The people that will have the biggest change in take home as a percentage would surely be those earning between £120k and £150k who will be paying the additional 10%.
I know its a good salary and all that but its still a fair chunk of change.
The costings simply do not add up. Take the income tax. This is the one that everyone is focussing on even though it is only supposed to be £6.4bn of the total required. Recent evidence of the 45%/50% rate of tax implies it didn't actually make much difference to the total tax take. Part of the reason is people tax planning, legally and legitimately, as well as more dodgy practices. The lower the tax rate the less likely people are to worry about these. Corporation tax is even less predictable and will definitely raise proportionately less. There is even more room for tax planning with global groups. A lower tax rate encourages groups to allocate profit to UK. I am fairly open to nationalisation in some respects but anyone who remembers what it was like in 70's will be very sceptical. I shouldn't think any new trains had been bought for years; whereas there has been a lot of investment in rolling stock in recent years. Personally I think it can be done better by improving their targets. It strikes me biggest problem is line capacity. Everyone would like a better NHS but it is a bottomless drain as medical science improves and more of us get older. Goodness knows what it will be like when us baby boomers hit the time we all need care. One thing is for certain though is it won't be helped by taking the money out of the economy and reducing future growth or inward investment. This manifesto is a shambles
"This manifesto is a shambles, because rich people know how to cheat"
...or just work less
Why would they work less?
Being in a higher tax bracket still means you take home far more money than lower brackets.
....in my view, when tax rates reach levels which are akin to expropriation (say when your take-home is less than 50%) then sufficient numbers of those who are no longer working because they 'need' the money will simply work less or not at all (thus offsetting the extra inflows from those who continue as they were).
Bear in mind many (most?) of the highest earners are not employees on fixed contracts but effectively self-employed (eg. firm partners, actors, musicians, TV stars, sportspeople etc.). Entrepreneurs/business owners can simply leave money in their business and not dividend it out.
Even those who are employees might consider retiring early, rather than taking the 6.32am from East Grinstead for another few years only to give the government at least half of what they earn.
Well thank god your view is complete rubbish. look at Sweden as an example.
Sweden distributes taxes through things like education vouchers to buy private education. It does not take taxes and then take away the personal freedom on how individuals prioritise their needs and wants. It's the opposite of a Corbyn vision where the state knows best. Sweden is a decentralised economy, the means of production is in the hands of private enterprise, not the state. Sweden uses the state to add value to private enterprise and personal living, that is not socialism as is understood by Corbyn and Momentum.
The people that will have the biggest change in take home as a percentage would surely be those earning between £120k and £150k who will be paying the additional 10%.
I know its a good salary and all that but its still a fair chunk of change.
Nobody who lived through the 1970s can seriously be recommending nationalised industries as a solution to our economic problems. Any additional investment would go directly into staff pay claims which Corbyn would be unwilling or unable to resist making these companies uncompetitive very quickly. Corbyn has no economic credibility. The manifesto is a shambles. It is very sad to see what has happened to labour in the last few years.
They are not a solution to our economic problems - rather, they will be prevented from ripping us off. Well, a better rail service will have economic benefits I suppose. You can nationalise and set principles that guard against waste quite easily.
For every high earner in this country willing to quit their job or do less hours because of minor changes in tax there are dozens equally able people willing to take their place. Not sure the whinging of a very small portion of the most well-off should be guiding our economic policy.
I'll remember that when I'm watching an Iron Maiden tribute band because the original one disbanded due to tax rates!
For every high earner in this country willing to quit their job or do less hours because of minor changes in tax there are dozens equally able people willing to take their place. Not sure the whinging of a very small portion of the most well-off should be guiding our economic policy.
I'll remember that when I'm watching an Iron Maiden tribute band because the original one disbanded due to tax rates!
