£100000 is only £65000 after taxes
Scroll to see replies
Original post by _Sinnie_
I'll be honest, I can't give an itinerary of the social initiatives of the big stock broker firms. But I've never heard of any. I'm talking about products and services that the general public use, that improve wellbeing, education, health, anything. I may be missing something, but as I understand it, the only thing that comes out of these places is more money - nothing actually tangible. This doesn't include the taxes the employee's or company pays (which is then spent on meaningful things). I'm talking about the ever increasing number on a computer screen. I suppose pensions would be the one thing? I don't really know much about pensions, except that everything we hear is about how horribly managed they are. I'm very much open to having my mind changed on that profession, I've just never heard anything that led me to believe it is anything more than an exercise in greed.
I wasn't talking about Apple's employment practices, I specifically said it didn't matter what one's opinion of them is. I chose them purely because they don't really pay tax in this country. The point was, I have less issue with a big corporation making lots of money when the process of generating that money is through creating something that people want or need. Capitalism requires that profit made, the important thing, to me, is how it is made.
I wasn't talking about Apple's employment practices, I specifically said it didn't matter what one's opinion of them is. I chose them purely because they don't really pay tax in this country. The point was, I have less issue with a big corporation making lots of money when the process of generating that money is through creating something that people want or need. Capitalism requires that profit made, the important thing, to me, is how it is made.
You still don't get it. Traders provide a B2B service, you as a regular citizen may not see the direct impact of a trader's job but there IS an impact (providing liquidity and market colour to investors) and it DOES pass down to regular old joes (pensions). Not to mention the vast variety of investment managers out there managing all sorts of assets to create yield for investors. It's not just, make money - that's not the sole purpose of someone in a financial services firm; the medium they use however, is money.
So, you have no problem with a major corporation utilising slave workers to create new iterations of strongly marketed pieces of tech that in most cases aren't actually value for money, but another set of workers providing a market rate valued B2B service is 'vacuous and dangerous'? Really?
I think you misunderstand the term 'cost of living' versus 'I can afford lots more things, woah, that's expensive, I need more money'
If you earn more than ~50-60k per year and don't have abnormal monetary circumstances (i.e. existing debts) and still have money problems, then well... yeah.
If you earn more than ~50-60k per year and don't have abnormal monetary circumstances (i.e. existing debts) and still have money problems, then well... yeah.
I think you also missed the point, the more you earn the more likely you're based in a part of the country where CoL is high. Not many high wage earners can just up sticks and leave, otherwise they'll leave behind their high wages. As someone else stated below, your expenses grow enormously as you start thinking about mortgages, schools, childcare because you're not always home etc. So yes, more money does indeed lead to more problems.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Freddyt58
Mortgages? Bills? What if you have a larger house? More insurance payments for larger properties. And yes they could live in a small one bedroom house in a run down hovel, but why limit the ambition of people telling them that they should all live in little four bedroom houses!
What this person means by "mo money mo problems" is that not everyone has the same cost of living.
What this person means by "mo money mo problems" is that not everyone has the same cost of living.
Those with more income have a higher cost of living because they have a better quality of life, and a much nicer house, etc. I fail to see how them paying back into the society which gave them their wealth is somehow limiting their ambition, as if they are somehow being "punished" for being wealthy by having a better standard of living than everyone else.
Also, let's not pretend that the only difference between the rich and the poor is ambition. There are many people stuck in dead end jobs earning very little, and no amount of ambition is going to propel them to the top. Many rich people sit at the top of the ladder while people who are paid disproportionately small % of what they earn the company make those at the top rich.
Original post by SirMilkSheikh
It's a strange world when a person is criticised for wanting to keep the money they make
The money they make? Did they print the money? Did they build product 100% of the product themselves? Did they mine the materials for the parts? Did they smelt the ore and shape it into the required components? Did they deliver the product to the shelf in the store? Stop pretending that they created the money in some sort of vacuum. If were living on the moon they would be producing nothing because there would be no society for them to profit from.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Dom2375
Oh no, only £65000 a year?!!! How could anybody live off of that, that is basically living in poverty!!
