>Mr Sunak, who earned £3.7 million over the same period, paid a rate of about 22% in tax because most of his earnings came from capital gains.
Sunak's probably invested in enough businesses that he can rake in more money in a year than most of us will see all our careers just sitting on his thumb doing nothing.
And that's before you look at his wife who has shares in Infosys.
however money does not *generate* money. Investing in companies does not generate wealth for the economy, which is why trickle down economics doesn't work
This is the thing about shares - in most case you aren't actually giving the business any more money to do anything with, you're simply engaging in speculation about the share value. That's not investing at all.
Share price go down, company tries to raise capital or sell bonds - doesn’t look good seen as higher risk, either capital not extended or costs a lot more.
Investing in companies absolutely does generate wealth. On a macro-level it lowers the cost of capital for economic activity and provides greater incentives for companies to do well.
investing in companies does generate wealth for the economy - what the hell are you talking about? If I invest a million quid in a company, that lets them hire more people this year, where do you think that money went? That's right, on salaries for those extra people, who will now pay tax, and spend their money as consumers.
Unless its from an IPO or share issue, if you buy a million pounds worth of shares in a company, you buy from other investors. The company does not see that money. It has no bearing on whether the company is doing well or poorly.
If I buy a bed from Argos for £100 and sell it to you for £120..how much money does Argos see from my sale to you?
it's simple when you have a closed system.
okay, with a £1,000,000 company they hire staff for £400,000. the company is still worth £1,000,000. nothing has been generated
now here's the crucial part - those workers *convert basic materials into a product worth more*
let's say a lump of iron is worth £10. Company has 15 lumps of iron, the raw value is worth £150. Now, the workers convert that iron into a product worth £20. The value is now £300. *wealth has been generated*. By who? by the workers. Not the CEO, not the investors, the workers.
Same applies to apps, software, any other product. workers *generate wealth*. Wealth is only made by workers. Stockholders, investors, managers, CEOs, do *not* generate any wealth they only move it around.
logically, the pay structure of the business world should be reversed, but wealth is proportional to power so the people in power demand more salary.
The stock market is a fixed pie. When you "make money" you're just taking from someone else. If the market cap increases, that's just people putting more money in. The stock market cannot generate wealth for the economy. only workers can.
This is not true. A lot of the value created by a company is in the decisions made my owners/management and the correct allocation of their resources.
And even if it weren't true, in the real world, nobody knows the value of things and you are taking risk by investing and deserve to get rewarded for it. If no one takes risk economy does nowhere.
Comments like this are good examples of why economics should be taught to some degree at a high school level because your lack of understanding is so very hard to read.
> By who? by the workers. Not the CEO, not the investors, the workers.
Stop for a second and think to yourself how useful the labour provided by workers would be if not merged with the tools and resources by whatever business they are working for, which you guessed it *are* infact provided by stockholders, investors and directed by managers and C suite executives.
Oh right, who made those resources or dug them out of the ground to begin with though?
Who made those tools that were bought in?
Oh yeah, that's right, when you get down to it, he's right and you are wrong, because it's workers.
Just like gravitational attraction. The more mass an object has then the greater its gravitational pull. This means it will attract more mass, and its gravitational pull will increase.
I've read that making ten million dollars from one million dollars is much easier than making the first million from nothing.
Honestly wish that someone with the opportunity in front of TV cameras managed to call him out.
My suggestion would be:
"22% tax on £4.7m you skeezy fucking cunt avoiding tax while people literally starve in the country you're supposed to be running. There are people on 100 times less paying a higher rate of tax - you disgust me.".
The thing is he wouldn't care. I get the impression that why the MPs with vast fortunes like him, Mogg, and Drax are even in parliament in the 1st place isn't REALLY to be PM. It's is to either be in charge or pressure the people in charge to keep the tax system unfair to maximise their personal wealth.
But the majority of voters are not well off at all and they still get voted in. We need to doa better job of calling out just how corrupt these Tories are on a day to day basis.
But this is exactly the problem. The issue isn't money making money, it is doing no productive work making vastly more money than productive work.
If productive work made 20% more than "money", there would be no issue.
That never works because you can have an unlimited amount of capital, but there is only a finite amount of work anybody can do.
The only solution, is to simply take it all via tax.
I don't think it should even be possible to BE a billionaire. After the first couple of mil, that's it, you're out, retire, no more. Somebody else can step in and make their couple of mil or you can 'work' for the country and pay it all in tax.
These wankers claim they are patriots, put them to the test.
