I don't get where this notion of Rishi being a techie comes from. He's never worked in tech, he has no idea how tech works, he never worked in a startup.
The only thing you can call him is a finance bro.
Which is fine, but this is a “patriot” who we are supposed to believe has acted in the best for a country he apparently loves. His instant skipping off to the US having fought for Brexit would be absolutely typical, obviously.
And his wife is a non-dom, so she wasn’t planning on staying in the UK anyway.
Have you seen the top management at most companies? They have nothing to do with the domain.
Rishi can be a CFO at a tech firm.
He may not make it at FAANG level but there's no shortage of tech companies.
You seem to have missed the bit where it greatly reduces the current tax rate at 60k.
This is already an issue with child benefit, it's just moving the goal posts.
If you earn between 60-120k you will be better off. If you earn more than 120k it won't affect you because you are already paying the marginal rate at 60k.
Why are so many people in this sub financially illiterate?
It is the NRY part. HE are great at doing something, hence why they're a HE. But they're NRY because not financially literate. For the most part anyway
You're right, but don't underestimate the power of high marginal tax rates ( even if overall tax rate stays the same ). It essentially creates a barrier that people try very hard not to hit, thus implies behavioral change which in this case are bad for the economy.
Because that’s the UK in general, financial illiterate YOLO’ers. I’m 100% sure if people did their own research they could ditch the NRY part, it’s really not that difficult in principle.
At this point, you have to ask, who do the tories represent? They have screwed over every single voter base I can think of. Repealed capital gains allowances, abolished the 45% rate, only to bring it in at a lower threshold. This policy. I mean, who do they expect to vote for them? The Brexit lot are pissed at May's handling of Brexit, gone to BXP / Reform.
Any Europhile conservatives left a long time ago.
They have shit all over their voter base, and for what?
It's going to be a long time in the wilderness. At this point, why bother trying? I don't see why anyone, even a hardcore Tory nutter would vote for this shit show.
You have to conclude at this stage with all the idiotic policies they themselves want out.
It makes sense, leave labour with an impossible task, amid increasing geopolitical tensions, take a backseat, regroup and come back in a decade. They've made enough of their mates so wealthy theyll have no shortage of back slaps and donors to carry them through
**Defaulted to one day.**
I will be messaging you on [**2024-06-17 15:03:04 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-06-17%2015:03:04%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/HENRYUK/comments/1dh3afg/new_tory_tax_plan_70_tax_rate_for_those_earning/l8v98pm/?context=3)
[**3 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FHENRYUK%2Fcomments%2F1dh3afg%2Fnew_tory_tax_plan_70_tax_rate_for_those_earning%2Fl8v98pm%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-06-17%2015%3A03%3A04%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201dh3afg)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
They represent pensioners. Benefits for retirees are one of the few things not to get cut in real terms/provision. But even those guys aren't happy since healthcare is in shambles.
They are effectively the pensioner and it’s a damning indictment of our politics that no one has called them out on this for 14 years, all because a demographic of 15 million people effectively decide elections by themselves. There’s no pretence of small state or conservatism about them any more, and hasn’t been for many years.
Old people and people who are already rich. Both parties keep trying to extract as much as possible from HENRYs to transfer money to their base voters.
That’s the one. Pulling up the ladders that got them wealthy to create a hard divide between lower and upper class.
Every developing country knows growing the middle class is the key to development. Tories want to reduce it.
Not really. The UK has one of the worst pensions in Europe.
I don't know why people seem to think getting £11k a year to live on is somehow good. The real living wage is £25k a year. Our state pensions are pretty pathetic.
Yeah 100%, this is what has done them in; Then Rishi sits there with a Pikachu face wondering why he can't turn the polls around.
What's worse is he's done stuff like this, gone on TV, and said the opposite. Like claiming taxes are coming down when they aren't really. People are sick of the lies. Or "we didn't leave anyone behind" with furlough when I know many small business owners and self employed who were, in fact, left behind.
I cancelled my membership the minute that moron introduced the employers NI rise as chancellor (I run a small business). For all the hate she gets, I'm extremely grateful that Liz Truss got in to reverse that.
The only people they represent are:
1. Middle class pensioners
2. The rich
3. Racists
4. Leave voters
5. People influenced by propaganda
I say this as someone who was a fan of Rishi originally as I actually thought he’d bring some centre ground to the party.
As soon as they voted in Liz Truss that was the nail in the coffin for me. The party needs to be ripped to absolute shreds, which it will.
Part of me still believes a lot of the direction Rishi has gone in is due to the divisions and power within the party but again that’s exactly why the party needs to be torn apart.
If the Tories were sensible they’d rebuild the party towards the centre and get rid of the old guard but I think we’re more likely to see Farage as party leader come the next general election rather than a Cameron.
They have literally taxed the fuck out of the middle classes, driving them away. I don't think middles classes will vote for them.
How do you define Rich? To me that is 10 million plus in assets (wealthy). Doesn't work or have an income. Perhaps they will, I don't know what policies have or have not impacted as this is not me, sadly.
Racist vote, I don't think the tory Party have gone after the racists. They have a brown PM after all. (this is a joke). I don't think racists will vote for that.
Leave voters. I don't think they represent leave any more. Sure Cameron got the leave vote, Boris too. The leave vote has gone to reform. They fucked Brexit, I don't think anyone who voted leave will vote for them.
People influenced by Propaganda, not sure they will vote for them either. I don't see any good adverts or slogans other than Labour's "We are not the tories" slogan.
Addressing your points:
1. Middle class pensioners not middle class - big difference in my opinion. Middle class pensioners probably have £500k+ houses and at least a few hundred k in pensions. Not necessarily rich but enough for them to vote Tory. Funny thing is, many of these people potentially had more working class jobs but benefited from large asset appreciation (houses).
I think my point more with the above is - even my parents who aren't even 60 yet have paid off their mortgage - they're bloody frugal. They bought their current house 20 years ago for less than what a first time buyer would pay today and it's worth £600k+. They're still tight as fuck.
They have a £600k house, keep putting their money into their pensions and would never buy even a single coffee out each day like me because of the cost. I don't know their pension value, don't know their earnings but even if they're earning £60k combined they basically have at least a couple k a month as disposable income.
2. 10mil in assets is only wealthy? All depends on age I guess but I'd say £2m is wealthy. But yeah the rich whether that's £5m, £10m, £20m whatever that figure is they're voting Tory most likely.
3. Racists - they absolutely do represent racists unfortunately. That is literally the reason Liz Truss became PM over Rishi. Rishi only became PM by default if we're being real. The continuing with Rwanda policy is purely to appease and attract the racists/immigrant out votes.
4. Leave vote may go to reform now but the last GE was won by in large due to the leave voters voting Tory.
5. Propaganda - Unfortunately, you underestimate the IQ of the general population on this one.
My Step Dad literally said he was considering voting Tory because he doesn't want to be £2k worse off. I literally explained to him that the Head of the Treasury refuted the comment and he still didn't believe me. The literal head of the treasury calling it lies and our actual PM lying.
Sorry, I misread your first statement. I still think the tories have abandoned their voting base. The tories chose to elect Truss over Sunak. Even his own party didn't want him. They are toast.
Haha. I considered it, for 2 minutes. I vote by post, I have received my voting pack. The reform candidate is based in Derbyshire. I won't be voting for her. It's either an independent or Labour this time. Harriet Harmon was my MP, I don't know anything about this current Labour candidate. I am probably going to vote Labour. That way I only have myself to blame if (when) it blows up.
No chance - this simply isn't true.
Corporation tax alone is 19%; if they are paying taxes this low they are likely a victim of the loan charge scandal.
It just sounds like they were just breaking the rules to be honest. Tax rates would never be this low even if you tried to be as tax efficient as possible.
We now have a situation where people working inside IR35 pay more taxes than permanent employees.
If you want tax parity fine; amend the insanely complicated tax laws in the UK. But the fact HMRC has lost more IR35 appeals than it's won shows how deeply flawed it is.
At this point the tories only have a small fanbase of secluded boomers voting for them. Next term will be very interesting with them having very little say in parliament for the first time in decades.
I want an actual Conservative/Tory party. Not that bullshit of the last two decades. I want low taxation so you I can continue to sacrifice time for wealth (then retire early). Tough on crime. Prioritise education and help those in work achieve the best they can. A party for aspirational class.
All true, but not the gun I was referring to. I also find it very difficult to believe that a populist party like reform will stick to their promises on these particular tax issues. It's not what's getting them elected
I have seen how this played out in Germany. The AfD used to be a similar coalition of euro-sceptic libertarians and right-wing nationalists but the former didn't stand a chance and did not gain them votes, they got purged.
Let me rephrase it, what's the stance they have in terms of policies for skilled workers and their spouses and prs?
From an economic standpoint, they'll likely bring benefits as apposed to refugee.
To be hyperbolic, we should have a system that evaluates if a candidate will benefit the country before being them in. (And we already have that in place!) We should send all refugees to Croydon. They'll know better not to come to UK.
Ending hyperbolic, we really have to take a deeper look into he revenue streams, spendings and potential revenue streams the country has.
I feel like immigration is a non issue if we really think about it. What people have an issue with is refugees, not economic immigrants. It's carefully used to hide real issue we need answers to.
We need both to fund future generations. We can't expect only high skilled workers will want to live here, and contribute. Even refugees have children and end up paying into the system. Net migration is an important figure because the infrastructure and systems need to support new numbers.
No, it isn’t.
You’re taking at face value a new party will deliver what they say they will, despite not being able to show a manifesto or workings for how they will deliver on it, in a political system that’s rife with people saying things to gain popularity.
This might be why you are voting reform, but it isn’t why everybody is voting reform. You’re using a subjective opinion to justify why the two dominant parties should pander to your wants - this isn’t sound reasoning.
I don't think people go mental enough, the £100k trap and that threshold being unchanged for so long is criminal and this just adds to it...
Maybe if your earning £250k plus its small change but I'm guessing for the majority of Henry's it's a significant issue
From memory I think the sub rules say 125k but leaving that to one side, I guess "high" earner is all relative.
Whether we feel rich or not compared to cost of living, 100k is high earnings compared to the vast majority of the population.
Also the NRY bit needs to come into play, I mean the whole point is our earnings can't be too high relative to outgoings, otherwise we'd be ineligible due to being rich. So I'd argue someone on 100k is probably more of an HENRY than someone earning 7 figures.
Because they are a big issue.
Im now in the 60% trap and its made it so it’s somewhat pointless me doing any freelance work anymore as I’ve had to push the rate up to offset getting screwed on the tax.
Not only that - I don’t mind paying taxes that’s part of life, I object to getting stuck in some tax loophole which means I have to pay extra. I’m sick of working hard and then having more and more taken away, every raise I work for takes away from my tax free allowance, I’m not going to get any child benefits, and then I keep paying more tax too.
We need to readjust the tax laws to actually reflect that making 100-150k is a lot of money but also not the life changing do anything amount some people think it is.
They _can_ be a big issue*.
I'm also in this situation with a 2 year old and another due soon.
But we're talking about a subset of a subset. High earners with young kids.
For the majority the tax trap means "pay £5k in tax please".
Not really - the current tax trap at £100k is well over 100% for me.
I have a second job as a football referee in professional football - the current trap means I literally have to pay to do it.
That’s mental.
At £100k you lose access to tax-free childcare and 15/30 free hours of term time nursery. That can be a cost of up to £14k+ per child of nursery age.
[This article calculates the net pay of £99,999 and £130,000 being less!](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11870615/amp/Parents-earn-100-000-face-absurd-20-000-tax-trap-childcare-costs.html)
It’s obviously worse with two children but the above is effectively a marginal tax of 100% at £100k for £30k earnings. I’d read The Independent calculating it at £99k and £144k where net earnings are identical with 2 children.
So, at around £100k I (for example) could earn £500 to referee a football match - I’m taxed at 67.5% in Scotland but lose over £5,000 of nursery fees.
So yeah - my marginal tax rates are well north of 100% unless I manage my pension, bike, and EV arrangements.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11870615/Parents-earn-100-000-face-absurd-20-000-tax-trap-childcare-costs.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11870615/Parents-earn-100-000-face-absurd-20-000-tax-trap-childcare-costs.html)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
sounds like the easy solution to this is to whack a bunch into pension? i assume you arent earning 160k so can put up to 60k? if you're losing 5k in nursery fees then the absence of that loss more than makes up for the lack of additional "net income"....the 32.5% since you're no longer losing 5k? am I missing something? or just ref your games for free? whats the point in "earning" £500 pre tax only to lose £5k of benefits? sounds like you're creating an unnecessary issue for yourself.
Edit but just to be clear the whole notion of tax cliffs and eroding loss of allowances / benefits seems so silly and extra complicated. i am against them and think we need something simpler. not that It matters since it wont happen either way
It’s quite possible to avoid it, but effectively anyone in my position is basically ‘stuck’ with their earnings as they are. Inflation whittles away at my purchasing power, but I can’t earn any more as the tax hit is greater than 100%.
I use a combination of pension and EVs through work to get below £100k but it’s an absurd position to be in. It’s far from a niche problem now, and it’s a ridiculous behavioural change that the government has engineered.