Maybe we should have a 70% tax rate for higher earners, because hey, you ain't in poverty if you keep £35,000! More tax so that the government can give it to people like me!
Lol, the mind of the pleb.
Original post by Ladbants
If you earn £100000 a year, your take-home pay is only £65467 after income tax and national insurance. So you literally lose more than a third of your income to the government. Surely this is really unfair to those who have worked really hard. I would much prefer it if everyone just paid 20% of their income in tax
The argument behind progressive taxation is that each individual pound you make is worth less to you the more dollars you have. It's a concept called marginal utility - for each dollar you make, each particular dollar you have has less utility. For example, Richard Branson gets a fine of £5000, and it's not a big deal to him because £5000 of his overall wealth is an amount of money that has extremely little utility to him compared to, say, a teacher. Thus, progressive tax attempts to reduce the strain on the less able, not just the percentage paid. Since 15% of income doesn't burden a billionaire the way it does someone just over the poverty line, and to maximise government revenue to pay for your education, healthcare, defense, infrastructure etc., the percentages are increased.
Original post by BrainDrain
When has it ever been much different?
The highest tax bracket used to be 98%. The UK still doesn't have the highest tax in the world, Scandinavian countries have up to or over 60%.
Original post by The Awakener
No, the richer person has worked harder or smarter to get more money. They shouldn't be punished for working hard by being given a much bigger tax bill. That is so unfair.
This is a fallacy. A higher income does not mean a person has worked harder or is working harder than those in poverty, working multiple jobs just to make sure their families have semi-adequate housing. A progressive tax system is the most fair way to finance the government. It is not a punishment on those earning more, because much of the time this is wealth that has been inherited, indirectly through having a better upbringing, or directly through inheriting their parents' earnings. Even when it is not, earnings do not happen in a vacuum and whether it was from a public education or roads for transportation or student loans, anyone's success has some aspect of government help behind it.
Intelligence? Talent? No, the ultra-rich got to where they are through luck and brutality. If wealth was the inevitable result of hard work and enterprise, every woman in Africa would be a millionaire. The claims that the ultra-rich 1% make for themselves – that they are possessed of unique intelligence or creativity or drive – are examples of the self-attribution fallacy: crediting yourself with outcomes for which you weren’t responsible. Many of those who are rich today got there because they were able to capture certain jobs by chance. This capture owes less to talent and intelligence than to a combination of the ruthless exploitation of others and accidents of birth, as such jobs are taken disproportionately by people born in certain places and into certain classes.
Original post by Fred5134
The money they make? Did they print the money? Did they build product 100% of the product themselves? Did they mine the materials for the parts? Did they smelt the ore and shape it into the required components? Did they deliver the product to the shelf in the store? Stop pretending that they created the money in some sort of vacuum. If were living on the moon they would be producing nothing because there would be no society for them to profit from.
I don't answer dumb irrelevant questions.
Original post by Princepieman
You still don't get it. Traders provide a B2B service, you as a regular citizen may not see the direct impact of a trader's job but there IS an impact (providing liquidity and market colour to investors) and it DOES pass down to regular old joes (pensions). Not to mention the vast variety of investment managers out there managing all sorts of assets to create yield for investors. It's not just, make money - that's not the sole purpose of someone in a financial services firm; the medium they use however, is money.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I just gavomitted.
Original post by inhuman
I just gavomitted.
It's true though, if they weren't providing a service they wouldn't exist.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Princepieman
Oh 👀 Not where my dad works but I better not say anymore
When you factor in rent, saving money for a deposit for a house etc, I wish people would pay more attention to things like the removal of maintenance grants. The current younger generation definitely has it much worse off than the 40+ generations and continue to have more burdens through at them. Someone should start a revolution, but sadly it's all just accepted.
Original post by SirMilkSheikh
I don't answer dumb irrelevant questions.
It's not irrelevant at all. You completely fail to understand that the person holding the money is not in a vacuum and is not 100% responsible for every penny they are holding.
