Also, those greedy f**kers paying no tax, living on as much as 10k pa! They should be f**king grateful to the wealthy for subsidising the country for them!
Indeed of the 48,000 UK tax residents who earned >£500k in 2015/16, I wonder how many of them are even British citizens?
More than 1.2million people are earning over £100,000 a year, if a new survey of reported incomes is accurate.
This is just below 4 per cent of the UK working population, which stood at 31.6million in the first three months of the year, according to official figures.
The number of those who said they earn more than £200,000 a year is much smaller at 235,000, according to a survey of more than 1,000 people by global currency business Centtrip.
Meanwhile, the survey suggests the number of people saying they earn more than £1million per year is about 47,000,
My figures come from the HMRC's official statistics....
They suggest 813,000 taxpayers earned over £100k (versus your 1.2m figure) out of a total of 30.2m taxpayers (this may be less than the total working population as there is no tax due for those whose earnings are below the personal allowance). Over £200k was 214,000 people so pretty close to your figure above.
At the top extreme, approx. 5,000 people earned over £2m and paid on average £1.88m in tax.
At least it would help stop the " rich aren't paying their way" mantras.
We already have. It failed, dismally and spectacularly.
The Harold Wilson Govt. had a so-called progressive tax regime with a top tax rate of 83% PLUS 15% on "unearned income" thus giving a marginal tax rate of 98%. What happened? The likes of The Stones and The Beatles based themselves elsewhere. In truth they had no choice. Bill Wyman said he got £70k out of every £1mn earned and if he hadn't left the country he couldn't actually afford to pay the imposed tax. There were songs about it: you may remember The Beatles Taxman; The Kinks Sunny Afternoon and, of course, what is now considered to be The Stones best work is called Exile on Main Street for a reason.
Squeezing the rich is a stupid and counterproductive measure. These days it's not just pop stars who make large sums of money. Footballers and international bankers are typical other examples. They can all ply their trade anywhere and would pack their bags at a moments notice.
Of course, this means that the money they spend here would go too, meaning the Government would no longer get an extra 16.7% of what they spend through VAT receipts, as their spending would vanish with them. Those they employ, gardeners, jewellers, Bentley salesmen, etc, etc would, too, find themselves less well of (or unemployed) meaning UK plc would be in a right mess.
BTW, the rich already pay far more than their fair share. Presently close to half the working age population pay no income tax at all. (Primarily because of George Osborne raising the income tax personal allowance from £6,475 to £10,600.)
Here's the relevant extract from The Institute of Fiscal Studies report:
"the proportion of working-age adults who do not pay income tax has risen from 34.3 per cent to 43.8 per cent, equivalent to 23 million people.
Over the same period the amount of income tax paid by the richest 1 per cent has risen from 24.4 per cent to 27.5 per cent, meaning that 300,000 people pay more than a quarter of the nation's income tax." (My emphasis)
You really, really want them to pay more?
They're paying more of the tax because they've hoarded more of the f**king money
By 'hoard', do you mean 'invest' and/or 'save' thus generating further tax through capital gains tax and income tax on interest/dividends/rent?
If the public stopped using companies that avoided paying UK tax, these companies would soon cough up and only then would you see the Government coffers would be bulging.
Blaming it on Joe Public is what Murdoch would like you to do
You mean companies that pay millions in other taxes. Such as VAT, Business rates etc. On top of the number of people they employ in this country who will all pay Tax and NI. They could easily move those jobs abroad if they wanted. Then we have more people out of jobs and less tax receipts. Those same companies are also respected for the way they treat their staff through sick pay/pensions etc and so reduce the long term bill on the government.
The argument no one should use them frankly makes me laugh as all that would do is force their activity abroad so we lose tax revenue, jobs and their services...
I'm not sure Starbucks could do that.
Given only 3% of Starbucks' global stores are in the UK, I'm sure they could find a more profitable return on the tied-up capital elsewhere if their tax burden became intolerable.
Let them fuck off then.
Good idea, they only employ 24,000 people here.
People like coffee shops. Starbucks do one and open the way for independent coffee outlets that would employ people and perhaps even pay the correct amount of tax.
