Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36178811)

You really are not listening here. I am not talking about PAYE earnings which a lot of high net worth individuals do not receive in meaningful terms. I know about RSU's, I get them and I pay an effective tax rate of over 50% on them. Again, I am not talking about the people who receive taxed at source income.

Here's an article that covers this problem: https://www.lse.ac.uk/research/resea...ich-really-pay



This survey was done in 2015-2016. The wealth inequality has increases markedly since then. So back to my point:



The fact that you return back to the PAYE use case means you are not looking at those who generate their wealth through other means, exactly as intended.

I will leave this point with you, again from the article above:



and lastly, Rishi Sunak paid effective tax rate of 23% on £2.2m income in 2023, roughly the same as an average nurse earning £37,000. You would find this perfectly acceptable I presume?

Labour should commission a root & branch reform of the tax system for high net worth individuals and large corporates to make the playing field a bit more level.

Originally Posted by Escapee (Post 36178814)

Forget taxing the rich, it's never going to happen.

The only way to guarantee that the tax can be collected is by taking it at source, which is what PAYE does. It's far easier for the rich to be portable, hit them with big tax increases and they will be off to somewhere that's less of a communist state just like they did in the 1970s.

The only guaranteed way of raising more tax is to screw those in the middle, who are generally the ones that have taken risks to have that success.

My wife would pay tax twice on the money she earns abroad if she brought it into this country.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36178817)

I think the issue is one of perspective

Someone on 30k per year looks at someone on 60k per year and says, they earn twice what I do, they can afford to pay a bit more tax , they can change their lifestyle. Someone on 60k looks at someone on a 100k per year and thinks the same. The issue is that people always think that the ring above should pay more and if required adjust their lifestyle to fit without needing to make a change themselves

Going back to PAYE and RSU and I agree that this is personal, not general

I was given a block of RSU’s and I also went into an agreement whereby I purchased an amount of RSU’s per month with money I had already paid tax on.

Company gets bought and taken private the RSU’s are converted into cash equities which vest/are paid out at the same time as RSU’s would have vested. Cash equities are paid as PAYE which i pay tax at 45%, NI and employers NI


Hardly seems fair does it ?

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36178818)

Exactly what they want you to think. Their work is done ...

A point to ponder:



---------- Post added at 21:00 ---------- Previous post was at 20:51 ----------



Yes, I agree it is not fair. I don't like paying 50+% tax rate when those with more money than they can spend, pay a fraction of this. The irony here is that they would not even notice the sums that that should be paying.

Don't forget, the country has been groomed for decades to think the ultra wealthy are beyond reach and can raise revenue from the country with a minimal tax burden while the vast majority of the population pay tax rates far in excess of these.

The funniest part of this whole circus is when those who are paying the 30% or 40% tax rate where they have no choice, at the same time, call those who think the ultra-wealthy should pay more crazy :erm: Who are really the crazy ones? :)

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36178821)

Like I said the view of who is ultra wealthy is entirely relative someone on minimum wage probably views someone on 50k as being ultra wealthy,someone who earns 50k sees someone on 150k as being ultra wealthy etc etc and each person in the lower bracket expects the person in the next bracket up to make the sacrifice.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36178822)

I disagree. I am being very objective and definitive. In my examples, I would draw the line at maybe £5 to £10 million net worth. There is no confusion.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36178823)

To clarify my statement is how I believe that the general public view ‘ultra wealthy’ not you specifically

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36178811)

You really are not listening here. I am not talking about PAYE earnings which a lot of high net worth individuals do not receive in meaningful terms. I know about RSU's, I get them and I pay an effective tax rate of over 50% on them. Again, I am not talking about the people who receive taxed at source income.

Here's an article that covers this problem: https://www.lse.ac.uk/research/resea...ich-really-pay



This survey was done in 2015-2016. The wealth inequality has increases markedly since then. So back to my point:



The fact that you return back to the PAYE use case means you are not looking at those who generate their wealth through other means, exactly as intended.

I will leave this point with you, again from the article above:



and lastly, Rishi Sunak paid effective tax rate of 23% on £2.2m income in 2023, roughly the same as an average nurse earning £37,000. You would find this perfectly acceptable I presume?
Repeat good accountants :erm:
Labour should commission a root & branch reform of the tax system for high net worth individuals and large corporates to make the playing field a bit more level.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36178818)

Exactly what they want you to think. Their work is done ...

A point to ponder:



---------- Post added at 21:00 ---------- Previous post was at 20:51 ----------



Yes, I agree it is not fair. I don't like paying 50+% tax rate when those with more money than they can spend, pay a fraction of this. The irony here is that they would not even notice the sums that that should be paying.

Don't forget, the country has been groomed for decades to think the ultra wealthy are beyond reach and can raise revenue from the country with a minimal tax burden while the vast majority of the population pay tax rates far in excess of these.

The funniest part of this whole circus is when those who are paying the 30% or 40% tax rate where they have no choice, at the same time, call those who think the ultra-wealthy should pay more crazy :erm: Who are really the crazy ones? :)

Originally Posted by Escapee (Post 36178832)

it's not about "what they want me think", it's about common sense and practicality. taxing the rich didn't work in the 1970s, and people are more portable these days so it will be less likely to work.

I'm not envious or even the bit interested how much someone else earns or has in the bank, what house they live in, what car they drive or how many helicopters they own, I'm only interested in how much I'm being screwed.

The answer to reducing my tax to a fair level where I'm not having over 60% taken off me isn't to chase a unicorn tax.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36178833)

Just to clarify the 60% figure - are you stating that if you earned, say, £150k, you would have tax (including NI (employer & employee)) deductions of £90k?

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36178835)

Again, you preach the line again: "taxing the rich does not work". That is what they want you to say and you duly oblige :)

However the most ironic part is that you do not mind how many helicopters they own, how many mansions they have, etc. yet you whinge about paying too much tax. Spoiler alert: if they paid more tax (much smaller, as a percentage, than you do), you would not have to pay so much.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36178833)

Just to clarify the 60% figure - are you stating that if you earned, say, £150k, you would have tax (including NI (employer & employee)) deductions of £90k?

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36178839)

https://www.unbiased.co.uk/discover/...gally-avoid-it

No, not exactly, as above it’s a stealth band.