Do bankers pay a 45% tax?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by BasicMistake
How would you feel if you were earning just enough so that you could pay your bills but not have any disposable income whilst others had more wealth than they know what to do with?
I wouldn't be too happy but that's not exactly an argument for higher taxation is it.
Just shows that you as an individual think others should suffer for having luxuries you don't (not you personally).
Original post by frankielogue
Why is Racism an issue?
Why is Sexism an issue?
Why is homophobia an issue?
Shut the **** up, it’s obvious that it’s a way of oppressing the masses and not allowing them to do well in life.
Why is Sexism an issue?
Why is homophobia an issue?
Shut the **** up, it’s obvious that it’s a way of oppressing the masses and not allowing them to do well in life.
You can't be serious...
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Yaboi
I wouldn't be too happy but that's not exactly an argument for higher taxation is it.
Just shows that you as an individual think others should suffer for having luxuries you don't (not you personally).
You can't be serious...
Just shows that you as an individual think others should suffer for having luxuries you don't (not you personally).
You can't be serious...
I am entirely - allowing one person to get a **** ton of money by putting numbers in a computer, whilst allowing another to slave away and get 30k a year is unjust.
Original post by Yaboi
Why is income inequality an issue?
if people have enough to 'live on' so to speak.
if people have enough to 'live on' so to speak.
Well I just think it's better the way it is at the moment. If you tax people on already incomes higher due to a flat tax it may lead to lower disposable incomes for them, or even worse, less incentive to work and more inclined or dependent on benefits, which is already a considerable issue in the U.K. I was just looking at income inequality from an economics perspective but the bigger issue is incentive to work for people on low incomes imo.
Original post by Yaboi
I wouldn't be too happy but that's not exactly an argument for higher taxation is it.
Exactly, you won't be very happy. Now multiply this sentiment by several million and what you have is civil unrest. There are also many economic reasons for increased taxation. Wealthy people tend to spend less (as percentage of their income) so redistributing wealth tends to increase consumption and therefore boost growth in the short run. In the long run, your supply-side improves as the population can access healthcare and education.
Original post by Yaboi
Just shows that you as an individual think others should suffer for having luxuries you don't (not you personally).
Strawman. I'm not advocating zero wealth inequality. You also set the problem up so that everybody has at least the very basics. In reality, there are those who are genuinely struggling to survive; the disabled, the elderly or just the incredibly poor. If a banker has to forego a Tesla for a month so a clinic in the Midlands can keep running then so be it.
Original post by biglad2k16
For example, a banker (Director) earning £250k in compensation would have to pay £98,600 in income tax and £8,333 in national insurance. So they only have £143k left over. Do most of them actually pay all of this tax or do they avoid it somehow?
hopefully these bankers can find a way of avoiding this tax with clever employer bonus schemes. poor guys, how dare they be made to contribute to society and be forced to survive on 140k each year.
Original post by BasicMistake
Exactly, you won't be very happy. Now multiply this sentiment by several million and what you have is civil unrest. There are also many economic reasons for increased taxation. Wealthy people tend to spend less (as percentage of their income) so redistributing wealth tends to increase consumption and therefore boost growth in the short run. In the long run, your supply-side improves as the population can access healthcare and education.
Strawman. I'm not advocating zero wealth inequality. You also set the problem up so that everybody has at least the very basics. In reality, there are those who are genuinely struggling to survive; the disabled, the elderly or just the incredibly poor. If a banker has to forego a Tesla for a month so a clinic in the Midlands can keep running then so be it.
Strawman. I'm not advocating zero wealth inequality. You also set the problem up so that everybody has at least the very basics. In reality, there are those who are genuinely struggling to survive; the disabled, the elderly or just the incredibly poor. If a banker has to forego a Tesla for a month so a clinic in the Midlands can keep running then so be it.
Again, just because people feel that way does not make it a reason to increase tax. What's the point of improving an economy if no one can benefit from it?
Surely after a certain point of growth everyone (in theory) will have access to health/education etc and then there's no reason for a progressive tax rate at such high rates.
as for the second part, I said enough to live not the very basics which if was implied is not what I meant. People having enough to pay any bills, medical costs etc but they are not entitled to a networth above zero simply because they are upset that others have a lot more than them.
Original post by Princepieman
Oh aye, if you lost almost £100k in tax you would say to yourself 'ach, it's just pure greed they may as well take my intestines too'.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Well that depends on a lot of things. If I was a banker, I genuinely would not complain whether I'm making 150k or 250k. Plus, that tax does a world of good - help pay for public services.
Intestines? Wtf?
Original post by cbreef
Well that depends on a lot of things. If I was a banker, I genuinely would not complain whether I'm making 150k or 250k. Plus, that tax does a world of good - help pay for public services.
Intestines? Wtf?
Intestines? Wtf?
Figure of speech.
Fair play, so you're saying paying that much tax wouldn't bother you at all? You'd see it as just another investment?
Original post by cbreef
Well that depends on a lot of things. If I was a banker, I genuinely would not complain whether I'm making 150k or 250k. Plus, that tax does a world of good - help pay for public services.
Intestines? Wtf?
Intestines? Wtf?
How much tax do you pay cbreef?
Original post by will'o'wisp
Well the "rest of us" aren't good enough to get a banking job and earn that much, anyone can be a banker but do you have the knowledge to be one
Exactly
Exactly
That's no justification for the extreme wealth gap that exists between them and virtually every other profession out there.
Original post by Yaboi
Again, just because people feel that way does not make it a reason to increase tax.
Like I said, what you end up with is civil unrest. Trade unions get angsty and workers start going on strike. Not only is this an economic problem, it has severe social implications.