They don't have a monopoly - there are plenty of independent coffee shops doing just fine by offering high-quality differentiated service. It's the greasy spoon cafe selling instant coffee in a polystyrene cup which have thankfully fallen by the wayside.
Corporation tax is such a tiny % of tax receipts it's almost an irrelevance. It's just a way for the government to go 'Ohh look were not the bad guys those big evil corporations are'!
Similarly on the fiscal spending side, only 0.3% of total government spending goes on unemployment benefits yet some on the right would like us to think that our deficit would be closed if only those pesky feckless 1.6 million jobless people would get off their backsides and look for work!
1) I'm not sure that 0.3% figure is correct? Do you have a source?
2) unemployment benefit is just one benefit and a tiny amount of the welfare system which according to the ONS was 35% of got spending in 24/15.
At least it would help stop the " rich aren't paying their way" mantras.
We already have. It failed, dismally and spectacularly.
The Harold Wilson Govt. had a so-called progressive tax regime with a top tax rate of 83% PLUS 15% on "unearned income" thus giving a marginal tax rate of 98%. What happened? The likes of The Stones and The Beatles based themselves elsewhere. In truth they had no choice. Bill Wyman said he got £70k out of every £1mn earned and if he hadn't left the country he couldn't actually afford to pay the imposed tax. There were songs about it: you may remember The Beatles Taxman; The Kinks Sunny Afternoon and, of course, what is now considered to be The Stones best work is called Exile on Main Street for a reason.
Squeezing the rich is a stupid and counterproductive measure. These days it's not just pop stars who make large sums of money. Footballers and international bankers are typical other examples. They can all ply their trade anywhere and would pack their bags at a moments notice.
Of course, this means that the money they spend here would go too, meaning the Government would no longer get an extra 16.7% of what they spend through VAT receipts, as their spending would vanish with them. Those they employ, gardeners, jewellers, Bentley salesmen, etc, etc would, too, find themselves less well of (or unemployed) meaning UK plc would be in a right mess.
BTW, the rich already pay far more than their fair share. Presently close to half the working age population pay no income tax at all. (Primarily because of George Osborne raising the income tax personal allowance from £6,475 to £10,600.)
Here's the relevant extract from The Institute of Fiscal Studies report:
"the proportion of working-age adults who do not pay income tax has risen from 34.3 per cent to 43.8 per cent, equivalent to 23 million people.
Over the same period the amount of income tax paid by the richest 1 per cent has risen from 24.4 per cent to 27.5 per cent, meaning that 300,000 people pay more than a quarter of the nation's income tax." (My emphasis)
You really, really want them to pay more?
They're paying more of the tax because they've hoarded more of the f**king money
Do you not understand that income tax, as in @Addickted 's bonkers scheme, is applied to income? It has nothing to do with "hoarding", whatever that means. Or are you suggesting that individuals who prudently save their money should be even further penalised than they are now?
At least it would help stop the " rich aren't paying their way" mantras.
We already have. It failed, dismally and spectacularly.
The Harold Wilson Govt. had a so-called progressive tax regime with a top tax rate of 83% PLUS 15% on "unearned income" thus giving a marginal tax rate of 98%. What happened? The likes of The Stones and The Beatles based themselves elsewhere. In truth they had no choice. Bill Wyman said he got £70k out of every £1mn earned and if he hadn't left the country he couldn't actually afford to pay the imposed tax. There were songs about it: you may remember The Beatles Taxman; The Kinks Sunny Afternoon and, of course, what is now considered to be The Stones best work is called Exile on Main Street for a reason.
Squeezing the rich is a stupid and counterproductive measure. These days it's not just pop stars who make large sums of money. Footballers and international bankers are typical other examples. They can all ply their trade anywhere and would pack their bags at a moments notice.
Of course, this means that the money they spend here would go too, meaning the Government would no longer get an extra 16.7% of what they spend through VAT receipts, as their spending would vanish with them. Those they employ, gardeners, jewellers, Bentley salesmen, etc, etc would, too, find themselves less well of (or unemployed) meaning UK plc would be in a right mess.
BTW, the rich already pay far more than their fair share. Presently close to half the working age population pay no income tax at all. (Primarily because of George Osborne raising the income tax personal allowance from £6,475 to £10,600.)
