People earning over £60000 should have a 0.8 to the pound tax rate?

So I, as a future law student, become a barrister after working extremely hard for 3 years at Cambridge, get a starter salary of say 70,000 pounds and then only get to keep £14,000 of it? What sounds fair to me is I keep what I earn, you keep what you earn. Plain and simple.

Lmao, 'doesn't even cover school fees for me and my sister'

Private education is not a necessity in the slightest.

If it doesn't cover it you can't afford it, and you should just go to a normal state school

If we raised the standards of education of the state then there wouldn't be a need for private education

So I, as a future law student, become a barrister after working extremely hard for 3 years at Cambridge, get a starter salary of say 70,000 pounds and then only get to keep £14,000 of it? What sounds fair to me is I keep what I earn, you keep what you earn. Plain and simple.

The argument would be that anyone working full time should not need welfare from the state to survive.

I'm not quite sure why I was quoted for this comment - I really didn't suggest it was great that people don't earn enough. My argument was simply that those depending on the state should not expect to live a lovely life, and that grumbling about those earning over 60k is just a problem of jealousy.

>Future law student
>Barrister
>70k starting salary

What on earth have you been smoking?

People need to be looked after in our society and those at the top need to do their bit.

Anyone who disputes is q selfish *********.

It is as simple as that.

So I, as a future law student, become a barrister after working extremely hard for 3 years at Cambridge, get a starter salary of say 70,000 pounds and then only get to keep £14,000 of it? What sounds fair to me is I keep what I earn, you keep what you earn. Plain and simple.

Can you show me this? I find this hard to believe. The best state school will never be better than the best private school anyway.

Because that's nature's way with things. The extent of the disadvantage can be closed down through independent education, though. There's no such thing as an equal footing and never will be.

Yeah .. let's start offering teachers in the average schools a $300 000 salary, I mean, there's absolutely no economic effects on that right?

Private schools can afford those wages because they are paid for. A similar state-run scheme will bankrupt the country. The private sector in the education industry will always outperform the public sector and will fetch up the best of the best, unless your aim is to bankrupt the country by offering teachers a couple of millions to temporarily raise the standards of education to "show dem toffs n poshies"

tl;dr working conditions will always be better in the private sector

Of course it's not a necessity - did I say it was? Doesn't look like it.

Hahaha I said 60 000 doesn't cover it - not that we can't cover it. Our household's income is much more than 60k.

True, but until that happens, why would you not go to a private school if you could afford it?

I think it's Leeds/Buckingham, possibly a few in London where the state/grammar (non fee paying) schools top the private ones and people take tests just to try and get into those. And if they fail they pay to keep their children in the private schools.

Disadvantage can be closed down by private schools? What? They widen the gaps...

Why the hell should anyone get paid that much? No job is worth that much. What school pays their teachers that much? They'd be very much in the minority even if they existed

There are perfectly good state schools out there, and even in the ****ty ones, you can succeed. So your success shouldn't be determined and aided by wealth, but by your own drive. This is all in an ideal world it seems.



So 60k is enough to live on.

Oh I'm sorry, oh wealthy person. Please forgive me. No need to show off

I said if you can't, you shouldn't. Or are barely able to

Disadvantage can be closed down by private schools? What? They widen the gaps...

Why the hell should anyone get paid that much? No job is worth that much. What school pays their teachers that much? They'd be very much in the minority even if they existed

There are perfectly good state schools out there, and even in the ****ty ones, you can succeed. So your success shouldn't be determined and aided by wealth, but by your own drive. This is all in an ideal world it seems.

People need to be looked after in our society and those at the top need to do their bit.

Anyone who disputes is q selfish *********.

It is as simple as that.

Makes much more sense to increase inheritance tax than punish people that, largely, are in a better financial position through hard work and intelligence.

Inheritance tax increasing will be pointless. I think you mean lower the boundary for inheritance tax. Also If your family member has worked hard and amassed that money which has already been taxed then why should it be double taxed.

I'm not trying to argue with you though I am just suggesting.

Why is increasing inheritance tax pointless? To be honest, I just meant increasing revenue from inheritance tax as opposed to via income tax, whether that's achieved through increasing the inheritance tax from 40% or lowering the threshold (likely a combination of both) wasn't the point I was trying to make. I just don't really think when you want to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, improve equality in any shape or form, you can overlook the simple fact that one of the key reasons inequality exists is because plenty of people inherit wealth, even with inheritance tax at what it currently is - and for no good reason other than the fact they were born into the right family. That said, I also disagree with inheritance tax on the basis that you're double taxing, but the reality is if you want to create a society that is ever going to have something that remotely resembles equality, inheritance tax will have to play a role - and I don't think the answer really lies in penalising those who, as I said, have mostly got themselves into a better financial situation through hard work and intelligence.

Do you think a salary of £70,000 is "earning enough to never have to do my own taxes"?

It's more about the fact that first class degrees are usually awarded to single percentage points of students at top universities for law, whereas other degrees that are still academically respected by the Bar go up to the likes of 45%, and a first is quite an important advantage in getting pupillage, or so I've heard. I was studying English at Bristol but disliked it so much that I am now re-applying elsewhere for 2016 entry, probably for linguistics but possibly for philosophy.

What world do you inhabit? I'm at Oxford and the vast majority of law students never get to be barristers or solicitors, and no one earns 70k for a start. During pupillage you're lucky to earn 20k. Aside from that, we only have 15k barristers in the whole of UK. In order for you to ever join them you either need financial assets of your parents to pay for your BPTC and their contacts to get you through the pupillage or be the best 1st class student. Even then, you are self-employed and don't think it's easy to get cases as a barrister to earn something like 70k.

What is in question here is taxation. I'm not necessarily in favour of 0.8 tax OP proposed, but the fundamental point you should accept is that the money you'd earn as a barrister is used for trade. Trade of commodities and services they have not produced. Their contribution to the market is actually weak, and yet some get to have elevated salaries which can be used for the purchase of goods produced by the more productive parties. Redistributive taxation is aimed at fixing this problem of market failure. You cannot possibly justify no income tax on those highly elevated incomes whose receivers are not contributing as much to the wealth creation.