| Elite 08:23 - Oct 31 with 14847 views | blueislander |
So “the elite” are going to be under attack from Labour. Who are they? Top surgeons? Top sportsmen and women? Scientists? I think they need to be a bit more specific., or just stick to “the corrupt” |  | | |  |
| Elite on 11:09 - Nov 1 with 1274 views | itfcjoe |
| Elite on 11:06 - Nov 1 by sparks |
Of course it does.
Someone on min wage now pays virtually no income tax. |
And higher earners also pay less tax due to it |  |
| |
| Elite on 11:13 - Nov 1 with 1259 views | StokieBlue |
| Elite on 11:09 - Nov 1 by itfcjoe |
And higher earners also pay less tax due to it |
This entirely depends on how much the higher earner is making.
If it's more than 123k then they lose all the personal allowance.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Elite on 11:15 - Nov 1 with 1258 views | StokieBlue |
| Elite on 10:54 - Nov 1 by sparks |
There are already people who are on a marginal rate of 60 or 70 percent.
Its interesting that the government get accused of tax breaks for the rich having increased the personal allowance etc and hit higher earners with removal of child benefit and tapering of personal allowance. |
Nobody in the bracket being discussed would be on 60% marginal rate. That kicks in after the loss of personal allowance I believe?
The proposed tax break from Boris is far larger than the loss of child allowance. You would need to have 6 children for them to be comparable amounts.
I don't think a 5% increase is insurmountable for most higher earners. I do think there would be a worry for many that Labour might go higher than that with the increase though.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Elite on 11:49 - Nov 1 with 1234 views | StochesStotasBlewe |
| Elite on 10:40 - Nov 1 by blueislander |
In the 70s under the Wilson government the highest rate of income tax went up to 98% which did result in people leaving the UK (The Rolling Stones being perhaps the highest profile of those who left) One would like to think that no government now would put it up to that level. |
Indeed.
Recently worked for a while for someone who was bemoaning the very high taxation of that era. They left the country only to return when the tax threshold was more amenable.
They have employed over 180 people directly and indirectly for 40 years, decent pay too.
I would not , however, think of them as in any way elite. Humble, working class made good in my experience. |  |
| We have no village green, or a shop.
It's very, very quiet.
I can walk to the pub. |
| |
| Elite on 11:59 - Nov 1 with 1227 views | itfcjoe |
| Elite on 11:49 - Nov 1 by StochesStotasBlewe |
Indeed.
Recently worked for a while for someone who was bemoaning the very high taxation of that era. They left the country only to return when the tax threshold was more amenable.
They have employed over 180 people directly and indirectly for 40 years, decent pay too.
I would not , however, think of them as in any way elite. Humble, working class made good in my experience. |
There is a massive difference between the higher rates proposed currently and those in that era.
If people are leaving the country because the tax rate is going up by a single figure percentage and they are losing £10's of pounds a month when earning £2-3k a month then there are obviously other reasons as to why they are willing to move.
I don't want a tax rise, but I think it is probably necessary and will have to adapt to it - I want better public services and a fairer soceity so something has to give, plus someone really needs to go after the 0.1% because the Tories won't. The likes of Amazon, Starbucks have killed high streets and local businesses because it is an unfair fight | |
| |
| Elite on 12:11 - Nov 1 with 1212 views | StochesStotasBlewe |
| Elite on 11:59 - Nov 1 by itfcjoe |
There is a massive difference between the higher rates proposed currently and those in that era.
If people are leaving the country because the tax rate is going up by a single figure percentage and they are losing £10's of pounds a month when earning £2-3k a month then there are obviously other reasons as to why they are willing to move.
I don't want a tax rise, but I think it is probably necessary and will have to adapt to it - I want better public services and a fairer soceity so something has to give, plus someone really needs to go after the 0.1% because the Tories won't. The likes of Amazon, Starbucks have killed high streets and local businesses because it is an unfair fight |
Totally agree your points regarding the likes of Amazon, Starbucks etc. and the 0.1%.
However, we seem no nearer to what the definition of elite is though, which was kind of my point in relation to my previous post. | |
| We have no village green, or a shop.
It's very, very quiet.
I can walk to the pub. |
| |
| Elite on 12:18 - Nov 1 with 1196 views | itfcjoe |
| Elite on 12:11 - Nov 1 by StochesStotasBlewe |
Totally agree your points regarding the likes of Amazon, Starbucks etc. and the 0.1%.