Here's the relevant extract from The Institute of Fiscal Studies report:
"the proportion of working-age adults who do not pay income tax has risen from 34.3 per cent to 43.8 per cent, equivalent to 23 million people.
Over the same period the amount of income tax paid by the richest 1 per cent has risen from 24.4 per cent to 27.5 per cent, meaning that 300,000 people pay more than a quarter of the nation's income tax." (My emphasis)
You really, really want them to pay more?
They're paying more of the tax because they've hoarded more of the f**king money
By 'hoard', do you mean 'invest' and/or 'save' thus generating further tax through capital gains tax and income tax on interest/dividends/rent?
I mean that the wealthier have the means (through investment, exploitation etc) to keep getting wealthier (and do) but the poor are kept poor (for the most part) - a verified widening gap between rich and poor therefore means that the top few have more of the country's money and therefore pay more of its tax while still getting richer (by comparison). And yes, they should pay more. They should pay their employees more and they should pay the state more. They'll still afford that second penthouse. Might even drive prices down a bit for the rest of us.
Also, those greedy f**kers paying no tax, living on as much as 10k pa! They should be f**king grateful to the wealthy for subsidising the country for them!
Well if the entire country comprised people with the average skills, education, work ethic and enterprise as those earning <£10k then I can't help thinking we'd resemble a Third World country rather than the rich one we are. So yes, I think they ought to be a little bit grateful that they don't have Third World quality of life....
At least it would help stop the " rich aren't paying their way" mantras.
You really, really want them to pay more?
Yes.
Have you seen the title of this thread?
Idiot, of course I did, when I opened it. So, in summary, you'd still like people to be charged tax at a higher rate even though it's been explained to you that that would mean less tax receipts to fund anything let alone the NHS? That sounds like vindictiveness rather than a sensible idea. You're not Jeremy Corbyn are you?
At least it would help stop the " rich aren't paying their way" mantras.
We already have. It failed, dismally and spectacularly.
The Harold Wilson Govt. had a so-called progressive tax regime with a top tax rate of 83% PLUS 15% on "unearned income" thus giving a marginal tax rate of 98%. What happened? The likes of The Stones and The Beatles based themselves elsewhere. In truth they had no choice. Bill Wyman said he got £70k out of every £1mn earned and if he hadn't left the country he couldn't actually afford to pay the imposed tax. There were songs about it: you may remember The Beatles Taxman; The Kinks Sunny Afternoon and, of course, what is now considered to be The Stones best work is called Exile on Main Street for a reason.
Squeezing the rich is a stupid and counterproductive measure. These days it's not just pop stars who make large sums of money. Footballers and international bankers are typical other examples. They can all ply their trade anywhere and would pack their bags at a moments notice.
Of course, this means that the money they spend here would go too, meaning the Government would no longer get an extra 16.7% of what they spend through VAT receipts, as their spending would vanish with them. Those they employ, gardeners, jewellers, Bentley salesmen, etc, etc would, too, find themselves less well of (or unemployed) meaning UK plc would be in a right mess.
BTW, the rich already pay far more than their fair share. Presently close to half the working age population pay no income tax at all. (Primarily because of George Osborne raising the income tax personal allowance from £6,475 to £10,600.)
Here's the relevant extract from The Institute of Fiscal Studies report:
"the proportion of working-age adults who do not pay income tax has risen from 34.3 per cent to 43.8 per cent, equivalent to 23 million people.
Over the same period the amount of income tax paid by the richest 1 per cent has risen from 24.4 per cent to 27.5 per cent, meaning that 300,000 people pay more than a quarter of the nation's income tax." (My emphasis)
You really, really want them to pay more?
They're paying more of the tax because they've hoarded more of the f**king money
Do you not understand that income tax, as in @Addickted 's bonkers scheme, is applied to income? It has nothing to do with "hoarding", whatever that means. Or are you suggesting that individuals who prudently save their money should be even further penalised than they are now?
Engineering a society where the incomes of a few increasingly dwarf the incomes of the rest entirely satisfies the description 'hoarding' imo
Also, those greedy f**kers paying no tax, living on as much as 10k pa! They should be f**king grateful to the wealthy for subsidising the country for them!
