Top 1% of earners pay 25% of all income tax

[Puggit]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...

Up from 11% in 1978. So it seems the rich are getting richer, and they are paying their fair share...

[lauda]

Uh oh. Here we go again!

[thinfourth2]

Throw them out of the country we don't want those rich bds giving us all their tax money

[Du1point8]

I like this quote:

If the UK was a business, that top 1% would be presented with awards and dinners, and thanked for the wealth that they produce and contribute that allows our country to keep afloat. They would be encouraged to stay in the country and keep doing what they are doing.

Instead we have dolts like Cable and Miliband telling us how evil they all are. To use an Americanism - "Go Figure!"

[Ozzie Osmond]

I don't understand this purported defence of the rich. If the income of the top 1% was spread, say, across the top 10% then the state's tax take would be exactly the same. So the super-rich aren't doing anyone any special favours.

Whether it's appropriate for a tiny proportion of the population to own almost everything is a different question altogether.

[ewenm]

Ozzie Osmond said:

I don't understand this purported defence of the rich. If the income of the top 1% was spread, say, across the top 10% then the state's tax take would be exactly the same. So the super-rich aren't doing anyone any special favours.

Are you sure about that calculation? The 50% tax band boundary could provide different tax revenue figures depending on the split of the money across people.

Edit: For example around the 40% band - one person earning £60k pays more tax than 2 people earning £30k each (the two people have two personal allowances and none of it is taxed at 40%).

[Oakey]

Ozzie Osmond said:

I don't understand this purported defence of the rich. If the income of the top 1% was spread, say, across the top 10% then the state's tax take would be exactly the same. So the super-rich aren't doing anyone any special favours.

Whether it's appropriate for a tiny proportion of the population to own almost everything is a different question altogether.

you have two cars you greedy rich bd

[Zod]

Ozzie Osmond said:

I don't understand this purported defence of the rich. If the income of the top 1% was spread, say, across the top 10% then the state's tax take would be exactly the same. So the super-rich aren't doing anyone any special favours.

So what proportion of your income do you pay in tax? Somebody earning £1m a year who pays almost £500k a year in tax pays more proprotionately than you do.

You should thank him.

[s1962a]

It's the top middle class that pay this tax. I doubt your super rich business owner pays that much PAYE tax.

[pugwash4x4]

Ozzie Osmond said:

I don't understand this purported defence of the rich.

I don't understand the purported hatred of rich people?

the only reasoning for it is

a. rank jealousy and
b. the belief that they are rich at someone elses cost. All the well off people i know are rich becuase they made a huge amount of personal sacrifices and worked their arses off- oh and were more intelligent than most.

I for one would like to celebrate achievement in this country.

[Ozzie Osmond]

ewenm said:

Are you sure about that calculation? The 50% tax band boundary could provide different tax revenue figures depending on the split of the money across people.

You're right; my figure of 10% is probably too wide for the top band - but you get my gist that the income could be more widely spread for the same tax take.

Eric Mc will be along in a minute to remind us there used to be an income tax rate of 85% in UK, plus an extra 15% on unearned income from dividends and interest. So a top rate of income tax of 98%! Strangely, some people chose to move abroad.....

[Du1point8]

s1962a said:

It's the top middle class that pay this tax. I doubt your super rich business owner pays that much PAYE tax.

Do you have evidence to back up your claim?

[WreckedGecko]

Zod said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

I don't understand this purported defence of the rich. If the income of the top 1% was spread, say, across the top 10% then the state's tax take would be exactly the same. So the super-rich aren't doing anyone any special favours.

So what proportion of your income do you pay in tax? Somebody earning £1m a year who pays almost £500k a year in tax pays more proprotionately than you do.

You should thank him.

This is exactly the point, the more you earn the more you proportionally pay, this is quite apart from the job/wealth creation that we should be pleased about not berating people for.

Its one of the many benefits of a capitalist meritocracy, (like free healthcare and education) that any one of us could eventually place ourselves in that 1%. The odds are long, but then its not the top 1% for nothing.

Why on earth these people are so berated and hated by sections of our society for some perceived slight, bizarre version of inverse snobbery or even just the idea that “its not fair” I find it simply amazing. I am jealous as can be when I see the people wandering out of £5-10million houses in Holland Park, but I don’t hate them for it, I just want to figure out how I can get there.