However, we seem no nearer to what the definition of elite is though, which was kind of my point in relation to my previous post. |
I read somewhere that there is a study conducted, and that most people think of themselves as an 'average earner', regardless of where they actually sit in the scale.
For me the elite are those who have vast personal fortunes, and basically empires. Those who effectively never need to work again and can still be rich beyond belief.
Also, people earning silly money, 7 figure salaries and the like.
Obviously people earning £1000-150k are well off, but you need to try and go after those who are in a position where they can just hoard their wealth rather than spend it. If someone is earning £120k and living in London, paying a big mortgage, private healthcare etc then they are relying on their wages on a monthly basis - the 'elite' for me are not relying on their salary in any real way | |
| |
| Elite on 12:37 - Nov 1 with 1179 views | StochesStotasBlewe |
| Elite on 12:18 - Nov 1 by itfcjoe |
I read somewhere that there is a study conducted, and that most people think of themselves as an 'average earner', regardless of where they actually sit in the scale.
For me the elite are those who have vast personal fortunes, and basically empires. Those who effectively never need to work again and can still be rich beyond belief.
Also, people earning silly money, 7 figure salaries and the like.
Obviously people earning £1000-150k are well off, but you need to try and go after those who are in a position where they can just hoard their wealth rather than spend it. If someone is earning £120k and living in London, paying a big mortgage, private healthcare etc then they are relying on their wages on a monthly basis - the 'elite' for me are not relying on their salary in any real way |
Two examples of the definition of elite.
Those people or organisations that are considered the best or most powerful compared to others of a similar type.
Belonging to the richest, most powerful, best educated, or best trained group in a society.
By definition, if Labour form the next government, will they then become the elite, as the most powerful "organisation".
Your points are well covered by the 2nd definition so i guess there is a degree of ambiguity as to the meaning of elite. | |
| We have no village green, or a shop.
It's very, very quiet.
I can walk to the pub. |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Elite on 16:27 - Nov 1 with 1120 views | BigManBlue |
| Elite on 12:18 - Nov 1 by itfcjoe |
I read somewhere that there is a study conducted, and that most people think of themselves as an 'average earner', regardless of where they actually sit in the scale.
For me the elite are those who have vast personal fortunes, and basically empires. Those who effectively never need to work again and can still be rich beyond belief.
Also, people earning silly money, 7 figure salaries and the like.
Obviously people earning £1000-150k are well off, but you need to try and go after those who are in a position where they can just hoard their wealth rather than spend it. If someone is earning £120k and living in London, paying a big mortgage, private healthcare etc then they are relying on their wages on a monthly basis - the 'elite' for me are not relying on their salary in any real way |
Think that last sentence is a fantastic definition there mate. |  |
| |
| Elite on 16:42 - Nov 1 with 1107 views | Hoppipolla |
Just remember they are all politicians, and their words are worth about as much as Trumps. And that's bad, so bad.
When push comes to shove the 'bourgeoisie' middle class will cop for the lot, which will implode the economy as they are the only people with any money to spend in local businesses.
They won't get the dodgers, and the poor can't be taxed. And the Tories won't tax the rich either, so whichever way you vote you are screwed.
Happy daze! |  | | |
| Elite on 16:49 - Nov 1 with 1096 views | longtimefan |
| Elite on 12:18 - Nov 1 by itfcjoe |
I read somewhere that there is a study conducted, and that most people think of themselves as an 'average earner', regardless of where they actually sit in the scale.
For me the elite are those who have vast personal fortunes, and basically empires. Those who effectively never need to work again and can still be rich beyond belief.
Also, people earning silly money, 7 figure salaries and the like.
Obviously people earning £1000-150k are well off, but you need to try and go after those who are in a position where they can just hoard their wealth rather than spend it. If someone is earning £120k and living in London, paying a big mortgage, private healthcare etc then they are relying on their wages on a monthly basis - the 'elite' for me are not relying on their salary in any real way |
The trouble is that the number of people who fit your definition of elite is relatively small, and as a consequence even hefty tax hikes for them raises limited money. To get the large amounts required by Labour's plans requires much wider based increases. Take Amazon for example. Their UK revenues are around £10B. If we say that 50% is profit (unlikely to be anywhere near that) then that would raise around £1B in Corporation tax, which is only around £800M over what they current pay. Unfortunately that's peanuts in the larger scheme of things. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