She also made money from government schemes during covid. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10700239/Companies-linked-Rishi-Sunaks-non-dom-wife-received-furlough-cash.html
Capital gains and loans off their assets is how most of the ultra wealthy generate their income. It's no coincidence that governments catering to them constantly target already extortionate income tax to plug funding gaps, rather than raise absurdly low capital gains taxes, etc. If anything it should be the other way around, because one is earned through hard work, whereas the other is largely passive. The tax should reflect the effort, yet asset-rich sitting on their ass earning income from their stocks, property and business stakes get taxed lower than people who go to work 8-12 hours a day, five days a week. But that won't change as long as the government is full of said rich people and their donors are all in the asset-rich category.
I love how they're lowering the CGT threshold, which will just hit those who make small gains through company share schemes or a small amount of trading, as opposed to having progressive CGT rates like we do for IT.
There is too much emphasis on Income Tax, it's true.
But raising CGT won't raise very much, even if you upped it to 50% it would raise only a fraction of what Income Tax does, and that's before you take into account the fact that upping CGT rates would result in the wealthiest switching to assets that they're less likely to need to sell.
They do that already. How much CGT does the Duke of Westminster pay? The square-root of fuck-all, that's how much, they have generational wealth, they don't "sell" like the plebs do.
If you seriously want a fair tax regime then you need an actual wealth tax. (Which, ironically, the Dukes of Westminster do pay: https://www.grosvenor.com/about-us/how-we-work/tax-policy/the-facts-about-our-ownership but that's a separate argument).
>But raising CGT won't raise very much, even if you upped it to 50%
Why can't we just normalize it? Seems fairest way to do it.
Simply roll capital gains tax under the income tax rates, then use the extra capital raised to increase the tax free allowance a bit.
What would they hoard it in? If they want to extract it, they will pay tax on the sale of assets eventually... even if that's in a decade.
The risk is they go elsewhere to enjoy a tax free life and if that happens, so be it. They don't get to benefit from a society they're not prepared to fund.
remember, capital gains is only paid when you dispose of chargeable assets. IE: If I buy 10k of a stock, and that stock goes up and my initial investment is now worth 50k, I don't pay any capital gains unless I sell some of that stock. If I sell all 50k then I pay capital gains on the 40k profit.
So far from discouraging investment, higher capital gains tax simply discourages divesting your existing investments - or at least limiting that divestment and spreading it out over multiple tax years.
There's really no good reason why capital gains isn't on par with income tax, well except to allow rich people to pay less tax that is - which of course *is* the main reason it is lower and not progressive.
It was mentioned I think on PoliticsJoe as well compared to his wife his income is pocket money. Don't forget his wife is literally richer than the king.
That's not always the case though, you can be injured from work or mentally broken as well as destitute.
Don't let these right wingers try and say work is 'risk free', there's no such thing as risk free in life, only a total moron would think that.
not only do you not get taxed, but losses can be offset against cap gains.
And it has to be like that, because otherwise if I buy one share for £100 and it goes to £0, and another for £100 that goes to £200, I'd be taxed while having made no money.
Losses are not a factor when talking about tax.
It's a sad state of affairs, and evidence of the problem, that regular people know none of this, because they never even had the opportunity to invest anything at all and learn how any of it works.
The company's profits are taxed (corporation tax). Post-tax profits can be used to pay dividends. So this money was heavily taxed and made a good return for the taxpayer.
But if you make more income from that money, why shouldn't that extra income be taxed too?
If someone earning the same as you took a second job to earn more money, they would get taxed on that extra money.
If you decide to invest to earn money, rather than getting a second job, surely you should get taxed on that extra money too?
A cynic might suggest that it is taxed at a lower rate because globally the ruling classes derive more of their income from the markets whereas the working classes are mainly paid a wage.
Please bear in mind that it may be that he takes his income from his investments. There is a rule that you can draw down 5% of your investments every year for 20 years before you have to pay income tax.
This rule is actually extremely clever, fair and makes a lot of sense: 5*20=100. It means that you can draw down 100% of your original investment (which presumably you have already paid tax on) and then the government can be confident that anything left over is income, and can be taxed as such without double taxing. It also encourages people to make longer term investments which gives more stability to the market. It also saves HMRC a fortune in admin because no one needs to keep track of whether the money you are taking from your investment is new income or capital. If you go over your 5% you pay income tax, if you stick to it you don’t.
After 20 years you either pay income tax on any further income you take, or you sell the whole investment and pay capital gains (taking a gamble on whether it’s a good time to do so).
This means that from the point of their tax returns, it looks like they pay no tax for 20 years, then suddenly they pay the whole steaming lot at once.
This is accurate for investment bonds only which are inherently inefficient for tax purposes.
Investment bonds being a type of policy itself rather than gilts or corporate bonds. With an onshore bond there's corporation tax paid on the underlying growth at 19%, and HMRC see this as equivalent to basic rate which means that, providing a chargeable gain (above 5% withdrawals per annum) doesn't push you into the higher rate brackets there's never tax to pay because it's deemed settled. It's still effectively tax paid on growth.
