Do you want to discuss boring politics? (34 Viewers)

[rob9872]

Yep, I used to work with a guy like this.

Didn't want to earn more and go to a higher tax band because he didn't want to 'give all his money to the tax man'. Not realising that he would still be earning more money than he is now. Just a bizarre logic.

But is it though? If he's comfortable and only getting a small margin more, then the hassle and expectation that sometimes goes with that next level up is not for everyone and quite a trade off.

 

---

[hill83]

Bloke I used to work with thought if you hit £50k they instantly take 40% of your money off you so you are better off earning £49k.

 

[PVA]

So you think pensioners should pay NI after they've already paid for 50 years?

If they're still working yes.

If a 67 year old is working and earning £60k why shouldn't they pay NI while a 25 year old earning £20k does?

 

[PVA]

Bloke I used to work with thought if you hit £50k they instantly take 40% of your money off you so you are better off earning £49k.

Yeah I think there's a few people who think like that!

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Last time I checked nursing was a caring profession that people went into not just for wealth or career only and yet despite that they do quite nicely. I imagine most nurses (who I agree do a fantastic job) earn more than lots of people on this board with an average salary over £33k. They are far from the breadline although you'd not think that with all of the outrage when they only get a 3% increase - an increase that doesn't only go to the front line, but many of the tory hating middle management pen pushers that the NHS is filled up with playing the system.

You were the one that equated higher earnings as people 'bettering themselves'.

 

[shmmeee]

I love how all of those who didn't even vote for the manifesto are the ones most outraged by it being broken, because they can use it as a new stick to beat the Govt with. You can argue all day about the root cause to suit your agenda, but surely you must with your roots, applaud the increase and what it's being used for.

Those who possibly could rightfully be outraged are people like me who voted for them, are paying the increase and don't have huge savings, but after the past 18 months it's a small price to pay and nothing that can't be reversed in time. If anything they should be commended for recognising the shortfall, finding a solution and having the balls to make that change to their direction knowing how unpopular a decision it would be.

Govenrments are for everyone not just people who voted for them.

Social care 100% needs funding, but this isn’t that. This is basically pandemic costs which should be borrowed and paid off over time like any other emergency disaster spending. And we should be taxing wealth not work IMO.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Bloke I used to work with thought if you hit £50k they instantly take 40% of your money off you so you are better off earning £49k.

I assume he was nowhere close to that, then

 

[hill83]

I assume he was nowhere close to that, then

Suggesting people who don't earn much are thick bastards are we?

 

[rob9872]

You were the one that equated higher earnings as people 'bettering themselves'.

I was and I stand by it, just don't agree with the 'poor nurses' sentiment. They do a great job, but are far from poor.

 

[shmmeee]

Last time I checked nursing was a caring profession that people went into not just for wealth or career only and yet despite that they do quite nicely. I imagine most nurses (who I agree do a fantastic job) earn more than lots of people on this board with an average salary over £33k. They are far from the breadline although you'd not think that with all of the outrage when they only get a 3% increase - an increase that doesn't only go to the front line, but many of the tory hating middle management pen pushers that the NHS is filled up with playing the system.

TIL earning £2k above the average wage is “doing quite nicely”. JFC man. Have some self respect.

 

[skybluetony176]

Yeah lets penalise people for trying to save and look after their money in favour of those who piss it up the wall (also it wouldn't have generated anywhere near as much, but don't let that get in the way of a good grandstanding soundbyte)

Nurses have basically just fronted their own pay rise with the increase in NI, many of whom have also just lost a lump sum of working tax credits and many of whom rely on food banks. What are they pissing up the wall exactly? Doesn’t need to be nurses either, there’s no shortage of working families who again are about to lose a lump sum of working tax credits and that on top of a NI hike of over 10%. Again what are they pissing up the wall.

 

[COV]

I was and I stand by it, just don't agree with the 'poor nurses' sentiment. They do a great job, but are far from poor.

You say that based on?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

So it's progressive until it's regressive. The % might reduce, but the contributions increase. Earn more, pay more unless it doesn't suit the agenda so play with a different matrix.

Claiming it's progressive because there's a LEL under which people don't contribute is a bit of a stretch. Once you start contributing the percentage you pay goes down the more you earn.

That makes it regressive.

 

[rob9872]

You say that based on?

Based on their average earnings of over £33k

 

[shmmeee]

Yeah can’t move down in Monaco for NHS Nurses in their Lambos

 

[Jamesimus]

So you think pensioners should pay NI after they've already paid for 50 years?

If they can afford it, why not?!

Obviously, not all pensioners are in that boat and some struggle. Should be a tax based on relative wealth (inclusive of assets) rather than accross the board.

Which is a shame because obviously wealth = you have worked harder and made yourself "better" according to some on here

 

[rob9872]

Claiming it's progressive because there's a LEL under which people don't contribute is a bit of a stretch. Once you start contributing the percentage you pay goes down the more you earn.

That makes it regressive.

Only because you're quoting in % and not actual monetary terms which makes it progressive. It's just changing to suit whether you feel it's fair or not. Higher earners pay more into the society pot but only use the same amount. If it were anywhere other than the UK, with our NHS system where we all paid for what we used then there would be a much greater disparity in affordability. Higher earners are already propping up and paying more than their share, so I simply can't see how making them pay even more is right, but even with this tax hike they are.