Well if the entire country comprised people with the average skills, education, work ethic and enterprise as those earning £10k then I can't help thinking we'd resemble a Third World country rather than the rich one we are. So yes, I think they ought to be a little bit grateful that they don't have Third World quality of life....
Seen much of the UK outside of central London lately?
Also, those greedy f**kers paying no tax, living on as much as 10k pa! They should be f**king grateful to the wealthy for subsidising the country for them!
Well if the entire country comprised people with the average skills, education, work ethic and enterprise as those earning £10k then I can't help thinking we'd resemble a Third World country rather than the rich one we are. So yes, I think they ought to be a little bit grateful that they don't have Third World quality of life....
Seen much of the UK outside of central London lately?
Yes and it's hardly Third World is it? 99.99% of people in this country have running water, heating, telephone, free education, free healthcare (if they can get an appointment!), subsidised public transport, easy access to green space, hundreds of free TV channels, plentiful access to cheap food supermarkets, minimum wage legislation etc.
Just because a small minority gets to leave in relative luxury doesn't render the rest of us poor!
The population is aging, the cost of ever more complex treatments is rising. If one accepts that the NHS requires significant additional funding then it is either achieved by cutting public spending in other areas or increasing tax revenue. The answer is probably both.
The tax rates and thresholds that I gave as an example had the 45% rate kicking in far lower than the £150k at present (at £80k of taxable income - so £90k earnings assuming a £10k personal allowance). Accepting the the argument of the law of diminishing returns by having a 50% rate, then just by lowering the point at which the top rate of 45% is applied would increase tax revenue. Most people who earn between £90k and £150k earn enough to be able to afford an additional 5p in the pound tax AND don't earn enough to be able to afford very expensive/creative accountants.
This is not about punishing the rich - it is about those than can afford to pay more, pay more to help those that can't. It's called society FFS.
It equally isn't the politics of envy - certainly not from my perspective. Applying the rates I suggested would cost me an extra £30k a year in tax.
A significant number (majority?) of high earners are not employed and thus taxed via PAYE, but self-employed or company owners (eg. musicians, sportspeople, actors, hedge fund managers etc.) - they can very readily decide how much to work and just as importantly where. They can also decide when to receive their income (for example via dividends). Meanwhile even some of those high-earners that are paid via PAYE (eg. footballers, investment bankers) can easily move overseas to ply their trade.
The idea that this country would benefit from 50%+ marginal tax rates is completely absurd and illogical and would send us back to the 1970s.
Given that the top rate of tax was 60% in the mid to late 80s, and the Laffer Curve effects apparently kick in at about 70%, I think suggesting 50% tax rates would send us back to the 70s is what's absurd and illogical. Yes, it's more complex than it would be if everyone was on PAYE, but that doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
At least it would help stop the " rich aren't paying their way" mantras.
We already have. It failed, dismally and spectacularly.
The Harold Wilson Govt. had a so-called progressive tax regime with a top tax rate of 83% PLUS 15% on "unearned income" thus giving a marginal tax rate of 98%. What happened? The likes of The Stones and The Beatles based themselves elsewhere. In truth they had no choice. Bill Wyman said he got £70k out of every £1mn earned and if he hadn't left the country he couldn't actually afford to pay the imposed tax. There were songs about it: you may remember The Beatles Taxman; The Kinks Sunny Afternoon and, of course, what is now considered to be The Stones best work is called Exile on Main Street for a reason.
Squeezing the rich is a stupid and counterproductive measure. These days it's not just pop stars who make large sums of money. Footballers and international bankers are typical other examples. They can all ply their trade anywhere and would pack their bags at a moments notice.
Of course, this means that the money they spend here would go too, meaning the Government would no longer get an extra 16.7% of what they spend through VAT receipts, as their spending would vanish with them. Those they employ, gardeners, jewellers, Bentley salesmen, etc, etc would, too, find themselves less well of (or unemployed) meaning UK plc would be in a right mess.
BTW, the rich already pay far more than their fair share. Presently close to half the working age population pay no income tax at all. (Primarily because of George Osborne raising the income tax personal allowance from £6,475 to £10,600.)