Original post by Fred5134
It's not irrelevant at all. You completely fail to understand that the person holding the money is not in a vacuum and is not 100% responsible for every penny they are holding.
Okay.
Original post by Princepieman
You still don't get it. Traders provide a B2B service, you as a regular citizen may not see the direct impact of a trader's job but there IS an impact (providing liquidity and market colour to investors) and it DOES pass down to regular old joes (pensions). Not to mention the vast variety of investment managers out there managing all sorts of assets to create yield for investors. It's not just, make money - that's not the sole purpose of someone in a financial services firm; the medium they use however, is money.
So, you have no problem with a major corporation utilising slave workers to create new iterations of strongly marketed pieces of tech that in most cases aren't actually value for money, but another set of workers providing a market rate valued B2B service is 'vacuous and dangerous'? Really?
So, you have no problem with a major corporation utilising slave workers to create new iterations of strongly marketed pieces of tech that in most cases aren't actually value for money, but another set of workers providing a market rate valued B2B service is 'vacuous and dangerous'? Really?
How much care did you take not to use the word money in that? Just there seem to be a lot of words that are pretty synonymous with 'generating money'. but I'm sure the sole purpose of people in financial services is not to make money. I can't deny that money makes the world go round and there is a need for services that support the flow of money to where its needed, whether it has to happen in the way it does. I mean, look at the banking crisis and the libor rate scandal. These are the result of people who care only about their pile of money and not the effect it has on anyone else and I believe that profession draws those kind of people (with obvious exceptions). My original point was really about people who work 'smarter' to earn more money, will in my opinion, do it in a way that ignores, or at worse actively disregards, the needs or welfare of wider society. I can't really argue on the in's and out's of stock broking.
Stop flogging the dead horse. I said very specifically that Apple was an example and that your views on the company itself were entirely irrelevant. Pick any other company you wish and replace them in my example. I am merely talking about companies or organisations who generate a profit through creating a service or product that improves lives compared to those who generate profit through generating profit. If it makes you feel any better, I don't even like Apple.
[QUOTE=Princepieman;67154394
I think you also missed the point, the more you earn the more likely you're based in a part of the country where CoL is high. Not many high wage earners can just up sticks and leave, otherwise they'll leave behind their high wages. As someone else stated below, your expenses grow enormously as you start thinking about mortgages, schools, childcare because you're not always home etc. So yes, more money does indeed lead to more problems.
Posted from TSR Mobile
You're telling me that the cost of living, in the UK, incorporating all the things an average family has/needs, is £50,000 or more? Because it isn't. The vast majority of families live off far less than that.
Yes, as you earn more, you can spend more, but don't then complain that you no longer have enough money.
Personally, I don't see why the rich should be penalised for earning more money. Most people who are high earners are lawyers or doctors who go through intense training to get where they are so it's unfair they should have to pay higher taxes. However, there are people who don't have as high paid jobs but work as equally hard therefore I don't think there should be a set tax rate. What annoys me is people who can't be bothered to work who just accept benefits and they end up being really well off yet the workers always get penalised and less help.
Personally, I think the way student loan is worked out is wrong. I didn't have enough money to cover my accommodation therefore my parents had to help me out whereas others had got £3000 left for the year. I had nothing left afterwards and my parents had to help me. I don't see why my parents wages should affect how money i get when they're not the ones paying the loan back.
Basically nothing in this world fair. Get used to it.
Personally, I think the way student loan is worked out is wrong. I didn't have enough money to cover my accommodation therefore my parents had to help me out whereas others had got £3000 left for the year. I had nothing left afterwards and my parents had to help me. I don't see why my parents wages should affect how money i get when they're not the ones paying the loan back.
Basically nothing in this world fair. Get used to it.
Why do you care? £65,000 a year is more than suitable to live off, or are you just greedy? You can't have infrastructure without taxes, oh let's reduce taxes down to 20%. Do you understand the amount of cuts the government would have to make? Say you lived in London, how would you go to work if there's a tube strike due to cuts, because taxes have been reduced, then no one would be earning. If all you care about is money then put your money in tax havens, but there's a reason tax is there, and it's not just to take money from you, granted the way it's managed could be improved.
