Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Higher rate tax payers - don't celebrate your windfall to soon.


Upper limit of NI will pull back at least half of it and Phil didn't even mention it in his speech. Of course he shouldn't be giving tax reductions to those who are OK when there are real issues with the poorest so not unexpected .. but what else is in the small print.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/208468-budget-tax-ni/
Share on other sites

The response to the budget is one of the most difficult speeches to give as you've only just heard it or maybe it's provided just beforehand (possibly).


Corbyn's response did sound pre-written which can (and did) catch him out, thinking on his feet has never been his strength - maybe that's McDonnell's to be honest.

I missed it, but Andrew Sparrow in The Guardian (who never, ever misses an opportunity to bash Corbyn, and usually rates PMQs a win for May even if it's rated a win for Corbyn elsewhere) said:


That sounded like a high-score draw; May and Corbyn were both on form, and they will probably both head off for lunch chalking that up as a success. May?s line taunting Corbyn for saying in the past that the extra money for the NHS would require tax increases when it didn?t in this budget (but only because the OBR?s better-than-expected forecasts magicked up some extra money ? which may well disappear as forecasts get revised in the years ahead) was effective, and she milked Labour?s confusion about whether or not it backs tax cuts for higher-rate payers for all it was worth. Tory MPs liked her performance, and their cheers at the end were the loudest May has heard for some time.


But if May was hoping to properly up-end Corbyn over the tax issue, she failed. He brushed aside her attack relatively easily (largely by ignoring it), and his own questions were pertinent and powerful. May did not even try to answer his question about welfare cuts, and his point about community policing was particularly effective. It is a sign of how much Corbyn has evolved as a leader that he can now stand at the dispatch box championing more spending for the police, and no one thinks he sounds inauthentic (because he doesn?t). Today he never quite managed to deliver a knockout blow, but the very fact that he held May to a draw only two days after the government unveiled the highest-spending budget for a decade or more probably counts as a win of sorts.

I'm surprised McDonnell said he agreed with tax cuts on Monday - I think he might have mean't he approves of the raising of the standard rate allowance but not of the higher rate allowance. Even Hammond said he did this as it was in the manifesto (but he still did it a year early which makes it look like he wanted to give middle earners more money).


As I mentioned in the OP though NI higher limit is now 50K too - clawing about half back, strangely you'd think he'd want to increase the lower limit which is 8.5K approx as effectively those on ?9K are still paying tax in the form of NI.

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The response to the budget is one of the most

> difficult speeches to give as you've only just

> heard it or maybe it's provided just beforehand

> (possibly).

>

> Corbyn's response did sound pre-written which can

> (and did) catch him out, thinking on his feet has

> never been his strength - maybe that's McDonnell's

> to be honest.


I heard they get it 3 hours beforehand. Am I mistaken as I thought the shadow Chancellor used to respond to the budget speech?

Labour are now introducing an amendment to the budget to effectively state their policy :)


"This would target the highest earners, reducing the threshold for the 45% additional rate of tax from ?150,000 to ?80,000 and introducing another band on top, of 50%, for incomes of ?125,000 or more."


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/31/labour-seeks-budget-change-to-increase-tax-on-top-5-of-earners

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Muppets. As if earning 80k or even 125k in London

> would make someone one of the 'highest earners' in

> the country.


Eh? Not taking the piss robbin, how does being in the top 3% pay bracket not make one of the "highest earners" in the country? Confused.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> robbin Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Muppets. As if earning 80k or even 125k in

> London

> > would make someone one of the 'highest earners'

> in

> > the country.

>

> Eh? Not taking the piss robbin, how does being in

> the top 3% pay bracket not make one of the

> "highest earners" in the country? Confused.


I probably don't have a good answer for that Rendel! I suppose was viewing it from the perspective of a London income. If someone earns ?80k or ?125k in London in wealth terms it's not really comparable with someone making ?80k or ?125k in say Sunderland. Money doesn't go far down here and so simply applying a percentage measure on a nationwide basis isn't very informative or accurate. For example, if you live in Sunderland your mortgage for a similar house in London would be something like a quarter or less. If you live in London and pay 4 or 5 times as much each month as someone in Sunderland (on your biggest single outgoing), then in my eyes that renders average nationwide figures pretty meaningless.

DovertheRoad Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A 50% top rate for over ?125k though? Feck that.

> I'm all up for paying my fair share but if you

> penalise job creators who - in a tech enabled

> world - dont need to live here they really will

> leave.