The costings simply do not add up. Take the income tax. This is the one that everyone is focussing on even though it is only supposed to be £6.4bn of the total required. Recent evidence of the 45%/50% rate of tax implies it didn't actually make much difference to the total tax take. Part of the reason is people tax planning, legally and legitimately, as well as more dodgy practices. The lower the tax rate the less likely people are to worry about these. Corporation tax is even less predictable and will definitely raise proportionately less. There is even more room for tax planning with global groups. A lower tax rate encourages groups to allocate profit to UK. I am fairly open to nationalisation in some respects but anyone who remembers what it was like in 70's will be very sceptical. I shouldn't think any new trains had been bought for years; whereas there has been a lot of investment in rolling stock in recent years. Personally I think it can be done better by improving their targets. It strikes me biggest problem is line capacity. Everyone would like a better NHS but it is a bottomless drain as medical science improves and more of us get older. Goodness knows what it will be like when us baby boomers hit the time we all need care. One thing is for certain though is it won't be helped by taking the money out of the economy and reducing future growth or inward investment. This manifesto is a shambles
"This manifesto is a shambles, because rich people know how to cheat"
...or just work less
Why would they work less?
Being in a higher tax bracket still means you take home far more money than lower brackets.
....in my view, when tax rates reach levels which are akin to expropriation (say when your take-home is less than 50%) then sufficient numbers of those who are no longer working because they 'need' the money will simply work less or not at all (thus offsetting the extra inflows from those who continue as they were).
Bear in mind many (most?) of the highest earners are not employees on fixed contracts but effectively self-employed (eg. firm partners, actors, musicians, TV stars, sportspeople etc.). Entrepreneurs/business owners can simply leave money in their business and not dividend it out.
Even those who are employees might consider retiring early, rather than taking the 6.32am from East Grinstead for another few years only to give the government at least half of what they earn.
Well thank god your view is complete rubbish. look at Sweden as an example.
Sweden distributes taxes through things like education vouchers to buy private education. It does not take taxes and then take away the personal freedom on how individuals prioritise their needs and wants. It's the opposite of a Corbyn vision where the state knows best. Sweden is a decentralised economy, the means of production is in the hands of private enterprise, not the state. Sweden uses the state to add value to private enterprise and personal living, that is not socialism as is understood by Corbyn and Momentum.
This is actually a very good post because it moves towards the heart of the difference. On the one hand there is the long held belief that people should have the personal freedom to spend their money how they like, and the belief that for some things the state ought to decide how that is spent. The tension between those two positions has driven left/right politics for decades. On the one hand there is the argument that if I want to spend my money on a Range Rover I should be able to, and there is the other side of that which says 'ah, but you want to use it on roads, a community resource decided on by the state and paid for by the general population. I understand that in the absence of huge natural resources like Saudi Arabia that wealth has to be created, but even the wealth creators stand on the shoulders of the community and community infrastructure. If enough of the population feel that they are locked out to an extent, or fed crumbs from the tables of the rich then there is a reaction. We have austerity and a squeeze that is manifesting itself everywhere, and many are asking why that happens in such a rich economy. I remember seeing a documentary about the American health system, where people returned to their tents in the woods after their chemotherapy, whilst their doctors drove off to their golf courses. To be aghast at such a situation risks being called jealous, or to be playing the victim, but in my view a society comprises all of us, and those who are wealthy benefit from that despite the aspiration by some to be shielded from the 'plebs'.
If anyone sees Brokenshire at a station again, ask him why they are planning to wreck our train service by stopping services to charing cross and victoria (the b'stards)
For every high earner in this country willing to quit their job or do less hours because of minor changes in tax there are dozens equally able people willing to take their place. Not sure the whinging of a very small portion of the most well-off should be guiding our economic policy.
I'll remember that when I'm watching an Iron Maiden tribute band because the original one disbanded due to tax rates!
Is that the best you can do?
Seeing them next Sunday - suspect they aren't doing it for the money at this point.
Nobody who lived through the 1970s can seriously be recommending nationalised industries as a solution to our economic problems. Any additional investment would go directly into staff pay claims which Corbyn would be unwilling or unable to resist making these companies uncompetitive very quickly. Corbyn has no economic credibility. The manifesto is a shambles. It is very sad to see what has happened to labour in the last few years.
Anyone that honestly believes the private sector are the best people to run our railways clearly hasn't had to rely on trains in the past 5 years.
