Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
Oh?
Budget 2010
- Thread starter [TW]Fox
- Start date
See this BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8068926.stm
And this chart from it:
The ~1.25 million households on £300 (£375 million) a week represent more income than the ~0.2 million on £900 (£180 million) a week.
The point is that the frequency of high earning declines faster than the rate of earning increase.
1. That graph shows net earnings, not gross earnings - in other words, it's fairness has already been increased by the slight progressitivity of our tax system.
2. It only goes up to ~£60k a year anyway! That doesn't even touch the richest 1%.
Once again you fail.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
Nothing Dolph.
They cut it by 2p a few years back so workers are better off.
Dry that one out and you can fertilise the lawn.
They cut it by 2p a few years back so workers are better off.
Dry that one out and you can fertilise the lawn.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
I was being sarcastic. 
I know exactly what you mean.
I know exactly what you mean.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
Do let us know when Labour do a pre-election knock at yours Dolph. 
I was pretty disgusted by the front page of the Telegraph on Wednesday, claiming that ALL taxpayers would be paying an extra £xx in tax because of the frozen tax allowances. They were trying to make a point about it being a 'stealth tax' caused by pay rises.... but not everyone gets a pay rise, and thus some taxpayers won't be paying more income tax than the previous year. They had no justification whatsoever in making such a statement (it wasn't even a 'for example' scenario for illustrative purposes, just a bold statement as if it were fact) and I don't understand how a national broadsheet can get away with outright lies on the front page.
You don't seem to be understanding the basic gist, let me explain it to you
Inflation is 3%
Tax allowances has not gone up by 3%
Fiscal drag
= everybody effectively paying more tax in real terms
The article is perfectly right
No, the article isn't perfectly right. It's just making bold statements that are factually incorrect.
If they want to claim that people are paying more tax 'in real terms', then the the article should have stated just that - 'in real terms'. It didn't.
The article was basically the same as this one, but fleshed out and rejigged a bit: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ng-to-freeze-income-bands-in-stealth-tax.html
As you can see, right from the start, it just charges in with
No mention of 'in real terms', just a pure, black & white statement that EVERY higher-rate taxpayer will pay an additional £489 in tax. They won't though. When they check their payslip income tax will be exactly the same, assuming their salary etc has remained static.
So 'the basic gist' of it was clearly not understood by the writers or editors either, as if it was, it should have been explicitly laid out.
Even when 'fiscal drag' is brought into it, there is still the black and white claim that
Essentially my problem with the article is that they do not clearly state assumptions being made when stating figures. It's just plain bad practice, and on the front page of a national newspaper, highly misleading.
If they want to claim that people are paying more tax 'in real terms', then the the article should have stated just that - 'in real terms'. It didn't.
The article was basically the same as this one, but fleshed out and rejigged a bit: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ng-to-freeze-income-bands-in-stealth-tax.html
As you can see, right from the start, it just charges in with
No mention of 'in real terms', just a pure, black & white statement that EVERY higher-rate taxpayer will pay an additional £489 in tax. They won't though. When they check their payslip income tax will be exactly the same, assuming their salary etc has remained static.
So 'the basic gist' of it was clearly not understood by the writers or editors either, as if it was, it should have been explicitly laid out.
Even when 'fiscal drag' is brought into it, there is still the black and white claim that
Er, no. Every taxpayer won't be paying an extra £40 in tax.
Essentially my problem with the article is that they do not clearly state assumptions being made when stating figures. It's just plain bad practice, and on the front page of a national newspaper, highly misleading.
What is the average increase in wages at the moment? I think you'll find it's above 0%...
Therefore, in general terms, 'everyone' gets a pay rise, and 'everyone' suffers from Darling's stealth rise in tax (which has become a common theme in labour budgets since 1997).
And that's without mentioning the rise in the other income tax, NI.
In my opinion it is fundamentally wrong to infer that a positive rate of change in a given statistic automatically (i.e. without caveat) means that everyone is affected in the same way (especially when you are talking national statistics).
Another thing to bear in mind also is that an increase in the mean wage doesn't necessarily even mean that the majority will get a raise (ONS publishes median stats, but obviously they aren't available yet). According to the BBC, more than half the UK workforce doesn't expect to get a pay rise this year: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8544629.stm (note this is in absolute terms, we aren't even taking inflation into account). Now, obviously this is just a survey based on expectation rather than actual figures, but it gives an indication as to how things may pan out. Even if we say OK, half of those people are wrong, it would still mean that more a quarter won't be getting a raise - a sizeable minority.
The 'rise in the other income tax, NI' doesn't need to be mentioned, because that is something which genuinely will (barring a few exceptions I may not have considered) affect all people in the brackets they are talking about (income tax payers) rather than being inferred from a trend. It's an absolute change in rate, rather than derived based on the assumption that everyone is going to be paid more than last year. I can live with people saying 'everyone' in that context, but not income tax.
Another thing to bear in mind also is that an increase in the mean wage doesn't necessarily even mean that the majority will get a raise (ONS publishes median stats, but obviously they aren't available yet). According to the BBC, more than half the UK workforce doesn't expect to get a pay rise this year: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8544629.stm (note this is in absolute terms, we aren't even taking inflation into account). Now, obviously this is just a survey based on expectation rather than actual figures, but it gives an indication as to how things may pan out. Even if we say OK, half of those people are wrong, it would still mean that more a quarter won't be getting a raise - a sizeable minority.
The 'rise in the other income tax, NI' doesn't need to be mentioned, because that is something which genuinely will (barring a few exceptions I may not have considered) affect all people in the brackets they are talking about (income tax payers) rather than being inferred from a trend. It's an absolute change in rate, rather than derived based on the assumption that everyone is going to be paid more than last year. I can live with people saying 'everyone' in that context, but not income tax.
Last edited:
Way to quote the bits that make your point. E.g.:
Now, that's quite a clear clarification to me, and quite clearly states the circumstances for their claim (which is valid). Therefore I fail to see the problem as most people who read the Telegraph should be able to understand this point I'd imagine.