Top 1% of earners now paying (almost) 30% of all income tax
Discussion
From the Torygraph:
Top earners pay third of all income tax
Figures from HMRC have revealed that in 2013-14, the best-paid 1% of workers will contribute 29.8% of all income tax. To qualify for the top 1%, an individual would have to earn in excess of £160,000 a year. People who earn more than £1m a year will contribute 11.8% of all tax. In 1997, the ratio was 20%, and in 2007, before the financial crisis began, the richest 1% paid 24.4%. HMRC's figures also showed that there were are about 29m individual income taxpayers in 2010-11. Of those, about 28m pay the basic rate, while roughly 290,000 pay the top rate of tax. Harriett Baldwin, a Conservative MP, said the new figures undermined Labour's argument that the Conservatives were giving millionaires a tax cut while poorer workers suffered. She said: "These statistics will once and for all end the Labour myth of millionaire tax cuts. The 24m people who have seen their tax-free threshold increased every year are the basic rate taxpayers that are quite rightly getting a tax cut."
Top earners pay third of all income tax
Figures from HMRC have revealed that in 2013-14, the best-paid 1% of workers will contribute 29.8% of all income tax. To qualify for the top 1%, an individual would have to earn in excess of £160,000 a year. People who earn more than £1m a year will contribute 11.8% of all tax. In 1997, the ratio was 20%, and in 2007, before the financial crisis began, the richest 1% paid 24.4%. HMRC's figures also showed that there were are about 29m individual income taxpayers in 2010-11. Of those, about 28m pay the basic rate, while roughly 290,000 pay the top rate of tax. Harriett Baldwin, a Conservative MP, said the new figures undermined Labour's argument that the Conservatives were giving millionaires a tax cut while poorer workers suffered. She said: "These statistics will once and for all end the Labour myth of millionaire tax cuts. The 24m people who have seen their tax-free threshold increased every year are the basic rate taxpayers that are quite rightly getting a tax cut."
Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100.If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this..
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.
But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
RSoovy4 said:
Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100.If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this..
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.
But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
I wouldn't mind being the 5th man if your the 10th ;-) make mine a Guiness The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.
But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
turbobloke said:
Fittster said:
In the UK since the mid-80s, the share of income going to the top 1% has risen from around 8% to over 13%.
The law of hard and smart work pays off.Arnold Palmer said:
...... people say I am the luckiest golfer alive, all I can say is the more I practice the luckier I seem to get...........
turbobloke said:
Fittster said:
In the UK since the mid-80s, the share of income going to the top 1% has risen from around 8% to over 13%.
The law of hard and smart work pays off.Don't forget that not only is the UK the capital of the worlds hedge fund industry but it's also a major international tax haven for non-doms, there's a hell of alot of wealth parked in the UK, much of it international.
Fittster said:
In the UK since the mid-80s, the share of income going to the top 1% has risen from around 8% to over 13%.
The Law of Increasing Poverty.
Are you saying that poverty is increasing because some people have more money?The Law of Increasing Poverty.
Or are you being facetious, in which case someone throw me a parrot
simoid said:
Fittster said:
In the UK since the mid-80s, the share of income going to the top 1% has risen from around 8% to over 13%.
The Law of Increasing Poverty.
Are you saying that poverty is increasing because some people have more money?The Law of Increasing Poverty.
Fittster said:
simoid said:
Fittster said:
In the UK since the mid-80s, the share of income going to the top 1% has risen from around 8% to over 13%.
The Law of Increasing Poverty.
Are you saying that poverty is increasing because some people have more money?The Law of Increasing Poverty.
Fittster said:
simoid said:
Fittster said:
In the UK since the mid-80s, the share of income going to the top 1% has risen from around 8% to over 13%.
The Law of Increasing Poverty.
Are you saying that poverty is increasing because some people have more money?The Law of Increasing Poverty.
How could it be different without totalitarian measures and why should it be any different? It's only 'fair' after all that effort and skill acquisition and measured risk taking bring their rewards.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff