Mortgage Rate Rises

matt100 said:
That's fair but unless we're going to construct a big means testing framework I would argue it's so much of a change as to be basically impossible to do.

So magical thinking doesn't really help here, simplifying tax and removing all the rebates/reductions etc would IMO present a better outcome.
Click to expand...

The extra work required to switch to this would be pretty low to be honest.
Most of the wealth is recorded and taxed anyway, just when people crystalise the gain.

You clearly have no idea how the really rich generally have very little income.
Their wealth doesnt increase from work, it increases from capital gains.
Rishi for example would probably pass less income tax than me, and yet his wealth would be hundreds or thousands multiple of mine.

Its really not magical thinking if you understand what you do need to gather and declare for SA tax purposes.
 
Last edited:
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Rishi for example would probably pass less income tax than me, and yet his wealth would be hundreds or thousands multiple of mine.
Click to expand...
We have the data for that. Just over £1m tax paid in last 3 years at an effective tax rate of 22%. Ridiculously low compared to someone on PAYE, but I'd hazard to guess a lot more than people in similar financial situations who aren't running for public office and know that their tax situation may become public.

Income tax keeps us in our middle class place where we belong.
 
Last edited:
EvilRob said:
We have the data for that. Just over £1m tax paid in last 3 years at an effective tax rate of 22%. Ridiculously low compared to someone on PAYE, but I'd hazard to guess a lot more than people in similar financial situations who aren't running for public office and know that their tax situation may become public.

Income tax keeps us in our middle class place where we belong.
Click to expand...

Yeah, thats handy as it goes to reinforce above. Only roughly 25% of Rishis tax was income tax rated and the other 75% capital gains.
 
Capital gains should taxed same as payee. There really is no way you can argue it should be any different to payee morally
 
www.bbc.co.uk

Big firm bosses' pay rose 16% as workers squeezed

Analysis from the High Pay Centre suggests the average pay of a FTSE 100 boss was £3.91m last year.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

Big firm bosses' pay rose 16% as workers squeezed​


It seems that the bosses of all these companies that claim they can't just increase wages didnt get the memo....

"Ben van Beurden, the former boss of energy giant Shell with £9.7m, and BP's Bernard Looney securing £10m featured in the top six biggest earners after both firms reported record profits on soaring energy prices."

I'm so thrilled i was able to contribute to Ben and Bernard's new yacht this year, just by not freezing myself during the winter. Especially as it has led to me having to pay £500 more a month on my mortgage because of it as well.
 
413x said:
Capital gains should taxed same as payee. There really is no way you can argue it should be any different to payee morally
Click to expand...

Maybe a marginal difference for risk. Thats the main argument but its near enough void.
But yes in general it would be a start. Bear in mind until this year for many years you had a large tax free allowance in regards gains as well!
Its reduced this year and again next year to a pretty small amount.
Certainly a lot more people with relatively small capital gains will suddenly need to start paying something!

Jono8 said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Big firm bosses' pay rose 16% as workers squeezed

Analysis from the High Pay Centre suggests the average pay of a FTSE 100 boss was £3.91m last year.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

Big firm bosses' pay rose 16% as workers squeezed​


It seems that the bosses of all these companies that claim they can't just increase wages didnt get the memo....

"Ben van Beurden, the former boss of energy giant Shell with £9.7m, and BP's Bernard Looney securing £10m featured in the top six biggest earners after both firms reported record profits on soaring energy prices."

I'm so thrilled i was able to contribute to Ben and Bernard's new yacht this year, just by not freezing myself during the winter. Especially as it has led to me having to pay £500 more a month on my mortgage because of it as well.
Click to expand...

I don't defend this at all, but you need to dig into the pay properly (which reports often don't) as the big bosses pay is typically made up of quite a few items and as such its often quite volatile.
Pensions, share awards, bonuses based on metrics etc all tend to get lumped together.
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Maybe a marginal difference for risk. Thats the main argument but its near enough void.
But yes in general it would be a start. Bear in mind until this year for many years you had a large tax free allowance in regards gains as well!
Its reduced this year and again next year to a pretty small amount.
Certainly a lot more people with relatively small capital gains will suddenly need to start paying something!



I don't defend this at all, but you need to dig into the pay properly (which reports often don't) as the big bosses pay is typically made up of quite a few items and as such its often quite volatile.
Pensions, share awards, bonuses based on metrics etc all tend to get lumped together.
Click to expand...

No one deserves to earn £10 miliion a year in whatever metric or item you use, when the median salary is £33k.
 
Last edited:
Jono8 said:
No one deserves to earn £10 miliion a year in whatever metric or item you use, when the median salary is £33k.
Click to expand...

The problem is where do you set the limits on reasonable.

Welcome to capitalism. Where the marginal benefit of the top few over their competitors are massive compared to the lower levels.

Edit, also seeing as you picked that amount. Do you think Harry Kane for example is worth £10M as his salary, I assume not?
 
Last edited:
Freakbro said:
I wonder where the BoE is now with their warnings of not asking for pay rises as it stokes inflation

www.bbc.co.uk

Big firm bosses' pay rose 16% as workers squeezed

Analysis from the High Pay Centre suggests the average pay of a FTSE 100 boss was £3.91m last year.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk



Oh yea, that's just for the plebians :p
Click to expand...
Drop in the ocean though innit.

