Snapshot of _'How Is That Fair?': BBC Presenter Points Out That Rich Will Benefit More From Tory Tax Cut_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/how-is-that-fair-bbc-presenter-points-out-that-rich-will-benefit-more-from-tory-tax-cut_uk_6667f3aae4b04a7f054b187d) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/how-is-that-fair-bbc-presenter-points-out-that-rich-will-benefit-more-from-tory-tax-cut_uk_6667f3aae4b04a7f054b187d)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Taking one of the most unsustainable fiscal decisions and making it more unsustainable, further benefitting a demographic that is the richest and punishing the workforce that is the poorest.
Honestly feels like a joke.
The party is a reverse Robin Hood, [Rishi even gloated about taking money away from deprived urban areas](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62436193). Fair isn't something the Conservative party aim for.
I thought you were paraphrasing on "deprived urban areas".
>"We inherited a bunch of formulas from Labour that shoved all the funding into deprived urban areas and that needed to be undone.
>"I started the work of undoing that."
https://x.com/NewStatesman/status/1555476253045673987?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1555476253045673987%7Ctwgr%5E2e027f1a57c708d7bc7581328ed2058f8e808d93%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-17732486832047859439.ampproject.net%2F2405231944000%2Fframe.html
My bad.
Yeah I guess I **thought** I knew Sunak was working against the poor…
But that’s fucking ridiculous he literally says it openly with such a calm, wtf?!
That video has remained my permanent understanding of who he is ever since I saw that: the complete lack of ethics and principles of any kind to actively *boast* about removing funding from those who need it most to give *more* to the far more privileged says so much about what kind of person he is, and it's vile.
He didn't say that at the time, see below. I think it's not _quite_ as bad a statement as it initially sounds, but he did not misspeak.
*Addressing the video, he said: "Well, I was making the point that deprivation exists right across our country and needs to be addressed.*
*"And that's why we need to make sure our funding formulas recognise that. And people who need help and extra investment aren't just limited to big urban areas. You find them in towns across the United Kingdom and in rural areas, too.*
*"And that was the point I was making, that our funding formulas that fail to recognise that are out of date, and they needed changing."*
*He continued: "It's right that those funding formulas are accurate, that they actually look at the need in different areas, measure that properly and reflect how things have changed from the past.*
*"And I think that's an entirely sensible thing to be doing, because it's not just big urban areas that require that extra investment.*
*"It's also people in rural communities, it's also people in towns and that's what we've done, both as a government in the past, what I want to do as prime minister in the future.*
*"Level up across the country so that no matter where people live, they feel incredible opportunities and pride in the place that they call home."*
https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunak-under-fire-for-claiming-he-worked-to-divert-money-from-deprived-urban-areas-when-chancellor-12666046
The “Sunak Movie” also includes the key excerpt, along with some other good points. Was posted here a couple of days ago https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/s/tKZm30pLxD
I remember that, I used to live in Tunbridge Wells and loads of people were talking about it afterwards. The council there are utterly dreadful and well known for wasting money on stupid projects all the time.
TBF it's pretty easy for self-employed to avoid basically all tax at the moment. If ever you've been around people who work in trades, *plenty* of them will pay an accountant (cash in hand) to basically make their tax bill virtually disappear each year through creative methods.
I remember for some people I know this *really* came back to bite them during COVID when they weren't able to work but had a lifestyle that could *not* be covered by the earnings they had reported and so were eligible for via the furlough scheme.
That's just not true at all. Not legally anyway. Corporation tax is 19% on profits, and unless you're fiddling then only legitimate expenses can be claimed. You lose 20% VAT, again less the VAT that you yourself have paid for goods and services. Accountants are a minimum of 1k a year. Insurances can be very expensive depending on what you do. The most tax-efficient way to draw money means you take 10-12k salary, which means you pay a small amount of employers NI to qualify for state pension, and the rest as dividends. You get a grand tax free (used to be 7.5k+), and then it tapers upwards, starting at 8%, and quickly up to 37.5% - so marginally below the 40% that regular income is taxed at but not by much. The thresholds are the same.
If you're earning mega bucks (millions) then, yes, there are far more costly and advanced legal loopholes that still save you more than they cost to set up and run, but you're well into the 1% territory then. Your average tradesperson (I'm not one, but I am self employed) will be very lucky if they're making 100 grand a year - at least outside of London.
So, yes, being self employed is 10-20% better tax-wise, and that goes some way to address the fact that they have no job security, no holiday pay, no sick pay, no pension contributions, and are usually the first people to be hit when shit hits the fan. The reason we got fuck all help during Covid is because dividends weren't counted as income for furlough.
OP is mixing up their tax dodges but the covid thing was still one coming back to bite people.
Dividends are income, but they aren't salary, and aren't intended to be used as such. That's why furlough was paid on salary not income.
Yeah I mean, I'm self employed so shockingly enough I don't see it that way, but I do absolutely accept your point. The way it seemed to me, if I pay - say - 20% less tax than someone earning the same amount a year as a permanent member of staff, give me 20% less support absolutely. Plus being self employed is higher risk so naturally you'd expect us to suffer more in bad times.
But I'd have got £2.5k a month if I were a full timer. Instead I got £400. That's less than 1/5th, which just didn't seem fair. Didn't even cover my mortgage. I definitely don't pay 1/5th the tax I can tell you that for nothing!
Again though I do absolutely accept the point. Taking money out via dividends is the most tax efficient way to do it, and is what every accountant will recommend. It's perfectly legal and I think the only hangup from full time staff is they have less control and can't do the same (although you can salary sacrifice massive chunks of salary into pension for amazing benefits, and bonuses are NI-exclusive I think?). But yeah, when it comes to handing out help, because dividends are included legitimately as part of investment portfolios, it would've been tricky to work out whose dividends should be counted for furlough (or equivalent).
So yeah, I'm biased 'cos it applies to me, but I do genuinely think there's a lot of misunderstanding about the world of being self employed. Like now, the market is absolutely atrocious - there's people who've not had work for a year. That's no pension contributions, no income, nothing. Full timers (mostly) got to keep their jobs, maybe with a naff pay rise or none at all but they still have an income. We're disposable - that's the whole point - but it isn't a free lunch by any measure.
Great when things are good, awful when they aren't. And definitely not a piss-take tax-wise.
I do totally get that you felt stiffed, and if I was self employed I'd be doing exactly the same thing and be just as grumpy about it.
I guess the pure HMRC view is that the spirit of the law is that dividends are a bonus for good performance, not what you live on. They can only be paid out of profit after all, unlike salary. Bonuses for salaried employees were also excluded for furlough I think, although you do pay NIC on them.
BTW you can make tax advantaged pension payments from your company, but only up to the salary you pay yourself.
That's not tax evasion at all.
You might say it is wrong and they should pay their fair share and I'd agree with you but it doesn't make them criminals.
Probably because they are more likely to vote Tory and this is hoped to turn them out.
Official justification? Something about evasion.
Bottom line? Who cares it won't happen any more than a Lib Dem policy proposal.
It's done. Half the country will vote Labour, it's going to be bloodbath. Starmer just needs to keep breathing all the way into July to become PM.
Whilst I agree with most of what you've said, I'd just add that 50k is around the top 20th percentile. It would be fair to say that only the highest earners could extract the maximum benefit from the NI changes.
The issue with that is that income data after £50k is very unreliable
For example, I am on just under £100k, I put £50k into my pension to minimise my taxes via salary sacrifice to avoid a 70% marginal tax rate at £50-60k (have kids), so on the data I’m below £50k even though I’m not really.
And with pension stuffing a very common thing at the £50k and £100k tax traps, income data at those thresholds is useless.