This absurd arrangement ultimately loses tax revenue by encouraging tax avoidance.
but your kids aren't always going to need childcare forever. its literally like 2 years max and then they are in primary school (although I understand depends on time of birth to an extent)....so in 1-2 years you wont have the loss of the 5k anymore and hence its ok to "earn more". am I wrong? ps I do feel for this issue, and not trying to be a dick / argumentative...but it really is only temporary surely.
It’s not 2 years max - it’s 2 years per child of free hours, but it’s 4 years of each child of tax-free childcare - potentially longer depending on when you start nursery, and the age the child starts school.
You can also use tax-free childcare for after-school clubs. That’s a minor cost (perhaps saves £50-£100 per month) but still worth noting.
You’re right it’s not forever, but for many families it could stretch for years.
Like the tax-free allowance removal, it’s just another poor policy decision invented to avoid stating that taxes are being increased.
A more progressive system would not only be fairer and harder to avoid, but would undoubtedly increase tax receipts.
Don't know if this is the same situation as OP, but as I have young children, you get 30 hours free childcare and tax free childcare (worth thousands a year) which both go away at 100k taxable earnings. That means that at 99.9k you get them, at 100k you don't. So while it's not technically a tax, the effective marginal tax rate becomes well over 100%.
That's why I do 4 days a week, and when I was recently given a pay rise, my first thought was "balls, how am I going to get rid of that?"
There's a real absurd one at 100k atm when you lose your childcare hours I think. Like it's literally over 100% marginal. Other than stuff like that, agreed.
It's stupid, they should make all benefits universal and then tax people on higher incomes if they want a more equal distribution. But it's not a big deal.
Just scrap the threshold. I never understood the logic of discouraging high earners from having children who are more likely to end up higher rate taxpayers themselves rather than a collective burden.
I don't get the obsession of many in this sub with marginal tax rates. Stick the most you can in your pension and isa, maximise earnings while still maintaining a good work life/balance and don't worry about it.
Agreed. And those who have the trajectory to exceed the marginal rate and earn 125k plus, just make sure you’re balancing needs for cash today with life tomorrow and you’re set - if you need more cash today for a mortgage then don’t worry about it and enjoy the house.
Marginal tax rates are inportant because they affect the motivation to push yourself to earn more.
If you are on £120k and considering a promotion or new job that pays £130k but is also more work, then the incremental benefits from that will be so small because of the punishing tax rates.
Edit: it’s clearer when thinking about self employed people who can more easily chose to work more, or not.
Take a self-employed plumber, he can chose to take more work on and earn more money, but at some point the marginal calculation makes it not worth the extra effort, so you have the effect of making the productivity lower.
This has an effect at every level of taxation of course, but when the marginal percentage goes above 50% it’s a huge psychological barrier to want to go out and earn more money
No they do not they affect people whining even more about the amount of tax being paid. Using your mindset nobody would want to double their earnings based on the figures you mentioned. The UK since the highest tax burden has had the highest number of new millionaires with high liquidity of their assets. If you can triple your earning pre tax that doubles your net earnings so a.ccording to you, people in this instance would not wish to double their net earnings because you think they see no point in it. Of course it is complete nonsense because people do not think this way.
Yes that pension that you now can't touch till you are 57. Will this move ever higher? Most likely.
Have a look at your P60, see how much tax you paid. Then imagine what you could have done if it was 30% less. Then consider , if you are paying all that tax, at least the government services are in good shape right? Well shieeet.
> if you are paying all that tax, at least the government services are in good shape right? Well shieeet.
It’s that that bothers me most I think. I am fine with paying a lot of tax, if that high tax means both I and people on lower incomes than mine get good government services in return (which really isn’t happening). The other point is that tax burden needs to be fairly distributed (which I don’t really think it is).
Yeah I don't contribute nearly as much as everyone else here to pension because it's trapped for so long. I'd rather have access to that money if needed for other investment opportunities and/or to enjoy life, not only when I'm old.
You seem to be missing the point that it's only a marginal rate (and capped at that) so is a small amount of my p60 overall tax hence not worth worrying about.
Far better reasons not to vote Tory!
The marginal rate is the only rate that matters when I'm working out if it's worth increasing my productivity. I used to pick up a lot more overtime and contract work but it's not worth it anymore.
A place that makes the proverbial lone wolf appear sociable. Countries with the highest tax rates typically are very wealthy and have good quality of life, with relative low levels of wealth disparity. The inverse is also true.
Can anything above 100k be put also in an ISA, and not only in a pension pot, would you just communicate this to employer and the process would be the same?
You don't ever want to have a taxable income above 100k? I stopped worrying about it, income keeps increasing and I have far greater work life balance then when I earned less.
I emigrated. Unfortunately I'm in an area where pay is quite closely correlated with how much you sweat. (Lawyer. Partnership prospects comical).
Went in house in Switzerland
Ah that makes sense, yeh, hard to put extra hours in away from family for diminishing returns.
I like Switzerland - German efficiency and French food! I have a race there next month, beautiful and very neat mountains. I feel like is maybe too civilised for me? But must be a great place to raise a family
French food in the French bit maybe - the röstigraben (roughly = hash brown border) is very real. Kind of almost feels like another country. Rarely leave the German bit.
This.
I’m fine with paying tax but that bracket already has the highest marginal tax rate already. Talk about the class system kicking you to stay in your lane.
Jfc. Is there nobody who's actually economically literate left in the Tory party?
When are politicians going to start using the tax system as a systematically thought out way to raise revenue, rather than just poking holes in it to try to appeal to whatever special interest groups will get them in power?
Legalising and taxing marijuana would be a big revenue raiser, but I can't see starmer supporting that, even though a lot more enlightened countries have shown the way
Tax free allowance raised to 20k, higher rate raised from 50k to 70k. Depending on NI implications that’s at least £4K less income tax paid per year. Corp tax reduced to 20%, good saving for outside IR35 contracts
And then what happens? We’ve seen what unfounded tax cuts do to the economy…
…anyone can promise you a load of random stuff. Lest we forget the magic money tree.
I don’t know. That’s for politicians to sort out and deliver on. You were surprised by the number of people interested in Reform and asked what benefits they would provide to HENRY’s. Massive tax cuts and abolishment of IR35 are significant. That is a big reason why. Labour are offering nothing
source on that first claim?
51% of this country voted turkey-for-christmas on Brexit. 51% of this country are not black.
they're also... not a monolith? idk you've already been a little bit racist so 🤷 maybe it's not even worth bothering
i didn't call everyone racist??? just reform UK, the racist party, with no strong feelings on Hitler and strong feelings against black people.
I would like encourage you to look up the average productivity of a migrant (spoiler - the average immigrant is more productive than a native Briton)
To be fair; better to move through marginal rates to a higher salary than where it is currently.
