• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "50% tax on 100K salaries"

Collapse

  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by Platypus View Post
    Perhaps you didn't read the thread properly?
    I said at best - this was based on small print assumption in the budget that all the rich people in the world will come settle in Britain

    Leave a comment:


  • Platypus
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    It's a load of bull anyway - this 50% tax will generate (at best) ~£2 bln at best
    Perhaps you didn't read the thread properly?

    Originally posted by Platypus
    Analysis on Sky etc is that the tax take will not increase by £1.1bn as predicted [by the chancellor]

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by SantaClaus View Post
    Can someone please ban that word from the New Liebour dictionary!
    Better ban whole Liebour party...

    Leave a comment:


  • SantaClaus
    replied
    Sorry, I got the figure wrong, its 150K, but it sounds like theres enough to worry about if you earn 100K.

    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...ate/article.do

    "But he fought back with a Budget that battered the better off — anyone earning more than £100,000 will suffer — to help pay for the credit crunch caused by blundering bankers. Some critics called it the end of New Labour."

    "And completing a triple whammy attack on the wealthy, people in the £100,000-plus bracket will see their personal allowances gradually withdrawn."

    "He presented the tax rises as “fairness” "

    Can someone please ban that word from the New Liebour dictionary!

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    It's a load of bull anyway - this 50% tax will generate (at best) ~£2 bln at best, where as 2.5% drop in VAT is costing £12.5 bln per annum.

    They should have put up VAT to 20% and reduced income taxes - this would put more cash into people's pockets and they can decide what exactly they want to spend it on - when money is moving around it generates jobs and futher taxes, if you take them before they even reach the pocket then it's not very efficient.

    Leave a comment:


  • TykeMerc
    replied
    I'm not sure that this measure has passed the tipping point where people leave in droves, it's probably quite close though.

    Let's face it many of the people who will be caught by this have the ability and inclination to take legitimate tax avoidance measures to mitigate this. I can't see the tax receipts even beginning to reach what they hope for by this measure.

    Leave a comment:


  • dinker
    replied
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

    Leave a comment:


  • sasguru
    replied
    Fookin Labour - what a bunch of absolute toss

    Leave a comment:


  • Iron Condor
    replied
    After the election they might raise the current 40% band to 50% also if they win again.

    Will see if its an election pledge not to do this.

    There are many perms in the city who currently get PAYE over 150K.
    They will pay 50% tax, employee NICS and employer NICS (ofcourse the employee doesnt see this stealth tax), well over 60% in total on anything they earn over 150K.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by denver2k View Post
    What do you mean by following such strategy ? What strategy you are talking about?
    What I mean is that director of a company (Govt) has got legal duty to shareholders (taxpayers) to act in a way that won't leave scortched earth in the company finances when director (Govt) will be due for re-election later.

    The strange thing is that directors can be prosecuted for their actions where as Govt gets away with all sort of crap - there ought to be criminal code for ministers and advisors.

    Leave a comment:


  • denver2k
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    It's political gesture, not financial - everything else is designed to defer taxes until when Cons Govt takes over and them blame mess on them.

    Any company director that would be following such strategy would not be doing his duty and can (at least should) be prosecuted.

    Why your complete statement doesnt make any sense?

    What do you mean by following such strategy ? What strategy you are talking about?

    Leave a comment:


  • denver2k
    replied
    Originally posted by HairyArsedBloke View Post
    have already found

    HAB Inc
    Yeah.....Indeed

    Leave a comment:


  • HairyArsedBloke
    replied
    Originally posted by denver2k View Post
    Businesses and high earners will eventually find safer nests somewhere else.
    have already found

    HAB Inc

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    It's political gesture, not financial - everything else is designed to defer taxes until when Cons Govt takes over and them blame mess on them.

    Any company director that would be following such strategy would not be doing his duty and can (at least should) be prosecuted.

    Leave a comment:


  • denver2k
    replied
    Originally posted by Platypus View Post
    Analysis on Sky etc is that the tax take will not increase by £1.1bn as predicted - much less due to people rearranging their affairs, moving out, etc
    Absolutely.

    Most of the high fliers have already started making arrangements when it was first proposed last year.

    Businesses and high earners will eventually find safer nests somewhere else . But earning an extra billion at the expense of several billions, doesnt make sense at all.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X