This is what monopolies lead to; inefficient, expensive, terribly run companies that still make huge profits because they're the only choice the public has got.
Disagree in parts: Most people that I have seen or know on benefits have more expensive clothes than I, more expensive TV's, Cars etc generally more and get benefits whilst working cash in hand or not at all. They go on multiple holidays a year and get a ridiculously cheap house... All they tend to do is go to the odd GP appointment to say they're not ready to get back out there or go to the odd job interview...
I earn a bit below 40k and have an average car, average motorbike, average clothes (next etc) and I have to save up for months for a weekend away. I even have to save to buy for any additional expenses each month. Bills and mortgage = 80% of our monthly income. Food and a savings account for our daughter take up the remainder!
So yeah I'll say flip the benefits we get - £10 per week whilst some lazy chav gets hundreds maybe a thousand a month for doing flip all.
I see what you are saying. I could count up to ten people I know abusing the system
The people that will have the biggest change in take home as a percentage would surely be those earning between £120k and £150k who will be paying the additional 10%.
I know its a good salary and all that but its still a fair chunk of change.
My heart truly bleeds at such injustice.
Wow, you do have a real beef with high earners. Why does it bother you so much that there's people earning 100k plus a year?
Nobody who lived through the 1970s can seriously be recommending nationalised industries as a solution to our economic problems. Any additional investment would go directly into staff pay claims which Corbyn would be unwilling or unable to resist making these companies uncompetitive very quickly. Corbyn has no economic credibility. The manifesto is a shambles. It is very sad to see what has happened to labour in the last few years.
Anyone that honestly believes the private sector are the best people to run our railways clearly hasn't had to rely on trains in the past 5 years.
This is what monopolies lead to; inefficient, expensive, terribly run companies that still make huge profits because they're the only choice the public has got.
My train service is great (London Midland) - modern rolling stock, free wifi, not too crowded, generally on time, friendly staff.....
The problem with Southern/Southeastern etc is them not the private sector per se
So under labour my salary will be taxed at 50% instead of 40%.
This election is suddenly becoming quite important..
So the only point on which the election becomes important is when there is a material impact to *your* take home pay?
The NHS, pensions, workers' rights, the unemployment level, inflation, migration, VAT, social care, the environment, education, universities, crime, public transport, security, defence, nuclear arms, overseas aid and Brexit are all of no consequence? But the moment you find out you might have to contribute more to the economy at a marginal rate, for your salary of over £123k is the moment you decide it's important?
He already contributes a very high rate to the economy. There comes a time when you want the success you have worked and fought to create to benefit your family and your childrens future. I am not ashamed to say I go to work for my two boys and their future. That's my driver. Like Southend I am comfortable that by paying more towards the benefits system / NHS / social services than more than 95% of the country that I do my part.
There is nothing wrong with stating that now I will focus on my own family.
I totally agree with you that there's nothing wrong with focusing on one's family; and, for those that have chidren, their future. After all, if we can't strive for a better future for ourselves and our families, then no-one benefits. But there's more to one's future than the marginal rate of income tax one might have to pay over the next few years. And that was the point I was making.
You're right to work towards your and your boys' future. But, anyone who does so should also take into account other topics within this year's election campaigns.
For instance, some people with families might want to ensure that their children will all get free meals at primary schools. That secondary schools will be properly and fully funded. That university education will revert to being free of charge. That all services on the NHS remain free and open to use by their families, friends, employers, customers and employees. And that the direction of travel on the welfare state is to reduce the numbers of people needing to claim benefit. All of those are up for grabs next month.
Or they might decide that they are happy with cuts being put in place by the current Government in defence, security, health, local government, transport infrastructure, policing, university education and that the direction of travel of the welfare state is to reduce the amount of money that those in need can claim. The effects of these cuts can all be mitigated next month too.
But there's also one chilling point that anyone who has two children should consider. Under the current Government's policy and proposals, if a family has one or two children, they can make a claim for child tax credits to help in the cost of raising the children. But if a woman has a third child, she may have to prove the pregnancy is the result of rape. So, my advice to anyone with, contemplating or in a family with a third child is, do not vote for the current Government next month.