Original post by Yaboi
What's the point of improving an economy if no one can benefit from it?
You're going to have to explain this one.
Original post by Yaboi
Surely after a certain point of growth everyone (in theory) will have access to health/education etc and then there's no reason for a progressive tax rate at such high rates.
In theory but it is laughable to say that we have reached this point. Both the NHS and schools are feeling the squeeze. The NHS in particular is going to have a hard time over the next few decades as the population becomes steadily greyer.
Original post by Jagwar Ma
How much tax do you pay cbreef?
As an unemployed 18 year old? Uh nothing.
Original post by BasicMistake
There are also many economic reasons for increased taxation. Wealthy people tend to spend less (as percentage of their income)
Because they invest it...
There are also many economic reasons for decreased taxation.
Original post by frankielogue
I am entirely - allowing one person to get a **** ton of money by putting numbers in a computer, whilst allowing another to slave away and get 30k a year is unjust.
Bankers don't just put numbers into a computer. It's a very stressful and time consuming job. There are few people who can handle both the stress and long hours and who have the skills needed to be successful in banking. Plus, bankers earn a lot of their compensation as a bonus because it's based on how well they perform and how much they are helping the bank to make profits. They deserve some of that money since they make money for the bank.
It's not unjust since there is less demand for the person on £30k a year, people on that salary are in less demand because they bring less value to the company, in terms of revenue and in knowledge. Or they work in the public sector where the money isn't there to pay them high wages.
Original post by Princepieman
Figure of speech.
Fair play, so you're saying paying that much tax wouldn't bother you at all? You'd see it as just another investment?
Fair play, so you're saying paying that much tax wouldn't bother you at all? You'd see it as just another investment?
In a way yes. Now if my tax was say 80% then I might start to raise an eyebrow
but I'm not going to complain at losing money I never really had anyway. I would be immensely grateful for my ridiculously high salary as it is.Original post by cbreef
That's no justification for the extreme wealth gap that exists between them and virtually every other profession out there.
Apart from the knowledge and skills needed to do that job.
I don't get your argument
the general curve of knowledge against salary a probably a y=x curve but i get the feeling that you're saying that everyone should earn a similar amount and the more skilled jobs only have a slightly bigger salary which i think is not fair.
If you have someone who is only 1 of 10k people in the world who could do that job then i think they should be paid fairly handsomely.
Original post by cbreef
As an unemployed 18 year old? Uh nothing.
Oh? You don't pay tax? Okay, well once you work your absolute arse off sacrificing your health, relationships, social life to achieve a salary the vast majority of people will never achieve, then maybe you'd be in a better position to judge what it would be like to pay a massive amount of money in tax.
Yes, there are people who work outrageously hard and don't earn anywhere near that much. That's besides the point though.
Original post by Ladbants
Bankers don't just put numbers into a computer. It's a very stressful and time consuming job. There are few people who can handle both the stress and long hours and who have the skills needed to be successful in banking. Plus, bankers earn a lot of their compensation as a bonus because it's based on how well they perform and how much they are helping the bank to make profits. They deserve some of that money since they make money for the bank.
It's not unjust since there is less demand for the person on £30k a year, people on that salary are in less demand because they bring less value to the company, in terms of revenue and in knowledge. Or they work in the public sector where the money isn't there to pay them high wages.
It's not unjust since there is less demand for the person on £30k a year, people on that salary are in less demand because they bring less value to the company, in terms of revenue and in knowledge. Or they work in the public sector where the money isn't there to pay them high wages.
“compensation” my arse - half a million a year is a huge excess. and don’t tell me that there’s less demand for people such as builders in a society with a housing shortage.
Some people on this thread don't seem to understand that pay is determined by supply and demand. Everyone deserves the salary they get since that's the point at which they are willing to work and the employer is willing to pay them. Bankers deserve £100k because that's how much demand there is for someone who brings in that much revenue.
Original post by Josb
Because they invest it...
There are also many economic reasons for decreased taxation.
There are also many economic reasons for decreased taxation.
I know but it sounded like Yaboi was saying that there was no economic reason to increase taxes.
I personally would like to see corporate tax fall but income tax increased.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Give me advice on what you would do in my position
- Working 50 hours and wondering if its worth it?
- Do I need to do a SORN for no MOT?
- I want to get into LSE
- Should I make a Stocks and Shares ISA now?
- 2020 - 5 wasted years, what could have been?
- what's the most useless job?
- Graduate Role - Recruitment or Personal Tax ADVICE PLEASE
- Labour plans to add 20% VAT to Private School fees.
- How are you planning to buy your first house?
- DSA taxi allowance
- UK Medical School Debt is about £184.5k over 30 years
- Am I Being Stupid for Rejecting a L7 Apprenticeship?
- 2024 Budget: Chancellor Jeremy Hunt under pressure to cut taxes
- which would be the highest paid out of these jobs?
- Student Council Tax
- How much should I pay for tax?
- P45
- Where can I find cash-in-hand jobs?
- Court summons
Latest
Trending
Last reply 6 days ago
Offered two summer internships not sure what to pickLast reply 2 weeks ago
How open is consultancy/finance to me after an engineering degree apprenticeship?Last reply 1 month ago
should I get a summer internship for 1st year psychology?Posted 2 months ago
Alvarez & Marsal 2024 Restructuring & Insolvency Graduate SchemeTrending
Last reply 6 days ago
Offered two summer internships not sure what to pickLast reply 2 weeks ago
How open is consultancy/finance to me after an engineering degree apprenticeship?Last reply 1 month ago
should I get a summer internship for 1st year psychology?Posted 2 months ago
Alvarez & Marsal 2024 Restructuring & Insolvency Graduate Scheme