Here's the relevant extract from The Institute of Fiscal Studies report:
"the proportion of working-age adults who do not pay income tax has risen from 34.3 per cent to 43.8 per cent, equivalent to 23 million people.
Over the same period the amount of income tax paid by the richest 1 per cent has risen from 24.4 per cent to 27.5 per cent, meaning that 300,000 people pay more than a quarter of the nation's income tax." (My emphasis)
You really, really want them to pay more?
They're paying more of the tax because they've hoarded more of the f**king money
Do you not understand that income tax, as in @Addickted 's bonkers scheme, is applied to income? It has nothing to do with "hoarding", whatever that means. Or are you suggesting that individuals who prudently save their money should be even further penalised than they are now?
Engineering a society where the incomes of a few increasingly dwarf the incomes of the rest entirely satisfies the description 'hoarding' imo
Well, you are right the gap between rich and poor has indeed got wider. But and it's a big but, the poor have still got less poor. These figures are a little out of date but illustrate the point. The poorest half of the country is only 7 per cent better off since 2012. But the top 10 per cent see their total wealth rise by more than a fifth. Now, I don't know, but suspect that the main reasons for the difference is that property prices have risen and stockmarkets have recovered.
But according to Boundless. “Growing Gap Between Rich and Poor.” 08 Aug. 2016. from https://www.boundless.com/sociology/textbooks/boundless-sociology-textbook/stratification-inequality-and-social-class-in-the-u-s-9/social-mobility-76/growing-gap-between-rich-and-poor-450-2081/, the truth is that a major cause of economic inequality within modern economies is the determination of wages by the capitalist market. If there are many workers willing to do a job for a great amount of time, there is a high supply of labour for that job. If few people need that job done, there is low demand for that type of labour. When there is high supply and low demand for a job, it results in a low wage. Conversely, if there is low supply and high demand (as with particular highly skilled jobs), it will result in a high wage. The gap in wages produces inequality between different types of workers.
So, rather than hammer the rich (or less poor), we need to look at what makes them rich. Inevitably, (if you ignore those with supreme sporting prowess) the answer is education and training. If only that fuckwit Tony Blair had really, really meant it when he came out with that "education, education, education" mantra, what, some twenty years ago now. We might all be in a better place.
At least it would help stop the " rich aren't paying their way" mantras.
You really, really want them to pay more?
Yes.
Have you seen the title of this thread?
Idiot, of course I did, when I opened it. So, in summary, you'd still like people to be charged tax at a higher rate even though it's been explained to you that that would mean less tax receipts to fund anything let alone the NHS? That sounds like vindictiveness rather than a sensible idea. You're not Jeremy Corbyn are you?
Oh dear - suggesting that the higher earners should pay a higher rate of income tax is vindictiveness?
Suggesting a higher rate of tax to help fund social care just a little bit better is idiotic?
And I don't accept an increase in higher rate income taxation would reduce tax receipts. Tighter HMRC controls on both PAYE and self assessment would increase receipts.
At least it would help stop the " rich aren't paying their way" mantras.
We already have. It failed, dismally and spectacularly.
The Harold Wilson Govt. had a so-called progressive tax regime with a top tax rate of 83% PLUS 15% on "unearned income" thus giving a marginal tax rate of 98%. What happened? The likes of The Stones and The Beatles based themselves elsewhere. In truth they had no choice. Bill Wyman said he got £70k out of every £1mn earned and if he hadn't left the country he couldn't actually afford to pay the imposed tax. There were songs about it: you may remember The Beatles Taxman; The Kinks Sunny Afternoon and, of course, what is now considered to be The Stones best work is called Exile on Main Street for a reason.
Squeezing the rich is a stupid and counterproductive measure. These days it's not just pop stars who make large sums of money. Footballers and international bankers are typical other examples. They can all ply their trade anywhere and would pack their bags at a moments notice.
Of course, this means that the money they spend here would go too, meaning the Government would no longer get an extra 16.7% of what they spend through VAT receipts, as their spending would vanish with them. Those they employ, gardeners, jewellers, Bentley salesmen, etc, etc would, too, find themselves less well of (or unemployed) meaning UK plc would be in a right mess.
BTW, the rich already pay far more than their fair share. Presently close to half the working age population pay no income tax at all. (Primarily because of George Osborne raising the income tax personal allowance from £6,475 to £10,600.)