>For example, I am on just **under £100k**, **I put £50k** into my pension to minimise my taxes via salary sacrifice to avoid a 70% marginal tax rate at £50-60k (have kids), so on the data I’m below £50k even though I’m not really.
You're putting 50k into a pension to get 2k something in child benefit a year? Or am I misunderstanding something here?
You get the £2k per year now, and still get to access the £50k p.a.when you draw your pension. Plus the attractive tax rebate from paying into a pension pot.
If you like planning ahead, and don't need the money right now, saving into a pension is generally a very sensible choice.
I'm quite puzzled by your decision. You said you have kids. Do you think you're going to be needing money at any time in your life as much as you do now? I mean 50k is still ok, but it's not super high if you have kids (plural).
What are you going to need the money for later if you're already that comfortable when by any logic you should have a lot more outgoings than later.
Pension is tax free. If they took that 50k as income it would be taxed at 40%, so it would only be 30k in the bank.
They get the full 50k in their pension. If they don't need the money now, it's smart to put it in the pension.
When you reach 55 you can withdraw 25% of your pension as a tax-free lump sum (there is a limit of like 250k) So over the years, that is a huge amount of tax saving, and you could easily retire early at 55.
It's even better if the company match the contributions. You get the initial tax relief plus double money straight away, and then the compounding effect of it being invested over a (depending on age) long period of time. If it goes well you can easily triple your money. And potentially take 25% tax free on retirement leaving the rest invested. If you properly stop working you can then drawdown each year under the tax threshold and if that plus the lump sum and any savings covers your outgoings you could be in a situation where you don't pay any tax at all on it (obviously that's an ideal scenario)
I don't know of any companies that match 50k salary sacrifice, though, haha. But yeah, you should make the most of whatever match your company does offer as it is free money!
I am amazed that you are shocked that the guy is putting 50k into his pension to lower his tax bill. This is absolutly standard. When taxes are so ludicrously high people will do basically anything they can to minimise their tax bill. It's why the Scottish government's tax rises are simply daft.
I worked huge numbers of hours and weeks at sea at a time before my children came and you better belive I would make sure the government was not going to.be taking 40 percent of that money.
> What are you going to need the money for later
This is again an odd way of thinking. There's only so much you can buy now and 50k is enough to support a family. The pension can be passed onto to their kids.
I wasn't talking about the time before children. I can fully understand why a single person would do that. But I would find it strange if someone worked like crazy to make a lot of money for the family and then instead stuffed it in the pension.
And I don't agree with the claim that you can get a no-needs family life with a 50k income. Sure, you can get a roof over the head and food on the table but you're still going to have to make trade offs.
Or alternatively, if you're comfortable with that level of spending when you have children, then what do you need it later? I would find it strange if you worked all your life just to give an inheritance to your children who by the time you die are going to be something like 50+ meaning that their toughest years are behind.
Once your mortgage is paid off , 50k is enough. Maybe not in London but for a modest rural life and local holidays and frugal living.
You can draw private pensions from 55 so children could just be leaving school and the perfect age to be able to support them financially
Putting a lot into your pension earlier in life gives you flexibility later in life. For example, in the original example -£100k salary sacrificed down to £50k. Once, they are happy they have enough in their pension then they could, in theory drop down to 2.5 days per week at work.
Or, they could find a lower paid job and they wouldn't have to change their living condition.
Furthermore, they can access their pension at 55 (based on current rules). Thus, early retirement is in the cards for them.
Finally, even if the 25% tax free is removed very few people are higher rate tax payers in retirement. Thus, tax is saved regardless.
Kinda. I was on £45k, got a payrise over £50k, then rammed pension. Then I got another payrise. And then did the same. Rinse and repeat. Each pay rise was only like £10k, so it was still £10k Pension be £3k cash each time.
I’m also young. The opportunity to get huge tax free compounding while avoiding hella tax is a good one for me. Once I breach £100k, I’ll have £100k as my new stopping g point.
I’m in my 20’s and mathematically guaranteed to be a multi millionaire come pension age. I’m not even 30 and I’ve won at Capitalism. I also view my SIPP’s as a quasi-life-insurance pot to be passed on both income and IHT free if I die young.
It is. The long run stock market returns have been 7-10% over time. And I have 35-40 years to grow.
Only think that’ll stop me is death, in which case, it’s a tax efficient life insurance
Just cos stock market returns have been 7-10% over the last century, doesn’t come close to guaranteeing it will be for the next 40 years. Sure maybe it ‘seems likely’, but hardly a guarantee.
>However, on BBC Breakfast, Kay said research by the Institute for Public Policy Research think-tank showed those on the highest incomes will benefit most.
Well, yeah. People who pay the most tax will make the greatest savings if they're cut.
You want to benefit the lower earners but only affect NI?
- Raise the lower threshold for NI.
You want higher earners to not benefit so much? Perhaps even raise income from NI?
- Raise the higher threshold for NI, perhaps significantly or infinitely.
Tories benefit their own, and this manifesto is evidence.
- Nice homes for their offspring with less/no stamp duty.
- Nice NI rebate for their higher wages.
- We know that the 3k of extra taxation isn't coming from significantly higher earners.
Indeed, but that may be 50% from 100k soon, with the allowance clawback moved upwards or killed.
And lots of people affected might still welcome that change.
> Indeed, but that may be 50% from 100k soon
Are you suggesting Labour may have lied when they said they wouldn't raise taxes? I may have a heart attack and die from this surprise.
The rich don't benefit. The rich don't pay national insurance.
Most "higher earners" don't earn shit compared to the cost of assets e.g. houses, assets owned by the actual "rich".
That 2% and more is taken back by stealth with the tax thresholds fixed till 2028 anyway..
I think conservatives have a different definition of progressive/regressive taxation compared to economics textbooks.
On BBC Radio4/World at One today Kevin Hollinrake claimed freezing tax thresholds was a progressive form of taxation. This is not true with the normal definition and I even did the calculation approximately to check whether I was going mad. Intuitively, the worst hit are those getting pulled into a higher bracket and calculations demonstrate this clearly. It's people who just get pulled into the basic 20% band or 40% band that are most affected.
If general wage inflation is 5% then someone on £250k pay only \~1% more tax (relatively, or \~0.4% in absolute terms). Someone just inside the free allowance would pay 20% on the \~5% of the inflated wage that becomes taxable (i.e. around 1% absolute, as tonylaponey mentioned).
It would be good if tories explained their concept of progressive taxation. I guess they mean "richer people pay more in absolute terms".
Just to say someone on the tax free boundary would go from zero to an effective tax rate of about 1% with a 5% raise. So you're right, it's regressive, but the effect is small.
Yes, thanks, I worded that part badly (and tried a quick hotfix).
It's a small effect and admittedly it is not purely regressive (because of bumps at 40%, loss of personal allowance at £100k and the pimple at 45%). However, still, it cannot honestly be called progressive.
That's usually how tax works - When they get put up, they hit those who pay the most the hardest; vice versa when it goes down. Stupid to think otherwise.
Some tax cuts benefit the poorest the most, e.g. when they get to keep a larger share of their income.
For instance, raising the non-taxable income threshold to £20K like Reform suggested the other day, would make a massive difference to the working class while not even moving the needle for the rich.
So definitely not **always**.
I think the distinction is rate cut vs boundary freeze. By strict definition cutting rates is always regressive, and so is lowering or freezing the boundaries.
Tax increases are always progressive. Raising boundaries is progressive, but only if you are in the boundary before it is raised!
Imagine we had a flat fixed rate of income tax, or, God forbid, a regressive income tax.
