£100k + earners in for a shafting next year?

[TheAnimus]

I would love to be able to be taxed 50%

I'm assuming your in the UK, in which case you have just about every opportunity you could ever wish afforded.

There is nothing stopping people earning obscene amounts of money, all you need is the drive and the ability to do something which few others can/are willing/have thought of.

Targeting those who do that sort of thing, singling them out isn't likely to be conducive to a long term plan.

if your self employed there are very easy ways to cheat it.

Oh and more than just paying yourself via dividends!

People are doing dodgy offshore loan things, to been non-dom. Some people tell me they pay as much as 8%......

Myself I think thats not fair, but as I get older, and realise that the NHS can't treat me properly for pretty much anything (they've scarred me for life.....) that most of the state provisioned services can't be used, I'm all too often left thinking I'm a mug for not doing as plenty of people I know do, and have a better 'accountant'.

[scaryjim]

The whole world runs on self interest/greed. It is everywhere. It is unavoidable.

I don't disagree with this as a statement of fact. Doesn't mean that I like it.

It is what makes economies run. Without it the world would be not be like it is now. Not technological advances, no pharmaceutical advances etc. These are all done for one reason, profit.

I do disagree with this, though. Making of profit does not require untempered greed. In fact, most of the big technological advances weren't done for profit. Go back to telephones. When they first came out, the big dream was one in every *town*. Hardly a profit making enterprise. The inexhorable drive towards profit above all else is actually a relatively new phenomenon. I don't deny that a little greed helps drive ambition, but untempered greed - what we have now in a "free market" economy - will inevitably lead to crash and burn, because people are far too concerned with getting the best for themselves and screw everyone else. There are ways to run an economy where this isn't the case (ahemahemCUBAahemahem) but they require a very special type of person to lead them. And you don't get that from democracy (or the bastardised perversion of democracy that we try to pass for one). But now I'm getting onto a compeltely different, and off topic, rant...

[TooNice]

Well, one of the issue is that getting a product out worldwide, or even nationwide, requires quite a significant amount of money (manufacturing, distribution, marketing and I am only scrapping the surface). Where does the money often comes from? Investors. A lot of people may think, bunch of greedy bastards, they are not even making anything and all they think about is profit from. But they are still the people putting their money at risk, it's not like 'the people' (average Joes) are willing to take that risk and donate by the masses with the knowledge that it -may- end up being for nothing (I think it's probably hard enough for those who already have something out, but require some money to keep everything running).

And researches can be very costly too, requiring significant funding. The public (and in this case, enthusiasts only for most part), may be willing to contribute their C/GPU cycles (e.g. folding protein), but perhaps less so in direct monetary sum to pay for the equipment and scientists.

[j1979]

@j1979: Equating high wage with greed has probably has much truth as equating low wage with laziness. I call BS either way.

so let me get this straight ..... you don't think there is a correlation between higher wages and the want for higher wages????

[Zak33]

so let me get this straight ..... you don't think there is a correlation between higher wages and the want for higher wages????

of course there is... people strive for higher wages.. and those who strive hardest tend to get them.

I think what he means is that to presume that people who WANT to earn big dough, and who finally manage it deserve a royal shafting is no more right or proper than presuming that a bloke who's trying very hard but just can't cut the mustard at his current job is a lazy git. He's not.. he's just not in the right work.

But of course some people ARE lazy... it's just many of them don't think they are. But when you come down to the "who's gonna go the extras mile tonight... who wants some overtime.. who wants to go on an out of hours training course? " the majority of people DO turn out to be lazy.

Lazy... for what it's worth.. is GOOD.. if it suits you. And you'll prolly live longer.. with less heart attacks and stomach ulcers.

Working flatout, for 16 hours or more per day, or working simply smarter and cleverer than your colleagues and getting it done faster and more efficiently... is'nt everyone cuppa tea.

[j1979]

i hear what you say, but it's utter rubbish mate.. NO ONE has the right to earn such obscene wages, and they certainly don't have the right to complain about tax. it's greed plain and simple.

if person A, earns 20 times more than person B thats unfair

if person A, then thinks that higher tax band is unfair... it really is tough.. and that person can, after all, take the option of going on a lower tax band by taking a wage cut.

that person should not spit the dummy out because they now pay more in tax in 1 year, than someone may earn in 4 years... Sorry mate its hard luck! and if that person still wants to winge about it i suggest they stop take a look in the mirror!! Then try hard to see the total hypocrisy in their argument.

[b0redom]

if person A, earns 20 times more than person B thats unfair

So a neurosurgeon with 30 years experience shouldn't be paid 20 times more than a 16 year old shelf stacker in Tescos? What about a school kid on a paper round?

How about the CEO of a multinational company who's built it from the ground up, investing his own time and money? Shouldn't he be paid exponentially more than the person who makes the tea?

[Saracen]

....

Or are the tax payers an easier target cos they just bow down, and do as they're told?

In no small part, yes.

It's tempting to tilt at windmills and chase all those tax dodgers, but if the objective is to raise revenue, you have to consider what it will cost, versus what it'll generate, or you spend a lot of time wasting your time.

If your objective is to punish cheats, or to discourage others, or to take a moral stance, then that's different, and certainly some of that goes on. But from a pragmatic point of view, governments bleed those they can get at, which by and large, means the law-abiding majority.

Why do you think booze and tobacco are among the most highly taxed products? Because the principle of price elasticity of demand says the reduction in demand for an increase in price is minimal, and therefore revenue goes up.

