View Single Post
Old 04-03-2024, 21:08   #1696
mrmistoffelees
067
 
mrmistoffelees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Middlesbrough
Age: 49
Services: Many
Posts: 5,034
mrmistoffelees has a nice shiny star
mrmistoffelees has a nice shiny starmrmistoffelees has a nice shiny starmrmistoffelees has a nice shiny starmrmistoffelees has a nice shiny starmrmistoffelees has a nice shiny starmrmistoffelees has a nice shiny starmrmistoffelees has a nice shiny starmrmistoffelees has a nice shiny star
Re: The Chronicles of Rishi

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth View Post

Well, I must give you credit for attempting to answer the question you put to me. What you've done is provide a quantitative answer, while mine was 'qualitative'. (In other words you did better than me!)

The article is 7 years old, so perhaps £100K would be more realistic than £70K. But the true point of the article is that whoever is considered by Labour to be rich must be asked to pay more in tax. Btw, with the average salary being c. £36K/annum, I suspect that most Labour supporters would stick with £70K or even lower.

On your red wall point, yes you're right.

But that’s no different to what happens now

0%
20%
40%
40% + loss of tax free allowance & a required self assessment
45% & a required self assessment



The wealthier pay more, and if the argument is that labour would lower the point at which people would move into a higher tax bracket, haven’t the tories already done this ? Not only at PAYE but also at capital gains ?
__________________
Nerves of steel, heart of gold, knob of butter......
mrmistoffelees is offline