Original post by _Sinnie_
How much care did you take not to use the word money in that? Just there seem to be a lot of words that are pretty synonymous with 'generating money'. but I'm sure the sole purpose of people in financial services is not to make money. I can't deny that money makes the world go round and there is a need for services that support the flow of money to where its needed, whether it has to happen in the way it does. I mean, look at the banking crisis and the libor rate scandal. These are the result of people who care only about their pile of money and not the effect it has on anyone else and I believe that profession draws those kind of people (with obvious exceptions). My original point was really about people who work 'smarter' to earn more money, will in my opinion, do it in a way that ignores, or at worse actively disregards, the needs or welfare of wider society. I can't really argue on the in's and out's of stock broking.
Stop flogging the dead horse. I said very specifically that Apple was an example and that your views on the company itself were entirely irrelevant. Pick any other company you wish and replace them in my example. I am merely talking about companies or organisations who generate a profit through creating a service or product that improves lives compared to those who generate profit through generating profit. If it makes you feel any better, I don't even like Apple.
Stop flogging the dead horse. I said very specifically that Apple was an example and that your views on the company itself were entirely irrelevant. Pick any other company you wish and replace them in my example. I am merely talking about companies or organisations who generate a profit through creating a service or product that improves lives compared to those who generate profit through generating profit. If it makes you feel any better, I don't even like Apple.
Man, I wish I was on a laptop, writing out long responses on a phone gets so old.
Yes the service of managing money and the flow of capital is pretty vital to the way the world operates; that is certain - so why then is providing this service villainized? All I'm saying is the vast majority of the financial services industry provides business to business services that do add value and are necessary to the way we function, if they weren't no firm would pay to use these services at all.
Banking crisis, was not really a banking crisis. It was greedy families, greedy traders on specific desks, greedy investors and corrupt ratings agencies - all falls under the remit of being human. That's why you see booms and busts, that's why you see crises and scandals: because at the end of the day we're all susceptible to letting our own human emotions take ransom of who we are. It is not the service itself that is evil and rightly, most city workers are honest people.
How does working smarter lead to ignoring social welfare?
Fair point, but my point was you can't vilify one industry without looking at the wrongdoings of other industries - all circles back to the humans are imperfect beings point.
You're telling me that the cost of living, in the UK, incorporating all the things an average family has/needs, is £50,000 or more? Because it isn't. The vast majority of families live off far less than that.
Yes, as you earn more, you can spend more, but don't then complain that you no longer have enough money.
Yes, as you earn more, you can spend more, but don't then complain that you no longer have enough money.
Look up the term 'lifestyle inflation'
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Princepieman
Perhaps. I would question both the necessity of it though and the fees. The former especially in the age of the internet.
Original post by Princepieman
Man, I wish I was on a laptop, writing out long responses on a phone gets so old.
Yes the service of managing money and the flow of capital is pretty vital to the way the world operates; that is certain - so why then is providing this service villainized? All I'm saying is the vast majority of the financial services industry provides business to business services that do add value and are necessary to the way we function, if they weren't no firm would pay to use these services at all.
Banking crisis, was not really a banking crisis. It was greedy families, greedy traders on specific desks, greedy investors and corrupt ratings agencies - all falls under the remit of being human. That's why you see booms and busts, that's why you see crises and scandals: because at the end of the day we're all susceptible to letting our own human emotions take ransom of who we are. It is not the service itself that is evil and rightly, most city workers are honest people.
How does working smarter lead to ignoring social welfare?
Fair point, but my point was you can't vilify one industry without looking at the wrongdoings of other industries - all circles back to the humans are imperfect beings point.
Look up the term 'lifestyle inflation'
Posted from TSR Mobile
Yes the service of managing money and the flow of capital is pretty vital to the way the world operates; that is certain - so why then is providing this service villainized? All I'm saying is the vast majority of the financial services industry provides business to business services that do add value and are necessary to the way we function, if they weren't no firm would pay to use these services at all.