 

[COV]

Based on their average earnings of over £33k

I earn more than that and I sit on my arse all day, do less hours, never have overtime and I sure as hell haven't ever saved anyone's life. They are underpaid, and wasn't there that controversy where the govt rejected any raises in the pandemic while handing themselves payrises & handing out contracts to chums which turned out to be useless?

Mostly though you seemed to be connecting salary with worth with this talk of 'bettering yourself', which is a pretty horrendous thing to be doing imho

 

[rob9872]

Yeah can’t move down in Monaco for NHS Nurses in their Lambos

I didn't say rich or well off, but not poor which was advocated and a direct quote. A worldo fo difference. I'm not poor, but I also can't afford a lambo in monaco.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Suggesting people who don't earn much are thick bastards are we?

Yeah, we are

 

[COV]

Only because you're quoting in % and not actual monetary terms which makes it progressive. It's just changing to suit whether you feel it's fair or not. Higher earners pay more into the society pot but only use the same amount. If it were anywhere other than the UK, with our NHS system where we all paid for what we used then there would be a much greater disparity in affordability. Higher earners are already propping up and paying more than their share, so I simply can't see how making them pay even more is right, but even with this tax hike they are.

When you say 'higher earners', have you seen the effective taxrates of the really high earners? They absolutely, most definitely do NOT prop up anything.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I earn more than that

 

[rob9872]

I earn more than that and I sit on my arse all day, do less hours, never have overtime and I sure as hell haven't ever saved anyone's life. They are underpaid, and wasn't there that controversy where the govt rejected any raises in the pandemic while handing themselves payrises & handing out contracts to chums which turned out to be useless?

Mostly though you seemed to be connecting salary with worth with this talk of 'bettering yourself', which is a pretty horrendous thing to be doing imho

If they are paid above average they are not poor. They chose to go into a profession knowing the rates of pay as do plenty of other heroes in the army, police or fire services. All are important. All are paid above average salary. All deserve it. None can claim the wages are poor.

 

[hill83]

Only because you're quoting in % and not actual monetary terms

Correct. And that's where the argument is coming from. It should be percentage, you say it shouldn't be.
This could go on forever.

 

[COV]

If they are paid above average they are not poor. They chose to go into a profession knowing the rates of pay as do plenty of other heroes in the army, police or fire services. All are important. All are paid above average salary. All deserve it. None can claim the wages are poor.

Try converting them to an hourly rate

 

[hill83]

The value of money is relative. 50p was unimaginable wealth when I was 5.
Rich Dave paying an extra £700 a year while Broke Bob is paying £200 but a higher percentage of what he earns is a shit one for Bob. But wouldn't touch the sides for Dave.

 

[Grendel]

Correct. And that's where the argument is coming from. It should be percentage, you say it shouldn't be.
This could go on forever.

Here is a percentage figure

Top 1% of earners in UK account for more than a third of income tax

Tax revenues ever more reliant on small group of high earners, says Institute for Fiscal Studies

www.theguardian.com

 

[rob9872]

Try converting them to an hourly rate

Not a game you want o play. They get paid for all the hours they work and more holidays than the average job too (I used to work for the NHS!)

 

[hill83]

Here is a percentage figure

Top 1% of earners in UK account for more than a third of income tax

Tax revenues ever more reliant on small group of high earners, says Institute for Fiscal Studies

www.theguardian.com

I meant specific to this increase. I know a huge amount of the tax revenue comes from the highest earners.

 

[Ian1779]

I love how all of those who didn't even vote for the manifesto are the ones most outraged by it being broken, because they can use it as a new stick to beat the Govt with. You can argue all day about the root cause to suit your agenda, but surely you must with your roots, applaud the increase and what it's being used for.

Those who possibly could rightfully be outraged are people like me who voted for them, are paying the increase and don't have huge savings, but after the past 18 months it's a small price to pay and nothing that can't be reversed in time. If anything they should be commended for recognising the shortfall, finding a solution and having the balls to make that change to their direction knowing how unpopular a decision it would be.

There is no applause or credit to be given here.
The right and proper thing to do was to implement some kind of wealth tax to get the money to fund social care.
What they have done as usual is kowtow to their ‘influencers’ and ‘donors’ and implanted a regressive and punitive tax on those that earn the least in society.

Save your energy as well replying with some bollocks counter argument about people taking their money out of the country because it’s rubbish.

 

[hill83]

And since I'm here, I've personally got no issue with paying more tax.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

So you think pensioners should pay NI after they've already paid for 50 years?

Well, the argument is they're still using the services. And as more and more people get older the system has more and more people to care for with less and less people contributing. They still pay income tax.

When it was started the amount you contributed paid for those now and then future generations would pay yours. But that was when we didn't have so many old people living so long. Even if you looked at it as you building up credit for old age, previous generations were paying for a retirement that might last 10 years. Now it's closer to 20. We may well end up at a situation whereby people are spending more time retired and not contributing than they did working and contributing. So either retirement age needs to be extended or contributions need to continue once you do.

I don't see why NI shouldn't be part of pension payments. Richer people are likely to live longer and get higher pension payments so basically it's another way of richer people avoiding paying. They often get paid more, for longer, and don't have to contribute.

 

[Nick]

Have never got the "poor nurses have to use food banks to survive" if they are on over 30k.

 

[Nick]

And since I'm here, I've personally got no issue with paying more tax.

Paid too much to care.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

And since I'm here, I've personally got no issue with paying more tax.

Nor me. Investment in all our futures, innit