First read about "Henry's" in a great article in The Economist, Standard have done a good article below. I find this area and this group of people fascinating.
First World problem. Privileged group moaning about their lot and expecting sympathy.
If this is the biggest problem in your life you don't have too much to worry about.
The point is it’s no longer a “privileged group”. £100k a year in London isn’t a lot. You can have highly specialised relatively junior roles popping into £100k territory. I want people to earn as much as they can so the tax man can take as much as they can without hurting productivity. The 65% tax trap doesn’t do either.
I think a lot of people would think it was a lot. There are plenty of people doing valuable jobs who get paid peanuts because society doesn't value their roles - they'd love to get a decent wage.
First read about "Henry's" in a great article in The Economist, Standard have done a good article below. I find this area and this group of people fascinating.
First World problem. Privileged group moaning about their lot and expecting sympathy.
If this is the biggest problem in your life you don't have too much to worry about.
The point is it’s no longer a “privileged group”. £100k a year in London isn’t a lot. You can have highly specialised relatively junior roles popping into £100k territory. I want people to earn as much as they can so the tax man can take as much as they can without hurting productivity. The 65% tax trap doesn’t do either.
I think a lot of people would think it was a lot. There are plenty of people doing valuable jobs who get paid peanuts because society doesn't value their roles - they'd love to get a decent wage.
Sure, and the answer to that is to try and get them to a point where they are being paid more for what they do. That’s (provably, as it’s currently the case) not done by suppressing the wages of everyone else.
First read about "Henry's" in a great article in The Economist, Standard have done a good article below. I find this area and this group of people fascinating.
First World problem. Privileged group moaning about their lot and expecting sympathy.
If this is the biggest problem in your life you don't have too much to worry about.
The point is it’s no longer a “privileged group”. £100k a year in London isn’t a lot. You can have highly specialised relatively junior roles popping into £100k territory. I want people to earn as much as they can so the tax man can take as much as they can without hurting productivity. The 65% tax trap doesn’t do either.
I think a lot of people would think it was a lot. There are plenty of people doing valuable jobs who get paid peanuts because society doesn't value their roles - they'd love to get a decent wage.
Sure, and the answer to that is to try and get them to a point where they are being paid more for what they do. That’s (provably, as it’s currently the case) not done by suppressing the wages of everyone else.
Unfortunately that would lead to higher inflation, which would lead to higher interest rates, which would mean higher mortgage payments.....and for those that rent (which are a lot of the lower paid) will mean higher rents as landlords who have BTL mortgages increase the rent.
No easy answer I'm afraid. Average income is around £32k pa so anyone affected by the reduction in the PA is earning 3x the average.
And it will get worse. Taxes need to rise. No idea where Rachel Reeves will go to next but I suspect it wont be from the low paid.
First read about "Henry's" in a great article in The Economist, Standard have done a good article below. I find this area and this group of people fascinating.
First World problem. Privileged group moaning about their lot and expecting sympathy.
If this is the biggest problem in your life you don't have too much to worry about.
The point is it’s no longer a “privileged group”. £100k a year in London isn’t a lot. You can have highly specialised relatively junior roles popping into £100k territory. I want people to earn as much as they can so the tax man can take as much as they can without hurting productivity. The 65% tax trap doesn’t do either.
I think a lot of people would think it was a lot. There are plenty of people doing valuable jobs who get paid peanuts because society doesn't value their roles - they'd love to get a decent wage.
Sure, and the answer to that is to try and get them to a point where they are being paid more for what they do. That’s (provably, as it’s currently the case) not done by suppressing the wages of everyone else.
Unfortunately that would lead to higher inflation, which would lead to higher interest rates, which would mean higher mortgage payments.....and for those that rent (which are a lot of the lower paid) will mean higher rents as landlords who have BTL mortgages increase the rent.
No easy answer I'm afraid. Average income is around £32k pa so anyone affected by the reduction in the PA is earning 3x the average.
And it will get worse. Taxes need to rise. No idea where Rachel Reeves will go to next but I suspect it wont be from the low paid.
Which is what we are told will happen. But we've had ridiculous levels of inflation at the same time as wage suppression so many times in the last 50 years. The wage price spiral is a theory that gets wheeled out every time working people want higher wages but has literally never been bourne out in empirical evidence.
I'll say it again if average wages increased with purchasing power since 1980 it would be £85k. If the higher rate of income tax threshold had risen with inflation it would be £162k. We have a low pay problem in the UK.
First read about "Henry's" in a great article in The Economist, Standard have done a good article below. I find this area and this group of people fascinating.
First World problem. Privileged group moaning about their lot and expecting sympathy.
If this is the biggest problem in your life you don't have too much to worry about.
The point is it’s no longer a “privileged group”. £100k a year in London isn’t a lot. You can have highly specialised relatively junior roles popping into £100k territory. I want people to earn as much as they can so the tax man can take as much as they can without hurting productivity. The 65% tax trap doesn’t do either.
I think a lot of people would think it was a lot. There are plenty of people doing valuable jobs who get paid peanuts because society doesn't value their roles - they'd love to get a decent wage.
Sure, and the answer to that is to try and get them to a point where they are being paid more for what they do. That’s (provably, as it’s currently the case) not done by suppressing the wages of everyone else.
Unfortunately that would lead to higher inflation, which would lead to higher interest rates, which would mean higher mortgage payments.....and for those that rent (which are a lot of the lower paid) will mean higher rents as landlords who have BTL mortgages increase the rent.
No easy answer I'm afraid. Average income is around £32k pa so anyone affected by the reduction in the PA is earning 3x the average.
And it will get worse. Taxes need to rise. No idea where Rachel Reeves will go to next but I suspect it wont be from the low paid.
Which is what we are told will happen. But we've had ridiculous levels of inflation at the same time as wage suppression so many times in the last 50 years. The wage price spiral is a theory that gets wheeled out every time working people want higher wages but has literally never been bourne out in empirical evidence.
I'll say it again if average wages increased with purchasing power since 1980 it would be £85k. If the higher rate of income tax threshold had risen with inflation it would be £162k. We have a low pay problem in the UK.
I don't think that argument about low paid workers being paid an actual living wage causing inflation is without merit. What it means in reality though is some people will pull in a bit less money but a lot of people all of a sudden might have some more to spend on stuff that stimulates economies, holidays, cars, clothes, computers.
First read about "Henry's" in a great article in The Economist, Standard have done a good article below. I find this area and this group of people fascinating.
First World problem. Privileged group moaning about their lot and expecting sympathy.
If this is the biggest problem in your life you don't have too much to worry about.
The point is it’s no longer a “privileged group”. £100k a year in London isn’t a lot. You can have highly specialised relatively junior roles popping into £100k territory. I want people to earn as much as they can so the tax man can take as much as they can without hurting productivity. The 65% tax trap doesn’t do either.
I think a lot of people would think it was a lot. There are plenty of people doing valuable jobs who get paid peanuts because society doesn't value their roles - they'd love to get a decent wage.
Sure, and the answer to that is to try and get them to a point where they are being paid more for what they do. That’s (provably, as it’s currently the case) not done by suppressing the wages of everyone else.
Unfortunately that would lead to higher inflation, which would lead to higher interest rates, which would mean higher mortgage payments.....and for those that rent (which are a lot of the lower paid) will mean higher rents as landlords who have BTL mortgages increase the rent.
No easy answer I'm afraid. Average income is around £32k pa so anyone affected by the reduction in the PA is earning 3x the average.
And it will get worse. Taxes need to rise. No idea where Rachel Reeves will go to next but I suspect it wont be from the low paid.
Which is what we are told will happen. But we've had ridiculous levels of inflation at the same time as wage suppression so many times in the last 50 years. The wage price spiral is a theory that gets wheeled out every time working people want higher wages but has literally never been bourne out in empirical evidence.
I'll say it again if average wages increased with purchasing power since 1980 it would be £85k. If the higher rate of income tax threshold had risen with inflation it would be £162k. We have a low pay problem in the UK.
I don't think that argument about low paid workers being paid an actual living wage causing inflation is without merit. What it means in reality though is some people will pull in a bit less money but a lot of people all of a sudden might have some more to spend on stuff that stimulates economies, holidays, cars, clothes, computers.
There has been a spike in inflation this year partly driven by the train drivers & doctors getting big pay rises as soon as Labour came in last July.
Comments
9101 for me, please.
No easy answer I'm afraid. Average income is around £32k pa so anyone affected by the reduction in the PA is earning 3x the average.
And it will get worse. Taxes need to rise. No idea where Rachel Reeves will go to next but I suspect it wont be from the low paid.
NASDAQ up 17.1%
FTSE250 up 12.81%
S&P500, FTSE100 with up just under 7.5%
The others range from 3.5-4.5%.
Happy days, just wish I'd have invested more! (still have a bit under half in cash)
I'll say it again if average wages increased with purchasing power since 1980 it would be £85k. If the higher rate of income tax threshold had risen with inflation it would be £162k. We have a low pay problem in the UK.
It's not an arguement its fact.