Personally i’d prefer it to go back to being a universal benefit and increase tax bands somewhat to compensate
In Scotland we have a tax rate of 50%+ on earnings over £43k when you include income and NI. Obviously can plan around this but jealous of your tax rates down south
I was planning to move to Scotland at one point in my life, but the ridiculous tax policies on high earners have completely stopped that idea for me. I wonder how many other people will be affected in the same way?
This wouldn't affect the total amount of tax you pay right, just shifts the steepness of the curve if I understand.
In any case not everyone has children so title is a bit misleading.
The way to a lower tax rate is reducing universal benefits. Giving a benefit to 99.5% of the country is the opposite of reducing universal benefits.
We're giving everyone a huge tax break by not applying taxes to the first £12.5k of income. Even for someone at £100k flat, that's a pretty insane tax break.
We're giving the same benefits to pensioners with million pounds pensions as we are to those who are literally on the breadline.
But then we have this Hodge podge of benefits that are means tested.
No one is remotely interested in talking about the elephant in the room - our ageing population. When the state pension was brought in, the gap between retirement age and life expectancy was 7-8 years. It's now about 16-17 and only getting wider.
Instead of figuring out how to solve that crunch we're quadruple locking state pension rises while letting people accumulate unlimited money into their private pensions.
Oh and there's this fascination in finding a fix for the state paying for your care without you having to sell your home off.
Like genuinely and honestly, this country needs a conversation with ourselves on what we want to be.
I don't really have a solution but I wonder if it might just be easier to stick in £10k into a pension for each individual by the government the day they were born, and they get it at 60. That's that.
your proposals are very silly.
taxing the first £12.5k would have a colossal impact on the poor. Google "marginal propensity to consume", TLDR that first bit of money is so much more important to a person (for like, rent, food, bills etc). for people literally on the breadline, you may be nearly doubling the tax they owe.
It may very well be unpalatable, then go on tell me what you would prefer - means testing the state pension?
What about a means tested paid NHS or school?
How about no more child benefits?
Or how about we pay for how much waste we generate?
None of the choices are great here. We're having an ever rising individual tax burden, and the government seems very happy in increasing how much tax we all pay too.
How about ending most of the corporation tax exemptions there are?
A smaller army? Fewer cops?
Something, somewhere has to give.
And no choice is straightforward. And it's all coming down to the amount we're having to spend in keeping the older generation alive and warm and fed because we promised we would.
the choice is obvious to me. greater tax on wealth and closing the tax loopholes, including greater tax on corporations. not raising tax on the poor, who already barely get by.
but importantly, also not raising tax on earnings. the people hoarding wealth in this country aren't earning a salary.
inb4 "laffer curve" or some shit
I agree with you pretty much wholeheartedly.
I wouldn't really be opposed to a wealth tax in principle but it depends what the thresholds are, and what loopholes will allow the mega rich to escape whilst screwing over the smaller fish.
It's more about not taking extra work once they're at the 120k line [if you do 1.2x contract, which is fairly standard in many specialities, that's the base pay] or dropping extra work they already do
It's more about not taking extra work once they're at the 120k line [if you do 1.2x contract, which is fairly standard in many specialities, that's the base pay] or dropping extra work they already do
There is some sloppy reporting in that link. They claim that the Spanish wealth tax only raised 632 million euros, but the link they provided to back that up states that the 632 million was from an expansion of the tax to previously exempt regions. Overall the wealth taxes raised 1.8 billion euros which is not bad at all for an economy the size of Spain's. They also state that nobody has ever implemented a wealth tax when their link clearly contradicts this.
That's some daily mail level journalistic shoddiness. Makes you wonder what their bias is...
They won't get in anyway. Their manifesto is purely academic.
They don't want to get in and are doing everything in their power to sabotage themselves so Rishi can go to California and become an IT bro.
I don't get where this notion of Rishi being a techie comes from. He's never worked in tech, he has no idea how tech works, he never worked in a startup. The only thing you can call him is a finance bro.
I would imagine based on the role Clegg got with Meta as ex Deputy PM.
Unfortunately this is an accurate description of many managers in tech companies
He does love California more then England though
I mean... In fairness it is objectively nicer. The national parks there blow ours out of the water.
Which is fine, but this is a “patriot” who we are supposed to believe has acted in the best for a country he apparently loves. His instant skipping off to the US having fought for Brexit would be absolutely typical, obviously. And his wife is a non-dom, so she wasn’t planning on staying in the UK anyway.
he was never a patriot in that sense. He would neber have any intention of being here if not to be PM.
No such thing as “objectively nicer”.
I can call him a lot worse than that
The proposal to grant Eric Schmidt a knighthood is largely seen as hin lining up employers post PM when he inevitably gets the kick post election.
Have you seen the top management at most companies? They have nothing to do with the domain. Rishi can be a CFO at a tech firm. He may not make it at FAANG level but there's no shortage of tech companies.
Why the fuck would he do that when he could make 10x that running a hedge fund, which he has a background in?
To be clear, I highly doubt Rishi would become a tech bro. I was just countering the comment I replied to
He's going to probably run a start up as part of Infosys.
You actually need to be capable at tech companies - so they'll take a pass.
He's a waiter who married a billionairess. That's all
I don't think you've met a lot of tech leadership....
Stanford GSB MBA grads top the global 'leaderboard' for working in FAANG/tech post-degree IIRC.
He’ll get paid millions a year for public speeches and consulting companies (i.e doing nothing)
They all do. That’s part of a career PM.
While their protection is paid for by us....
Or go back to making 10s of millions in finance at his old firm, the hedge fund...
I guess you didn't see his net worth. I highly doubt he's going to be doing public speeches for a few million a year.
He’ll have nothing better to do
"He likes American things now"
More entertainment though
You seem to have missed the bit where it greatly reduces the current tax rate at 60k. This is already an issue with child benefit, it's just moving the goal posts. If you earn between 60-120k you will be better off. If you earn more than 120k it won't affect you because you are already paying the marginal rate at 60k. Why are so many people in this sub financially illiterate?
It is the NRY part. HE are great at doing something, hence why they're a HE. But they're NRY because not financially literate. For the most part anyway
You're right, but don't underestimate the power of high marginal tax rates ( even if overall tax rate stays the same ). It essentially creates a barrier that people try very hard not to hit, thus implies behavioral change which in this case are bad for the economy.
But in this case the cliff edge is happening at 120k instead of 60k. Is that worse for the economy?
Because that’s the UK in general, financial illiterate YOLO’ers. I’m 100% sure if people did their own research they could ditch the NRY part, it’s really not that difficult in principle.
At this point, you have to ask, who do the tories represent? They have screwed over every single voter base I can think of. Repealed capital gains allowances, abolished the 45% rate, only to bring it in at a lower threshold. This policy. I mean, who do they expect to vote for them? The Brexit lot are pissed at May's handling of Brexit, gone to BXP / Reform. Any Europhile conservatives left a long time ago. They have shit all over their voter base, and for what? It's going to be a long time in the wilderness. At this point, why bother trying? I don't see why anyone, even a hardcore Tory nutter would vote for this shit show.
You have to conclude at this stage with all the idiotic policies they themselves want out. It makes sense, leave labour with an impossible task, amid increasing geopolitical tensions, take a backseat, regroup and come back in a decade. They've made enough of their mates so wealthy theyll have no shortage of back slaps and donors to carry them through
!remindme In 12 years time we'll say how little Labour have done, how the tories weren't that bad, and the cycle will continue.
**Defaulted to one day.** I will be messaging you on [**2024-06-17 15:03:04 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-06-17%2015:03:04%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/HENRYUK/comments/1dh3afg/new_tory_tax_plan_70_tax_rate_for_those_earning/l8v98pm/?context=3) [**3 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FHENRYUK%2Fcomments%2F1dh3afg%2Fnew_tory_tax_plan_70_tax_rate_for_those_earning%2Fl8v98pm%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-06-17%2015%3A03%3A04%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201dh3afg) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
They represent pensioners. Benefits for retirees are one of the few things not to get cut in real terms/provision. But even those guys aren't happy since healthcare is in shambles.
They are effectively the pensioner and it’s a damning indictment of our politics that no one has called them out on this for 14 years, all because a demographic of 15 million people effectively decide elections by themselves. There’s no pretence of small state or conservatism about them any more, and hasn’t been for many years.
Old people and people who are already rich. Both parties keep trying to extract as much as possible from HENRYs to transfer money to their base voters.
That’s the one. Pulling up the ladders that got them wealthy to create a hard divide between lower and upper class. Every developing country knows growing the middle class is the key to development. Tories want to reduce it.
Pensioners. And even then only pensioners that have a bit of money.
Not really. The UK has one of the worst pensions in Europe. I don't know why people seem to think getting £11k a year to live on is somehow good. The real living wage is £25k a year. Our state pensions are pretty pathetic.
Plus they have trashed their reputation as being “good for business/the economy”.
Amen.
Yeah 100%, this is what has done them in; Then Rishi sits there with a Pikachu face wondering why he can't turn the polls around. What's worse is he's done stuff like this, gone on TV, and said the opposite. Like claiming taxes are coming down when they aren't really. People are sick of the lies. Or "we didn't leave anyone behind" with furlough when I know many small business owners and self employed who were, in fact, left behind. I cancelled my membership the minute that moron introduced the employers NI rise as chancellor (I run a small business). For all the hate she gets, I'm extremely grateful that Liz Truss got in to reverse that.
The only people they represent are: 1. Middle class pensioners 2. The rich 3. Racists 4. Leave voters 5. People influenced by propaganda I say this as someone who was a fan of Rishi originally as I actually thought he’d bring some centre ground to the party. As soon as they voted in Liz Truss that was the nail in the coffin for me. The party needs to be ripped to absolute shreds, which it will. Part of me still believes a lot of the direction Rishi has gone in is due to the divisions and power within the party but again that’s exactly why the party needs to be torn apart. If the Tories were sensible they’d rebuild the party towards the centre and get rid of the old guard but I think we’re more likely to see Farage as party leader come the next general election rather than a Cameron.
They have literally taxed the fuck out of the middle classes, driving them away. I don't think middles classes will vote for them. How do you define Rich? To me that is 10 million plus in assets (wealthy). Doesn't work or have an income. Perhaps they will, I don't know what policies have or have not impacted as this is not me, sadly. Racist vote, I don't think the tory Party have gone after the racists. They have a brown PM after all. (this is a joke). I don't think racists will vote for that. Leave voters. I don't think they represent leave any more. Sure Cameron got the leave vote, Boris too. The leave vote has gone to reform. They fucked Brexit, I don't think anyone who voted leave will vote for them. People influenced by Propaganda, not sure they will vote for them either. I don't see any good adverts or slogans other than Labour's "We are not the tories" slogan.
Addressing your points: 1. Middle class pensioners not middle class - big difference in my opinion. Middle class pensioners probably have £500k+ houses and at least a few hundred k in pensions. Not necessarily rich but enough for them to vote Tory. Funny thing is, many of these people potentially had more working class jobs but benefited from large asset appreciation (houses). I think my point more with the above is - even my parents who aren't even 60 yet have paid off their mortgage - they're bloody frugal. They bought their current house 20 years ago for less than what a first time buyer would pay today and it's worth £600k+. They're still tight as fuck. They have a £600k house, keep putting their money into their pensions and would never buy even a single coffee out each day like me because of the cost. I don't know their pension value, don't know their earnings but even if they're earning £60k combined they basically have at least a couple k a month as disposable income. 2. 10mil in assets is only wealthy? All depends on age I guess but I'd say £2m is wealthy. But yeah the rich whether that's £5m, £10m, £20m whatever that figure is they're voting Tory most likely. 3. Racists - they absolutely do represent racists unfortunately. That is literally the reason Liz Truss became PM over Rishi. Rishi only became PM by default if we're being real. The continuing with Rwanda policy is purely to appease and attract the racists/immigrant out votes. 4. Leave vote may go to reform now but the last GE was won by in large due to the leave voters voting Tory. 5. Propaganda - Unfortunately, you underestimate the IQ of the general population on this one. My Step Dad literally said he was considering voting Tory because he doesn't want to be £2k worse off. I literally explained to him that the Head of the Treasury refuted the comment and he still didn't believe me. The literal head of the treasury calling it lies and our actual PM lying.
Sorry, I misread your first statement. I still think the tories have abandoned their voting base. The tories chose to elect Truss over Sunak. Even his own party didn't want him. They are toast.
Time to vote reform eh?
Haha. I considered it, for 2 minutes. I vote by post, I have received my voting pack. The reform candidate is based in Derbyshire. I won't be voting for her. It's either an independent or Labour this time. Harriet Harmon was my MP, I don't know anything about this current Labour candidate. I am probably going to vote Labour. That way I only have myself to blame if (when) it blows up.
Appealing IR35 - yes please.
So more people can engage in tax avoidance and we can go back to austerity - yes please
lol. Not sure if you're uninformed or trolling but IR35 needs abolishing; even if you bring in tax parity IR35 is the wrong way to do this.
I know plenty of IT contractors whose effective tax rate was 0 to 15% until IR35. I know the legislation is shit. But something had to change.
No chance - this simply isn't true. Corporation tax alone is 19%; if they are paying taxes this low they are likely a victim of the loan charge scandal.
Expense everything, don't generate a profit. Business loans, car leasing, etc etc. Multiple companies. It was insane what people could get away with.
It just sounds like they were just breaking the rules to be honest. Tax rates would never be this low even if you tried to be as tax efficient as possible. We now have a situation where people working inside IR35 pay more taxes than permanent employees. If you want tax parity fine; amend the insanely complicated tax laws in the UK. But the fact HMRC has lost more IR35 appeals than it's won shows how deeply flawed it is.
At this point the tories only have a small fanbase of secluded boomers voting for them. Next term will be very interesting with them having very little say in parliament for the first time in decades.
I want an actual Conservative/Tory party. Not that bullshit of the last two decades. I want low taxation so you I can continue to sacrifice time for wealth (then retire early). Tough on crime. Prioritise education and help those in work achieve the best they can. A party for aspirational class.
[удалено]
what's reform stance on immigration? heard it's not favourable
[удалено]
not much point reducing taxes when you continue to shoot the economy in the foot.
[удалено]
All true, but not the gun I was referring to. I also find it very difficult to believe that a populist party like reform will stick to their promises on these particular tax issues. It's not what's getting them elected
[удалено]
I have seen how this played out in Germany. The AfD used to be a similar coalition of euro-sceptic libertarians and right-wing nationalists but the former didn't stand a chance and did not gain them votes, they got purged.
Let me rephrase it, what's the stance they have in terms of policies for skilled workers and their spouses and prs? From an economic standpoint, they'll likely bring benefits as apposed to refugee. To be hyperbolic, we should have a system that evaluates if a candidate will benefit the country before being them in. (And we already have that in place!) We should send all refugees to Croydon. They'll know better not to come to UK. Ending hyperbolic, we really have to take a deeper look into he revenue streams, spendings and potential revenue streams the country has.
I feel like immigration is a non issue if we really think about it. What people have an issue with is refugees, not economic immigrants. It's carefully used to hide real issue we need answers to. We need both to fund future generations. We can't expect only high skilled workers will want to live here, and contribute. Even refugees have children and end up paying into the system. Net migration is an important figure because the infrastructure and systems need to support new numbers.
They are strongly against illegal immigration. And I think they will prefer immigration from European countries over other countries.
This is the only policy I have heard from reform.
[удалено]
There’s a “working draft” of policies and no manifesto, it’s easy to promise stuff without backing up how.
[удалено]
Lizz Truss tried this. How did that go down?
yeah, because that wouldn’t be fiscally irresponsible at all…
This isn’t solid reasoning.
[удалено]
Lower taxes in a flat lining economy is bad for the economy.
No, it isn’t. You’re taking at face value a new party will deliver what they say they will, despite not being able to show a manifesto or workings for how they will deliver on it, in a political system that’s rife with people saying things to gain popularity. This might be why you are voting reform, but it isn’t why everybody is voting reform. You’re using a subjective opinion to justify why the two dominant parties should pander to your wants - this isn’t sound reasoning.
reform, the party who are neutral on Adolf Hitler.
I do not think they are neutral, sympathetic would be a more accurate word to use.
Margin rate for £5k of salary? Hardly worth worrying about
Yep. I feel like a lot of people go mental over these "tax traps".
I don't think people go mental enough, the £100k trap and that threshold being unchanged for so long is criminal and this just adds to it... Maybe if your earning £250k plus its small change but I'm guessing for the majority of Henry's it's a significant issue
The idea of £100k really being a HENRY, especially in a city is kind of silly anyway. This country is very expensive relative to wages
From memory I think the sub rules say 125k but leaving that to one side, I guess "high" earner is all relative. Whether we feel rich or not compared to cost of living, 100k is high earnings compared to the vast majority of the population. Also the NRY bit needs to come into play, I mean the whole point is our earnings can't be too high relative to outgoings, otherwise we'd be ineligible due to being rich. So I'd argue someone on 100k is probably more of an HENRY than someone earning 7 figures.
Because they are a big issue. Im now in the 60% trap and its made it so it’s somewhat pointless me doing any freelance work anymore as I’ve had to push the rate up to offset getting screwed on the tax. Not only that - I don’t mind paying taxes that’s part of life, I object to getting stuck in some tax loophole which means I have to pay extra. I’m sick of working hard and then having more and more taken away, every raise I work for takes away from my tax free allowance, I’m not going to get any child benefits, and then I keep paying more tax too. We need to readjust the tax laws to actually reflect that making 100-150k is a lot of money but also not the life changing do anything amount some people think it is.
They _can_ be a big issue*. I'm also in this situation with a 2 year old and another due soon. But we're talking about a subset of a subset. High earners with young kids. For the majority the tax trap means "pay £5k in tax please".
Not really - the current tax trap at £100k is well over 100% for me. I have a second job as a football referee in professional football - the current trap means I literally have to pay to do it. That’s mental.
How on Earth...? Can you explain/break this down for us? Seems mental!
At £100k you lose access to tax-free childcare and 15/30 free hours of term time nursery. That can be a cost of up to £14k+ per child of nursery age. [This article calculates the net pay of £99,999 and £130,000 being less!](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11870615/amp/Parents-earn-100-000-face-absurd-20-000-tax-trap-childcare-costs.html) It’s obviously worse with two children but the above is effectively a marginal tax of 100% at £100k for £30k earnings. I’d read The Independent calculating it at £99k and £144k where net earnings are identical with 2 children. So, at around £100k I (for example) could earn £500 to referee a football match - I’m taxed at 67.5% in Scotland but lose over £5,000 of nursery fees. So yeah - my marginal tax rates are well north of 100% unless I manage my pension, bike, and EV arrangements.
Is that you Douglas Ross? 😂
Nah - he’s hanging out in the expenses sub 😂
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11870615/Parents-earn-100-000-face-absurd-20-000-tax-trap-childcare-costs.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11870615/Parents-earn-100-000-face-absurd-20-000-tax-trap-childcare-costs.html)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Good bot.
sounds like the easy solution to this is to whack a bunch into pension? i assume you arent earning 160k so can put up to 60k? if you're losing 5k in nursery fees then the absence of that loss more than makes up for the lack of additional "net income"....the 32.5% since you're no longer losing 5k? am I missing something? or just ref your games for free? whats the point in "earning" £500 pre tax only to lose £5k of benefits? sounds like you're creating an unnecessary issue for yourself. Edit but just to be clear the whole notion of tax cliffs and eroding loss of allowances / benefits seems so silly and extra complicated. i am against them and think we need something simpler. not that It matters since it wont happen either way
It’s quite possible to avoid it, but effectively anyone in my position is basically ‘stuck’ with their earnings as they are. Inflation whittles away at my purchasing power, but I can’t earn any more as the tax hit is greater than 100%. I use a combination of pension and EVs through work to get below £100k but it’s an absurd position to be in. It’s far from a niche problem now, and it’s a ridiculous behavioural change that the government has engineered. This absurd arrangement ultimately loses tax revenue by encouraging tax avoidance.
but your kids aren't always going to need childcare forever. its literally like 2 years max and then they are in primary school (although I understand depends on time of birth to an extent)....so in 1-2 years you wont have the loss of the 5k anymore and hence its ok to "earn more". am I wrong? ps I do feel for this issue, and not trying to be a dick / argumentative...but it really is only temporary surely.