Banking crisis, was not really a banking crisis. It was greedy families, greedy traders on specific desks, greedy investors and corrupt ratings agencies - all falls under the remit of being human. That's why you see booms and busts, that's why you see crises and scandals: because at the end of the day we're all susceptible to letting our own human emotions take ransom of who we are. It is not the service itself that is evil and rightly, most city workers are honest people.
How does working smarter lead to ignoring social welfare?
Fair point, but my point was you can't vilify one industry without looking at the wrongdoings of other industries - all circles back to the humans are imperfect beings point.
Look up the term 'lifestyle inflation'
Posted from TSR Mobile
I always knew that people always kid themselves. Not a banking crisis? So it was the families that were greedy for a home, not the banks' mortgage brokers that said well if I say no I get nothing if I say yes I make money. Not their managers for saying, get me people or make no money. And these are banks banks. Traditional as we know them, at local level. That's where it all started. And here you are saying it wasn't a banking crisis.
But you are right, you identified the key point - greed. And banks and financial services firms etc. have the highest concentration of greed of probably any other industry.
Original post by inhuman
I always knew that people always kid themselves. Not a banking crisis? So it was the families that were greedy for a home, not the banks' mortgage brokers that said well if I say no I get nothing if I say yes I make money. Not their managers for saying, get me people or make no money. And these are banks banks. Traditional as we know them, at local level. That's where it all started. And here you are saying it wasn't a banking crisis.
But you are right, you identified the key point - greed. And banks and financial services firms etc. have the highest concentration of greed of probably any other industry.
But you are right, you identified the key point - greed. And banks and financial services firms etc. have the highest concentration of greed of probably any other industry.
Everyone was greedy though. How can you honestly expect to pay a mortgage on a house that's 5-20x what you make?
I'm not sure that financial services has the highest concentration, there are other contenders - e.g. Oil and Gas, Corporate Law, high tech (venture capital money flowing like milk doesn't help either)..
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Princepieman
Everyone was greedy though. How can you honestly expect to pay a mortgage on a house that's 5-20x what you make?
Yes. BUT1. Wanting your own four walls vs just wanting another pay check2. Whose job is due diligence in these cases. After all, you were the one saying these firms provide a service...3. You tried to make out as if it wasn't a banking crisis.4. And even now you can't admit completely, you had to make a post where you attack the other people.
I'm not sure that financial services has the highest concentration, there are other contenders - e.g. Oil and Gas, Corporate Law, high tech (venture capital money flowing like milk doesn't help either)..
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Fair enough Oil and Gas is one.
Corporate law I would say though is different. What risks are they taking, what risks are they posing? Tech and VC, well it's their own thing make a bet, win or lose.
Original post by Princepieman
Man, I wish I was on a laptop, writing out long responses on a phone gets so old.
Yes the service of managing money and the flow of capital is pretty vital to the way the world operates; that is certain - so why then is providing this service villainized? All I'm saying is the vast majority of the financial services industry provides business to business services that do add value and are necessary to the way we function, if they weren't no firm would pay to use these services at all.
Banking crisis, was not really a banking crisis. It was greedy families, greedy traders on specific desks, greedy investors and corrupt ratings agencies - all falls under the remit of being human. That's why you see booms and busts, that's why you see crises and scandals: because at the end of the day we're all susceptible to letting our own human emotions take ransom of who we are. It is not the service itself that is evil and rightly, most city workers are honest people.
Yes the service of managing money and the flow of capital is pretty vital to the way the world operates; that is certain - so why then is providing this service villainized? All I'm saying is the vast majority of the financial services industry provides business to business services that do add value and are necessary to the way we function, if they weren't no firm would pay to use these services at all.