Here's the relevant extract from The Institute of Fiscal Studies report:
"the proportion of working-age adults who do not pay income tax has risen from 34.3 per cent to 43.8 per cent, equivalent to 23 million people.
Over the same period the amount of income tax paid by the richest 1 per cent has risen from 24.4 per cent to 27.5 per cent, meaning that 300,000 people pay more than a quarter of the nation's income tax." (My emphasis)
You really, really want them to pay more?
They're paying more of the tax because they've hoarded more of the f**king money
Do you not understand that income tax, as in @Addickted 's bonkers scheme, is applied to income? It has nothing to do with "hoarding", whatever that means. Or are you suggesting that individuals who prudently save their money should be even further penalised than they are now?
Engineering a society where the incomes of a few increasingly dwarf the incomes of the rest entirely satisfies the description 'hoarding' imo
Well, you are right the gap between rich and poor has indeed got wider. But and it's a big but, the poor have still got less poor. These figures are a little out of date but illustrate the point. The poorest half of the country is only 7 per cent better off since 2012. But the top 10 per cent see their total wealth rise by more than a fifth. Now, I don't know, but suspect that the main reasons for the difference is that property prices have risen and stockmarkets have recovered.
But according to Boundless. “Growing Gap Between Rich and Poor.” 08 Aug. 2016. from https://www.boundless.com/sociology/textbooks/boundless-sociology-textbook/stratification-inequality-and-social-class-in-the-u-s-9/social-mobility-76/growing-gap-between-rich-and-poor-450-2081/, the truth is that a major cause of economic inequality within modern economies is the determination of wages by the capitalist market. If there are many workers willing to do a job for a great amount of time, there is a high supply of labour for that job. If few people need that job done, there is low demand for that type of labour. When there is high supply and low demand for a job, it results in a low wage. Conversely, if there is low supply and high demand (as with particular highly skilled jobs), it will result in a high wage. The gap in wages produces inequality between different types of workers.
So, rather than hammer the rich (or less poor), we need to look at what makes them rich. Inevitably, (if you ignore those with supreme sporting prowess) the answer is education and training. If only that fuckwit Tony Blair had really, really meant it when he came out with that "education, education, education" mantra, what, some twenty years ago now. We might all be in a better place.
What makes people rich is the means to commandeer a large slice of an active market. This has never been easier for the existing privileged. Education comes into it but is entirely subordinate to opportunity and corruption.
What makes people poor is a struggling jobs market and high relative cost of living. Education is irrelevant.
Labour under Blair helped to destroy state education in this country, agreed. But an ology isn't going to help when your town has no industry, or slave wages
At least it would help stop the " rich aren't paying their way" mantras.
We already have. It failed, dismally and spectacularly.
The Harold Wilson Govt. had a so-called progressive tax regime with a top tax rate of 83% PLUS 15% on "unearned income" thus giving a marginal tax rate of 98%. What happened? The likes of The Stones and The Beatles based themselves elsewhere. In truth they had no choice. Bill Wyman said he got £70k out of every £1mn earned and if he hadn't left the country he couldn't actually afford to pay the imposed tax. There were songs about it: you may remember The Beatles Taxman; The Kinks Sunny Afternoon and, of course, what is now considered to be The Stones best work is called Exile on Main Street for a reason.
Squeezing the rich is a stupid and counterproductive measure. These days it's not just pop stars who make large sums of money. Footballers and international bankers are typical other examples. They can all ply their trade anywhere and would pack their bags at a moments notice.
Of course, this means that the money they spend here would go too, meaning the Government would no longer get an extra 16.7% of what they spend through VAT receipts, as their spending would vanish with them. Those they employ, gardeners, jewellers, Bentley salesmen, etc, etc would, too, find themselves less well of (or unemployed) meaning UK plc would be in a right mess.
BTW, the rich already pay far more than their fair share. Presently close to half the working age population pay no income tax at all. (Primarily because of George Osborne raising the income tax personal allowance from £6,475 to £10,600.)
Here's the relevant extract from The Institute of Fiscal Studies report:
"the proportion of working-age adults who do not pay income tax has risen from 34.3 per cent to 43.8 per cent, equivalent to 23 million people.