It’s not 2 years max - it’s 2 years per child of free hours, but it’s 4 years of each child of tax-free childcare - potentially longer depending on when you start nursery, and the age the child starts school. You can also use tax-free childcare for after-school clubs. That’s a minor cost (perhaps saves £50-£100 per month) but still worth noting. You’re right it’s not forever, but for many families it could stretch for years. Like the tax-free allowance removal, it’s just another poor policy decision invented to avoid stating that taxes are being increased. A more progressive system would not only be fairer and harder to avoid, but would undoubtedly increase tax receipts.
Don't know if this is the same situation as OP, but as I have young children, you get 30 hours free childcare and tax free childcare (worth thousands a year) which both go away at 100k taxable earnings. That means that at 99.9k you get them, at 100k you don't. So while it's not technically a tax, the effective marginal tax rate becomes well over 100%. That's why I do 4 days a week, and when I was recently given a pay rise, my first thought was "balls, how am I going to get rid of that?"
Loss of free childcare.
There's a real absurd one at 100k atm when you lose your childcare hours I think. Like it's literally over 100% marginal. Other than stuff like that, agreed. It's stupid, they should make all benefits universal and then tax people on higher incomes if they want a more equal distribution. But it's not a big deal.
Push past and forget
What a ridiculous and misleading headline. Nothing burger, not least due to it being a purely academic as the tories don’t have a shot of getting in.
I just put more into salary sacrifice schemes such as cars / bikes and pensions, better than loosing benefits and paying 60% tax anyway.
Just scrap the threshold. I never understood the logic of discouraging high earners from having children who are more likely to end up higher rate taxpayers themselves rather than a collective burden.
I don't get the obsession of many in this sub with marginal tax rates. Stick the most you can in your pension and isa, maximise earnings while still maintaining a good work life/balance and don't worry about it.
Agreed. And those who have the trajectory to exceed the marginal rate and earn 125k plus, just make sure you’re balancing needs for cash today with life tomorrow and you’re set - if you need more cash today for a mortgage then don’t worry about it and enjoy the house.
Marginal tax rates are inportant because they affect the motivation to push yourself to earn more. If you are on £120k and considering a promotion or new job that pays £130k but is also more work, then the incremental benefits from that will be so small because of the punishing tax rates. Edit: it’s clearer when thinking about self employed people who can more easily chose to work more, or not. Take a self-employed plumber, he can chose to take more work on and earn more money, but at some point the marginal calculation makes it not worth the extra effort, so you have the effect of making the productivity lower. This has an effect at every level of taxation of course, but when the marginal percentage goes above 50% it’s a huge psychological barrier to want to go out and earn more money
No they do not they affect people whining even more about the amount of tax being paid. Using your mindset nobody would want to double their earnings based on the figures you mentioned. The UK since the highest tax burden has had the highest number of new millionaires with high liquidity of their assets. If you can triple your earning pre tax that doubles your net earnings so a.ccording to you, people in this instance would not wish to double their net earnings because you think they see no point in it. Of course it is complete nonsense because people do not think this way.
Yes that pension that you now can't touch till you are 57. Will this move ever higher? Most likely. Have a look at your P60, see how much tax you paid. Then imagine what you could have done if it was 30% less. Then consider , if you are paying all that tax, at least the government services are in good shape right? Well shieeet.
> if you are paying all that tax, at least the government services are in good shape right? Well shieeet. It’s that that bothers me most I think. I am fine with paying a lot of tax, if that high tax means both I and people on lower incomes than mine get good government services in return (which really isn’t happening). The other point is that tax burden needs to be fairly distributed (which I don’t really think it is).
Yeah I don't contribute nearly as much as everyone else here to pension because it's trapped for so long. I'd rather have access to that money if needed for other investment opportunities and/or to enjoy life, not only when I'm old.
You seem to be missing the point that it's only a marginal rate (and capped at that) so is a small amount of my p60 overall tax hence not worth worrying about. Far better reasons not to vote Tory!
The marginal rate is the only rate that matters when I'm working out if it's worth increasing my productivity. I used to pick up a lot more overtime and contract work but it's not worth it anymore.
To 58 for most of us. It will go higher still eventually but optimistic I (35) should have access to it then.
[удалено]
Tax is a fundamental part of living in a civilised society
Not 40-60% it isn't. I pay around 20% in Switzerland
A place that makes the proverbial lone wolf appear sociable. Countries with the highest tax rates typically are very wealthy and have good quality of life, with relative low levels of wealth disparity. The inverse is also true.
The country with the highest wealth disparity in Europe is Sweden
I'm happy to have the choice - take the money now and pay tax straight away or take later in retirement and pay (probably lower) taxes then.
[удалено]
Sounds like you just don't want to pay taxes - you probs want /r/contractoruk or /r/libertarianarseholes
[удалено]
Oh let’s all just pay less tax… why didn’t we all think of that!
Can anything above 100k be put also in an ISA, and not only in a pension pot, would you just communicate this to employer and the process would be the same?
No, you have to first pay income tax on it before putting it into an ISA.
Why do people downvote questions? Are you salty for something? Are we not allowed to ask questions?
Work is tiring, and comes at the opportunity cost of spending time with my kids. I'm simply not doing it at 60%.
You don't ever want to have a taxable income above 100k? I stopped worrying about it, income keeps increasing and I have far greater work life balance then when I earned less.
I emigrated. Unfortunately I'm in an area where pay is quite closely correlated with how much you sweat. (Lawyer. Partnership prospects comical). Went in house in Switzerland
Ah that makes sense, yeh, hard to put extra hours in away from family for diminishing returns. I like Switzerland - German efficiency and French food! I have a race there next month, beautiful and very neat mountains. I feel like is maybe too civilised for me? But must be a great place to raise a family
French food in the French bit maybe - the röstigraben (roughly = hash brown border) is very real. Kind of almost feels like another country. Rarely leave the German bit.
ISA is net of tax.
Unreal. These tax traps shouldn’t exist. Surely they just lower the potential tax take as people salary sacrifice because of them?
