Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
music to your....ears?
please move this thread to the correct board
The Announcements Board
The ons annual survey of earnings in 2012 has 36k at the 80 percentile, so he thinks top fifth isn't much.
Can kind of see his point though, that would be how much you need to rent a non studio flat in London hardly luxary. Just goes to show how hard it is for those on much much less than that ie most people
Still don't own anything and have no savings though
Can you, or David, or somebody, tell me whether I should be offended by this, or nod sagely in un-ironic agreement.?
Couldn't tell you to the nearest thousand. Pretty bad, huh?
Why should I? My accountant can sort that out.
No need to worry, Balonz accountant handles that.
is far too low?
and i've obviously taken the quote out of context for the trolls, but he's actually talking about tax thresholds rather than wages.
So he talks about helping the lower wage through amending the lower end tax bands to help the low waged - which is obviously a much more sensible approach than increasing the minimum wage.
to those on low wages...
he's right that it's not an amount of money that would make people 'see themselves as wealthy', but I don't understand what people's perception of their wealth has to do with how much tax they pay
man's a prick
"I don't understand what people's perception of their wealth has to do with how much tax they pay"
An awful lot, judging by the weekly revelations of tax-dodging pop stars, stand-up comedians, actors, businesses, etc.
Suppose you had £10m in the bank and lived solely off the interest. You'd pay naff all income tax but still be considered a tax-dodging millionaire.
Got absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making, but true.
people who 'don't see themselves as wealthy' includes everyone worth less than the sultan of brunei
i'm not sure
'Come on David and George. You can do it if you really want to, I am a staunch Conservative voter and fully support what you have done for the economy. My grown up kids and their families are all hard working and 'high earners' according to your criteria but many more floating voters would be wooed back to your party if a little more could be done to help them through this hard time. Don't let the two Eds through those famous front doors -10 and 11 Downing Street! I feel my blood pressure would rise to dangerous heights if that should happen. Please!! Well done anyway and keep up the outstanding work.'
It's getting perilously close to what I earn, which is just not on.
Would you technically take home less?
unless I'm being wound up
you get taxed x% up to 41K (excluding Personal Allowance) and then x% on anything above that
Income tax =/= all tax
would be completely happy with people helping others understand things rather than being a cunt about it
The amount above £41k would be taxed at 40%, whereas the amount below would be taxed at 20%.
The higher rate applies to the amount OVER the threshold that you earn.
This timne Markee got something *right*.
A little later than everyone else but still...
only the amount over the threshold is taxed at that rate
aka le tournoi tax
to make it seem that tax is more than it is? I guess anyone in this bracket can look at their pay slip and see this isn't the case.
why can't income tax (and maybe business taxes?) be the only tax? i.e. what's the point of VAT?
it can also be an instrument to guide behavior (usually termed levies or duties - eg on cigarettes, petrol etc etc).
Income tax (and tax in general in this country) also doesn't take into account wealth. Money that isn't moving around the economy is nearly as harmful to the economy as money that doesn't exist at all (it's not quite, because it can be used as leverage, but anyway...).
Re. business taxes - there's also a distinction between businesses and people. businesses get taxed on profit (and can use previous losses to write off tax obligations), whereas people get taxed on incomes. Imagine telling the tax man that you didn't have to pay tax because you spent more than you earned...
We should put a limit of, say, £5,000, on personal bank accounts. Everything above that *must* be spent or given to the Government.
This way, everybody wins.
I don't agree with VAT as it's a regressive tax as well.
it's such a widely held mistaken belief that you get higher rate taxed on the full amount. I've heard people in their 60's express this idea.
and it's never reported as being on money earned over the amount
'In March’s Budget George Osborne, the Chancellor, announced that the income threshold at which the 40p rate applies – currently £41,865 a year – will increase by just 1 per cent for each of the next two years, less than the rate of inflation.'
that kind of reads liek it's on the full £41,865 doesn't it?
The 40% threshold is £31,865, but they've added the £10k personal allowance back on, so in practice you're still going to be taxed at 40% on anything over £31,865 that you earn.
you're going to be taxed at 40% on anything over £31,865 that you earn, after taking into account the £10,000 you earn that you don't pay any tax on.
so it's anything over £41,865
are you trying to confuse me here Steved?
0-10k - nowt
10k - 41865 - 20%
>41865 - 40%
0-10k - Zilch
10k - 31,865 - 20%
31,865 - 150,000 - 40%
150,000+ - 45%
that's not what it says
personal allowance zero tax - £10,000
then earnings after £10,000
0 - 31,865 - 20%
31,865 - 150,000 - 40%
150,000+ - 45%
Thought you were essentially saying that those first £10k of earnings don't end up on your tax return, which they do but are covered by the PA. Give me a break, I don't work in personal tax.
