x Turn on thread page Beta
 You are Here: Home >< Chat >< Chat

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

1. (Original post by Willnewman234)
No it's 97%

Posted from TSR Mobile
I've just read the gov.uk figures, it's 55%.
2. ...80%? You realise that absolutely no one in their right minds is going to pay this? Either people leave the country or avoid tax altogether.
3. Can someone expalin this to me:

when you earn over, lets say 1 million and the tax rate is 50%,

Does that mean the person's salary will be 0.5million? Or is 50% taxed for earnings over a million? eg lets say a person earns 1.2 million, only the 0.2 is taxed at 50% and rest is taxed as usual, etc. Which one is correct? (Me and my friends were confused about this)

Jay
4. (Original post by Xin Xang)
That makes total sense. And of course, TSR is the best place to interact with like minded business people who are in the top 5% of earners.
that was an extraordinary year for me i've had worse years i made £4500 this year so far my mate has made £300,000 and a had a car stolen whilst another has made around a mill in the past 2 years if you in clude the sale of assets
5. (Original post by Jaydude)
Can someone expalin this to me:

when you earn over, lets say 1 million and the tax rate is 50%,

Does that mean the person's salary will be 0.5million? Or is 50% taxed for earnings over a million? eg lets say a person earns 1.2 million, only the 0.2 is taxed at 50% and rest is taxed as usual, etc. Which one is correct? (Me and my friends were confused about this)

Jay
It would only be the 0.2, yes. Otherwise, if you earned £999,999, you'd be better off than if you earned £1m. A lot of people don't understand that this is how tax works and use that as example to portray why tax rates are stupid.
6. (Original post by Jaydude)
Can someone expalin this to me:

when you earn over, lets say 1 million and the tax rate is 50%,

Does that mean the person's salary will be 0.5million? Or is 50% taxed for earnings over a million? eg lets say a person earns 1.2 million, only the 0.2 is taxed at 50% and rest is taxed as usual, etc. Which one is correct? (Me and my friends were confused about this)

Jay
It's 50% for over a million in your hypothetical case.

In reality what happens is once you're earning over £100,000 you start gradually losing your personal allowance, which is your tax free £10,600 so everything from £0 up to around £40,000 is taxed at 20% (however if you're earning less than £100,000 you always get your first £10,600 tax free). Then everything between that and £150,000 is taxed at 40%. Then everything between £150,000 and infinity is taxed at 45%. After you've paid that, you then get hit with a national insurance bill as well. So high earners are taxed relatively highly in this country.

Posted from TSR Mobile
7. im sorry but if for every pound i am going to only keep 20p after studying for all this time i wud much rather stay at home and claim benefits
8. (Original post by cleverasvoltaire)
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.
Oh dear oh dear. One can only assume you're not planning to be a tax lawyer...
9. (Original post by scrotgrot)
Oh dear oh dear. One can only assume you're not planning to be a tax lawyer...
and if he was?
10. (Original post by scrotgrot)
Oh dear oh dear. One can only assume you're not planning to be a tax lawyer...
Ahaha this is so good
11. (Original post by cleverasvoltaire)
Hong Kong also has one of the lowest.

But one of the highest levels of inequality.

Yes it is fine if you are rich, but not so much for the 15% of the population who live below the poverty line.
There is no state pension either.
12. (Original post by esbo)
But one of the highest levels of inequality.

Yes it is fine if you are rich, but not so much for the 15% of the population who live below the poverty line.
There is no state pension either.
Since when do illegal chinese immigrants count as "population below poverty line"?

Their fault they're there in the first place.
13. (Original post by s.c.a1)
im sorry but if for every pound i am going to only keep 20p after studying for all this time i wud much rather stay at home and claim benefits
If you making over 60000 you have more than enough anyway. There is no way you would get near 60000 a year ifyou were on benefits.
14. (Original post by Another)
...80%? You realise that absolutely no one in their right minds is going to pay this? Either people leave the country or avoid tax altogether.
You realise the tax rate was up st 90% before?
15. (Original post by ngb9320)
You realise the tax rate was up st 90% before?
What, after WWII? I'd imagine there was actually a valid reason for that.
16. (Original post by esbo)
But one of the highest levels of inequality.

Yes it is fine if you are rich, but not so much for the 15% of the population who live below the poverty line.
There is no state pension either.
They have 3.3% unemployment so I don't know what you're talking about. The lack of 'entitlements' is a good thing ensue it means people can keep the money they earn.
17. (Original post by ngb9320)
You realise the tax rate was up st 90% before?
Yes, that was at the time when there was a recovery from a war and funds were needed. Culture was generally different and the population felt more national unity and ethically required to contribute. This was also at the time when the lowest tax in any country was probably ~85%.

So if you have a 90% tax rate and America has a 88% tax rate, of course you can uphold your one. There was also technological differences, goods transport wasn't as easy as today therefore moving abroad was much more costly than today, so a couple percentage points didn't make a difference. There was also no competitiveness from China.

Today, you have countries offering 0% tax rates. Good luck convincing people that they have to stay or demanding those countries to raise their rates.

Times are different. You can't look back in history. 1970 - Present is a completely new economical era as universally agreed by economists.
18. it's way too much of a jump to go from 50% up to 80%. Silly stupid idea
19. (Original post by ngb9320)
If you making over 60000 you have more than enough anyway. There is no way you would get near 60000 a year ifyou were on benefits.
Who the hell are you to say what is more than enough? In my family, 60 000 doesn't even cover the school fees for me and my sister, let alone other expenditures.

And it's too right you shouldn't get 60k on benefits - welfare is there to allow you to live if you have a poorly paying job or if you are out of work.
20. (Original post by ibzombie96)
Who the hell are you to say what is more than enough? In my family, 60 000 doesn't even cover the school fees for me and my sister, let alone other expenditures.

And it's too right you shouldn't get 60k on benefits - welfare is there to allow you to live if you have a poorly paying job or if you are out of work.
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

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: May 13, 2015
Today on TSR

### Four things top students are doing

Over the Easter break

### Her parents made her dump me

Poll
Useful resources

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

### Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

## Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE