Reply to: £100,000 per year

[DimPrawn]

Yes done my "back of an Excel" calculation. To make it revenue neutral for everyone earning over 150K means 45% would need to start at ~£110K (150 - 10* (20/5) ).

But that doesn't factor in those currently earning 100-150K, so it will have to drop further - and I don't have the data available to crunch that.

Reckon my initial guess of 75-80K probably isn't that far out - and that's what makes it tricky - the government needing to admit that the effective top rate really starts at half the advertised level.

Labour in 70's

In 1971 the top rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%. A surcharge of 15% kept the top rate on investment income at 90%.In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%. With the investment income surcharge this raised the top rate on investment income to 98%, the highest permanent rate since the war.

Tories following

Margaret Thatcher, who favoured indirect taxation, reduced personal income tax rates during the 1980s. In the first budget after her election victory in 1979, the top rate was reduced from 83% to 60% and the basic rate from 33% to 30%.[18] The basic rate was also cut for three successive budgets - to 29% in the 1986 budget, 27% in 1987 and to 25% in 1988. The top rate of income tax was cut to 40% in the 1988 budget. The investment income surcharge was abolished in 1985.

Under the government of John Major the basic rate was reduced in stages to 23% by 1997


Under Komrade Korbyn

100% taxation, the 40 million state workers on equal pay means there is no need for income above the govt and union approved regulated amount. Workers with special status get a weekly potato on top of this.

[centurian]

+1

50% at 150k or even 100k - fine, but having this insulting contraption of removing personal allowance at 100k is an insult, then it gets worse - personal allowance is INCREASING for most people, but it just widens 60% band for those between 100 and 120k.

Yes done my "back of an Excel" calculation. To make it revenue neutral for everyone earning over 150K means 45% would need to start at ~£110K (150 - 10* (20/5) ).

But that doesn't factor in those currently earning 100-150K, so it will have to drop further - and I don't have the data available to crunch that.

Reckon my initial guess of 75-80K probably isn't that far out - and that's what makes it tricky - the government needing to admit that the effective top rate really starts at half the advertised level.

[AtW]

Given Komrade Korbyn's plan to deal with immigration appears to consist of turning us into a third world Muslim country so there's no reason to come here, you can see why.

If you can't be turned...

[LondonManc]

Still???

Given Komrade Korbyn's plan to deal with immigration appears to consist of turning us into a third world Muslim country so there's no reason to come here, you can see why.

[AtW]

I'm a Tory btw.

Still???

[unixman]

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...

There is nothing wrong or hypocritical about being lefty and rich. As long as you are not pretending to be poor. None of these lot would deny their riches. I'm a Tory btw.

[AtW]

I wish it was 45% by the back door - it hurts way more than that.

When it was first introduced, it was 50% by the back door - when it came in, I thought - why not just start the 50% band at 100K and keep the personal allowance.

The problem is now is that the 60% band as now much wider (as the personal allowance has grown), so to make it revenue neutral would mean starting the 45% band at ~£75K-80K - hard to calculate exactly - as we don't have exact amount of people at each 000s split - but it will certainly be lower than 100K

+1

50% at 150k or even 100k - fine, but having this insulting contraption of removing personal allowance at 100k is an insult, then it gets worse - personal allowance is INCREASING for most people, but it just widens 60% band for those between 100 and 120k.

[centurian]

The reduction in tax benefits after you get to 100K is 45% tax by the back door

I wish it was 45% by the back door - it hurts way more than that.

When it was first introduced, it was 50% by the back door - when it came in, I thought - why not just start the 50% band at 100K and keep the personal allowance.

The problem is now is that the 60% band as now much wider (as the personal allowance has grown), so to make it revenue neutral would mean starting the 45% band at ~£75K-80K - hard to calculate exactly - as we don't have exact amount of people at each 000s split - but it will certainly be lower than 100K

[AtW]

Komrade Korbyn will have Tractor Production studies at Polytechnic of Korbyngrad (formally known as Oxford)

FTFY

[DodgyAgent]

Ha ha. I can remember a lot of poor Tory voters many years ago. They were claiming benefits, living in council houses and as soon as Thatcher announced the great council house sell-of, they all became Tories and bought their properties. I think you ought to read your original post carefully again...

meaning what? they should have been made to stay in their council houses?

[vetran]

Komrade Korbyn will have Tractor Production studies at University of Korbyngrad (formally known as Oxford)

FTFY

[DaveB]

Since when has the nations wealth been a specific set amount?

It isn't. Thats why it uses percentages.

Do try and keep up.

I'd have thought even a dodgy agent would under stand the concept of a percentage. You do try and make them as large as possible after all.

[DaveB]

This is full of twisted logic and wild assumptions that really tell us more about you than any objective analysis of middle class people.

A bit like your own posts then.

[darmstadt]

This is full of twisted logic and wild assumptions that really tell us more about you than any objective analysis of middle class people.

I think you will find people like me want everyone to have the opportunity and aspirations to lift themselves out of the clutches of the state. Socialists on the other hand want victims so it plays to their narrative to have as many people dependent on the state as they can. It is no coincidence that the poorer areas of society and the least efficient structures of services are controlled by socialists. The notion of people becoming like you - rich , independent and free from state services is horrifying. I do not know why people like you do not want others to enjoy what you enjoy (I suspect I know).

Since when have the poor been Tory voters? I am interested to know why middle class people are so selfish and you being one of them are not. In the realm of "caring" perhaps you can tell me which section of society is the one that is so caring?

Ha ha. I can remember a lot of poor Tory voters many years ago. They were claiming benefits, living in council houses and as soon as Thatcher announced the great council house sell-of, they all became Tories and bought their properties. I think you ought to read your original post carefully again...

[DodgyAgent]

And who kills these aspirations? Who creates the poor public services, poor education services, etc.? I suspect its these affluent middle classes who vote for successive right wing governments who it seems there main aim in life is to keep the lower classes downtrodden and create a stable voter base for themselves ensuring that they will never suffer...

This is full of twisted logic and wild assumptions that really tell us more about you than any objective analysis of middle class people.

I think you will find people like me want everyone to have the opportunity and aspirations to lift themselves out of the clutches of the state. Socialists on the other hand want victims so it plays to their narrative to have as many people dependent on the state as they can. It is no coincidence that the poorer areas of society and the least efficient structures of services are controlled by socialists. The notion of people becoming like you - rich , independent and free from state services is horrifying. I do not know why people like you do not want others to enjoy what you enjoy (I suspect I know).

Since when have the poor been Tory voters? I am interested to know why middle class people are so selfish and you being one of them are not. In the realm of "caring" perhaps you can tell me which section of society is the one that is so caring?