance vehicles, especially not if on PAYE.

Somebody on £80k a year pays about £25k in tax and NI

Somebody on £30k pays about £6k. They will also be eligible for child benefit so if you had two kids that would be £1800 per year. So in effect they pay £4200 a year in tax.

So that's £25,000 vs £4,200. That's over 6x more tax but they only earn x2.5 more.

I just can't see how increasing the income tax on those around the £80k mark is the answer to any problem.

Perhaps the answer is a wealth tax on those individuals with millions if not billions in assets.

 

Child benefit aside, the person on £80k still has double the net income of the guy on £30k so not such a bad deal... and to be fair £30k is hardly going to give anyone the lifestyle of the rich and famous, it's still a hand to mouth existence, all be it better than someone on £15k which a lot of people are, shop, call centre and factory workers for instance... of which there are very many.

P.S child benefit is far outweighed by child care costs at that sort of income level too as a percentage of income.

 

Considering voting for Labour?

Just remember that you're voting for a guy that made a conscious decision to **** Diane Abbott.

 

Maybe she took advantage

 

Watching Labour launch their manifesto - OMG, the second longest suicide note in history.


They are going to get smashed

 

And it won't even be funny. We'll end up with a Tory driven Brexit with nobody around to stop them.

 

Should have gone with the donkey jacket...