The tax bands relate to taxable income, which is whats left after the allowance has been taken off your pay. It's a confusing way for them to present it, and you have duly been confused by it. The £41K figure is right.
you've added the 10k back in to just the 20% rate, does it only apply to the 20% rate? I'm confused. If my salary is £35k, what tax do a pay on the the top portion of that?
SSP by the way, this is getting out of hand.
I only skimmed that thread.
Is that a real thing?!
This thread is most definitely not 'SSP'.
alternatively I shouldn't have listened to you
people replying seriously
you have got quite the another think coming.
there was people who genuinely thought this, and told me that it was best to stay below 40k salary, as if you go slightly above you end end losing tax.
honestly. university educated folk.
"nick you've done well this year so we're raising your wage from £41k to £42k"
"I don't fucking want it you dicks I'm currently getting £32,800 after tax and now your telling me i'm getting £25,200. Are you mental, I won't be able to pay my mortgage"
"OK Nick we will leave you at £41k"
turned down a pay rise as it would affect his benefits.
yeah, loads of people at my old work did that as well. fucking madness.
he had very little understanding of how income tax worked
but say you get child benefit for 2 children which is £33.50 per week or roughly 1700 quid a year. If you earn above £50k then you pay tax on it.
if you're earning £50,000 (total income £51,700) and then your pay went up to £51,000, you either waive your child benefit (total income £51,000), or pay 40% on your child benefit (£680, total income £51,020). That means you've got to do a self assessment form to get yourself £20.
Stupid example, but it shows how having crude cut-offs for different benefits can make things tricky.
and what relative tax band they should be in. It's a poor way of analysing the debate.
Also, once again, it's probably `a London thing`. In most places outside of the South East £40 would put you in, what, the top 5% of earners? Enough of a classification to be `wealthy` by my reckoning...
Sounds about right.
also, just to check:
1) "how wealthy people feel is a poor way of analysing the deabte
2) proceeds to use how wealthy people feels as a way to analyse the debate
and `how relatively wealthy people actually ARE`.
U no who yr friends are.
hence the joke.
it's all contextual. it dpeneds on what your outoings are. I would be broke on that salary but I have large financial commitments which eat through any availble income and make me wonder why i'm not just on the buroo sometimes.
I had to help out the family business by taking on about £1m of debt that is only partially serviced by the business. I could just let it go insovent and let lots of people lose their jobs I guess, and I could buy it out of pre-pack admin without the debt perfectly legally, but I'm not a cunt.
so it can't really be used to make a general point about tax rates
So you'd sack off the business and live pretty damn comfortably.
Just the resolute 1%-er PO trying to pretend she's average person-about-town again
I'm pretty sure I've never suggested that I'm at all average.
you wouldn't be broke - you'd just have to adjust your lifestyle
I'm begining to think i should actually just put the group into administration and buy it back out. You don't get any reward for trying to do the right thing. I might even have to sell the bentley.
You really are.
there was menat to be a saeftywink after mine
< 3 (but without the space) and dis ate everything that came after it.
pretty much my standard polling today anyhow, wouldn't worry about it =D
He's giving a little tummy-tickle to his core vote, who will be disproportionately more likely to be in this income bracket than average.
Typically for him though he's not even promising anything and of course he won't. The 40% boundary is one of the few remaining income tax levers that a government can use to increase revenue without causing a massive reputation hit. All you have to do is leave it steady or raise it below inflation and you get a bit more revenue in without anyone really noticing that much.
Conversely if you mess with the top rate it makes headlines, and lowering the 20% threshold or increasing the rate would cause uproar.
So in short that tax threshold isn't going up above inflation, under any government, any time in the forseeable future.
it can be worth people not taking pay rises as it can make them less well off as they might lose benefits (one would have thought that they could split the difference in these cases, that way the state is better off, yet the poor employee does not lose out)
Because of this, most poor people have been labouring under the delusion that the same might apply to the richer people earning just under the higher rate threshold, but this is not so.........
Its a shame that this isnt more widely understood as it would make the poorer people even less sympathetic to the favour and concern that the gov shows to the richer hard working tax payers......What about the poorer people? why not help them with the lower fucking thresholds?
justifying and emphasising that the richer need help and consideration when not being even with those harder up but working is mean, callous and selfish........and is why those that support this favouratism are fucking hippocrites when they say they are 'christian' as Jeeesus would have been fucking appalled and overturned their expensive fucking tables