FTSE100 bosses implies it's a sample size of 100 people. Median pay rose by £540k. Assuming even distribution, that means about £54m in pay rises.
The total UK workforce is about 33m. So that's the equivalent of about £1.60 pay rise per year per worker if the big fish got nothing and shared out all their pay rises with everyone else.

Or to put it another way, giving everyone a £2 a year pay rise would have a bigger impact on the total amount doled out in pay rises (massive oversimplification, as tax would probably take a bigger chunk from CEOs, and other factors, but you get my drift).

I actually agree with the BoE to some extent that pay rises fuel inflation, because the workforce is so huge. However, it was phrased badly and I also don't think it should be avoided, we just need to keep in mind that against a backdrop of soaring wages, other measures to combat inflation will be in place (e.g. interest rates).
 
Last edited:
HangTime said:
Drop in the ocean though innit.

FTSE100 bosses implies it's a sample size of 100 people. Median pay rose by £540k. Assuming even distribution, that means about £54m in pay rises.
The total UK workforce is about 33m. So that's the equivalent of about £1.60 pay rise per year per worker if the big fish got nothing and shared out all their pay rises with everyone else.

Or to put it another way, giving everyone a £2 a year pay rise would have a bigger impact on the total amount doled out in pay rises (massive oversimplification, as tax would probably take a bigger chunk from CEOs, and other factors, but you get my drift).

I actually agree with the BoE to some extent that pay rises fuel inflation, because the workforce is so huge. However, it was phrased badly and I also don't think it should be avoided, we just need to keep in mind that against a backdrop of soaring wages, other measures to combat inflation will be in place (e.g. interest rates).
Click to expand...

Don't care. No one deserves £10 million a year. ESPECIALLY not the bosses of BP and Shell.

You could probably put a ******* gerbil as CEO and they would still make a **** ton of money.
 
It's been known for ages that wage rises fuel inflation because it's just a loop. Higher wages means higher service and manufacturing costs, which means we need more money to maintain our standard of life. Simple isn't it.


Agree most ceo's don't deserve the amount they get.
 
Last edited:
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
The extra work required to switch to this would be pretty low to be honest.
Most of the wealth is recorded and taxed anyway, just when people crystalise the gain.

You clearly have no idea how the really rich generally have very little income.
Their wealth doesnt increase from work, it increases from capital gains.
Rishi for example would probably pass less income tax than me, and yet his wealth would be hundreds or thousands multiple of mine.

Its really not magical thinking if you understand what you do need to gather and declare for SA tax purposes.
Click to expand...

There's no need to be a **** about it I know full well to be actually rich you're likely not actually earning just as I know the same people often have very complicated arrangements that essentially make it impossible to figure out whose money any of this "wealth" is, where it is owned and to be able to write it off against costs if required. Wealth is also subjective, for example many "rich" people's wealth now would on paper be dropping, do they get a refund?

I am absolutely not saying I think they should get a free pass, it's also not the same as saying we should be fine with a stupidly complex tax system.

I think a wealth tax is a great idea so long as it is pursued vigorously and when people bleat about rich people leaving, good.. I don't honestly think there's a credible reason for billionaires to exist full stop tbh.
 
matt100 said:
There's no need to be a **** about it I know full well to be actually rich you're likely not actually earning just as I know the same people often have very complicated arrangements that essentially make it impossible to figure out whose money any of this "wealth" is, where it is owned and to be able to write it off against costs if required. Wealth is also subjective, for example many "rich" people's wealth now would on paper be dropping, do they get a refund?

I am absolutely not saying I think they should get a free pass, it's also not the same as saying we should be fine with a stupidly complex tax system.

I think a wealth tax is a great idea so long as it is pursued vigorously and when people bleat about rich people leaving, good.. I don't honestly think there's a credible reason for billionaires to exist full stop tbh.
Click to expand...

If you didn't want a robust response you shouldn't have gone with your magical comment to be honest.

No you don't get a refund with a wealth tax, its not like a stamp duty tax.
With wealth taxation you pay a % of your wealth each year just like you pay a percentage of your income each year.
The percentages would be very different, but the practice would be the same.
Eg you may halve income tax rates, but apply a 0.5% wealth tax. You would exclude minor assets, but eg your house, car collection, shares, crypto, gold bullion, diamond hoard etc would need to be declared and would be levied on the value.

We already have what is by some peoples minds a stupidly complex tax system. Even though its been vastly simplified over the last 3 or so decades.
Saying you cannot handle that level of complexity says do not get involved in tax. It would blow your mind.

Only taxing income unless you dramatically change the definition is just dumb.
Rishis tax return as posted above should show you why.
 
Last edited:
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
You can retire on a million.
You won't have the life of riley but you can on average make enough money to basically offset inflation and give yourself a decent income.
Depends what balance you are willing to strike in order to not work.
Click to expand...
Still going to be a good £40k a year income if you invest that properly. That’s without tax if you do it really properly.
 
tonys said:
It's been known for ages that wage rises fuel inflation because it's just a loop. Higher wages means higher service and manufacturing costs, which means we need more money to maintain our standard of life. Simple isn't it.


Agree most ceo's don't deserve the amount they get.
Click to expand...

Which is fine until companies are making record profits. A good chunk of this is now greedflation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom