This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Arguably the most important General election we have ever had.
I'm holding my breath ( Hope I wont suffocate)
I'm holding my breath ( Hope I wont suffocate)
1
7
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
I think the post war election that allowed the creation of the Welfare State and, in particular, the creation of the NHS was probably more important - before then many people couldn't afford a doctor
I think the post war election that allowed the creation of the Welfare State and, in particular, the creation of the NHS was probably more important - before then many people couldn't afford a doctor
24
2
In reply to wercat:
And soon they won't again unless people make different voting decisions than predicted!
And soon they won't again unless people make different voting decisions than predicted!
29
11
4
2
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
You mean the most important power grab
> Arguably the most important General election we have ever had.I'm holding my breath ( Hope I wont suffocate)
You mean the most important power grab
9
5
1
11
In reply to wercat:
I wonder how long after this election before some people find they can't afford a doctor, or a care home, a good school....
> I think the post war election that allowed the creation of the Welfare State and, in particular, the creation of the NHS was probably more important - before then many people couldn't afford a doctor
I wonder how long after this election before some people find they can't afford a doctor, or a care home, a good school....
Post edited at 22:21
5
7
In reply to Jack:
I'm not sure. When DO you expect Labour to get back in?
> I wonder how long after this election before some people find they can't afford a doctor, or a care home, a good school....
I'm not sure. When DO you expect Labour to get back in?
6
8
In reply to Oceanrower:
I'm not sure either. But by then all our public services may be a bit more private and turning out a nice profit.
I'm not sure either. But by then all our public services may be a bit more private and turning out a nice profit.
2
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
As a point of principle...
8th June. Let's not get too American any sooner than we must.
T.
As a point of principle...
8th June. Let's not get too American any sooner than we must.
T.
13
2
In reply to Oceanrower:
it's under THIS government that waiting times for non emergency GP appointments at our practice have gone up to a month or more. And my son's school reduced to one Physics teacher (about 500 pupils) so during his sick leave A level students like my son were told to just get on with the course on their own for a couple of weeks as there was no teacher to cover. My younger son doing GCSEs had his English teacher announce that she was being made redundant - and the cost saving program is still still going on. Language teaching is in a similar state and some courses are no longer available.
it's under THIS government that waiting times for non emergency GP appointments at our practice have gone up to a month or more. And my son's school reduced to one Physics teacher (about 500 pupils) so during his sick leave A level students like my son were told to just get on with the course on their own for a couple of weeks as there was no teacher to cover. My younger son doing GCSEs had his English teacher announce that she was being made redundant - and the cost saving program is still still going on. Language teaching is in a similar state and some courses are no longer available.
Post edited at 09:59
7
2
In reply to Jack:
Depends if the electorate wake up and start showing a desire to pay more tax to fund them. Or they just vote for a party that some how promises to clear the deficit, national debt and improve services all at the same time by magic. Sadly the current younger generation in education now is paying the price for past 30 years of under funding etc..
> I wonder how long after this election before some people find they can't afford a doctor, or a care home, a good school....
Depends if the electorate wake up and start showing a desire to pay more tax to fund them. Or they just vote for a party that some how promises to clear the deficit, national debt and improve services all at the same time by magic. Sadly the current younger generation in education now is paying the price for past 30 years of under funding etc..
2
2
In reply to wercat:
And after this one...
jk
> I think the post war election ... before then many people couldn't afford a doctor
And after this one...
jk
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
Precisely what's important about it?
As far as I can see, this vote is laregly irrelevant. Firstly, it can't change the one thing that needs changing because "brexit is brexit" and anyone who thinks a new party in power is going to alter that is dreaming. Secondly, the Tories will surely win. Labour are in pieces; UKIP have no point on which to campaign and their votes will most likely return to the Tories; the Lib Dems cannot possibly recover fast enough to compete.
I think May's played this perfectly. She knows that she's never going to be more certain of victory than she is, right now. Even the problem of voter apathy plays into her hand - an advantage that would logically wane over time.
Precisely what's important about it?
As far as I can see, this vote is laregly irrelevant. Firstly, it can't change the one thing that needs changing because "brexit is brexit" and anyone who thinks a new party in power is going to alter that is dreaming. Secondly, the Tories will surely win. Labour are in pieces; UKIP have no point on which to campaign and their votes will most likely return to the Tories; the Lib Dems cannot possibly recover fast enough to compete.
I think May's played this perfectly. She knows that she's never going to be more certain of victory than she is, right now. Even the problem of voter apathy plays into her hand - an advantage that would logically wane over time.
2
1
In reply to Xharlie:
I agree that politically, May has played a blinder. But on all other levels it stinks.
I agree that politically, May has played a blinder. But on all other levels it stinks.
3
1
In reply to Michael Hood:
How about this CPS investigation and losing MP's theory? Any legs in it?
> I agree that politically, May has played a blinder. But on all other levels it stinks.
How about this CPS investigation and losing MP's theory? Any legs in it?
In reply to Trevers:
You could place a bet on Conservatives winning and either be pleasantly surprised not to have won or have a free bottle of whiskey
You could place a bet on Conservatives winning and either be pleasantly surprised not to have won or have a free bottle of whiskey
3
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Bit of a sideshow I reckon. Mind you, Channel 4 were reporting that 30 MPs were being investigated, which, if it resulted in reruns of elections, would have an effect. It will probably also have the effect that everyone will be squeaky clean when it comes to election expenses this time.
Bit of a sideshow I reckon. Mind you, Channel 4 were reporting that 30 MPs were being investigated, which, if it resulted in reruns of elections, would have an effect. It will probably also have the effect that everyone will be squeaky clean when it comes to election expenses this time.
1
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Non event in the media, newsnight and Today program both focus on Jeremy's failings as a leader rather than this or actual policy. It's not necessarily bias, just dumbing down of news to a soap opera and the casting of politicians as characters (May strong, Corbyn bumbling) rather than as leaders of political parties with policies
> How about this CPS investigation and losing MP's theory? Any legs in it?
Non event in the media, newsnight and Today program both focus on Jeremy's failings as a leader rather than this or actual policy. It's not necessarily bias, just dumbing down of news to a soap opera and the casting of politicians as characters (May strong, Corbyn bumbling) rather than as leaders of political parties with policies
1
In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:
Or a free something else. That's a good idea.
> You could place a bet on Conservatives winning and either be pleasantly surprised not to have won or have a free bottle of whiskey
Or a free something else. That's a good idea.
In reply to Timmd: You'd have to bet a large sum to get a small return - odds on Cons having most seats are pretty poor.
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
Shame on Labour to be reluctant to be lowering the rich tax band to only £70k. It needs to be £50k upwards to be considered rich. This needs subtle taxation but we do have the brains and econonists available.
As we know election proposals (promises) are not easy to implement so are they saying there is nothing they can do to lift the real poor into a bit of economic security?
Shame on Labour to be reluctant to be lowering the rich tax band to only £70k. It needs to be £50k upwards to be considered rich. This needs subtle taxation but we do have the brains and econonists available.
As we know election proposals (promises) are not easy to implement so are they saying there is nothing they can do to lift the real poor into a bit of economic security?
1
5
In reply to Howifeel:
Sorry, don't agree with this. I don't earn £70k or even £50k but I don't think people that do should be the target for tax rises. It's just envy that others have more than you.
Most income tax comes from 'high' earners already.
I think the correct solution is to simplify the tax code so that all those who earn pay their share, close the loop holes etc.
I would actually argue that the threshold for the higher tax band should be raised.
Sorry, don't agree with this. I don't earn £70k or even £50k but I don't think people that do should be the target for tax rises. It's just envy that others have more than you.
Most income tax comes from 'high' earners already.
I think the correct solution is to simplify the tax code so that all those who earn pay their share, close the loop holes etc.
I would actually argue that the threshold for the higher tax band should be raised.
8
2
In reply to Howifeel:
In a very good year running three small businesses and working upwards of a 60 hour week I might make that before tax.
I sure as hell don't feel rich!
In a very good year running three small businesses and working upwards of a 60 hour week I might make that before tax.
I sure as hell don't feel rich!
4
1
In reply to Edradour:
Well you obviously hope you will will earn that at some point and good luck to you.
I don't see individuals who are wealthy and want them to have less, that is behind the scenes with HMRC and in front of the scenes in the public knowledge of theory. It is not about bringing people down but when someone is rich they can pay tax. When they are poor they should but just cannot finish a week ahead without the next one looming. Not jealousy son, inadequacy with long term mental and social effects often gloated over like there is a way out by hard work and sustaining a club of wealth.
Well you obviously hope you will will earn that at some point and good luck to you.
I don't see individuals who are wealthy and want them to have less, that is behind the scenes with HMRC and in front of the scenes in the public knowledge of theory. It is not about bringing people down but when someone is rich they can pay tax. When they are poor they should but just cannot finish a week ahead without the next one looming. Not jealousy son, inadequacy with long term mental and social effects often gloated over like there is a way out by hard work and sustaining a club of wealth.
Post edited at 10:54
3
In reply to Oceanrower:
So what are you pointing out here, that you run 3 businesses or if you ran 3 businesses. It requires, do the sums, 40 hours a week and 4 week holiday, £36.45 per hour at 70k and £26.04 at 50k
It would be nice to earn the latter, the former rather a priviledge, not necessarily undeserved of course.
In reality those hourly rates would be considerably higher charged to the client as you will have time lost planning and arranging the jobs, obvious faults at times or return of some tools or goods that you have to have, occasional car mainatenance and hospitality, business discussion or cashflow and office phone etc time. Or you call it 50 hours to get 40 paid. An office that ensures the worker gets this sum is .... .... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... .....
^ top hat networking.
So what are you pointing out here, that you run 3 businesses or if you ran 3 businesses. It requires, do the sums, 40 hours a week and 4 week holiday, £36.45 per hour at 70k and £26.04 at 50k
It would be nice to earn the latter, the former rather a priviledge, not necessarily undeserved of course.
In reality those hourly rates would be considerably higher charged to the client as you will have time lost planning and arranging the jobs, obvious faults at times or return of some tools or goods that you have to have, occasional car mainatenance and hospitality, business discussion or cashflow and office phone etc time. Or you call it 50 hours to get 40 paid. An office that ensures the worker gets this sum is .... .... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... .....
^ top hat networking.
Post edited at 11:14
3
In reply to Howifeel:
I don't think that's rich.
My wife and I earn just shy of $100,000 a year between us, so around 70k GBP, with two working, owning two cars, a mortgage, full time childcare at $1100 a month, student loans (my wife's an MD so we have considerable student loan debt), that money soon goes.
Obviously we are financially comfortable but rarely have that much left over at the end of the month.
In a more expensive area, like a big city we'd actually struggle as rent or a mortgage would be considerably more.
> Shame on Labour to be reluctant to be lowering the rich tax band to only £70k. It needs to be £50k upwards to be considered rich.
I don't think that's rich.
My wife and I earn just shy of $100,000 a year between us, so around 70k GBP, with two working, owning two cars, a mortgage, full time childcare at $1100 a month, student loans (my wife's an MD so we have considerable student loan debt), that money soon goes.
Obviously we are financially comfortable but rarely have that much left over at the end of the month.
In a more expensive area, like a big city we'd actually struggle as rent or a mortgage would be considerably more.
1
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Well i'm doomed, never had a date in Sheffield in over 10 years, one in Chesterfield but she adulterated my coffee, too poor to be considered more than an animal. Nothing to complain about, certainly nothing to warrant any increase in equality since more blue collars could lock me up for a living.
I've had 3 disagreements roughly, at least in the tone of the phrasing. Good job I've got things to do on my own since i'm the only one in town not up arse.
Well i'm doomed, never had a date in Sheffield in over 10 years, one in Chesterfield but she adulterated my coffee, too poor to be considered more than an animal. Nothing to complain about, certainly nothing to warrant any increase in equality since more blue collars could lock me up for a living.
I've had 3 disagreements roughly, at least in the tone of the phrasing. Good job I've got things to do on my own since i'm the only one in town not up arse.
Post edited at 14:33
3
In reply to Howifeel:
One of us isn't making sense here.
I have three small businesses. I work way more than 40 hours a week and I can't remember the last time I had one weeks holiday, never mind 4.
However, the hourly rate is immaterial. I'm pretty sure that the Government is more interested in my annual income. However, the day I start charging my customers £36.45 an hour is the day I lose all my customers!
One of us isn't making sense here.
I have three small businesses. I work way more than 40 hours a week and I can't remember the last time I had one weeks holiday, never mind 4.
However, the hourly rate is immaterial. I'm pretty sure that the Government is more interested in my annual income. However, the day I start charging my customers £36.45 an hour is the day I lose all my customers!
4
2
In reply to Howifeel:
Between us the wife and I earn £135,000 per year, but we live in a high wage / high cost country, we're taxed at 30%.
> Shame on Labour to be reluctant to be lowering the rich tax band to only £70k. It needs to be £50k upwards to be considered rich.
Between us the wife and I earn £135,000 per year, but we live in a high wage / high cost country, we're taxed at 30%.
2
2
2
1
In reply to Oceanrower:
The hourly rate was how to make sense of what you would be be averaging to be earning that 50k or 70k figure. It is for people to discuss. However you look at it a yearly, weekly, monthly or hourly income, to be saying one is irrelevant is saying all are irrelevant. I think you joined in to show off your baiting skills due to being quite content thank you very much, no need to argue about money sir, not going to rock the boat for my own simple needs but sure going to tip out anyone or who won't be noticed.
The hourly rate was how to make sense of what you would be be averaging to be earning that 50k or 70k figure. It is for people to discuss. However you look at it a yearly, weekly, monthly or hourly income, to be saying one is irrelevant is saying all are irrelevant. I think you joined in to show off your baiting skills due to being quite content thank you very much, no need to argue about money sir, not going to rock the boat for my own simple needs but sure going to tip out anyone or who won't be noticed.
3
In reply to Howifeel:
I'm going to be generous and assume that English isn't your native language.....
I'm going to be generous and assume that English isn't your native language.....
5
2
In reply to Oceanrower:
No, you are not being generous.
It was a political point and others may not have seen what a salary was so easily without an hourly breakdown. Certainly I thought " ^top hat networking " was a good creation and still do for even a quality journalist.
Baiting is my impression and your generosity that is I assume because you know thoroughly that I have commited a far more serious crime (in your phony eyes) than bloat in fabulous wealth by actually making an insult against such complacent support of the greed base required for it to thrive. That is to have said up the arse which you could turn into something sexual by being as intentionally shortsighted but cunningly manipulating as you are being supporting wealth clubs.
No, you are not being generous.
It was a political point and others may not have seen what a salary was so easily without an hourly breakdown. Certainly I thought " ^top hat networking " was a good creation and still do for even a quality journalist.
Baiting is my impression and your generosity that is I assume because you know thoroughly that I have commited a far more serious crime (in your phony eyes) than bloat in fabulous wealth by actually making an insult against such complacent support of the greed base required for it to thrive. That is to have said up the arse which you could turn into something sexual by being as intentionally shortsighted but cunningly manipulating as you are being supporting wealth clubs.
Post edited at 12:05
6
In reply to Howifeel:
If English really is your native tongue, could you PLEASE try that post again. In English.
If English really is your native tongue, could you PLEASE try that post again. In English.
1
1
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
So, things got pretty weird in this thread....
Though i would say i'm a little confused by people posting £xxx,xxx figure combined salaries and not considering themselves pretty well off. Don't get me wrong, I might be misunderstanding how money works (certainly a failing of mine) but, it seems to me if I had a salary in that range I really would be maaaade.
I earn far, far less than that. And at that am not uncomfortable. I get to do nice things, I own some stuff - though not much - and I get all the coffee and oats I can consume. Thankfully I have no brats, and my health is good. However, I certainly know people with brats on the same income bracket and though of course things are much tougher for them, they get by too.
now, I really feel like if i was earning an extra £20,000 a year I'd be the man. The Man. Let alone an extra £40,000 where does the money go?
speaking about my situation though, i'm fine. I work hard, and i get to play, i get to read books (books are cheap) and by having a nice bookshelf can attract women. though they don't stick around. I don't mind the working and some days i really enjoy it. I've got it sussed really.
however, i dread to think what would happen if i got sick, if i broke my leg, if i had serious mental health issues. having a system in place to help the down and out is incredibly important, and it worries me that system might be eroded.
However, on topic: most important general election ever? people always think they're living in the most important times because from their perspective its true....
So, things got pretty weird in this thread....
Though i would say i'm a little confused by people posting £xxx,xxx figure combined salaries and not considering themselves pretty well off. Don't get me wrong, I might be misunderstanding how money works (certainly a failing of mine) but, it seems to me if I had a salary in that range I really would be maaaade.
I earn far, far less than that. And at that am not uncomfortable. I get to do nice things, I own some stuff - though not much - and I get all the coffee and oats I can consume. Thankfully I have no brats, and my health is good. However, I certainly know people with brats on the same income bracket and though of course things are much tougher for them, they get by too.
now, I really feel like if i was earning an extra £20,000 a year I'd be the man. The Man. Let alone an extra £40,000 where does the money go?
speaking about my situation though, i'm fine. I work hard, and i get to play, i get to read books (books are cheap) and by having a nice bookshelf can attract women. though they don't stick around. I don't mind the working and some days i really enjoy it. I've got it sussed really.
however, i dread to think what would happen if i got sick, if i broke my leg, if i had serious mental health issues. having a system in place to help the down and out is incredibly important, and it worries me that system might be eroded.
However, on topic: most important general election ever? people always think they're living in the most important times because from their perspective its true....
7
In reply to stuartpicken:
But you don't have kids do you?
In the US health insurance is hundreds a month.
repairs on the house. There's almost always some major cost each month at the vets, or the cars, or the house. As its our first kid we seem to be always having some expense with her.
But we certainly live comfortably but wouldn't say rich, we have to watch our finances and do house repairs in stages.
But you don't have kids do you?
In the US health insurance is hundreds a month.
repairs on the house. There's almost always some major cost each month at the vets, or the cars, or the house. As its our first kid we seem to be always having some expense with her.
But we certainly live comfortably but wouldn't say rich, we have to watch our finances and do house repairs in stages.
1
In reply to Oceanrower:
^top hat networking, yeah! Class society lives post financial whizz pop 50 shades of how to make friends and raise a well off family never mind your honest neighbor grab it while you can out of my way scuse me madam that's rude blacklist what blacklist it's just obvious he isn't going to cheat for money when suffering people are visible I said out of my way i'm a respectable member of any church will do as long as it is respectable.
^top hat networking, yeah! Class society lives post financial whizz pop 50 shades of how to make friends and raise a well off family never mind your honest neighbor grab it while you can out of my way scuse me madam that's rude blacklist what blacklist it's just obvious he isn't going to cheat for money when suffering people are visible I said out of my way i'm a respectable member of any church will do as long as it is respectable.
Post edited at 01:35
1
In reply to Howifeel:
If you really feel the need to send me insulting private messages outside of the forum, could you add a little bit of substance.
Though I do appreciate that one word insults probably meet the limits of your debating skills....
If you really feel the need to send me insulting private messages outside of the forum, could you add a little bit of substance.
Though I do appreciate that one word insults probably meet the limits of your debating skills....
3
1
2
In reply to Howifeel:
Go on then. I can play this game.
I run three small businesses. One is hard landscaping, one is renting out marquees and one is in the climbing industry.
In a VERY good year, I could make £50k before tax.
I work a lot of hours a week. Quite often over 60. But, clearly not all on one business.
I haven't had a long holiday for many years and, being self employed, don't get paid holiday. I also don't get sick pay, paid Bank Holidays, pensions, etc. etc. 4 weeks a year is dream territory.
You called me a liar. Which bit is it you think I'm lying about?
And, by the way,
How are the English lessons coming on?
Go on then. I can play this game.
I run three small businesses. One is hard landscaping, one is renting out marquees and one is in the climbing industry.
In a VERY good year, I could make £50k before tax.
I work a lot of hours a week. Quite often over 60. But, clearly not all on one business.
I haven't had a long holiday for many years and, being self employed, don't get paid holiday. I also don't get sick pay, paid Bank Holidays, pensions, etc. etc. 4 weeks a year is dream territory.
You called me a liar. Which bit is it you think I'm lying about?
And, by the way,
> ^top hat networking, yeah! Class society lives post financial whizz pop 50 shades of how to make friends and raise a well off family never mind your honest neighbor grab it while you can out of my way scuse me madam that's rude blacklist what blacklist it's just obvious he isn't going to cheat for money when suffering people are visible I said out of my way i'm a respectable member of any church will do as long as it is respectable.
How are the English lessons coming on?
2
In reply to Howifeel:
You know, we haven't had a proper class warrior on here since Shona (Gobby Scottish Lass etc.) left this forum.
I thought for a while you may be her under another name but, whilst I don't think I ever agreed with her politics, at least she knew how to construct a sentence so, clearly not.
You know, we haven't had a proper class warrior on here since Shona (Gobby Scottish Lass etc.) left this forum.
I thought for a while you may be her under another name but, whilst I don't think I ever agreed with her politics, at least she knew how to construct a sentence so, clearly not.
Post edited at 02:13
1
1
In reply to Edradour:
Is it really true that most income tax comes from earners above £70k? I don't know the answer but I doubt it's true. I think if we want the overall tax take to increase (to fund better education, health etc) then all of us earning enough to be comfortably off need to be prepared to pay more. What counts as "comfortably off" depends on whether you have children, live in London etc, but I would have thought the current higher tax band threshold is at about the right level. I would support an increase in the tax rates above that level. That wouldn't affect me now I'm retired, but I would also support a modest increase in VAT as part of the solution.
Martin
> Sorry, don't agree with this. I don't earn £70k or even £50k but I don't think people that do should be the target for tax rises. It's just envy that others have more than you. Most income tax comes from 'high' earners already. I think the correct solution is to simplify the tax code so that all those who earn pay their share, close the loop holes etc. I would actually argue that the threshold for the higher tax band should be raised.
Is it really true that most income tax comes from earners above £70k? I don't know the answer but I doubt it's true. I think if we want the overall tax take to increase (to fund better education, health etc) then all of us earning enough to be comfortably off need to be prepared to pay more. What counts as "comfortably off" depends on whether you have children, live in London etc, but I would have thought the current higher tax band threshold is at about the right level. I would support an increase in the tax rates above that level. That wouldn't affect me now I'm retired, but I would also support a modest increase in VAT as part of the solution.
Martin
In reply to Roadrunner5:
If you don't think that's rich then god knows how you'd feel if you and your wife were shop assistants at their rates of pay, plus working Saturdays !!!
> I don't think that's rich.My wife and I earn just shy of $100,000 a year between us, so around 70k GBP, with two working, owning two cars, a mortgage, full time childcare at $1100 a month, student loans (my wife's an MD so we have considerable student loan debt), that money soon goes.Obviously we are financially comfortable but rarely have that much left over at the end of the month. In a more expensive area, like a big city we'd actually struggle as rent or a mortgage would be considerably more.
If you don't think that's rich then god knows how you'd feel if you and your wife were shop assistants at their rates of pay, plus working Saturdays !!!
1
In reply to :
Nearly everybody seems to think that they PERSONALLY are not well off, and hence their tax should be reduced.
However it also seems that nearly everybody agrees that anyone earning 5 or 10k a year more than themselves is incredibly well off, is the scum of Satan for not paying their whack regarding tax, and should be taxed to the hilt to help the poorly off - which of course means that nearly everybody would then benefit from this tax windfall.
Get real you lot.
National average income is about 26K a year, but the vast majority of workers get less than 17K a year.
Anyone on the national average income is the eyes of the majority actually quite well off, and should stop complaining.
Nearly everybody seems to think that they PERSONALLY are not well off, and hence their tax should be reduced.
However it also seems that nearly everybody agrees that anyone earning 5 or 10k a year more than themselves is incredibly well off, is the scum of Satan for not paying their whack regarding tax, and should be taxed to the hilt to help the poorly off - which of course means that nearly everybody would then benefit from this tax windfall.
Get real you lot.
National average income is about 26K a year, but the vast majority of workers get less than 17K a year.
Anyone on the national average income is the eyes of the majority actually quite well off, and should stop complaining.
3
In reply to fred99:
What nonsense.