Who are motorists so often the target, not just with fuel duty but with "safety" cameras, and a whole raft of fines, not least for ever more restrictive parking. Because they know it works, and moreover, it's easy. Oh we moan and whine about it, but rarely does ant real action result, and eventually we pay up. We might cut our mileage down a bit when fuel goes up, but most of us can't cut it down that much, and after a while, we get used the the new prices and drift back to normal .... and then get clobbered again. And again.

Only when revenue raised by clobbering the motorist again and again starts dropping as a result of these activities will governments stop doing it.

As for clobbering the wealthy, we're ALL going to get clobbered in the next few years. How much and the exact mechanism will vary, but (IMHO) regardless of who wins the election and pretty much regardless of how much you earn, we are all going to start paying for the excesses of the last few years.

And, in that context, I see nothing wrong with those on high earnings being expected to pay more. They can, after all, afford it, without having to make decisions about eat or heat. Instead, they may have to settle for a decent wool rather than cashmere, or maybe an Engish suit than than Italian in Merino wool.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't be punishing either the rich or poor, We'd all be paying less, not more, and we'd be funding services out of growth. The reason we're in the poop is that Brown and Blair spent the last decade so much of their spending by debt, not by growth. If they hadn't, we wouldn't be in this mess and these measures, at either end of the income spectrum, wouldn't be needed. But they did, and the measure are needed.

Moreover, so far we've seen the tip. After the election, and probably fairly soon after it, we'll see the iceberg. I just hope it's before the ship of state gets it's side torn out by that iceberg, and that there's still time to change course and avoid it.

[j1979]

So a neurosurgeon with 30 years experience shouldn't be paid 20 times more than a 16 year old shelf stacker in Tescos? What about a school kid on a paper round?

How about the CEO of a multinational company who's built it from the ground up, investing his own time and money? Shouldn't he be paid exponentially more than the person who makes the tea?

No they should not.... they signed the Hippocratic oath!

and there are separate labour laws for under 18's. A neurosurgeon working 40 hours should not earn 20 times more than a shelf stacker. Besides if i am ever unlucky enough to need a Neurosurgeon i pray that he/she did not become one based on the money they could earn.. i hope they took that career path because they want to help the human race.

[badass]

so let me get this straight ..... you don't think there is a correlation between higher wages and the want for higher wages????

I'll turn that back on you.
You don't think there is a correlation between low wages and being too damn lazy or stupid to get off ones arse and get a better paying job?

[Barrichello]

i hear what you say, but it's utter rubbish mate.. NO ONE has the right to earn such obscene wages, and they certainly don't have the right to complain about tax. it's greed plain and simple.

Nobody has the right, but they most importantly have the opportunity to earn 20 x more through their sacrifice and endeavour to improve. What's wrong with that?

You mention greed - those of us on higher tax bands were already paying more tax than the average, why more greed from the government to tax them more? It works both ways.

[Elkie]

if people earning that much are complaining about the tax, they dont deserve the money anyway!
100k a year? no one needs that.

[badass]

Is it right that from 2010/11 onward anyone earning over £100k will have their basic tax free allowance (£6475 this year 09/10 I think) reduced by £1 for every £2 they earn over £100k?

I'm not entirely sure that's very fair..... I know very few people earn anywhere near that, but they're getting shafted to the tune of 50% tax in 10/11 if they earn over £150k anyway, so why remove thier tax free allowance too?

TBh I don't disagree with this extra tax. Everyone's facing a higher tax burden in the coming years. It is only fair that those that can pay for it more easily, do so within reason. It is still not possible to be taxed at more than 51% at source regardless of how much you earn (1% NI still applies)
The worst case is an extra £2600 tax per year for those on over £113k At that kind of salary, if you even notice that, you're living beyond your means anyway and deserve everything you get.

[badass]

if people earning that much are complaining about the tax, they dont deserve the money anyway!
100k a year? no one needs that.

Someone from a third world country could also argue that people on £16k should also STFU about taxes as I'm sure they will think no one needs that.

[Haiku32]

No they should not.... they signed the Hippocratic oath!

and there are separate labour laws for under 18's. A neurosurgeon working 40 hours should not earn 20 times more than a shelf stacker. Besides if i am ever unlucky enough to need a Neurosurgeon i pray that he/she did not become one based on the money they could earn.. i hope they took that career path because they want to help the human race.

You can't just assume that someone who is in a high paying job is only in it for the money. That's a completely and utterly unfair assumption. A neurosurgeon has an incredibly difficult job which takes years of experience, hard work and determination. They would need to sacrifice A LOT to get to that type of position. This obviously would require them to be passionate about helping people. They should be rewarded for that by a high salary. What's the incentive for people to get into these types of stressful jobs if they would just get the same pay as somebody working in Tesco? A shelf stacker goes to work, does their job, then goes home and never has to think about it. A neurosurgeon is under MUCH more stress and it it will basically consume their life. You can't just perform surgery on somebody and go home and not give it a second thought. If somebody chose to do a job like that, I think it would terribly unfair for them not to be given a high salary.

[j1979]

Someone from a third world country could also argue that people on £16k should also STFU about taxes as I'm sure they will think no one needs that.

Here are some of your other Quotes Badass


"You are a waste of the oxygen you consume."

"You argue like a child or maybe an adolescent having a tantrum.
That said most adolescents probably get paid more than you. Keep dreaming about being able to afford a house - thats the closest you'll ever get to owning one! "

"And yet you can't even afford a flat. You fail at life."


"No i didn't because they weren't some idiot working class hero that thinks they deserve more simply because others have more. They were nice people."

you are a perfect example of the Thatcherite mindset.

(sorry Barrichello i quoted the wrong box)