I think (and I could be wrong) that it is an almost exclusively British trait.

When I was a kid I used to go see my Grand-dad in the states. He would take me out in his ’69 302 Boss Mustang. Everywhere we went, kids would stop and want to know how much it cost and what he did to get it and the like.

You rock up in a nice car in the UK and you are a flash . Showing off etc etc. There is no aspiration, just envy and hate.

[rover 623gsi]

WreckedGecko said:

Its one of the many benefits of a capitalist meritocracy, (like free healthcare and education) that any one of us could eventually place ourselves in that 1%. The odds are long, but then its not the top 1% for nothing.

I don't hate the rich, but you're bonkers if you think 'any one of us' could reach the top 1% of wage earners.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Du1point8 said:

Do you have evidence to back up your claim?

Capital Gains Tax - 28% top rate. Recently increased from 20% after Gordon Brown CGT rates from IT rates.

[Derek Smith]

WreckedGecko said:

Its one of the many benefits of a capitalist meritocracy, (like free healthcare and education)

That is one of the many benefits of a welfare society. And the education only goes so far of course and the healthcare not even that far.

The figures are interpreted by the Telegraph. I feel certain no one on here would take the Socialist Worker's take on these figures, claiming that they are politically biased, but it seems the Tel's spot on, as always.

And I feel certain that they have included all the stats, even those that contradict its right wing leanings.

There are many, many interpretations of the C&E figures.

I don't aspire to £millions of income. Never have and, given how old I am, probably never will. I therefore do not feel jealous of these people. There are rich people I despise, such as Bill Gates, and for what I consider very good reasons. It has nothing to do with the amount of money he has.

I would also point out that the figure I'd be interested in would be the percentage of the super rich who do not pay any tax whatsoever. Indeed, many of these milk the system so we, the taxpayers, give them more money for, in essence, being super rich.

My interpretation of the figures is that it is a further indictment of the Blair government, although not as bad as the illegal wars I grant you.

[WreckedGecko]

rover 623gsi said:

WreckedGecko said:

Its one of the many benefits of a capitalist meritocracy, (like free healthcare and education) that any one of us could eventually place ourselves in that 1%. The odds are long, but then its not the top 1% for nothing.

I don't hate the rich, but you're bonkers if you think 'any one of us' could reach the top 1% of wage earners.

Really? Why? look at the much over used example of Alan Sugar. There is no reason that anyone can't do it.

[crankedup]

Du1point8 said:

I like this quote:

If the UK was a business, that top 1% would be presented with awards and dinners, and thanked for the wealth that they produce and contribute that allows our country to keep afloat. They would be encouraged to stay in the country and keep doing what they are doing.

Instead we have dolts like Cable and Miliband telling us how evil they all are. To use an Americanism - "Go Figure!"

What! do you mean like how the bankers were thanked for their fabulous contribution to the U.K. by G.B.
Not forgetting that the wealthy folk do not pay a fair contribution,(broad brush remark) look how they have stoked up house price inflation in London during the past decade. Also they, the wealthy, have access to tax avoidance schemes which they use to great effect. Lets see how things pan out once the avoidance loopholes are closed, they will find new ones I expect. So no, I can't see any need to thank them at all, but I would if they actually paid their fair share of tax.

[BOR]

This is a staggeringly shamefull statistic that demonstrates how wide the gulf between high and low-earners has become.

This distortion in society cannot be healthy (unless you're one of the 1%,of course). Never mind "teh big society" how about starting with a fair society ?

[WreckedGecko]

Derek Smith said:

WreckedGecko said:

Its one of the many benefits of a capitalist meritocracy, (like free healthcare and education)

That is one of the many benefits of a welfare society. And the education only goes so far of course and the healthcare not even that far.

I don't aspire to £millions of income. Never have and, given how old I am, probably never will. I therefore do not feel jealous of these people. There are rich people I despise, such as Bill Gates, and for what I consider very good reasons. It has nothing to do with the amount of money he has.

And the Welfare State exists because of...

Certainly not something that a socalist state could sustain, as witnessed by our current prediction.

Agreed on Bill Gates being a dick though.