What's the current rate for top earners?
Government to bring in 45% income tax for top earners (£150k pa)
- Thread starter Hades
- Start date
What's the current rate for top earners?
Lewis Hamilton staying in Switzerland for those reasons!
All this will do is push people to the Tories who will promise to drop the income tax rate if they come to power.
40p in the pound.
Just because they weren't saying "no" to you having the cards, doesn't mean you should have.
If people can't manage their own money/debt, it is their own fault and no-one elses.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 9,515
- Location
- London Town!
It'd be nice if they could raise the threshold for 40% income tax. It does my head in doing overtime and seeing 40% of it get wiped out by taxMiddle earners get hammered at the moment.
Well, not hugely out of proportion, the only way to do it would be to raise taxes on the rich massively as well. So, not likely to happen...unfortunately for me personally too
OK, so it's an extra 5% on all income over £150,000.
I'm willing to bet that a person who can still be pulling in that amount despite an official tax rate of 40% on their income, is a person who knows how to reduce that extra 5% to something far more attractive.
They should forget this idea and simply close the loopholes for non-doms instead.
Gotta like how they are delaying it (like most of their tax rises) until after the election, presumably so they can then blame the tories for having to deal with actually implementing it because they've screwed the budget up so much they have no choice but to raise taxes and cut spending to get us back to a vaguely sensible budgetry position...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7745070.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7745070.stm
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 9,515
- Location
- London Town!
5% is peanuts to them, if you earn £200k it's an extra £2500 a year, if you earn £500k it's an extra £22500 a year, out of £500,000 pounds. I wouldn't move to another country for that...
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 16,338
- Location
- Plymouth
Not everyone who earns >£150k has a massive disposable income, eg families with a few kids, so 5% is quite a lot....but I do half-agree with you. All they're doign is giving the poor back the money they took away earlier in the year, it's just completely bizarre. Gah politics!Giving the rich tax breaks has been fairly well proven not to provide an economic stimulus at times like this, if you give the less well off more cash they are more inclined to spend it. If you earn £150k+ you likely don't alter spending habits in a recession anyway, so says previous experience anyway.
It is very old labour though, increase a progressive tax and cut a regressive one, we'll have the closed shop back next
It's not so much the amount though, it's the principle that annoys people, and I can understand why.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 3,833
- Location
- London
I'd rather they closed up the loopholes that the truly rich currently use to escape proper taxation.
I remember an interview with some multimillionaire complaining about having to pay tax when he creates so many jobs. He didn't understand that his tax contributions paid for all the facilities that his workers use day-in-day-out.
I remember an interview with some multimillionaire complaining about having to pay tax when he creates so many jobs. He didn't understand that his tax contributions paid for all the facilities that his workers use day-in-day-out.
This will not raise any significant additional money.
For pension contributions, you effectively get tax relief at the highest rate of tax paid. Someone earning £175,000 a year can therefore contribute £25,000 to their pension, receive 45% tax relief, and not be a penny worse off than before.
If this tax is as temporary as the proposed VAT drop, then those on higher earnings who have less call on their income can now choose to contribute even more, forgoing income through salary sacrifice, and then start paying themselves again once taxes fall back to 40%.
This is a headline grabber, nothing more. A bit like the cut in VAT to 15%. It will be bugger all direct difference to the man on the street, but it will make a difference of sorts to some business, who can at least then get some assistance in continuing to employ the man on the street.
Like all governments than have been in power too long, this one is tired and needs a break. For a couple of terms.
For pension contributions, you effectively get tax relief at the highest rate of tax paid. Someone earning £175,000 a year can therefore contribute £25,000 to their pension, receive 45% tax relief, and not be a penny worse off than before.
If this tax is as temporary as the proposed VAT drop, then those on higher earnings who have less call on their income can now choose to contribute even more, forgoing income through salary sacrifice, and then start paying themselves again once taxes fall back to 40%.
This is a headline grabber, nothing more. A bit like the cut in VAT to 15%. It will be bugger all direct difference to the man on the street, but it will make a difference of sorts to some business, who can at least then get some assistance in continuing to employ the man on the street.
Like all governments than have been in power too long, this one is tired and needs a break. For a couple of terms.
I don't think it's so much the paying tax that gets people, it's paying a larger proportion of their earnings in tax that annoys people...
Why should one person pay 20% of their earnings and another pay 40%?
It is a bit harsh, a person strengthening the economy and creating jobs is taxed to buggery for the jobs they created. They want to promote commerce but do it in strange ways.
You only pay the tax rate on earnings above the threshold for that rate...
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 9,515
- Location
- London Town!
Because ideology and theory is nice but in the real world we need to pay for services through taxes and a flat tax system that doesn't drop the poor below the poverty line would screw the middle classes, who wouldn't like it much...but you know that..
Of course flat tax is ideologically great, much fairer in many ways but right now, it doesn't work for this country while maintaining revenues at their current levels...
Which is still causing someone to pay a greater proportion of their income in tax.
not if the government is cut back to sensible levels first... Then you don't need to maintain current revenues because it's not being wasted anything like the same...
The flat tax rate should be equal to the basic rate of tax (i.e. 20%). Apparently the rich will stop avoiding tax as the cost will outweigh the benefits. It makes for a simpler system and costs less to admin.
Not that I think we should implement it or anything. I'm doing my CTA's soon so I'll happy take a more complicated tax system. Keeps me in the job
Last edited:
...but fortunately for rich people, it is hilariously easy to avoid paying that "larger proportion", so they end up paying a stupidly low rate instead.
Just ask Hans Rausing.
Because progressive taxation is the only sensible, practical policy for a capitalist economy.
Look at the countries with flat taxes and see what's happened to them; they've been reduced to little more than economic feudalism.