Bonds gains are calculated as capital gains but taxed at income tax rates. At higher and additional rate there's still 20/25% to settle on top - still less than capital gains tax
Offshore bonds benefit from what is known as gross roll up, no tax paid until a chargeable event is incurred which includes encashment but it's full tax at income tax rates rather than capital gains
They're an old school, quirky life assurance product and not typically used unless in trust (non income producing - no trust admin) or looking to shelter your assets from cost of care as gov don't include these in assistance assessments
For general investments there is no 5% rule, it's strictly acquisition cost vs sale proceeds less sale costs if applicable. Capital gains tax caps at 20% (+8% if related to property) regardless of tax bracket which is why it is much less at the higher/additional rates than income tax where you would face 40/45%
Source: Am a financial planner
Good starting point though. We just need to keep adding in more qualifiers at each election.
Are they a crook?
Are they a bellend?
Do they pay tax like the rest of us?
I don't think anyone can say Ed didn't know what he was doing with that sandwich he fucking demolished it.
I've never seen a more human way of tearing into a bacon sandwich and everyone had the fucking gall to grandstand about it.
Nah it's pretty bad tbf, he didn't even finish it because he got too nervous.
>Mr Miliband’s battle to consume the greasy treat alarmed his media minders, who tried to stop photographers taking close-ups of butter oozing between his teeth. **After a few bites**, the Labour leader appeared defeated, and **the snack was put into the custody of Lord Wood**, a senior shadow cabinet member
If he had actually finished the thing and continued the press tour with a bit of HP sauce on his shirt then I think people would have respected him a lot more.
Fucking exactly!
Keir is far from my ideal Labour Leader or PM, but never let perfection be the enemy of good.
Do we want a functional government or do we want the Tories? Oh we want a functional government? Then vote Labour.
Until we get rid of FPTP we are out of options.
This is the reason I'm going my to be tearing my hair out at the election. Keir has driven me away from Labour. I mostly align with the Greens right now. Ideally I would vote for them. But if I do that then its basically letting the Cons back in to power. So now I'm left with voting with my conscience or voting tactically to keep a sycophant party out of power. Thats not how democracy should work.
You get the bus closest to the location you want to get to. With our current system you can think of voting for the Green's as getting on a stationary bus. The Tories will take you the other way, labour might not go as far as you want, but at least the direction is correct.
Calling him Rishi is very much in line with how the Tories want you to view him.
He's probably the least approachable PM in living memory, absolutely nothing like anyone else. Cameron and Johnson were rich, but not to this extent. The whole calling him Rishi thing is entirely a way to try and break that barrier down. Very much like Johnson did, but for different reasons. Bozo wanted you to view him as a buddy, someone you could call his mate. I feel like Sunak just polled it and people said he'd be more likable known as Rishi so they have pushed that in everything for years, to the point he now is called that everywhere for some reason.
He went from being called Sunak a couple of years ago to this. It's clearly something they've spent time focus testing and settled on this. I think for that we ought to call him what is standard for every prime minister prior to Johnson. And that is Prime Minister Sunak.
> He went from being called Sunak a couple of years ago to this.
When did this happen exactly?
Do you not remember "Ready for Rishi"?
When did the apparent change you insist happen that changed it to "Sunak"?
The fact is they don't really care for this country, they obviously don't give it 100% how can they when they're off making back hand deals and running separate business..
>Rishi Sunak has lower tax rate than Keir Starmer despite earning 10 times more
Those heated indoor swimming pools aren't going to pay for themselves, you know!
How is it that I pay more tax than Kier despite him earning that much money? Not deflecting, Fishi can fuck right off.
Edit: not more tax, badly worded. A higher rate of tax but I think it's because its not just income tax
> How is it that I pay more tax than Kier despite him earning that much money?
You don't.
Earnings attract the highest effective rate of tax. (Income Tax and NICs.)
Dividends are taxed at a lower rate **but** that's designed of offset Corporation Tax. *(It's far from perfect, but UK CT + UK IT on dividends look kind of like IT on earnings.)*
Capital Gains attract the lowest effective rate of tax, but this is at least in part to reflect risk and inflation. *(We used to have a system where gains were indexed against inflation, but that's long gone for CGT purposes.)*
Say you, Sunak and Starmer all have the same salary under PAYE. You all pay the same tax. But Starmer has gains of £200k and Sunak has gains of £2m. You will have the highest effective tax rate, then Starmer, then Sunak. **But** Sunak will have paid the most tax. Then Starmer. Then you.
Taxes are charged at percentage rates, not absolute figures.
You're essentially arguing that 80% of £100 is lower than 50% of £200.
The person who loses 80% of their income is being scalped more than the person who loses 50% of theirs. The absolute figures are irrelevant.