By your own logic, increasing these taxes would be regressive, while cutting them would be progressive.
And a progressive income tax is far from being the only form of taxation! As another example, cutting poll tax or VAT is similarly progressive.
So no, I stand firmly by the idea that cutting taxes doesn’t always exclusively help the rich, as the exact opposite can be the case, depending on the form of taxation that we’re discussing.
You got me. When the tax curve inverts it all flips around. With a flat tax rate regressive and progressive don't mean anything so I guess the point is moot.
Completely agree though, It's complicated and there are many ways to cut other taxes that are progressive. A pet peeve of mine is people that claim vat is a regressive tax, but also they vat cuts are regressive. It can't be both.
Tories proving they will stick to their ideologies and put Party and career above country no matter what the state of the country or its ability to support and defend itself.
They have absolutely nothing to offer in terms of policies. They are morally bankrupt.
There’s a swathe of the swing that are going to prioritise, if not outright align by, the parties’ proposals on personal tax. A significant (toward 20k) PA hike or rate cut would make a startling difference to someone between 30-40kpa. Some people won’t see beyond a quick fix to the pinch.
I think the popular vote is going to surprise people. They survive on a cadre that don’t stop in the street to talk for polling, and have swallowed the bogeyman fear. It’s an ideology that suggests simple solutions for complex problems, and people buy it. They’ll be wounded, badly, but they’re not out for the count.
Cutting taxes will generally always benefit those that pay the most taxes the most. In the same way that raising taxes will generally cost more for those that already pay the most. We have a progressive taxation system.
The last few years of fiscal drag will have cost the highest taxpayer the most; so it makes sense than any tax cuts would also benefit them the most.
What fairness has to do with it?
Just absurd obsession with taxing the rich.
Make life cheaper and easier for poorer folks. Less tax, reduce bureaucracy etc
Nice nice but where were all those journalists when Tories and Leavers alike could say all bullshit about the EU and they would never contest them? Maybe they didn't know themselves what was wrong and what was right.
Yes, now that they are about to lose power, *now* is when it is crucial to fact check the Tories, hold them to account, and make sure that the public understands what they are voting for.
Well done BBC, now, after 14 years of cushy interviews on Sunday morning and hand picked audiences on Thursdays, now is the right time.
Better late than never I suppose, but we sure could have used some of that newfound journalistic pugnacity in previous campaigns…
Scrap employee NI altogether, increase income tax to 30% basic, increase the tax allowance to £15k a year and scrap the allowance phase out at £100k. More progressive, no more rich pensioner handouts, no more tax trap at £100k. Thank me later, Tory HQ.
They don't pay most of the tax burden, their employees do. The actual rates of tax compared to wealth are tiny. The problem is more and more tax is being evaded and avoided which is destroying public services.
So give them less of an incentive to avoid tax. All envy taxes do is encourage investors to move their money to other countries instead, leaving us all poorer.
It's not punishing success, it's asking people with the most to contribute their fair share. We all pitch in together for a better society. That's the social contract we all partake in.
They do contribute their fair share. More than it, in fact. If you put extra envy taxes on successful people, all they'll do is take their investment and jobs elsewhere.
I think the principal issue is that there is a disparity in the level of taxation according to income type.
UHNW individuals are able to draw income through a variety of schemes that attract lower overall tax rates. These simply aren’t available to your average PAYE employee.
While there may be some truth to this, most of it is a fallacy. The UK is a massive commercial market and investors won't abandon it because of a small tax rise.
For example, Amazon would not cease all operations in the UK if they were forced to pay more tax.
Why is it every time someone brings up the Laffer Curve, it’s always to imply we’re on the “too high tax” side of it? I’ve don’t think I’ve seen someone use it the other way
So stuff you don't personally agree with is "unfounded nonsense" no matter how many economists agree, and yet you push for socialist nonsense which has been proven every single time not to work...
Or how many economists disagree with the laffer curve. Socialist nonsense? If you're hoping to convince people, come to these conversations with the same open mindedness that you're expecting of others.
I don't support socialism, though that being your reflexive assumption isn't surprising.
The fact is that the Laffer curve is not supported by economic fact and research. There's not really any evidence to support it, nor any metric to assess where on the curve and economy is.
The question about the Laffer curve, assuming it's correct, is 'where are we on the curve?'. Because the Laffer curve only suggests that there's a sweet spot for maximising tax revenues - it doesn't suggest, as some people try to claim it does, that lower tax rates always equals higher tax returns.
So you're saying, to stop rich people avoiding tax, we should tax them less? That doesn't make sense. A better answer would be to spend more money on catching those who avoid playing their tax.
Laffer curve is not a golden answer, this is A level economics thinking, which is how Truss wrecked the economy.
Billionaires shouldn't be permitted to exist. Money is equal to power, and no one unelected person should have tens of thousands of times more power than the average UK citizen.
So, for example a famous author who sells a load of books after they reach a billion they are hit with 100% taxation?
How does it work say with Bezos, are shares of Amazon confiscated as it climbs? Does he get the money back if the shares fall?
Sounds a great way to move people outside of your taxation system to other countries.
>So, for example a famous author who sells a load of books after they reach a billion they are hit with 100% taxation?
Much lower than a billion.
>How does it work say with Bezos, are shares of Amazon confiscated as it climbs? Does he get the money back if the shares fall
See the above.
>Sounds a great way to move people outside of your taxation system to other countries.
Great. We don't need unproductive megaparasites. They can go and leech someplace else.
Well considering debt as a ratio to GDP is at record levels, public services are collapsing and the economy is suffering from a lack of investment, I don't see how this can really be a good thing.
If 2p is cut from NI we either have to cut more on public services/infrastructure projects and potentially damage the economy causing long term damage and difficulty for everyone, borrow while we're at record debt levels and potentially run into problems similar to those faced by the Truss premiership or increase taxes elsewhere in which case we're just shifting the tax burden around and creating winners and losers.
Which option would you go for?
I'd go for the options that promote economic growth. The Laffer Curve is a thing. Raise taxes too much, and you damage productivity and reduce intake, which is where we're at now.
There's plenty of wasteful spending that can be cut. Do we really need six-figure "diversity managers" in every NHS hospital, for instance?
A quick Google shows NHS equality and diversity manager job in Kent offered at £53,219 max. Glassdoor has it at 38K on average. The BMA defence of the role seems pretty reasonable to me. Spending money to retain the NHS staff we've trained. More expensive to replace the doctors and nurses who have been driven out of the NHS by racism, sexism, ableism and homophobia than it is to hire these roles.
And what about all the people driven out by the anti-White, anti-Christian, anti-British ideologies these bureaucrats push? We got by just fine without diversity ideologues.
Also, don't make stuff up. 6 figure salaries, that was blatantly wrong. Spreading misinformation is going to screw us all over. If people are just making stuff up, whats the point of any of this. You've got a better chance of convincing others if you present an informed opinion.
>And what about all the people driven out by the anti-White, anti-Christian, anti-British ideologies these bureaucrats push?
Nice, I finished my far right buzzword bingo with that one.
>driven out by the anti-White, anti-Christian, anti-British ideologies these bureaucrats
There it is lmao. Just lead with that in future so we know not to bother wasting our time.
2p cut to NI isn't going to magically stimulate GDP growth, in the same way that the previous cut didn't, our issues with growth are related to lack of investment, poor public health and poor infrastructure. Cutting 2p from NI will just reduce the ability of the state to address any of those problems. If you look at all the European countries that have had higher GDP growth rates than us in recent years they've almost all got higher tax burdens. The main outlier is the US but they have an unparalleled tech industry and loads of natural resources which we just can't compete with.