Over the same period the amount of income tax paid by the richest 1 per cent has risen from 24.4 per cent to 27.5 per cent, meaning that 300,000 people pay more than a quarter of the nation's income tax." (My emphasis)
You really, really want them to pay more?
They're paying more of the tax because they've hoarded more of the f**king money
Do you not understand that income tax, as in @Addickted 's bonkers scheme, is applied to income? It has nothing to do with "hoarding", whatever that means. Or are you suggesting that individuals who prudently save their money should be even further penalised than they are now?
Engineering a society where the incomes of a few increasingly dwarf the incomes of the rest entirely satisfies the description 'hoarding' imo
Well, you are right the gap between rich and poor has indeed got wider. But and it's a big but, the poor have still got less poor. These figures are a little out of date but illustrate the point. The poorest half of the country is only 7 per cent better off since 2012. But the top 10 per cent see their total wealth rise by more than a fifth. Now, I don't know, but suspect that the main reasons for the difference is that property prices have risen and stockmarkets have recovered.
But according to Boundless. “Growing Gap Between Rich and Poor.” 08 Aug. 2016. from https://www.boundless.com/sociology/textbooks/boundless-sociology-textbook/stratification-inequality-and-social-class-in-the-u-s-9/social-mobility-76/growing-gap-between-rich-and-poor-450-2081/, the truth is that a major cause of economic inequality within modern economies is the determination of wages by the capitalist market. If there are many workers willing to do a job for a great amount of time, there is a high supply of labour for that job. If few people need that job done, there is low demand for that type of labour. When there is high supply and low demand for a job, it results in a low wage. Conversely, if there is low supply and high demand (as with particular highly skilled jobs), it will result in a high wage. The gap in wages produces inequality between different types of workers.
So, rather than hammer the rich (or less poor), we need to look at what makes them rich. Inevitably, (if you ignore those with supreme sporting prowess) the answer is education and training. If only that fuckwit Tony Blair had really, really meant it when he came out with that "education, education, education" mantra, what, some twenty years ago now. We might all be in a better place.
What makes people rich is the means to commandeer a large slice of an active market. This has never been easier for the existing privileged. Education comes into it but is entirely subordinate to opportunity and corruption.
What makes people poor is a struggling jobs market and high relative cost of living. Education is irrelevant.
Labour under Blair helped to destroy state education in this country, agreed. But an ology isn't going to help when your town has no industry, or slave wages
It doesn't have to be an ology, which is why I included the word "training". My niece's husband runs a small engineering firm in a rural location in Northern Ireland. It's been doing reasonably well and there has been some tentative expansion with more planned. (It's where most of his "wealth" goes - creating new jobs - which is a much more productive place for it rather than the taxman's coffers.
But, guess what? He can't get local welders to fill the vacancies and a small but significant percentage of his workforce including a top-notch highly paid 3D CAD technician is from Romania. The Romanians get the same money as the locals, rather than the other way round and it's certainly not slave wages (as you'd expect for a skilled job). There should be a whole raft of educational tools available. Not just to ensure we have the next generation of Egyptologists but also skilled engineers, welders and the like.
What generally happens in poorer parts of the country is that those hardworking or ambitious enough to get a few 'ologies leave and unsurprisingly move to places where there are jobs and opportunities for betterment.
However I know from my own family's experience (and continue to believe) that it only takes one generation to break the vicious cycle of poverty/low expectations and then once broken it typically isn't reversed.
I have no idea about the reset your password process but I'm sure that in the scheme of the whole policy it's a pretty insignificant factor.
Well, as I understand it, the idea of the digital system is that everything apart from meetings with your jobcoach is supposed to go through the system rather than them sending letters out, so if you can't log in to the damn thing in the first place, you're screwed.
Yes the conditionality regime is a potential catastrophe but there are a retract rules about when a section can be applied and when it can't. And it has to be agreed by 2 people so it can't just be applied case of them 'not liking what you are doing'. A sanction for missing applied reread meeting only occurs on the second time it happens and only if there is no warning of such. I.e. a phone call to say you can't make it can we rearrange would suffice. Simple communication, the 'relationship' goes both ways.
I believe the plan was to have 2 parts to the same test to allow for one appointment, and one visit to the doctor rather than having 2 separate ones for the benefits. A thoroughly sensible idea of you ask me.
But it's not just a question of the appointment (which isn't necessarily with a doctor btw), it's also the other processes surrounding administration of the claim before and after the assessment that are different, because they serve different purposes. It will also make it more difficult for claimants who need to dispute the outcome of an assessment, as it'll potentially mean entitlement to two benefits is in the balance, not just one.
What generally happens in poorer parts of the country is that those hardworking or ambitious enough to get a few 'ologies leave and unsurprisingly move to places where there are jobs and opportunities for betterment.
However I know from my own family's experience (and continue to believe) that it only takes one generation to break the vicious cycle of poverty/low expectations and then once broken it typically isn't reversed.
So...given infinite time, everyone will be rich!!!
Comments
They suggest 813,000 taxpayers earned over £100k (versus your 1.2m figure) out of a total of 30.2m taxpayers (this may be less than the total working population as there is no tax due for those whose earnings are below the personal allowance). Over £200k was 214,000 people so pretty close to your figure above.
At the top extreme, approx. 5,000 people earned over £2m and paid on average £1.88m in tax.
On 2), it depends if you include pensions as welfare or not.
Just because a small minority gets to leave in relative luxury doesn't render the rest of us poor!
The tax rates and thresholds that I gave as an example had the 45% rate kicking in far lower than the £150k at present (at £80k of taxable income - so £90k earnings assuming a £10k personal allowance). Accepting the the argument of the law of diminishing returns by having a 50% rate, then just by lowering the point at which the top rate of 45% is applied would increase tax revenue. Most people who earn between £90k and £150k earn enough to be able to afford an additional 5p in the pound tax AND don't earn enough to be able to afford very expensive/creative accountants.
This is not about punishing the rich - it is about those than can afford to pay more, pay more to help those that can't. It's called society FFS.
It equally isn't the politics of envy - certainly not from my perspective. Applying the rates I suggested would cost me an extra £30k a year in tax.
But according to Boundless. “Growing Gap Between Rich and Poor.” 08 Aug. 2016. from https://www.boundless.com/sociology/textbooks/boundless-sociology-textbook/stratification-inequality-and-social-class-in-the-u-s-9/social-mobility-76/growing-gap-between-rich-and-poor-450-2081/, the truth is that a major cause of economic inequality within modern economies is the determination of wages by the capitalist market. If there are many workers willing to do a job for a great amount of time, there is a high supply of labour for that job. If few people need that job done, there is low demand for that type of labour. When there is high supply and low demand for a job, it results in a low wage. Conversely, if there is low supply and high demand (as with particular highly skilled jobs), it will result in a high wage. The gap in wages produces inequality between different types of workers.
So, rather than hammer the rich (or less poor), we need to look at what makes them rich. Inevitably, (if you ignore those with supreme sporting prowess) the answer is education and training. If only that fuckwit Tony Blair had really, really meant it when he came out with that "education, education, education" mantra, what, some twenty years ago now. We might all be in a better place.
Suggesting a higher rate of tax to help fund social care just a little bit better is idiotic?
And I don't accept an increase in higher rate income taxation would reduce tax receipts. Tighter HMRC controls on both PAYE and self assessment would increase receipts.
Well, perhaps that's true in Greece.
What makes people poor is a struggling jobs market and high relative cost of living. Education is irrelevant.
Labour under Blair helped to destroy state education in this country, agreed. But an ology isn't going to help when your town has no industry, or slave wages
But, guess what? He can't get local welders to fill the vacancies and a small but significant percentage of his workforce including a top-notch highly paid 3D CAD technician is from Romania. The Romanians get the same money as the locals, rather than the other way round and it's certainly not slave wages (as you'd expect for a skilled job). There should be a whole raft of educational tools available. Not just to ensure we have the next generation of Egyptologists but also skilled engineers, welders and the like.
However I know from my own family's experience (and continue to believe) that it only takes one generation to break the vicious cycle of poverty/low expectations and then once broken it typically isn't reversed.
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/universal-credit-arrears-soar-in-scottish-council/7018125.article