I saw this video today stating that the richest 300 people in the world have the same amount of wealth as the poorest 3 billion. https://youtu.be/uWSxzjyMNpU
For instance, some people with families might want to ensure that their children will all get free meals at primary schools.
Why, those who need free school meals already get them, just like they always have (in my lifetime anyway). I don't see the point of my children if they were still at primary getting free meals, I can afford to pay them so wouldn't that money be better spent? It's decisions like this that make no sense in comparison to some of Labours policies/manifesto.
But there's also one chilling point that anyone who has two children should consider. Under the current Government's policy and proposals, if a family has one or two children, they can make a claim for child tax credits to help in the cost of raising the children. But if a woman has a third child, she may have to prove the pregnancy is the result of rape. So, my advice to anyone with, contemplating or in a family with a third child is, do not vote for the current Government next month.
Surely if you are in receipt of child tax credits and have two children and know you won't get anymore help from the state (in child tax credits) you make the decision that you can either afford another child or you can't. Many times my parents said they wished they could have afforded more children, they took the decision they couldn't and therefore they didn't. Child tax credits came in in 2003, people seemed to have managed for the 2003 years prior to that, it only seems the last 14 years it's been necessary........
So 2.5% surcharge (paid by companies) on excessive pay over £330,000. That will include pretty much all football players in the top two divisions. (And Tex) Then, of course, the players will demand more wages to offset their new tax bills. So, ticket prices and/or Sky subscriptions will have to go up. That's an impact on ordinary hard working football fans straight away.
So 2.5% surcharge (paid by companies) on excessive pay over £330,000. That will include pretty much all football players in the top two divisions. (And Tex) Then, of course, the players will demand more wages to offset their new tax bills. So, ticket prices and/or Sky subscriptions will have to go up. That's an impact on ordinary hard working football fans straight away.
Think you'll find Tex is int he higher band for over £500k and 5%!
For instance, some people with families might want to ensure that their children will all get free meals at primary schools.
Why, those who need free school meals already get them, just like they always have (in my lifetime anyway). I don't see the point of my children if they were still at primary getting free meals, I can afford to pay them so wouldn't that money be better spent? It's decisions like this that make no sense in comparison to some of Labours policies/manifesto.
But there's also one chilling point that anyone who has two children should consider. Under the current Government's policy and proposals, if a family has one or two children, they can make a claim for child tax credits to help in the cost of raising the children. But if a woman has a third child, she may have to prove the pregnancy is the result of rape. So, my advice to anyone with, contemplating or in a family with a third child is, do not vote for the current Government next month.
Surely if you are in receipt of child tax credits and have two children and know you won't get anymore help from the state (in child tax credits) you make the decision that you can either afford another child or you can't. Many times my parents said they wished they could have afforded more children, they took the decision they couldn't and therefore they didn't. Child tax credits came in in 2003, people seemed to have managed for the 2003 years prior to that, it only seems the last 14 years it's been necessary........
You've done exactly the right thing as far as I am concerned. You've looked at what is important to you and you've made your decision. That's what everyone should do.
You've weighed up what's important to you and decided that you're happy that primary school children should continue to be segregated, based on their parents' ability to pay for school meals; and that the rape clause is a perfectly acceptable policy, to mitigate against anyone whose circumstances become reduced after their third child is conceived. No-one should ever point a finger at you and accuse you of not thinking through the issues and making a decision that's right for you - if only more people would do the same.
I, however, will be voting against the forced segregation and unnecessary stigmatising of primary school children; and I will be voting against the rape clause that determines that a third child whose mother is in receipt of child tax credits will be stigmatised by having his or her mother having to prove a man has raped her (and must prove she does not live with the child's father) and share that information with their employers. You've picked on two of the items I listed. One unnecessarily discriminates against children based on their parents' income; and one unnecessarily discriminates against children based on the criminal activities of their absent father. Each to their own though.