And if you think the answer to that is more NHS cuts then fair enough but I disagree, and I don't think you actually believe that the issue with the NHS is actually as simple as them having 6 diversity managers per hospital, it's an inefficient bureaucracic beast no doubt but it'll need large scale reform and the cost savings aren't going to come in time to pay for a 2p cut to NI, and the party offering the cut are definitely not the party that will make those reforms either.
> and the party offering the cut are definitely not the party that will make those reforms either.
Sure, which is why I'm not voting for them.
You're right that bureaucracy is the problem. There's a reason why no other country has copied the NHS model. But it's not just an NHS problem, it's the entire public sector. Chucking more money at the problem isn't going to fix the issues - it only makes them worse.
Working people work just as hard or even harder than the rich. The rich are mostly rich because of fortune and privilege. Why should we further reward the lucky, at the expense of the people that actually drive our economy.
On the contrary, why should we reward the lazy? Surely a working-class bloke who studied hard and is now earning six figures shouldn't be punished for his success?
Everyone has the capacity for self-improvement. Everyone can spend time studying or training to get a higher-paying job. Some just choose not to.
Edit: A lot of lazy people in this thread. There are plenty of free resources online to learn new skills. It's your own fault if you choose not to use them.
Sounds like you’ve never worked a real job, don’t have a family to raise and aren’t depended upon by anyone else.
Judging by the frequency of your interactions generally and regular contributions to wrestling subreddits, I’m fairly confident in those assertions.
This is patently untrue.
To argue that fortune doesn't play a part in wealth is absolutely delusional. It's the kind of argument only made by those who have had good fortune.🤦
Check dude’s post history, i don’t think they were born with a silver spoon, I think we’re seeing self loathing and projection. Honestly feel sorry for them, they seem very angry.
I mean, i'm a stringent capitalist, but this just isn't true.
most people don't reach their full potential, but most peoples full potential isn't great either.
So only people that "study hard" and get well paid jobs are hard working? The guys who leave school at 16 to work in a factory or on a building site are lazy?
So people who study hard and work hard in fields like policing, teaching, nursing that don't earn 6 figures should all quit and take up banking for the big bucks.
Society would definitely be better off if everyone with skill, motivation and talent didn't waste their time with those low paying jobs that help others but instead help make more profit for billionaires and hedge funds.
What about the worming class people who work hard and are barely making ends meet?
Rich people are already rewarded - they are rich! They don't have to worry about where their next meal comes from or next month's rent.
We don't need cuts we need loopholes sealed and the rich held to account more like they have been since before the 00s when they figured out how to move the money overseas.
It's not though - the more NI you pay the more of a benefit you'll see from this cut. Those who earn more will see a bigger benefit compared to those who earn less.
"Flat tax" models that apply the same rate to everyone are widely seen as regressive and unfair. Flat tax cuts work the same way, but people rarely complain because hey, it's still a tax cut.
The hypocrisy is that while they claim to want to lower taxes for working people, the methods they keep using use up most of their budget/headroom in lowering taxes for those on higher income. There are other ways of reducing taxes for low incomes but keeping them for high incomes, but they choose not to do that.
I don't think conflating hard work and high earnings is particularly accurate.
My own experience has been far less hard work, albeit specialised, as my earnings have grown.
Someone is literally telling you they don't work as hard now and they earn more and you refuse to accept more money does not equal harder working.
It is simply not true that those with billions of pounds work harder than those struggling.
Yes lazy people exist, but no. Poverty does not equal lazy.
He's completely ignoring the work that people put in to train themselves to get into higher-paying jobs.
And I'm not talking about billionaires. I'm talking about upper-middle income earners. Those who are pushing into the 40% tax band.
But why should someone earning more but working less hard be more diserving of someone continuing to work hard but not earning as much?
Because they happen to be in a field where they can earn more for doing less? The post is about fairness and I fail to see how that is fair.
Not really. It's just something I happen to be good at, and I'm good at absorbing information.
Being specialised isn't the same thing as working harder than anyone else.
I worked far harder on minimum wage at a warehouse than I do now.
You are so desperate to justify the status quo that you are getting caught up in it.
Absolutely committed to the idea that hard work is rewarded, which is false as the vast majority of the working poor work far harder than I do for far less.
I think there's an incorrect conflation of hard work and 'menial/manual' labour here. Did I work 'harder' when I was a labourer doing 11/12hr days earning comparatively little to what I do now working 8-12hr days? Physically yes, mentally no. Did I have the sqep then to do what I do now, definitely not. Can I justified getting paid more now than then? Of course, but I can also acknowledge that my work isn't as 'hard' in one very limited interpretation.
I'm not conflating hard work with manual work. Mental work can be and often is hard as well. But even in your example you're doing less of it, and I certainly find that to be the case in my experience.
There are bursts of mental exertion but there's also much more opportunity for downtime, recovery, and reconciliation.
The point is every job is different and applying a blanket claim of 'high wage = hard work' is obviously fallacious.
So you're saying that a banker earning hundreds of millions, if not billions a year by gambling on stocks is "working harder" than say, a teacher who works not only during school hours but at home as well with lesson plans and the likes?
Or doctors and nurses who are doing upwards of 16 hour shifts saving lives?
These people not "working hard" enough?
Comparing earnings to the amount of hard work is not valid. Years ago when building my career I was working incredibly hard, doing night shifts, dealing with toxic people on a daily basis... now I don't have to work as hard as I did, but I earn more.
I got lucky to be in the position I'm in now... it wasn't a ladder climb, it was pure dumb luck.
I earned more by working less. I earned less when working more.
Tax should be proportionate based on earnings.
Someone earning hundreds of millions is barely going to benefit from an NI cut, because it already drops to 2% past a certain threshold. The main beneficiaries here are middle-income earners who are struggling to make ends meet. Like those doctors you mentioned.
You decided to complete ignore what I asked.
Do you believe that a banker who pushes "sell" button at the right time is working harder than a doctor doing 16 hour shifts?
Snapshot of _'How Is That Fair?': BBC Presenter Points Out That Rich Will Benefit More From Tory Tax Cut_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/how-is-that-fair-bbc-presenter-points-out-that-rich-will-benefit-more-from-tory-tax-cut_uk_6667f3aae4b04a7f054b187d) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/how-is-that-fair-bbc-presenter-points-out-that-rich-will-benefit-more-from-tory-tax-cut_uk_6667f3aae4b04a7f054b187d) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When I heard the pensioners get tax cuts I had to laugh honestly.
Taking one of the most unsustainable fiscal decisions and making it more unsustainable, further benefitting a demographic that is the richest and punishing the workforce that is the poorest. Honestly feels like a joke.
The party is a reverse Robin Hood, [Rishi even gloated about taking money away from deprived urban areas](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62436193). Fair isn't something the Conservative party aim for.
I thought you were paraphrasing on "deprived urban areas". >"We inherited a bunch of formulas from Labour that shoved all the funding into deprived urban areas and that needed to be undone. >"I started the work of undoing that."
Any links to the video of Sunak boasting? It's not on the original article (Evening Standard).
https://x.com/NewStatesman/status/1555476253045673987?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1555476253045673987%7Ctwgr%5E2e027f1a57c708d7bc7581328ed2058f8e808d93%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-17732486832047859439.ampproject.net%2F2405231944000%2Fframe.html My bad.
Holy shit!
Worse than you thought possible. Blatant. Zero consequences.
Yeah I guess I **thought** I knew Sunak was working against the poor… But that’s fucking ridiculous he literally says it openly with such a calm, wtf?!
