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

[j1979]

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.

where did i assume that... ??? i clearly said that i hope a Neurosurgeon is not in the job for the money.
Again... i am NOT disputing higher wages, just not super high.... and people moaning about tax when they earn stupid amounts.

[SiM]

Sour grapes galore

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

You will find that the above correlation is close to zero.... because almost everyone wants higher wages, regardless of how much they earn.

[j1979]

Sour grapes galore



You will find that the above correlation is close to zero.... because almost everyone wants higher wages, regardless of how much they earn.

so you don't think there is a link between higher wages and greed?


Ohh and if you haven't noticed.... im not the one complaining about tax.... Im just complaining about the people, complaining about tax! Usaully the same people that are nowhere to be seen when it's "their Round"

[SiM]

so you don't think there is a link between higher wages and greed?

That is not what correlation means...

I think most people with high wages are greedy, but so are most people with low wages.

Also you will find that over their lifetime, the high wage people give more money and time to philanthropy as a % of their total income than the low wage people.

[GSte]

Also you will find that over their lifetime, the high wage people give more money and time to philanthropy as a % of their total income than the low wage people.

Because they can afford to do so. That doesn't necessarily mean they are less greedy. : )

[j1979]

That is not what correlation means...

I think most people with high wages are greedy, but so are most people with low wages.

Also you will find that over their lifetime, the high wage people give more money and time to philanthropy as a % of their total income than the low wage people.

Yes i don't deny this.. i am sure they do give more as a percentage.

My council tax bill is almost 10% of my total gross wage. So tax and disposable income are all relative. So please stop moaning about TAX.

[Flibb]

It is also worth noting that many companies will reward higher earners with increased benefits, that often result in paying less % of wages in tax than lower paid workers.

For instance, the company I work for give lower paid worker poor pension deal, and no share save. Higher paid staff have a pension contributions matched by the company, and a share save with the usual lock in to avoid paying income tax and national insurance.

[scaryjim]

It is also worth noting that many companies will reward higher earners with increased benefits, that often result in paying less % of wages in tax than lower paid workers.

For instance, the company I work for give lower paid worker poor pension deal, and no share save. Higher paid staff have a pension contributions matched by the company, and a share save with the usual lock in to avoid paying income tax and national insurance.

This works vice versa as well though, since many benefits actually increase your tax load. - higher paid earners tend to have higher company car allowances, for instance: which they are then taxed more heavily on. I've seen people with negative tax codfes - they were actually paying tax on *more* than they earned because of the additional company benefits they were receiving.

[Flibb]

Its purely down to choice if they make use of a higher company car allowance and the relevent tax burden. If you dont get offered a resonable pension, or share save you lack any choice in the tax you pay.

[j1979]

So what if someone earning £100,000 gets a few quid less WHO CARES??

they probably wont be able to afford that 9th Holiday this year or the bigger bumper on their 4x4... my heart bleeds for these people... poor poor you

[Alex]

I have a (potentially) stupid question.

If you earn £100k, and you were to get a £13K pay rise - how much extra take home would you get? I mean, if you lose your £6500 allowance, and you get taxed at 50% so you lose another £6500, plus then extra NI - how is it you don't actually end up worse off on a higher salary?

[j1979]

I have a (potentially) stupid question.

If you earn £100k, and you were to get a £13K pay rise - how much extra take home would you get? I mean, if you lose your £6500 allowance, and you get taxed at 50% so you lose another £6500, plus then extra NI - how is it you don't actually end up worse off on a higher salary?

i think it's done progressively but i don't know for sure. maybe zak knows the in's and out's ?

[dave87]

Post tax under the old system you would be earning 65k on 100k, 72k on 113k.

As to the new system, pass. You are effectively paying 40% tax on a further 6500, so you'd get to keep 3900 of that 6500. So, if my maths is correct, you'd be on 65k at 100k, 69.4k on 113k.

[Alex]

Oh, just noticed the tax is only 50% at £150k and up, but I suppose with NI, a 40% tax, and this loss of the PA, is would still surely equate to a minimal difference in take home between £100k and £113k?

In which case would there be any point in there being any jobs with a salary between £100k and £113k? It wouldn't end up with all jobs in that region being paid at £100k, and therefore losing out on the extra tax in that region of income would it?

EDIT: Ah, just seen Dave87's reply. That would make sense - you wouldn't be charged 40% of the extra 13K, only half of it.

[pp05]

PP05, how would you then balance the books? As for every £ you increase the personal allowance by you stand to lose at least 20p in tax - across most of the population... so £10m (assuming 50m people paying at least 20% tax) for each £1 it is increased by...

Can the Labour govt be trusted to manage the books? They only know how to borrow, borrow and spend. Where has all the money gone?

Your question kind of epitomizes what is wrong with the system but also at the sametimes ask some very tough questions on governance and its relevance and its form. The bigger problem is market energy [people working] has been shifted solely for servicing national debt all whilst dwindling tax revenue, high unemployment, and all whilst citizens being up to their eyeballs in very high personal debt.

This obsession with tinkering here and there for efficiency. The same efficiency that has caused dwindling tax revenues, and rendering our government impotent bar throwing money bailing out charlatans. We need a new vision. 'free market' isn't self-correcting as elite had us believe. If it was, why didn't they let the banks go under. UK is all but broke. The nail in the coffin would be full nationalisation of the banking sector.

I heard on the radio that for every pound raised 98p comes from the PMs decisions, 2p from local councils. How is that even democratic?

[GSte]

Can the Labour govt be trusted to manage the books? They only know how to borrow, borrow and spend. Where has all the money gone?

Management consultants and NHS beurocracy, that have had little to no effect on improving services.