1. I said we are comfortable. that is not rich.
rich
r?t?/Submit
adjective
1.
having a great deal of money or assets; wealthy.
We have debts at around $500,000 and earn $100,000 pa, on top of that pay child care of around $13,000 a year.
In either 3 or 6 years, depending on choices my wife will earn 5-10 times her current salary. Then I'd say we are rich but for now with the debt to income ratio I don't think we classify as rich. A young professional couple living a comfortable existence but illness will till bankrupt us very quickly. We are unable to save much on current salaries so serious illness to either would mean a loss of a wage and would put us in a financially perilous situation.
But in the US a graduate education comes at great expense.
And no, I don't think people should stop complaining. Tax avoidance is a huge issue, when you have millionaires paying a lesser tax rate than young couples that's a serious issue and leads to unfair society.
What nonsense.
1. I said we are comfortable. that is not rich.
rich
r?t?/Submit
adjective
1.
having a great deal of money or assets; wealthy.
We have debts at around $500,000 and earn $100,000 pa, on top of that pay child care of around $13,000 a year.
In either 3 or 6 years, depending on choices my wife will earn 5-10 times her current salary. Then I'd say we are rich but for now with the debt to income ratio I don't think we classify as rich. A young professional couple living a comfortable existence but illness will till bankrupt us very quickly. We are unable to save much on current salaries so serious illness to either would mean a loss of a wage and would put us in a financially perilous situation.
But in the US a graduate education comes at great expense.
And no, I don't think people should stop complaining. Tax avoidance is a huge issue, when you have millionaires paying a lesser tax rate than young couples that's a serious issue and leads to unfair society.
In reply to Martin Hore:
This is an interesting article from the Independent (with figures from the ONS), but as usual you need to be very careful about how the numbers are arrived at.
Overall the "rich" contribute far, far more to the income tax take than the poor do, this article is describing the proportion of income, and uses direct and indirect taxation to draw some conclusions.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-graph-that-shows-how-the-...
However, when you look at another article from the IFS (admittedly from 2010, but little has changed) then you can see that a fair proportion of the income of the poor is derived from taxation itself, so they are at least partially contributing back what has in fact been allocated by the benefits system.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4813
What is also clear (and forgive the article from the Daily Mail, but the source is the HMRC itself, as can be seen from the tables) that the top 25% of earners pay 75% of the income tax taken.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2580074/Top-25-earners-pay-75-ALL-i...
So its horses-for-courses, what thresholds do the public hold dear? Asking anyone to pay more is very difficult, but inevitably the burden will fall on those who are able to pay and easy to chase - the "high-middle" earners as i would describe them so those on PAYE and earning probably £50K-£100K per annum. For myself i am in this bracket and since 2008 have paid considerably more tax than the previous years, and lost benefits such as child benefit (formerly universal).
> Is it really true that most income tax comes from earners above £70k? I don't know the answer but I doubt it's true. I think if we want the overall tax take to increase (to fund better education, health etc) then all of us earning enough to be comfortably off need to be prepared to pay more. What counts as "comfortably off" depends on whether you have children, live in London etc, but I would have thought the current higher tax band threshold is at about the right level. I would support an increase in the tax rates above that level. That wouldn't affect me now I'm retired, but I would also support a modest increase in VAT as part of the solution.Martin
This is an interesting article from the Independent (with figures from the ONS), but as usual you need to be very careful about how the numbers are arrived at.
Overall the "rich" contribute far, far more to the income tax take than the poor do, this article is describing the proportion of income, and uses direct and indirect taxation to draw some conclusions.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-graph-that-shows-how-the-...
However, when you look at another article from the IFS (admittedly from 2010, but little has changed) then you can see that a fair proportion of the income of the poor is derived from taxation itself, so they are at least partially contributing back what has in fact been allocated by the benefits system.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4813
What is also clear (and forgive the article from the Daily Mail, but the source is the HMRC itself, as can be seen from the tables) that the top 25% of earners pay 75% of the income tax taken.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2580074/Top-25-earners-pay-75-ALL-i...
So its horses-for-courses, what thresholds do the public hold dear? Asking anyone to pay more is very difficult, but inevitably the burden will fall on those who are able to pay and easy to chase - the "high-middle" earners as i would describe them so those on PAYE and earning probably £50K-£100K per annum. For myself i am in this bracket and since 2008 have paid considerably more tax than the previous years, and lost benefits such as child benefit (formerly universal).
1
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
Just to get this thread back on topic, I think it's probably one of the least important in a long time. Simply because the result is a forgone conclusion, all that is going to change is the size of the conservatives majority. A change of government is simply not on the cards in this election.
It's simply taking an opportunity to strengthen their majority in the house of commons so they can carry on doing what they are doing anyway without having to worry about the hassle of other parties interference.
But going to the wealth issue which this topic has drifted into, its all relative and depends on your personal situation and lifestyle. Simply stating I earn £x doesn't really give much of a guide to how wealthy someone feels, which is why you've got such varied figures including some large sums quoted with people still not feeling that well off.
For example, you can have two households with a total income of £50k. One has 3 kids and lives in a rented flat in London, needs 2 cars plus childcare and probably feels skint all the time. The other, has no kids, no debts to pay, owns their home outright and lives in the north of England, has one car they don't use much and is quite content to go camping for their holidays. They probably struggle to understand how anyone could spend £50k a year.
In short, people's wages tell you nothing about their wealth, a much better indicator would be amount of disposable income each month or the amount they can put away in savings in a typical year etc.
> Arguably the most important General election we have ever had.I'm holding my breath ( Hope I wont suffocate)
Just to get this thread back on topic, I think it's probably one of the least important in a long time. Simply because the result is a forgone conclusion, all that is going to change is the size of the conservatives majority. A change of government is simply not on the cards in this election.
It's simply taking an opportunity to strengthen their majority in the house of commons so they can carry on doing what they are doing anyway without having to worry about the hassle of other parties interference.
But going to the wealth issue which this topic has drifted into, its all relative and depends on your personal situation and lifestyle. Simply stating I earn £x doesn't really give much of a guide to how wealthy someone feels, which is why you've got such varied figures including some large sums quoted with people still not feeling that well off.
For example, you can have two households with a total income of £50k. One has 3 kids and lives in a rented flat in London, needs 2 cars plus childcare and probably feels skint all the time. The other, has no kids, no debts to pay, owns their home outright and lives in the north of England, has one car they don't use much and is quite content to go camping for their holidays. They probably struggle to understand how anyone could spend £50k a year.
In short, people's wages tell you nothing about their wealth, a much better indicator would be amount of disposable income each month or the amount they can put away in savings in a typical year etc.
4
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Agreed. I'd consider myself rich with less money, if I had time and access to UK mates.
I'd consider myself rich if I had enough money to maintain my current lifestyle without working.
I'd rather be content than rich.
It's all relative to your needs, agreed?
> What nonsense.1. I said we are comfortable. that is not rich.
Agreed. I'd consider myself rich with less money, if I had time and access to UK mates.
I'd consider myself rich if I had enough money to maintain my current lifestyle without working.
I'd rather be content than rich.
It's all relative to your needs, agreed?
1
In reply to Big Ger:
I agree with that
But it also depends, as said by others on expenses. I did a PhD on 15k a year, tax free, living in a bed sit in a country with free health care. I had much less financial concerns than I do now in a family earning 4-5 times that amount but taxed, with a kid, with an unstable immigration future and in a country where one big illness and we have issue.
Its easy for those in my situation 15 years ago to think those earning 50-80K GBP a year as rich.. If they read their comments in 15 years from now they may think differently.
I agree with that
But it also depends, as said by others on expenses. I did a PhD on 15k a year, tax free, living in a bed sit in a country with free health care. I had much less financial concerns than I do now in a family earning 4-5 times that amount but taxed, with a kid, with an unstable immigration future and in a country where one big illness and we have issue.
Its easy for those in my situation 15 years ago to think those earning 50-80K GBP a year as rich.. If they read their comments in 15 years from now they may think differently.
2
1
In reply to Big Ger:
That's an odd definition of rich given the context. We're talking about money, right?
If I choose to buy an expensive house and do expensive things so that I've got nothing left it doesn't make me poor. If I'm used to my 2 million pound houses and I fall on hard times, have to sell one, and so feel destitute I'm not poor. Richness is not relative to your chosen needs, it's relative to others, and those earning 70k+ are rich given the average.
I do wonder why rich people are so touchy about it.
> Agreed. I'd consider myself rich with less money, if I had time and access to UK mates.
That's an odd definition of rich given the context. We're talking about money, right?
If I choose to buy an expensive house and do expensive things so that I've got nothing left it doesn't make me poor. If I'm used to my 2 million pound houses and I fall on hard times, have to sell one, and so feel destitute I'm not poor. Richness is not relative to your chosen needs, it's relative to others, and those earning 70k+ are rich given the average.
I do wonder why rich people are so touchy about it.
Post edited at 01:31
3
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
The Scottish results will be interesting, does the SNP winning (presumably on a platform requiring a referendum) mean it's definitely going to happen?
The Scottish results will be interesting, does the SNP winning (presumably on a platform requiring a referendum) mean it's definitely going to happen?
In reply to thomasadixon:
True, but I thought I'd widen it, it's not everyone's dream to be financially "rich" after all.
> That's an odd definition of rich given the context. We're talking about money, right?
True, but I thought I'd widen it, it's not everyone's dream to be financially "rich" after all.
In reply to thomasadixon:
No doubt someone earning £70k up north is comfortably off although I'd dispute the term "rich". I have two really close friends in W Yorks earning around that level whose wives both work full-time in professional roles and neither couple has children. In both cases the household income nears £100k. You'd think they'd be rolling in it yet they struggle to save for holidays. They drive 10 year old cars. They have nice houses but nothing grand.
However the majority of those earning at that level live in London or the SE and should be compared to their neighbours not those in an ex-mining village. In the City the average wage is £300k, which really does make a nonsense of your use of the term "rich" for middle management professionals and university lecturers.
> That's an odd definition of rich given the context. We're talking about money, right?If I choose to buy an expensive house and do expensive things so that I've got nothing left it doesn't make me poor. If I'm used to my 2 million pound houses and I fall on hard times, have to sell one, and so feel destitute I'm not poor. Richness is not relative to your chosen needs, it's relative to others, and those earning 70k+ are rich given the average.I do wonder why rich people are so touchy about it.
No doubt someone earning £70k up north is comfortably off although I'd dispute the term "rich". I have two really close friends in W Yorks earning around that level whose wives both work full-time in professional roles and neither couple has children. In both cases the household income nears £100k. You'd think they'd be rolling in it yet they struggle to save for holidays. They drive 10 year old cars. They have nice houses but nothing grand.
However the majority of those earning at that level live in London or the SE and should be compared to their neighbours not those in an ex-mining village. In the City the average wage is £300k, which really does make a nonsense of your use of the term "rich" for middle management professionals and university lecturers.
1
1
In reply to BnB:
Top 5% in the country iirc. Taking a subset of the rich, very rich and extremely rich and averaging their salaries doesn't mean they're not rich. My not having a yacht when my peers all do doesn't make me poor.
Top 5% in the country iirc. Taking a subset of the rich, very rich and extremely rich and averaging their salaries doesn't mean they're not rich. My not having a yacht when my peers all do doesn't make me poor.
2
In reply to BnB:
Do you have a source for this please? I'm making a serious request.
> .... In the City the average wage is £300k,...
Do you have a source for this please? I'm making a serious request.
1
In reply to birdie num num:
It's my wife's birthday too. Luckily we never discuss politics, so should be a happy one
It's my wife's birthday too. Luckily we never discuss politics, so should be a happy one
In reply to thomasadixon:
Not according to the Tories, they are looking like they are standing on a platform of preventing a second Scottish referendum.
The SNP will do well, but even if the drop one or two seats( they have most of them already, so can't win many more) then the Tories will then claim the voters are disenchanted with them, and that support for a referendum is not there.
It's a game they play.
> The Scottish results will be interesting, does the SNP winning (presumably on a platform requiring a referendum) mean it's definitely going to happen?
Not according to the Tories, they are looking like they are standing on a platform of preventing a second Scottish referendum.
The SNP will do well, but even if the drop one or two seats( they have most of them already, so can't win many more) then the Tories will then claim the voters are disenchanted with them, and that support for a referendum is not there.