That video has remained my permanent understanding of who he is ever since I saw that: the complete lack of ethics and principles of any kind to actively *boast* about removing funding from those who need it most to give *more* to the far more privileged says so much about what kind of person he is, and it's vile.
I mean he clearly misspoke, I hate Rishi but if you genuinely believe he meant to say deprived urban areas, you need your heads checked
What else could he have meant?
Dunno, shoving money into deprived urban areas sounds like a lefty labour policy to me, what do you think he meant?
He didn't say that at the time, see below. I think it's not _quite_ as bad a statement as it initially sounds, but he did not misspeak. *Addressing the video, he said: "Well, I was making the point that deprivation exists right across our country and needs to be addressed.* *"And that's why we need to make sure our funding formulas recognise that. And people who need help and extra investment aren't just limited to big urban areas. You find them in towns across the United Kingdom and in rural areas, too.* *"And that was the point I was making, that our funding formulas that fail to recognise that are out of date, and they needed changing."* *He continued: "It's right that those funding formulas are accurate, that they actually look at the need in different areas, measure that properly and reflect how things have changed from the past.* *"And I think that's an entirely sensible thing to be doing, because it's not just big urban areas that require that extra investment.* *"It's also people in rural communities, it's also people in towns and that's what we've done, both as a government in the past, what I want to do as prime minister in the future.* *"Level up across the country so that no matter where people live, they feel incredible opportunities and pride in the place that they call home."* https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunak-under-fire-for-claiming-he-worked-to-divert-money-from-deprived-urban-areas-when-chancellor-12666046
Sluuuuuurp
The “Sunak Movie” also includes the key excerpt, along with some other good points. Was posted here a couple of days ago https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/s/tKZm30pLxD
I remember that, I used to live in Tunbridge Wells and loads of people were talking about it afterwards. The council there are utterly dreadful and well known for wasting money on stupid projects all the time.
And paying their mates anyway even when projects were cancelled.
Did I hear it right, that self employed people won’t have to pay National Insurance at all ? Why’s that ?
TBF it's pretty easy for self-employed to avoid basically all tax at the moment. If ever you've been around people who work in trades, *plenty* of them will pay an accountant (cash in hand) to basically make their tax bill virtually disappear each year through creative methods. I remember for some people I know this *really* came back to bite them during COVID when they weren't able to work but had a lifestyle that could *not* be covered by the earnings they had reported and so were eligible for via the furlough scheme.
That's just not true at all. Not legally anyway. Corporation tax is 19% on profits, and unless you're fiddling then only legitimate expenses can be claimed. You lose 20% VAT, again less the VAT that you yourself have paid for goods and services. Accountants are a minimum of 1k a year. Insurances can be very expensive depending on what you do. The most tax-efficient way to draw money means you take 10-12k salary, which means you pay a small amount of employers NI to qualify for state pension, and the rest as dividends. You get a grand tax free (used to be 7.5k+), and then it tapers upwards, starting at 8%, and quickly up to 37.5% - so marginally below the 40% that regular income is taxed at but not by much. The thresholds are the same. If you're earning mega bucks (millions) then, yes, there are far more costly and advanced legal loopholes that still save you more than they cost to set up and run, but you're well into the 1% territory then. Your average tradesperson (I'm not one, but I am self employed) will be very lucky if they're making 100 grand a year - at least outside of London. So, yes, being self employed is 10-20% better tax-wise, and that goes some way to address the fact that they have no job security, no holiday pay, no sick pay, no pension contributions, and are usually the first people to be hit when shit hits the fan. The reason we got fuck all help during Covid is because dividends weren't counted as income for furlough.
OP is mixing up their tax dodges but the covid thing was still one coming back to bite people. Dividends are income, but they aren't salary, and aren't intended to be used as such. That's why furlough was paid on salary not income.
Yeah I mean, I'm self employed so shockingly enough I don't see it that way, but I do absolutely accept your point. The way it seemed to me, if I pay - say - 20% less tax than someone earning the same amount a year as a permanent member of staff, give me 20% less support absolutely. Plus being self employed is higher risk so naturally you'd expect us to suffer more in bad times. But I'd have got £2.5k a month if I were a full timer. Instead I got £400. That's less than 1/5th, which just didn't seem fair. Didn't even cover my mortgage. I definitely don't pay 1/5th the tax I can tell you that for nothing! Again though I do absolutely accept the point. Taking money out via dividends is the most tax efficient way to do it, and is what every accountant will recommend. It's perfectly legal and I think the only hangup from full time staff is they have less control and can't do the same (although you can salary sacrifice massive chunks of salary into pension for amazing benefits, and bonuses are NI-exclusive I think?). But yeah, when it comes to handing out help, because dividends are included legitimately as part of investment portfolios, it would've been tricky to work out whose dividends should be counted for furlough (or equivalent). So yeah, I'm biased 'cos it applies to me, but I do genuinely think there's a lot of misunderstanding about the world of being self employed. Like now, the market is absolutely atrocious - there's people who've not had work for a year. That's no pension contributions, no income, nothing. Full timers (mostly) got to keep their jobs, maybe with a naff pay rise or none at all but they still have an income. We're disposable - that's the whole point - but it isn't a free lunch by any measure. Great when things are good, awful when they aren't. And definitely not a piss-take tax-wise.
I do totally get that you felt stiffed, and if I was self employed I'd be doing exactly the same thing and be just as grumpy about it. I guess the pure HMRC view is that the spirit of the law is that dividends are a bonus for good performance, not what you live on. They can only be paid out of profit after all, unlike salary. Bonuses for salaried employees were also excluded for furlough I think, although you do pay NIC on them. BTW you can make tax advantaged pension payments from your company, but only up to the salary you pay yourself.
Because the no.1 priority of the Tories is enabling tax evasion.
That's not tax evasion at all. You might say it is wrong and they should pay their fair share and I'd agree with you but it doesn't make them criminals.
Probably because they are more likely to vote Tory and this is hoped to turn them out. Official justification? Something about evasion. Bottom line? Who cares it won't happen any more than a Lib Dem policy proposal. It's done. Half the country will vote Labour, it's going to be bloodbath. Starmer just needs to keep breathing all the way into July to become PM.
[удалено]
Whilst I agree with most of what you've said, I'd just add that 50k is around the top 20th percentile. It would be fair to say that only the highest earners could extract the maximum benefit from the NI changes.
Well yes. If you don't pay much tax then a tax cut won't benefit you much.
Hahaha, this needs to be pinned as the only comment for this article.
The issue with that is that income data after £50k is very unreliable For example, I am on just under £100k, I put £50k into my pension to minimise my taxes via salary sacrifice to avoid a 70% marginal tax rate at £50-60k (have kids), so on the data I’m below £50k even though I’m not really. And with pension stuffing a very common thing at the £50k and £100k tax traps, income data at those thresholds is useless.
>For example, I am on just **under £100k**, **I put £50k** into my pension to minimise my taxes via salary sacrifice to avoid a 70% marginal tax rate at £50-60k (have kids), so on the data I’m below £50k even though I’m not really. You're putting 50k into a pension to get 2k something in child benefit a year? Or am I misunderstanding something here?
You get the £2k per year now, and still get to access the £50k p.a.when you draw your pension. Plus the attractive tax rebate from paying into a pension pot. If you like planning ahead, and don't need the money right now, saving into a pension is generally a very sensible choice.
I'm quite puzzled by your decision. You said you have kids. Do you think you're going to be needing money at any time in your life as much as you do now? I mean 50k is still ok, but it's not super high if you have kids (plural). What are you going to need the money for later if you're already that comfortable when by any logic you should have a lot more outgoings than later.
