£100,000 per year

[scooterscot]

I agree. Nearly fell off my chair after my 3rd year in Germany with a six-figured tax bill for the previous year, the current year, and the following year pre-payment. Even though my earnings in each year were different. Fortunately the listened to reason.

[AtW]

UK must move to household based income tax like in France: wife+husband each on £60k should not be better off tax wife than in case of wife at home + husband £120k.

[DaveB]

The perils of earning a £100,000 salary - BBC News

it;'s a bit of a bummer to try and claim to be a socialist on what is probably about the equivalent of what your average contractor earns. £100k puts you into the top 2% of highest earners in the country. This does not exactly elevate you onto the moral high ground when complaining about other people being rich. in fact it sets you up as a potential object of envy and hatred to 98% of the population.

it is not exactly a fortune either as you can only choose between paying a relatively high mortgage or send one child to private school - tough choice eh? I know rich socialists like to show off socialist values to avoid attracting the attention of other envious socialists - a trick that Russel Brand Charlotte Church and the rest of the ilk of wealthy luvvie socialists try to con us with. The difference being they earn so much that a tax hike will make no discernable difference to their wealth. They also have access to all sorts of International/offshore tax accounting scams anyway. Tax hikes on £100k salaries are the easy targets.

I am afraid however that those of us who are proud of our Tory values can see as can most others what pathetic little cowardly hypocrites you all are- just like this one Tony Benn left £5m to his children in his will and not to good causes | Daily Mail Online But there again benn could afford to be a socialist.

So who exactly are you referring to in that article? The ex City Banker, The GP or David Cameron? I didn't see any other candidates for Socialist of the year in there

Or were you trying to get some sympathy for your poor Tory mates who are struggling to get by on only £100k a year? Life must be so hard.

Or were you, as usual, trying to spin it into another anti-social(ist) rant despite there not being a shred of actual evidence or facts available to back you up in the article you quoted?

BTW. Being a Socialist doesn't mean you can't do well for yourself, nor does it mean you can't look after your family. It does mean you give a tulip about those at the bottom of the ladder and do what you can to bring about equality and welfare for those in need. In Benn's case's through a life in politics spent fighting for just that.

[scooterscot]

UK must move to household based income tax like in France: wife+husband each on £60k should not be better off tax wife than in case of wife at home + husband £120k.

Here in Deutsche land tax code III is the sweet spot. Cash accounting taxed on the household income/dependents and not on my earnings.

[Zero Liability]

Being a Socialist doesn't mean you can't do well for yourself, nor does it mean you can't look after your family. It does mean you give a tulip about those at the bottom of the ladder and do what you can to bring about equality and welfare for those in need.

No, it just means outsourcing those professed ends to a government, which may or may not share them and usually is incapable even in principle of attaining them. You can do all the above without being a "socialist", and certainly with less of the sanctimony.

[centurian]

UK must move to household based income tax like in France: wife+husband each on £60k should not be better off tax wife than in case of wife at home + husband £120k.

2 x 60K gross = 84K net
1 x 120K gross = 73K net

11K less

In a "spouse at home" scenario, that gap might be made up in savings from things like childcare etc.

It's the single parent on 120K that gets screwed - they pay the highest tax - plus having significantly higher costs.

[scooterscot]

2 x 60K gross = 84K net
1 x 120K gross = 73K net

11K less

In a "spouse at home" scenario, that gap might be made up in savings from things like childcare etc.

It's the single parent on 120K that gets screwed - they pay the highest tax - plus having significantly higher costs.

Perhaps a good reason to make sure you choose your spouse carefully. Unless widowed, which then is plane jane wrong.

[zeitghost]

How many little old ladies earn £100 k per year?

He doesn't care.

The MauveMonkey reckons anyone with a house is a Boomer & should be taxed to extinction.

HTH.

[PurpleGorilla]

He doesn't care.

The MauveMonkey reckons anyone with a house is a Boomer & should be taxed to extinction.

HTH.

http://www.cih.org/news-article/disp...housing_market

[DodgyAgent]

If people want to call themselves socialists - It is a free country. What I have a problem with is that people who do so somehow think that they are in some way being "virtuous and considerate" of those less well off them themselves. They have the badge so they can go around armed with the sanctity of their moral saintliness sniping at those who do not. Usually "those" are the people and groups that are more successful than they are.

There is no system and there never has been that has been creative or virtuous that has not been primarily driven by activities brought about by the freedom of the individual. Even in societies that are well off the socialist elements hold them back instead of what should be happening is that they should compliment the capitalist system. Very rarely does one ever see public service delivery being made to work or even challenged. the default attitude to the poor is that they should be prevented from working and paid to sit at home and know their place. Not only is this attitude deeply debilitating for the poor it is also highly condescending. The reason why socialists sign up to this attitude is because actually they only believe in themselves and without victims everywhere they have no totem on which to pin their lie.

It goes further. The reason why wealthy individuals such as Russel Brand, Charlotte Church, Daniel Craig, Tony Benn call themselves socialists is to deflect attention away from the fact that they themselves have vast amounts of money (I include lefty contractors in this). Because they support left wing causes - all of which make problems of poverty worse- they think that this gives them moral currency that they can spend haranguing others. What these people are actually doing is trapping the poor into a system of state dependence at the same time ensuring that dependence remains and kidding the poor into believing that the rich are their enemies.

Good Tories and Good labour people see this and are trying to reform the public services in order that they are run for the benefit of those that depend upon them. Unfortunately so resistant to change have these institutions become - ably supported by champagne socialists - that change is impossible. But hey what does it matter to rich socialist?

if you so called "socialists" would rather spend your money on keeping poor people in their place then fine. The rest of us however will keep spending our money on school fees, flash motors, lap dancers etc where it goes to stimulate actual jobs and inventiveness. I know which one of us is the virtuous group and certainly isn't the socialists.