Can we talk about £100-120k marginal tax rate

[FredClogs]

plasticpig said:

That looks like bks to me. Child benefit has fk all to do with tax. You are not paying any more in tax when you are not entitled to child benefit.

Yes, but these £100k+ guys feel they're entitled to the free money others get and not getting it is equivalent to being taxed in their little green eyes.

[limpsfield]

longblackcoat said:

Worst "I just got a pay rise to <smug voice> six figures" thread ever.

I always enjoy these sort of ph threads. Often an excuse for a few to crowbar in their earnings, sometimes not so subtly.

I am not saying that is a bad or a good thing - just an observation that they end up the same way.

Obviously I am not going to comment on my own circumstances but I wear a 20 year old Barbour, drive a 15 year old Mercedes and all my furniture is inherited. <wealth whispers smiley>

[Welshbeef]

FredClogs said:

Yes, but these £100k+ guys feel they're entitled to the free money others get and not getting it is equivalent to being taxed in their little green eyes.

So who gets to decide on who is or isn't entitled to the allowances?
And as the starting point hasn't changed in what 10/11 years clearly the original £100k back in 2005 was too high and the nasty Torys are allowing inflation to erode it's real terms starting point.

[survivalist]

FredClogs said:

plasticpig said:

That looks like bks to me. Child benefit has fk all to do with tax. You are not paying any more in tax when you are not entitled to child benefit.

Yes, but these £100k+ guys feel they're entitled to the free money others get and not getting it is equivalent to being taxed in their little green eyes.

I think the point is that these are measures that have been (relatively) recently been introduced and are aimed at reducing benefits and increasing taxation on higher earners. Also the point at which they come into effect is rather arbitrary and arguably doesn't take account of the varying cost of living in different areas of the country or (especially in the case of Child Benefit) household income. What's interesting, other than people commenting on what they consider 'reasonable' and 'high' incomes is ultimately whether they influence people's behaviour in a negative way that affects us all.

An extreme example, but a single income household living earning 120k will take home almost exactly the same amount of net pay as a dual income household where each person earns £49,999. However the latter household will pay less than half the income tax and be eligible for child benefit. Personally I don't consider that fair, but appreciate the challenge in creating legislation that is.

[amusingduck]

iphonedyou said:

You're doubtless trying to wrap your head around what a marginal tax rate is.

Fancy rolling out your utopian zero-tax-below-£100k-100%-tax-after idea again?

We could all laugh together.

His idea was literally 100% tax after 100k?

...why would any company ever pay over 100k in that scenario

[survivalist]

amusingduck said:

iphonedyou said:

You're doubtless trying to wrap your head around what a marginal tax rate is.

Fancy rolling out your utopian zero-tax-below-£100k-100%-tax-after idea again?

We could all laugh together.

His idea was literally 100% tax after 100k?

...why would any company ever pay over 100k in that scenario

Because many things are eligible for tax relief. So if my wage was over £100k I could put it in my pension for example. Although that's really a reason why as an employee I'd want to earn over £100k. The reason a company would want to pay over £100k would be to attract better staff.

[Welshbeef]

amusingduck said:

iphonedyou said:

You're doubtless trying to wrap your head around what a marginal tax rate is.

Fancy rolling out your utopian zero-tax-below-£100k-100%-tax-after idea again?

We could all laugh together.

His idea was literally 100% tax after 100k?

...why would any company ever pay over 100k in that scenario

The best incentive to move overseas where tax rates are beneficial.

[FredClogs]

amusingduck said:

iphonedyou said:

You're doubtless trying to wrap your head around what a marginal tax rate is.

Fancy rolling out your utopian zero-tax-below-£100k-100%-tax-after idea again?

We could all laugh together.

His idea was literally 100% tax after 100k?

...why would any company ever pay over 100k in that scenario

Well they wouldn't, which is kind of the point...

[Welshbeef]

FredClogs said:

amusingduck said:

iphonedyou said:

You're doubtless trying to wrap your head around what a marginal tax rate is.

Fancy rolling out your utopian zero-tax-below-£100k-100%-tax-after idea again?

We could all laugh together.

His idea was literally 100% tax after 100k?

...why would any company ever pay over 100k in that scenario

Well they wouldn't, which is kind of the point...

And the desire is for £11.50/hr wage as such you have c£24k minimum income and £100k Max.


Given the personal investment and debts people have to take on to advance their careers, then reward later in life. Such a policy as this would simply result in a brain drain for the country.
Why bother ?

[survivalist]

FredClogs said:

amusingduck said:

iphonedyou said:

You're doubtless trying to wrap your head around what a marginal tax rate is.

Fancy rolling out your utopian zero-tax-below-£100k-100%-tax-after idea again?

We could all laugh together.

His idea was literally 100% tax after 100k?

...why would any company ever pay over 100k in that scenario

Well they wouldn't, which is kind of the point...

Pretty stupid point though, as today the inland revenue collect plenty of tax from people earning over £100k.

[FredClogs]

survivalist said:

FredClogs said:

plasticpig said:

That looks like bks to me. Child benefit has fk all to do with tax. You are not paying any more in tax when you are not entitled to child benefit.

Yes, but these £100k+ guys feel they're entitled to the free money others get and not getting it is equivalent to being taxed in their little green eyes.

I think the point is that these are measures that have been (relatively) recently been introduced and are aimed at reducing benefits and increasing taxation on higher earners. Also the point at which they come into effect is rather arbitrary and arguably doesn't take account of the varying cost of living in different areas of the country or (especially in the case of Child Benefit) household income. What's interesting, other than people commenting on what they consider 'reasonable' and 'high' incomes is ultimately whether they influence people's behaviour in a negative way that affects us all.

An extreme example, but a single income household living earning 120k will take home almost exactly the same amount of net pay as a dual income household where each person earns £49,999. However the latter household will pay less than half the income tax and be eligible for child benefit. Personally I don't consider that fair, but appreciate the challenge in creating legislation that is.

I think if you check the forum rules whinging about things not being "fair" is the sole preserve of pinkos, liberals, Corbynistas, Dianne Abbot and immigrants. Proper Thatcher loving PH types have to put some shoddy economic theory around their desire to get more of the pie and claim it's all down to all their own "hard work".

But I agree, it's not a perfect system - but don't forget either or your examples are incredibly wealthy, even on the national scale and incredibly fortunate.

[survivalist]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

A personal pension is a risk, granted. In the scenario above though I'd rather earn £120k and drop £20k of it into a pension fund than earn £100k and not (or earn 120K and pay 100% tax on that £20k).

Even in the example above though, if your £100k was made up of money you would otherwise have paid the marginal 62% tax on, you'd only have to survive 10 years to be up on the deal and that's without your 25% tax free element or interest taken into account. I agree that the unpredictability of government legislation is a worry though. It's almost like they need us to pay the maximum tax and spend all of our savings to keep the economy going ;-)

[pmanson]

Can I ask a basic question?

Say I earnt £110k in this tax year I then lose £1 of my personal allowance for every £2 I earn over £100k

(Figures made up).

£10,000 / 2 would mean I lose £5k off my personal allowance. How much tax would this individual be liable for? £5k or 40% of this amount (£2,000?)

[anonymous-user]

hantsxlg said:

Sidicks,
The issue is...
Earn £101K. get a £10K payrise or bonus and you will see £3800 in your pocket

Earn £125K, get a £10K payrise or bonus and you will get £6000 in your pocket.

If your maths is right (CBA to check) then the guy on 125k already lost the same 6200 on his 101 to 111k pay as the other guy. Do you think he should lose that much again on his pay between 125 and 135?

[anonymous-user]

FredClogs said:

amusingduck said:

iphonedyou said:

You're doubtless trying to wrap your head around what a marginal tax rate is.

Fancy rolling out your utopian zero-tax-below-£100k-100%-tax-after idea again?

We could all laugh together.

His idea was literally 100% tax after 100k?

...why would any company ever pay over 100k in that scenario

Well they wouldn't, which is kind of the point...

And government tax revenue would be? Have you been hit in the head Mr Six Figures?

[sidicks]

fblm said:

hantsxlg said:

Sidicks,
The issue is...
Earn £101K. get a £10K payrise or bonus and you will see £3800 in your pocket

Earn £125K, get a £10K payrise or bonus and you will get £6000 in your pocket.

If your maths is right (CBA to check) then the guy on 125k already lost the same 6200 on his 101 to 111k pay as the other guy. Do you think he should lose that much again on his pay between 125 and 135?

I've already explained that above - not sure it was fully understood...?!

[Alex]

To those who always say on these type of threads "I wouldn't mind paying that tax if I earned over £100k!",

Yes, you fking would mind.

[sidicks]

Alex said:

To those who always say on these type of threads "I wouldn't mind paying that tax if I earn over £100k!",

Yes, you fking would mind.

Those who make such comments are likely to be those who have little chance of getting there, for obvious reasons!

[RYH64E]

Just to cheer you all up, my net profit for January is on track to break through the £100k mark for the first time ever , it's been a good start to the year. The only problem is that I can't take ibig chunks of money out without paying penal rates of tax, so the money accrues in my company bank account until such time as I can sell up and take advantage of entrepeneurs tax relief at 10%, if it's still available when I get to claim it. I'd rather not take the money at all if it means paying huge amounts of tax.

[Welshbeef]

RYH64E said:

Just to cheer you all up, my net profit for January is on track to break through the £100k mark for the first time ever , it's been a good start to the year. The only problem is that I can't take ibig chunks of money out without paying penal rates of tax, so the money accrues in my company bank account until such time as I can sell up and take advantage of entrepeneurs tax relief at 10%, if it's still available when I get to claim it. I'd rather not take the money at all if it means paying huge amounts of tax.

Net profit on your personal business?
Great result.