Pension is tax free. If they took that 50k as income it would be taxed at 40%, so it would only be 30k in the bank. They get the full 50k in their pension. If they don't need the money now, it's smart to put it in the pension. When you reach 55 you can withdraw 25% of your pension as a tax-free lump sum (there is a limit of like 250k) So over the years, that is a huge amount of tax saving, and you could easily retire early at 55.
It's even better if the company match the contributions. You get the initial tax relief plus double money straight away, and then the compounding effect of it being invested over a (depending on age) long period of time. If it goes well you can easily triple your money. And potentially take 25% tax free on retirement leaving the rest invested. If you properly stop working you can then drawdown each year under the tax threshold and if that plus the lump sum and any savings covers your outgoings you could be in a situation where you don't pay any tax at all on it (obviously that's an ideal scenario)
I don't know of any companies that match 50k salary sacrifice, though, haha. But yeah, you should make the most of whatever match your company does offer as it is free money!
I doubt that 25% tax free lump sum is going to stick around for long.
I am amazed that you are shocked that the guy is putting 50k into his pension to lower his tax bill. This is absolutly standard. When taxes are so ludicrously high people will do basically anything they can to minimise their tax bill. It's why the Scottish government's tax rises are simply daft. I worked huge numbers of hours and weeks at sea at a time before my children came and you better belive I would make sure the government was not going to.be taking 40 percent of that money. > What are you going to need the money for later This is again an odd way of thinking. There's only so much you can buy now and 50k is enough to support a family. The pension can be passed onto to their kids.
I wasn't talking about the time before children. I can fully understand why a single person would do that. But I would find it strange if someone worked like crazy to make a lot of money for the family and then instead stuffed it in the pension. And I don't agree with the claim that you can get a no-needs family life with a 50k income. Sure, you can get a roof over the head and food on the table but you're still going to have to make trade offs. Or alternatively, if you're comfortable with that level of spending when you have children, then what do you need it later? I would find it strange if you worked all your life just to give an inheritance to your children who by the time you die are going to be something like 50+ meaning that their toughest years are behind.
Once your mortgage is paid off , 50k is enough. Maybe not in London but for a modest rural life and local holidays and frugal living. You can draw private pensions from 55 so children could just be leaving school and the perfect age to be able to support them financially
Putting a lot into your pension earlier in life gives you flexibility later in life. For example, in the original example -£100k salary sacrificed down to £50k. Once, they are happy they have enough in their pension then they could, in theory drop down to 2.5 days per week at work. Or, they could find a lower paid job and they wouldn't have to change their living condition. Furthermore, they can access their pension at 55 (based on current rules). Thus, early retirement is in the cards for them. Finally, even if the 25% tax free is removed very few people are higher rate tax payers in retirement. Thus, tax is saved regardless.
Kinda. I was on £45k, got a payrise over £50k, then rammed pension. Then I got another payrise. And then did the same. Rinse and repeat. Each pay rise was only like £10k, so it was still £10k Pension be £3k cash each time. I’m also young. The opportunity to get huge tax free compounding while avoiding hella tax is a good one for me. Once I breach £100k, I’ll have £100k as my new stopping g point. I’m in my 20’s and mathematically guaranteed to be a multi millionaire come pension age. I’m not even 30 and I’ve won at Capitalism. I also view my SIPP’s as a quasi-life-insurance pot to be passed on both income and IHT free if I die young.
Not quite guaranteed though is it?
It is. The long run stock market returns have been 7-10% over time. And I have 35-40 years to grow. Only think that’ll stop me is death, in which case, it’s a tax efficient life insurance
Just cos stock market returns have been 7-10% over the last century, doesn’t come close to guaranteeing it will be for the next 40 years. Sure maybe it ‘seems likely’, but hardly a guarantee.
What job do you have if you don't mind me asking?
Jigolo
Finance sector.
Yes and we saw this during the last budget, all the tax cuts they announced only benefitted people earning over about 35k, up until about 60k.
As they should do. They are thr group paying thr largest amount of tax from an income may barely be enough to support their families.
>However, on BBC Breakfast, Kay said research by the Institute for Public Policy Research think-tank showed those on the highest incomes will benefit most. Well, yeah. People who pay the most tax will make the greatest savings if they're cut.
You want to benefit the lower earners but only affect NI? - Raise the lower threshold for NI. You want higher earners to not benefit so much? Perhaps even raise income from NI? - Raise the higher threshold for NI, perhaps significantly or infinitely. Tories benefit their own, and this manifesto is evidence. - Nice homes for their offspring with less/no stamp duty. - Nice NI rebate for their higher wages. - We know that the 3k of extra taxation isn't coming from significantly higher earners.
Significantly higher earners have been targeted by this government quite recently. The 45p threshold was lowered to 125k from 150k, for example.
Indeed, but that may be 50% from 100k soon, with the allowance clawback moved upwards or killed. And lots of people affected might still welcome that change.
> Indeed, but that may be 50% from 100k soon Are you suggesting Labour may have lied when they said they wouldn't raise taxes? I may have a heart attack and die from this surprise.
They'd probably claim it was revenue neutral except for the highest earners.
They could claim that but it would still make them liars.
The rich don't benefit. The rich don't pay national insurance. Most "higher earners" don't earn shit compared to the cost of assets e.g. houses, assets owned by the actual "rich". That 2% and more is taken back by stealth with the tax thresholds fixed till 2028 anyway..
I think conservatives have a different definition of progressive/regressive taxation compared to economics textbooks. On BBC Radio4/World at One today Kevin Hollinrake claimed freezing tax thresholds was a progressive form of taxation. This is not true with the normal definition and I even did the calculation approximately to check whether I was going mad. Intuitively, the worst hit are those getting pulled into a higher bracket and calculations demonstrate this clearly. It's people who just get pulled into the basic 20% band or 40% band that are most affected. If general wage inflation is 5% then someone on £250k pay only \~1% more tax (relatively, or \~0.4% in absolute terms). Someone just inside the free allowance would pay 20% on the \~5% of the inflated wage that becomes taxable (i.e. around 1% absolute, as tonylaponey mentioned). It would be good if tories explained their concept of progressive taxation. I guess they mean "richer people pay more in absolute terms".
Just to say someone on the tax free boundary would go from zero to an effective tax rate of about 1% with a 5% raise. So you're right, it's regressive, but the effect is small.
Yes, thanks, I worded that part badly (and tried a quick hotfix). It's a small effect and admittedly it is not purely regressive (because of bumps at 40%, loss of personal allowance at £100k and the pimple at 45%). However, still, it cannot honestly be called progressive.
Reporter: what if people are willing to pay a bit more tax for better public services? Tory: We'Re cUtTiNg tAx!!
Is there anything stopping all those people from paying extra?
That's usually how tax works - When they get put up, they hit those who pay the most the hardest; vice versa when it goes down. Stupid to think otherwise.
Tax cuts always benefit the rich because they pay the most tax.
Some tax cuts benefit the poorest the most, e.g. when they get to keep a larger share of their income. For instance, raising the non-taxable income threshold to £20K like Reform suggested the other day, would make a massive difference to the working class while not even moving the needle for the rich. So definitely not **always**.
We already have the highest PA in the West. To raise it to £20k would be fucking mental.
I was merely disputing the claim that, by definition, tax cuts only benefit the rich.
I think the distinction is rate cut vs boundary freeze. By strict definition cutting rates is always regressive, and so is lowering or freezing the boundaries. Tax increases are always progressive. Raising boundaries is progressive, but only if you are in the boundary before it is raised!
Imagine we had a flat fixed rate of income tax, or, God forbid, a regressive income tax. By your own logic, increasing these taxes would be regressive, while cutting them would be progressive. And a progressive income tax is far from being the only form of taxation! As another example, cutting poll tax or VAT is similarly progressive. So no, I stand firmly by the idea that cutting taxes doesn’t always exclusively help the rich, as the exact opposite can be the case, depending on the form of taxation that we’re discussing.
You got me. When the tax curve inverts it all flips around. With a flat tax rate regressive and progressive don't mean anything so I guess the point is moot. Completely agree though, It's complicated and there are many ways to cut other taxes that are progressive. A pet peeve of mine is people that claim vat is a regressive tax, but also they vat cuts are regressive. It can't be both.
"Always" doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence
Tax cuts benefit those that pay the most tax - yes we know.
Tories proving they will stick to their ideologies and put Party and career above country no matter what the state of the country or its ability to support and defend itself. They have absolutely nothing to offer in terms of policies. They are morally bankrupt.
There’s a swathe of the swing that are going to prioritise, if not outright align by, the parties’ proposals on personal tax. A significant (toward 20k) PA hike or rate cut would make a startling difference to someone between 30-40kpa. Some people won’t see beyond a quick fix to the pinch. I think the popular vote is going to surprise people. They survive on a cadre that don’t stop in the street to talk for polling, and have swallowed the bogeyman fear. It’s an ideology that suggests simple solutions for complex problems, and people buy it. They’ll be wounded, badly, but they’re not out for the count.
Especially as they're planning to cut welfare to pay for the tax cuts.
Cutting taxes will generally always benefit those that pay the most taxes the most. In the same way that raising taxes will generally cost more for those that already pay the most. We have a progressive taxation system. The last few years of fiscal drag will have cost the highest taxpayer the most; so it makes sense than any tax cuts would also benefit them the most.
With any Tory policy there always has to be something in it for the rich. It's how they operate.
What fairness has to do with it? Just absurd obsession with taxing the rich. Make life cheaper and easier for poorer folks. Less tax, reduce bureaucracy etc
Nice nice but where were all those journalists when Tories and Leavers alike could say all bullshit about the EU and they would never contest them? Maybe they didn't know themselves what was wrong and what was right.
Where was this question when their previous tax cuts benefited the rich?
Offering child benefits to people who earn up to 120k with one income and tax cuts for landlords will surely help the poors right?
Yes, now that they are about to lose power, *now* is when it is crucial to fact check the Tories, hold them to account, and make sure that the public understands what they are voting for. Well done BBC, now, after 14 years of cushy interviews on Sunday morning and hand picked audiences on Thursdays, now is the right time. Better late than never I suppose, but we sure could have used some of that newfound journalistic pugnacity in previous campaigns…
Scrap employee NI altogether, increase income tax to 30% basic, increase the tax allowance to £15k a year and scrap the allowance phase out at £100k. More progressive, no more rich pensioner handouts, no more tax trap at £100k. Thank me later, Tory HQ.
Allowing people who work hard to keep more of what they earn is a good thing and encourages growth. This is pure envy politics from the BBC.
Yeah just look at how all those billionaires are benefitting the uk
Billionaires famously on PAYE and have to stump up for NI lol
That's the point they don't pay tax so have no benefit to society
By providing millions of jobs and paying most of the tax burden? How horrible!
They don't pay most of the tax burden, their employees do. The actual rates of tax compared to wealth are tiny. The problem is more and more tax is being evaded and avoided which is destroying public services.
So give them less of an incentive to avoid tax. All envy taxes do is encourage investors to move their money to other countries instead, leaving us all poorer.
[удалено]
By not having insanely high tax rates that punish success. I suggest reading up about the Laffer Curve.
It's not punishing success, it's asking people with the most to contribute their fair share. We all pitch in together for a better society. That's the social contract we all partake in.
They do contribute their fair share. More than it, in fact. If you put extra envy taxes on successful people, all they'll do is take their investment and jobs elsewhere.
I think the principal issue is that there is a disparity in the level of taxation according to income type. UHNW individuals are able to draw income through a variety of schemes that attract lower overall tax rates. These simply aren’t available to your average PAYE employee.
[удалено]
While there may be some truth to this, most of it is a fallacy. The UK is a massive commercial market and investors won't abandon it because of a small tax rise. For example, Amazon would not cease all operations in the UK if they were forced to pay more tax.
> I suggest reading up about the Laffer Curve. Aww bless, they're still trying to push that unfounded nonsense.
Why is it every time someone brings up the Laffer Curve, it’s always to imply we’re on the “too high tax” side of it? I’ve don’t think I’ve seen someone use it the other way
So stuff you don't personally agree with is "unfounded nonsense" no matter how many economists agree, and yet you push for socialist nonsense which has been proven every single time not to work...
Or how many economists disagree with the laffer curve. Socialist nonsense? If you're hoping to convince people, come to these conversations with the same open mindedness that you're expecting of others.
I don't support socialism, though that being your reflexive assumption isn't surprising. The fact is that the Laffer curve is not supported by economic fact and research. There's not really any evidence to support it, nor any metric to assess where on the curve and economy is.
And you should read about the New Jersey experiment...
The question about the Laffer curve, assuming it's correct, is 'where are we on the curve?'. Because the Laffer curve only suggests that there's a sweet spot for maximising tax revenues - it doesn't suggest, as some people try to claim it does, that lower tax rates always equals higher tax returns.
So you're saying, to stop rich people avoiding tax, we should tax them less? That doesn't make sense. A better answer would be to spend more money on catching those who avoid playing their tax. Laffer curve is not a golden answer, this is A level economics thinking, which is how Truss wrecked the economy.
Billionaires shouldn't be permitted to exist. Money is equal to power, and no one unelected person should have tens of thousands of times more power than the average UK citizen.
So, for example a famous author who sells a load of books after they reach a billion they are hit with 100% taxation? How does it work say with Bezos, are shares of Amazon confiscated as it climbs? Does he get the money back if the shares fall? Sounds a great way to move people outside of your taxation system to other countries.
>So, for example a famous author who sells a load of books after they reach a billion they are hit with 100% taxation? Much lower than a billion. >How does it work say with Bezos, are shares of Amazon confiscated as it climbs? Does he get the money back if the shares fall See the above. >Sounds a great way to move people outside of your taxation system to other countries. Great. We don't need unproductive megaparasites. They can go and leech someplace else.
lol
Well considering debt as a ratio to GDP is at record levels, public services are collapsing and the economy is suffering from a lack of investment, I don't see how this can really be a good thing. If 2p is cut from NI we either have to cut more on public services/infrastructure projects and potentially damage the economy causing long term damage and difficulty for everyone, borrow while we're at record debt levels and potentially run into problems similar to those faced by the Truss premiership or increase taxes elsewhere in which case we're just shifting the tax burden around and creating winners and losers. Which option would you go for?
I'd go for the options that promote economic growth. The Laffer Curve is a thing. Raise taxes too much, and you damage productivity and reduce intake, which is where we're at now. There's plenty of wasteful spending that can be cut. Do we really need six-figure "diversity managers" in every NHS hospital, for instance?
A quick Google shows NHS equality and diversity manager job in Kent offered at £53,219 max. Glassdoor has it at 38K on average. The BMA defence of the role seems pretty reasonable to me. Spending money to retain the NHS staff we've trained. More expensive to replace the doctors and nurses who have been driven out of the NHS by racism, sexism, ableism and homophobia than it is to hire these roles.
And what about all the people driven out by the anti-White, anti-Christian, anti-British ideologies these bureaucrats push? We got by just fine without diversity ideologues.