Is everyone earning over ?125k a job creator? Do their wages come from the magic money tree or would they perchance be paid from profits made through the work of those lower down the pay scale?

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DovertheRoad Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > A 50% top rate for over ?125k though? Feck

> that.

> > I'm all up for paying my fair share but if you

> > penalise job creators who - in a tech enabled

> > world - dont need to live here they really will

> > leave.

>

> Is everyone earning over ?125k a job creator? Do

> their wages come from the magic money tree or

> would they perchance be paid from profits made

> through the work of those lower down the pay

> scale?


Obviously not. But if you think a 50% top band for ?125k+ earners (about 750,000 people) is the best answer for greater wealth distribution you're dreaming.

But would paying 50% above 125k materially impact those people


I?m at the low end of the 40% bracket. I would happily pay 50%. Because I think that?s what?s required of a country like ours (it clearly needs the income)


But if lower earners need to pay more it does need the higher earners not to bail

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • So top of Lane. Local Sainsbury, middle Co Op and M and S and bottom Tesco Express…..now everyone should be happy except those that want a Waitrose as well…0h and  don’t forget M and S near ED Station….
    • Direct link to joint statement : https://thehaguegroup.org/meetings-bogota-en/?link_id=2&can_id=2d0a0048aad3d4915e3e761ac87ffe47&source=email-pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogota-breakthrough&email_referrer=email_2819587&email_subject=pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogot_-breakthrough&&   No. 26 | The Bogotá Breakthrough “The era of impunity is over.” That was the message from Bogotá, Colombia, where governments from across the Global South and beyond took the most ambitious coordinated action since Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza began 21 months ago. Convened by The Hague Group and co-chaired by the governments of Colombia and South Africa, the Emergency Conference on Palestine brought together 30 states for two days of intensive deliberation — and emerged with a concrete, coordinated six-point plan to restrain Israel’s war machine and uphold international law. States took up the call from their host, Colombian President and Progressive International Council Member Gustavo Petro, who had urged them to be “protagonists together.” Twelve governments signed onto the measures immediately. The rest now have a deadline: 20 September 2025, on the eve of the United Nations General Assembly. The unprecedented six measures commit states to:     Prevent military and dual use exports to Israel.     Refuse Israeli weapons transfers at their ports.     Prevent vessels carrying weapons to Israel under their national flags.     Review all public contracts to prevent public institutions and funds from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation.     Pursue justice for international crimes.     Support universal jurisdiction to hold perpetrators accountable. “We came to Bogotá to make history — and we did,” said Colombian President Gustavo Petro. “Together, we have begun the work of ending the era of impunity. These measures show that we will no longer allow international law to be treated as optional, or Palestinian life as disposable.” The measures are not symbolic. They are grounded in binding obligations under international law — including the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation unlawful, and September 2024’s UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/24, which gave states a 12-month deadline to act. UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory Francesca Albanese called them “a momentous step forward.” “The Hague Group was born to advance international law in an era of impunity,” said South Africa’s Foreign Minister, Ronald Lamola. “The measures adopted in Bogotá show that we are serious — and that coordinated state action is possible.” The response from Washington was swift — and revealing. In a threatening statement to journalists, a US State Department spokesperson accused The Hague Group of “seeking to isolate Israel” and warned that the US would “aggressively defend our interests, our military, and our allies, including Israel, from such coordinated legal and diplomatic” actions. But instead of deterring action, the threats have only clarified the stakes. In Bogotá, states did not flinch. They acted — and they invite the world to join them. The deadline for further states to take up the measures is now two months away. And with it, the pressure is mounting for governments across the world — from Brazil to Ireland, Chile to Spain — to match words with action. As Albanese said, “the clock is now ticking for states — from Europe to the Arab world and beyond — to join them.” This is not a moment to observe. It is a moment to act. Share the Joint Statement from Bogotá and popularise the six measures. Write to your elected representative and your government and demand they sign on before 20 September. History was made in Bogotá. Now, it’s up to all of us to ensure it becomes reality, that Palestinian life is not disposable and international law is not optional. The era of impunity is coming to an end. Palestine is not alone. In solidarity, The Progressive International Secretariat  
    • Most countries charge for entry to museums and galleries, often a different rate for locals (tax payers) and foreign nationals. The National Gallery could do this, also places like the Museums in South Kensington, the British Library and other tax-funded institutions. Many cities abroad add a tourist tax to hotel bills. It means tourists help pay for public services.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...