It's a game they play.
In reply to Martin Hore:
Another poster has already answered but for income tax then yes, it's highly skewed towards top earners. Same for other progressive taxes such as stamp duty and inheritance tax.
Indirect taxation like VAT is different as it is applied to all earners at the same rate. This would be very difficult (impossible?) to change without having different prices in shops according to how much you earn.
I thought the article from the independent was interesting as it shows that, whilst there is some discrepancy for all tax across income brackets, it's not actually as wide as I would have thought. To me, this suggests that the effort should be on reducing the tax burden for the bottom fifth rather than seeking to increase it at the other end exclusively. Of course, to balance the books, there will need to be modest tax increase for, say, the top 60% of earners in the country.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-graph-that-shows-how-the-...
This article also states that a 1% rise on any of the three big taxes (income, VAT and NI) would raise around £5billion, which isn't to be sniffed at but also not going to lead to a step change in public service delivery.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/gb/gb2015/ch10_gb2015.pdf
Another poster has already answered but for income tax then yes, it's highly skewed towards top earners. Same for other progressive taxes such as stamp duty and inheritance tax.
Indirect taxation like VAT is different as it is applied to all earners at the same rate. This would be very difficult (impossible?) to change without having different prices in shops according to how much you earn.
I thought the article from the independent was interesting as it shows that, whilst there is some discrepancy for all tax across income brackets, it's not actually as wide as I would have thought. To me, this suggests that the effort should be on reducing the tax burden for the bottom fifth rather than seeking to increase it at the other end exclusively. Of course, to balance the books, there will need to be modest tax increase for, say, the top 60% of earners in the country.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-graph-that-shows-how-the-...
This article also states that a 1% rise on any of the three big taxes (income, VAT and NI) would raise around £5billion, which isn't to be sniffed at but also not going to lead to a step change in public service delivery.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/gb/gb2015/ch10_gb2015.pdf
In reply to Howifeel:
Rather clever stream of consciousness stuff actually, reminiscent of the strawberry picking chapter in "Emma" (by Jane Austen). Was it strawberries, or some other fruit?
> ^top hat networking, yeah! Class society lives post financial whizz pop 50 shades of how to make friends and raise a well off family never mind your honest neighbor grab it while you can out of my way scuse me madam that's rude blacklist what blacklist it's just obvious he isn't going to cheat for money when suffering people are visible I said out of my way i'm a respectable member of any church will do as long as it is respectable.
Rather clever stream of consciousness stuff actually, reminiscent of the strawberry picking chapter in "Emma" (by Jane Austen). Was it strawberries, or some other fruit?
3
In reply to Michael Hood:
So why did the turkeys vote for Christmas. The Labour MPs in particular have just voted to put most of them out if a job. They could have done what May did on thecScotiish Referendum, and said that it was time for the Conservatives to get on with the day job, and NOT voted for an election.
> I agree that politically, May has played a blinder. But on all other levels it stinks.
So why did the turkeys vote for Christmas. The Labour MPs in particular have just voted to put most of them out if a job. They could have done what May did on thecScotiish Referendum, and said that it was time for the Conservatives to get on with the day job, and NOT voted for an election.
In reply to Jim C:
Yes it's surprising especially as it needed a 2/3 majority; but a herd of sheep follows the lead sheep, who is...
Yes it's surprising especially as it needed a 2/3 majority; but a herd of sheep follows the lead sheep, who is...
Post edited at 14:40
1
In reply to thomasadixon:
I think the way it works according to Theresa May is that if she wins a majority of Westminster seats then she has an unimpeachable mandate to inflict her extremism on every single part of the UK.....but if the SNP win a sizeable majority of Scottish Westminster seats to add to the majority enjoyed by independence supporting parties in Holyrood...then that doesn't represent a mandate. Even if they have all been elected explicitly on a platform of calling a referendum at an appropriate time. I think you'll also find that the London based media largely agree with Theresa that it's how democracy works.
I think the way it works according to Theresa May is that if she wins a majority of Westminster seats then she has an unimpeachable mandate to inflict her extremism on every single part of the UK.....but if the SNP win a sizeable majority of Scottish Westminster seats to add to the majority enjoyed by independence supporting parties in Holyrood...then that doesn't represent a mandate. Even if they have all been elected explicitly on a platform of calling a referendum at an appropriate time. I think you'll also find that the London based media largely agree with Theresa that it's how democracy works.
2
1
Tax needs to go up. Considerably. 1% on the higher and additional rates won't do it. Needs to be 1 or 2 on the basic and 2 on the higher and additional. But there need to be more breaks for young people, carers, parents with childcare costs.
I'm fed up paying more tax each year for poorer public services. Plenty of countries have higher marginal tax rates at lower incomes and people pay it because it's value for money.
Tories won't touch the age range with the stongest % of the vote - the older working age and pensioners. But this is the demographic where tax should be higher on those comfortably off. It's not unfair to suggest this, we all aspire to reach this demographic and there's nothing wrong with weighting the tax system to tax wealth when it's least critical.
I'm fed up paying more tax each year for poorer public services. Plenty of countries have higher marginal tax rates at lower incomes and people pay it because it's value for money.
Tories won't touch the age range with the stongest % of the vote - the older working age and pensioners. But this is the demographic where tax should be higher on those comfortably off. It's not unfair to suggest this, we all aspire to reach this demographic and there's nothing wrong with weighting the tax system to tax wealth when it's least critical.
3
1
In reply to Edradour:
As far as I can see none of the articles actually answers the question I posed. I asked if it's true that, as you suggested, "most income tax comes from high earners" and followed a previous poster by defining "high" as £70k+. I doubted whether this was true.
One article you referred to tells us that high earners individually pay a higher proportion of their own income in income tax - that's not surprising as we have a progressive system. Another article states that 75% of all income tax is paid by the 25% highest earners, but this article doesn't tell us how much you have to earn to be in the top 25%. It does say though that 4.4m taxpayers pay at the higher rate which is a lot less than 25% of earners so people earning quite a bit less than £40k must still be in the top 25% of earners.
My point, which I don't think is disproved by the data in these articles, is that to raise an appreciable additional amount through income tax it is necessary for people who most of us would not regard as "high earners" to pay more tax. That includes, I suspect, most of us who contribute to this forum. It's not "they" (the rich) who need to be prepared to pay more tax. It's "us".
Martin
As far as I can see none of the articles actually answers the question I posed. I asked if it's true that, as you suggested, "most income tax comes from high earners" and followed a previous poster by defining "high" as £70k+. I doubted whether this was true.
One article you referred to tells us that high earners individually pay a higher proportion of their own income in income tax - that's not surprising as we have a progressive system. Another article states that 75% of all income tax is paid by the 25% highest earners, but this article doesn't tell us how much you have to earn to be in the top 25%. It does say though that 4.4m taxpayers pay at the higher rate which is a lot less than 25% of earners so people earning quite a bit less than £40k must still be in the top 25% of earners.
My point, which I don't think is disproved by the data in these articles, is that to raise an appreciable additional amount through income tax it is necessary for people who most of us would not regard as "high earners" to pay more tax. That includes, I suspect, most of us who contribute to this forum. It's not "they" (the rich) who need to be prepared to pay more tax. It's "us".
Martin
1
In reply to Philip:
This is, in my opinion, the problem with the tax system. There are too many tax breaks (across all rates). As I said above, I think simplification is actually the answer:
Earnings less than 12k; No tax
12 - 45k: 20% tax
45k plus: 40% tax
Easy to understand, easier to administer, no tax breaks and an overall increase in tax take for the government, hopefully leading to improved public services without the need for baseline tax increases.
> 'But there need to be more breaks for young people, carers, parents with childcare costs.'
This is, in my opinion, the problem with the tax system. There are too many tax breaks (across all rates). As I said above, I think simplification is actually the answer:
Earnings less than 12k; No tax
12 - 45k: 20% tax
45k plus: 40% tax
Easy to understand, easier to administer, no tax breaks and an overall increase in tax take for the government, hopefully leading to improved public services without the need for baseline tax increases.
1
1
In reply to Edradour:
Why would a stepped tax rate be any easier to administrate than a rate rising linearly, exponentially, or in any other continuously differentiable form you like?
I agree with the exceptions, though, simpler is definitely better. The German tax system is essentially all exceptions (so as to provide "fair" taxation for all imaginable circumstances), such that it becomes completely byzantine, inefficient, and expensive. FFS, there are even tax rebates where no one in tax administration even knows whether there is a single person claiming these rebates (one example being a tax rebate on pensions for service in the former Romanian railway system, that once applied to a handful of engineers drafted into the Wehrmacht during the war).
However, much better than focussing on PAYE income tax would be to tax all types of income equally, and make sure that no income can go untaxed (no trust funds, etc..)
Fat chance,
CB
Why would a stepped tax rate be any easier to administrate than a rate rising linearly, exponentially, or in any other continuously differentiable form you like?
I agree with the exceptions, though, simpler is definitely better. The German tax system is essentially all exceptions (so as to provide "fair" taxation for all imaginable circumstances), such that it becomes completely byzantine, inefficient, and expensive. FFS, there are even tax rebates where no one in tax administration even knows whether there is a single person claiming these rebates (one example being a tax rebate on pensions for service in the former Romanian railway system, that once applied to a handful of engineers drafted into the Wehrmacht during the war).
However, much better than focussing on PAYE income tax would be to tax all types of income equally, and make sure that no income can go untaxed (no trust funds, etc..)
Fat chance,
CB
In reply to silhouette:
I'm afraid I used City as a shorthand for our good friends the investment bankers. That was a bit lazy if me but here's some corroboration:
http://news.efinancialcareers.com/uk-en/185046/much-earn-now-investment-ban...
My son's flatmate at university has just secured a graduate position at Goldman Sachs on a trainee starting salary of £60k. "Loadsamoney" you might shout but the Harry Enfield character is miles off target, he's a mathematician.
I'm afraid I used City as a shorthand for our good friends the investment bankers. That was a bit lazy if me but here's some corroboration:
http://news.efinancialcareers.com/uk-en/185046/much-earn-now-investment-ban...
My son's flatmate at university has just secured a graduate position at Goldman Sachs on a trainee starting salary of £60k. "Loadsamoney" you might shout but the Harry Enfield character is miles off target, he's a mathematician.
Post edited at 19:01
In reply to cb294:
Absolutely, a linear tax system without exceptions would allow a more progressive scale to be introduced and implemented.
Absolutely, a linear tax system without exceptions would allow a more progressive scale to be introduced and implemented.
In reply to BnB:
"My son's flatmate at university has just secured a graduate position at Goldman Sachs on a trainee starting salary of £60k. "Loadsamoney" you might shout but the Harry Enfield character is miles off target, he's a mathematician."
The money is good but the work and atmosphere is not pleasant. One of my friends worked at GS, very successful, made MD and partner by 39. (that year the average partner bonus was £3.8m). Nobody saw him for the decade leading up to that. He quit as soon as he made partner and now runs a multi billion $ fund for Capital which, according to him, offers a much better work life balance (!?!). I speak to guys at GS as clients of mine and they seem pretty miserable and very stressed (just my opinion, it could just be their "work face"). But as you say, they are all very, very well paid and it's a great place to have on your CV.
"My son's flatmate at university has just secured a graduate position at Goldman Sachs on a trainee starting salary of £60k. "Loadsamoney" you might shout but the Harry Enfield character is miles off target, he's a mathematician."
The money is good but the work and atmosphere is not pleasant. One of my friends worked at GS, very successful, made MD and partner by 39. (that year the average partner bonus was £3.8m). Nobody saw him for the decade leading up to that. He quit as soon as he made partner and now runs a multi billion $ fund for Capital which, according to him, offers a much better work life balance (!?!). I speak to guys at GS as clients of mine and they seem pretty miserable and very stressed (just my opinion, it could just be their "work face"). But as you say, they are all very, very well paid and it's a great place to have on your CV.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Le Toit de Ben - Quebec 1958
This week's Friday Night Video whisks us back to Val-David, Quebec, in the Autumn of 1958. Two daring young climbers embark on the ascent of a route that seemed unattainable, resembling a roof suspended in the air, defying all the conventions of the time....
3 May
Loading Notifications...