Banking crisis, was not really a banking crisis. It was greedy families, greedy traders on specific desks, greedy investors and corrupt ratings agencies - all falls under the remit of being human. That's why you see booms and busts, that's why you see crises and scandals: because at the end of the day we're all susceptible to letting our own human emotions take ransom of who we are. It is not the service itself that is evil and rightly, most city workers are honest people.
While I can sympathise, I shall not reduce the length of my replies and you're just going to have to suffer
I think I'm getting too deep and I'm going to end up saying something (if I haven't already) that I don't really understand or mean. But I think your second paragraph brings me back to my real point.
That is capitalism. That greed which leads people to pursue money for the sake of money - which is how the crisis and other problems occur - is the foundation of capitalism. The whole point is to conduct oneself in a way that produces maximum profit for you and your share/stake holders. Don't get me wrong, on the whole, I am in favour of capitalism. It drives innovation, wealth and therefore overall living standards - the crux of the problem is what limits society places on the companies to stop them exploiting the workforce or society as a whole. One of those mechanisms is tax. The contract would read like this "You go an innovate and develop a service/product that people want, you can then make as much money from that as possible. In exchange for that freedom and the fact that you are making your fortune off the sweat of your employee's hard work, you have to put some of that back into the pot". Remember, just because this person is at the top and earning all the money, doesn't actually mean they are doing all the work and the key to the success (think of all those inventors who got screwed out of their money or the designers and engineers who make new products - why aren't they the CEO's?). Plus the pot pays for things that helped them get to the top.
The services of the financial sector are required to fuel the capitalistic agenda - I'm still not convinced of their social utility. This is fine, but the social agenda must also be addressed and that is done through taxation. You are allowed to make a small fortune, but society has supported you and you should support it in return.
Original post by Princepieman
How does working smarter lead to ignoring social welfare?
Fair point, but my point was you can't vilify one industry without looking at the wrongdoings of other industries - all circles back to the humans are imperfect beings point.
Fair point, but my point was you can't vilify one industry without looking at the wrongdoings of other industries - all circles back to the humans are imperfect beings point.
It doesn't necessarily. But if you compare two examples of how one can work hard on a project and then look at how one would work 'smarter' on that project with the aim of producing more money for themselves. That smarter approach will likely result in other people losing out in some way - either in paying people less, working them harder, charging more, flouting rules or outright illegal, unethical or immoral behaviour.
Capitalism inherently favours working 'smarter' - its the social structure of society that brings people towards a more centre ground.
[QUOTE=Princepieman;67155280
Look up the term 'lifestyle inflation'
Posted from TSR Mobile
For sure, if I was earning £100,000 a year (taking 65k home), my lifestyle would change significantly - I'd also be disappointed that I was losing 35k in taxes. But I also wouldn't spend all the money and claim that the cost of living was too high. I can easily afford all the basics and all the comfortable's (that's my new word for a brand new car, yearly holiday, etc.) with some left over. If I kept increasing my cost of living to a point where I kept needing more money, then the problem lies with me, not that the government is taking whatever amount in tax.
If we halved the tax and this person now had 80k, do you think they'd be saving this 15k, or increasing their lifestyle even more and begin complaining that the tax is too much?
Being taxed more is unfair, I totally get it. But cost of living is not an argument against it. Personally, if I had the money, I'd gladly pay the tax because I value the social benefits more than a flashy car.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Make it More Breakfast-ey !!
- sfe help
- Make it More Breakfast-ey !!
- Make it More Firework-ey !!
- Pay lower than stated on contract
- Working in Tax
- Paying back student loans the quickest way for low income students
- Declaring income to HMRC
- Do I need to do a SORN for no MOT?
- Should I pay taxes? Helppp
- Cambridge Med Requirements, and is it realistic to have a go?
- Parents rental income
- Just received my settled status. Can I now get mantance loan?
- Taken a gap year, abroad for 8 months, am I still eligible for a loan?
- 2024 Budget: Chancellor Jeremy Hunt under pressure to cut taxes
- how many people here smoke?
- Student Loan
- Contact information for Tesco Payroll?
- Student Council Tax
- HMRC going to hunt down tax evasions for side hustlers
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