Oh dear
Also, don't make stuff up. 6 figure salaries, that was blatantly wrong. Spreading misinformation is going to screw us all over. If people are just making stuff up, whats the point of any of this. You've got a better chance of convincing others if you present an informed opinion.
So you think institutionalised discrimination against our native people and culture is absolutely fine? Says it all, really.
>And what about all the people driven out by the anti-White, anti-Christian, anti-British ideologies these bureaucrats push? Nice, I finished my far right buzzword bingo with that one.
>driven out by the anti-White, anti-Christian, anti-British ideologies these bureaucrats There it is lmao. Just lead with that in future so we know not to bother wasting our time.
Which ones are on 6 figures?
2p cut to NI isn't going to magically stimulate GDP growth, in the same way that the previous cut didn't, our issues with growth are related to lack of investment, poor public health and poor infrastructure. Cutting 2p from NI will just reduce the ability of the state to address any of those problems. If you look at all the European countries that have had higher GDP growth rates than us in recent years they've almost all got higher tax burdens. The main outlier is the US but they have an unparalleled tech industry and loads of natural resources which we just can't compete with. And if you think the answer to that is more NHS cuts then fair enough but I disagree, and I don't think you actually believe that the issue with the NHS is actually as simple as them having 6 diversity managers per hospital, it's an inefficient bureaucracic beast no doubt but it'll need large scale reform and the cost savings aren't going to come in time to pay for a 2p cut to NI, and the party offering the cut are definitely not the party that will make those reforms either.
> and the party offering the cut are definitely not the party that will make those reforms either. Sure, which is why I'm not voting for them. You're right that bureaucracy is the problem. There's a reason why no other country has copied the NHS model. But it's not just an NHS problem, it's the entire public sector. Chucking more money at the problem isn't going to fix the issues - it only makes them worse.
Completely agree mate
We do whilst all the laws are on the books
Working people work just as hard or even harder than the rich. The rich are mostly rich because of fortune and privilege. Why should we further reward the lucky, at the expense of the people that actually drive our economy.
The working poor in the UK are considerably under taxed versus their peers in Europe.
On the contrary, why should we reward the lazy? Surely a working-class bloke who studied hard and is now earning six figures shouldn't be punished for his success?
The poor are not the lazy.
Everyone has the capacity for self-improvement. Everyone can spend time studying or training to get a higher-paying job. Some just choose not to. Edit: A lot of lazy people in this thread. There are plenty of free resources online to learn new skills. It's your own fault if you choose not to use them.
The poor are not the lazy.
Sounds like you’ve never worked a real job, don’t have a family to raise and aren’t depended upon by anyone else. Judging by the frequency of your interactions generally and regular contributions to wrestling subreddits, I’m fairly confident in those assertions.
This is patently untrue. To argue that fortune doesn't play a part in wealth is absolutely delusional. It's the kind of argument only made by those who have had good fortune.🤦
Check dude’s post history, i don’t think they were born with a silver spoon, I think we’re seeing self loathing and projection. Honestly feel sorry for them, they seem very angry.
I mean, i'm a stringent capitalist, but this just isn't true. most people don't reach their full potential, but most peoples full potential isn't great either.
You don't actually live in the real world, do you?
Who are you really angry at here?
So only people that "study hard" and get well paid jobs are hard working? The guys who leave school at 16 to work in a factory or on a building site are lazy?
So people who study hard and work hard in fields like policing, teaching, nursing that don't earn 6 figures should all quit and take up banking for the big bucks. Society would definitely be better off if everyone with skill, motivation and talent didn't waste their time with those low paying jobs that help others but instead help make more profit for billionaires and hedge funds.
Why aren't you at work. It's 2pm in the afternoon.
It's approaching [5pm where they are](https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/russia/moscow-city)
What about the worming class people who work hard and are barely making ends meet? Rich people are already rewarded - they are rich! They don't have to worry about where their next meal comes from or next month's rent.
Everyone else who works hard pays more when the rich pay less.
Not the case here, though. This is about giving the same tax cut to everyone.
We don't need cuts we need loopholes sealed and the rich held to account more like they have been since before the 00s when they figured out how to move the money overseas.
It's not though - the more NI you pay the more of a benefit you'll see from this cut. Those who earn more will see a bigger benefit compared to those who earn less.
Not true. There's an upper earnings limit.
"Flat tax" models that apply the same rate to everyone are widely seen as regressive and unfair. Flat tax cuts work the same way, but people rarely complain because hey, it's still a tax cut. The hypocrisy is that while they claim to want to lower taxes for working people, the methods they keep using use up most of their budget/headroom in lowering taxes for those on higher income. There are other ways of reducing taxes for low incomes but keeping them for high incomes, but they choose not to do that.
Because no one who is a low earner works hard??
I don't think conflating hard work and high earnings is particularly accurate. My own experience has been far less hard work, albeit specialised, as my earnings have grown.
You worked hard to become proficient in your specialty. Surely you deserve to be rewarded rather than punished for that?
Someone is literally telling you they don't work as hard now and they earn more and you refuse to accept more money does not equal harder working. It is simply not true that those with billions of pounds work harder than those struggling. Yes lazy people exist, but no. Poverty does not equal lazy.
He's completely ignoring the work that people put in to train themselves to get into higher-paying jobs. And I'm not talking about billionaires. I'm talking about upper-middle income earners. Those who are pushing into the 40% tax band.
But why should someone earning more but working less hard be more diserving of someone continuing to work hard but not earning as much? Because they happen to be in a field where they can earn more for doing less? The post is about fairness and I fail to see how that is fair.
Not really. It's just something I happen to be good at, and I'm good at absorbing information. Being specialised isn't the same thing as working harder than anyone else. I worked far harder on minimum wage at a warehouse than I do now. You are so desperate to justify the status quo that you are getting caught up in it. Absolutely committed to the idea that hard work is rewarded, which is false as the vast majority of the working poor work far harder than I do for far less.
I think there's an incorrect conflation of hard work and 'menial/manual' labour here. Did I work 'harder' when I was a labourer doing 11/12hr days earning comparatively little to what I do now working 8-12hr days? Physically yes, mentally no. Did I have the sqep then to do what I do now, definitely not. Can I justified getting paid more now than then? Of course, but I can also acknowledge that my work isn't as 'hard' in one very limited interpretation.
I'm not conflating hard work with manual work. Mental work can be and often is hard as well. But even in your example you're doing less of it, and I certainly find that to be the case in my experience. There are bursts of mental exertion but there's also much more opportunity for downtime, recovery, and reconciliation. The point is every job is different and applying a blanket claim of 'high wage = hard work' is obviously fallacious.
So you're saying that a banker earning hundreds of millions, if not billions a year by gambling on stocks is "working harder" than say, a teacher who works not only during school hours but at home as well with lesson plans and the likes? Or doctors and nurses who are doing upwards of 16 hour shifts saving lives? These people not "working hard" enough? Comparing earnings to the amount of hard work is not valid. Years ago when building my career I was working incredibly hard, doing night shifts, dealing with toxic people on a daily basis... now I don't have to work as hard as I did, but I earn more. I got lucky to be in the position I'm in now... it wasn't a ladder climb, it was pure dumb luck. I earned more by working less. I earned less when working more. Tax should be proportionate based on earnings.
Someone earning hundreds of millions is barely going to benefit from an NI cut, because it already drops to 2% past a certain threshold. The main beneficiaries here are middle-income earners who are struggling to make ends meet. Like those doctors you mentioned.
You decided to complete ignore what I asked. Do you believe that a banker who pushes "sell" button at the right time is working harder than a doctor doing 16 hour shifts?
Just get rid of all taxes then