The Labour Government

Mathematically that is correct. The only issue being that the current top rate of tax kicks in at £125,000+ per year and a lot of people who earn more than that, have some flexibility in how they are paid, and will "rearrange" their earnings in order to pay less tax if the rates go up too much.

Last time we increased the top rate to 50%, the tax take from the demographic impacted, actually went down. And I think - though I am not 100% about this - it went up again when we reverted to 45%.

It didn’t go down, it went up but by not as much as they expected even post allowance for changes in behaviour and that rearrangement of earnings.
 
If that was Corbyn it would be sausages are usually made from pork. Jewish folk don’t eat pork. Anti-semite.


Yep, or this


GYPuus2XcAA0XR_
 
If only there were ways of converting assets in to cash.
Yep all pensioners should just sell their home and downsize, not that easy when you have a strong emotional attachment to it and the state may require the money for your care at a later date. Many things in life are not straightforward Kobay. I guess you weren't aware of those things ?
 
Yep all pensioners should just sell their home and downsize, not that easy when you have a strong emotional attachment to it and the state may require the money for your care at a later date. Many things in life are not straightforward Kobay. I guess you weren't aware of those things ?

We don't apply the same logic to working age population though do we?
 
There are a reasonable number of salaried people who fall into the +125k bracket. What they maybe should do is limit the amount you can bung into pensions for people earning above that amount. E.g. for every £2 you earn above 125k, your allowance for your pension contributions reduces by £1 until it reaches the old threshold of £40k.

To be honest what they should do is just charge the income tax regardless based upon salary/earnings and then tell people they need to claim it back. Its a bit underhanded but there would be a lot of people who wouldn't have the inclination to claim every bit back (hassle vs effort).
They reduce maximum pension contributions eligible for tax relief already. The limit is £60k now but if you earn too much it reduces down to £10k (2022/23 tax year minimum was £4k, effectively making it pointless for anyone earning a high amount to bother with a pension. Why on earth put money into a pension and get (almost) no tax relief, for the privilege of having your money taxed again (i.e. twice) when taking it out.

If hell bent on tax increases, I think the best bet would have been to up the basic rate to 22p or 23p something like that. It would raise a shed load of money and if you combined it with an increase in the personal allowance, you would ensure that anyone at the bottom end was better off, middle earners were neutral and only the better off were net losers, but they can afford it.

It's unrealistic I think for people to expect to pay only 20% tax on earnings up to £50k per year and expect that is enough to pay for all the public services people aspire to us having. We have got used to a basic rate of tax that is IMO too low.
 
Comon mate, if the cancelling of the WFA was a Tory idea you would be all over this forum like a dog with two dicks slagging it off wouldn't you. Be honest now.

No I wouldn't. Because I actually approve of it. I don't suffer from the same gerontophilia that many do.

You suggested it?
I meant that if a working age person (capable of working) was sitting with 100% equity in a house worth over half a million pounds, would people think it fair that they kept taking handouts and didn't downsize?
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top