Chizz, why should university tuition be completely free and thus paid for by the ordinary taxpayer, most of whom never had the chance to enjoy the financial, educational and social benefits of university?
I accept that society benefits from having well educated and cultured graduates (which explains why tuition fees don't cover the full cost) but free?!
Comments
5% of £43k is what....... £2,150 extra. Is Corbyn reading the news?
The people that will have the biggest change in take home as a percentage would surely be those earning between £120k and £150k who will be paying the additional 10%.
I know its a good salary and all that but its still a fair chunk of change.
£23k on £43k is over 50% are you sure that It's not the total tax on earnings between 80 and 123k that seems more logical.
On the one hand there is the long held belief that people should have the personal freedom to spend their money how they like, and the belief that for some things the state ought to decide how that is spent.
The tension between those two positions has driven left/right politics for decades.
On the one hand there is the argument that if I want to spend my money on a Range Rover I should be able to, and there is the other side of that which says 'ah, but you want to use it on roads, a community resource decided on by the state and paid for by the general population.
I understand that in the absence of huge natural resources like Saudi Arabia that wealth has to be created, but even the wealth creators stand on the shoulders of the community and community infrastructure.
If enough of the population feel that they are locked out to an extent, or fed crumbs from the tables of the rich then there is a reaction.
We have austerity and a squeeze that is manifesting itself everywhere, and many are asking why that happens in such a rich economy.
I remember seeing a documentary about the American health system, where people returned to their tents in the woods after their chemotherapy, whilst their doctors drove off to their golf courses.
To be aghast at such a situation risks being called jealous, or to be playing the victim, but in my view a society comprises all of us, and those who are wealthy benefit from that despite the aspiration by some to be shielded from the 'plebs'.
This is what monopolies lead to; inefficient, expensive, terribly run companies that still make huge profits because they're the only choice the public has got.
The problem with Southern/Southeastern etc is them not the private sector per se
You're right to work towards your and your boys' future. But, anyone who does so should also take into account other topics within this year's election campaigns.
For instance, some people with families might want to ensure that their children will all get free meals at primary schools. That secondary schools will be properly and fully funded. That university education will revert to being free of charge. That all services on the NHS remain free and open to use by their families, friends, employers, customers and employees. And that the direction of travel on the welfare state is to reduce the numbers of people needing to claim benefit. All of those are up for grabs next month.
Or they might decide that they are happy with cuts being put in place by the current Government in defence, security, health, local government, transport infrastructure, policing, university education and that the direction of travel of the welfare state is to reduce the amount of money that those in need can claim. The effects of these cuts can all be mitigated next month too.
But there's also one chilling point that anyone who has two children should consider. Under the current Government's policy and proposals, if a family has one or two children, they can make a claim for child tax credits to help in the cost of raising the children. But if a woman has a third child, she may have to prove the pregnancy is the result of rape. So, my advice to anyone with, contemplating or in a family with a third child is, do not vote for the current Government next month.
That will include pretty much all football players in the top two divisions. (And Tex)
Then, of course, the players will demand more wages to offset their new tax bills. So, ticket prices and/or Sky subscriptions will have to go up. That's an impact on ordinary hard working football fans straight away.
You've weighed up what's important to you and decided that you're happy that primary school children should continue to be segregated, based on their parents' ability to pay for school meals; and that the rape clause is a perfectly acceptable policy, to mitigate against anyone whose circumstances become reduced after their third child is conceived. No-one should ever point a finger at you and accuse you of not thinking through the issues and making a decision that's right for you - if only more people would do the same.
I, however, will be voting against the forced segregation and unnecessary stigmatising of primary school children; and I will be voting against the rape clause that determines that a third child whose mother is in receipt of child tax credits will be stigmatised by having his or her mother having to prove a man has raped her (and must prove she does not live with the child's father) and share that information with their employers. You've picked on two of the items I listed. One unnecessarily discriminates against children based on their parents' income; and one unnecessarily discriminates against children based on the criminal activities of their absent father. Each to their own though.
I just give mine a packed lunch
I accept that society benefits from having well educated and cultured graduates (which explains why tuition fees don't cover the full cost) but free?!