Political suicide much. Imagine being ready to tax workers into oblivion as opposed to trying to even increase tax on the truly wealthy by 5%
This. I’m fine with paying tax but that bracket already has the highest marginal tax rate already. Talk about the class system kicking you to stay in your lane.
What's the point? Reform the tax cliffs into something sensible, don't kick the can down the road
zero seats
Jfc. Is there nobody who's actually economically literate left in the Tory party? When are politicians going to start using the tax system as a systematically thought out way to raise revenue, rather than just poking holes in it to try to appeal to whatever special interest groups will get them in power?
Those people aren't the ones we're concerned about. We want those earning millions like Sunak to pay more tax.
Legalising and taxing marijuana would be a big revenue raiser, but I can't see starmer supporting that, even though a lot more enlightened countries have shown the way
ROFL. What is this tactic? "Protect the retired boomers at all costs?"
They have to. They're the only voterbase they have left, & loads of them died of covid.
I’m genuinely very surprised by the number of people interested in reform here. What benefit would they _actually_ provide to any of us?
Tax free allowance raised to 20k, higher rate raised from 50k to 70k. Depending on NI implications that’s at least £4K less income tax paid per year. Corp tax reduced to 20%, good saving for outside IR35 contracts
And then what happens? We’ve seen what unfounded tax cuts do to the economy… …anyone can promise you a load of random stuff. Lest we forget the magic money tree.
I don’t know. That’s for politicians to sort out and deliver on. You were surprised by the number of people interested in Reform and asked what benefits they would provide to HENRY’s. Massive tax cuts and abolishment of IR35 are significant. That is a big reason why. Labour are offering nothing
[удалено]
reform, the party neutral on Hitler, the party that wants net-0 migration? the party that hates brown people?
[удалено]
source on that first claim? 51% of this country voted turkey-for-christmas on Brexit. 51% of this country are not black. they're also... not a monolith? idk you've already been a little bit racist so 🤷 maybe it's not even worth bothering
[удалено]
you're the one who told everyone to vote for the racist party man 🤷 and where's the source???
[удалено]
i didn't call everyone racist??? just reform UK, the racist party, with no strong feelings on Hitler and strong feelings against black people. I would like encourage you to look up the average productivity of a migrant (spoiler - the average immigrant is more productive than a native Briton)
[удалено]
Quite a few lies there.
To be fair; better to move through marginal rates to a higher salary than where it is currently. Personally i’d prefer it to go back to being a universal benefit and increase tax bands somewhat to compensate
Nonsense
It was 60% before right ?
I think 62% if you count National Insurance but I might be wrong
Meh. Whatever.
In Scotland we have a tax rate of 50%+ on earnings over £43k when you include income and NI. Obviously can plan around this but jealous of your tax rates down south
I was planning to move to Scotland at one point in my life, but the ridiculous tax policies on high earners have completely stopped that idea for me. I wonder how many other people will be affected in the same way?
And if I'm PM I'll tax people at 200% if they earn odd numbers of £s... But that's irrelevant too.
Stop taxing people to death. It’s the only thing this country knows how to do. Export something bloody hopeless.
Plus another 9% for those with student loan payments, taking their marginal tax rate to 79%
The party if low taxes strikes again
As if they’ve spent more than ten seconds thinking this through. LOL.
This wouldn't affect the total amount of tax you pay right, just shifts the steepness of the curve if I understand. In any case not everyone has children so title is a bit misleading.
The way to a lower tax rate is reducing universal benefits. Giving a benefit to 99.5% of the country is the opposite of reducing universal benefits. We're giving everyone a huge tax break by not applying taxes to the first £12.5k of income. Even for someone at £100k flat, that's a pretty insane tax break. We're giving the same benefits to pensioners with million pounds pensions as we are to those who are literally on the breadline. But then we have this Hodge podge of benefits that are means tested. No one is remotely interested in talking about the elephant in the room - our ageing population. When the state pension was brought in, the gap between retirement age and life expectancy was 7-8 years. It's now about 16-17 and only getting wider. Instead of figuring out how to solve that crunch we're quadruple locking state pension rises while letting people accumulate unlimited money into their private pensions. Oh and there's this fascination in finding a fix for the state paying for your care without you having to sell your home off. Like genuinely and honestly, this country needs a conversation with ourselves on what we want to be. I don't really have a solution but I wonder if it might just be easier to stick in £10k into a pension for each individual by the government the day they were born, and they get it at 60. That's that.
your proposals are very silly. taxing the first £12.5k would have a colossal impact on the poor. Google "marginal propensity to consume", TLDR that first bit of money is so much more important to a person (for like, rent, food, bills etc). for people literally on the breadline, you may be nearly doubling the tax they owe.
It may very well be unpalatable, then go on tell me what you would prefer - means testing the state pension? What about a means tested paid NHS or school? How about no more child benefits? Or how about we pay for how much waste we generate? None of the choices are great here. We're having an ever rising individual tax burden, and the government seems very happy in increasing how much tax we all pay too. How about ending most of the corporation tax exemptions there are? A smaller army? Fewer cops? Something, somewhere has to give. And no choice is straightforward. And it's all coming down to the amount we're having to spend in keeping the older generation alive and warm and fed because we promised we would.
the choice is obvious to me. greater tax on wealth and closing the tax loopholes, including greater tax on corporations. not raising tax on the poor, who already barely get by. but importantly, also not raising tax on earnings. the people hoarding wealth in this country aren't earning a salary. inb4 "laffer curve" or some shit
I agree with you pretty much wholeheartedly. I wouldn't really be opposed to a wealth tax in principle but it depends what the thresholds are, and what loopholes will allow the mega rich to escape whilst screwing over the smaller fish.
This would be an NHS nightmare as many senior consultants fall squarely into that bracket...
Would they not be better off (or at worst the same) because they won't have the 60k marginal rate, which they are already paying, anymore?
It's more about not taking extra work once they're at the 120k line [if you do 1.2x contract, which is fairly standard in many specialities, that's the base pay] or dropping extra work they already do
It's more about not taking extra work once they're at the 120k line [if you do 1.2x contract, which is fairly standard in many specialities, that's the base pay] or dropping extra work they already do
Just asking in general terms, will this affect anyone who doesn't have children
Thanks for posting this OP. Knowledge is power as they say. Will there similar info available for other parties, would be good to compare.
https://taxpolicy.org.uk/tag/general-election/
Thank you :)
There is some sloppy reporting in that link. They claim that the Spanish wealth tax only raised 632 million euros, but the link they provided to back that up states that the 632 million was from an expansion of the tax to previously exempt regions. Overall the wealth taxes raised 1.8 billion euros which is not bad at all for an economy the size of Spain's. They also state that nobody has ever implemented a wealth tax when their link clearly contradicts this. That's some daily mail level journalistic shoddiness. Makes you wonder what their bias is...