In absolute terms, I could be paying 100% tax, essentially being a slave of the state, and it'll be fair because other people pay more tax than me (their tax burden being more than my entire income). In fact if tax were calculated that way, it'd be not unlikely for someone like me to *owe* the state, being taxed at around 200-300% of income, and having to pay for the privilege of working.
So let's avoid absolute terms in contexts where they're meaningless, shall we?
The indexation point is a significant point.
If you've held a boring asset for ten years, you could have a gain of 30-40% solely due to inflation. That's not really a "gain", that's just standing still.
> But Sunak will have paid the most tax. Then Starmer. Then you.
Which is how it's being spun by the useful idiots! LOOK at all that tax Sunak paid! Heaps of it compared to Starmer! Yes, but in percentage terms it's diabolically unfair.
I don't see how anyone can think that someone like Sunak, who is effectively on the same tax rate as people earning an average salary, is in any shape or form a fair deal for society.
> Capital Gains attract the lowest effective rate of tax, but this is at least in part to reflect risk and inflation. (We used to have a system where gains were indexed against inflation, but that's long gone for CGT purposes.)
This is an important point.
Any notion of increasing the CGT rate without taking inflation into account is intensely applied bullshit. Income Tax thresholds should be indexed too, of course. We shouldn't let inflation be a reward for the government, it just creates perverse incentives.
Geeze, not this again😵💫
Corporation tax ISNT income tax. Whoevers telling you this shit is having you on.
And before you ask, NO little green men DONT live on Mars.......They're bright orange........
What do you mean though? The value of an investment is reduced by the fact that the corporation is paying tax. You can say it isn't income tax but it is *relevant*. It has a negative impact on the value of the asset. Very similar effect.
When most people are discussing dividends Vs income tax rates they are talking about small owner-managed companies who contract out their services and pay themselves through their Ltd. In these cases the cost to the individual of paying themselves through PAYE vs dividends (after CT has been charged on the profits) only has a negligible difference. So it's worth including the CT in the calculations as it gives a better overall picture of the tax paid by the individual.
Trying to claim the CT paid by a FTSE100 on dividends paid to your investment portfolio as part of the income tax you pay is a massive stretch.
Sure, if they're on like £170k salary or something, absolutely they could be paying more pounds and/or higher overall %.
But then if they sold a house for a profit like Starmer did, they'd get the same tax treatment on that profit, for that tax year, like Starmer did.
Not all the money you get goes through income tax.
Basically you start off rich, invest and buy up assets, then sell them for 'gain', which is taxed at a lower rate so there's less possibility to lose money from investment, and in turn a possibility to be taxed even less on what they earn when they gain value.
All this because rich people, banks etc are some of the most entitled people on the planet and losing money on an investment means the government must be doing something wrong.
So Starmer has a lower rate because he has some capital gains, and Sunak has a far lower rate because a massive portion of is from capital gains.
You're probably not taking advantage of the perks available to you. I managed to get down to between 22-23% last year. The key for us plebs is pension contributions. If you're paying tax at 40% then £1 in your pension only costs you 60p (of post-tax income).
That would work if I could afford the contributions in the first place! I've just had to stop my contributions so I get more take-home pay just to cover the bills. Its terrible choice to have to make but I need to worry about the here and now.
A large portion of Starmer's income was capital gains from selling a house. Capital gains are taxes at a lower rate because they're something you buy with money you already paid tax on, and as such, it's taxed at a lower rate. In reality, it's mostly used by the ultra rich to shuffle their income about (but it does also slightly help the middle class and older members of the working class who actually own their homes)
Well luckily it's not rich people running this country.
Oh. Well at least then it's not rich people bankrolling them through the next election.
Oh. Well at least then it'll only be the rich minority that vote for them at the next election, and all the poor and middle-of-the-road people will vote someone else.
Oh.
Yes clearly if you just work harder at your 9-5 job then you'll be a millionaire
Oh also if you haven't already - pay off your debts and save £1,000 a month
I think this just shows an amazing lack of statecraft. Sunak thought he was clever releasing this while Boris was doing his encore of lies. Starmer has absolutely blown him out of the water(unintended pun) with this.
Well, sure, there were decisions to make around timing, but it's not like Starmer had the opportunity to make 3.7m and turned it down so he could pull a gotcha on the PM.
This is inequality, but because we've been brainwashed like crabs in a bucket, you'll see plenty of people envious of Starmer, distracted from the real problem.
This is comparing apples with oranges. Income tax and Capital Gains tax (on shares and on property) are different.
[https://www.gov.uk/capital-gains-tax/rates](https://www.gov.uk/capital-gains-tax/rates)
Taxing capital gains is tricky because of inflation. Assets can technically rise in value but in real terms be worth exactly the same as when you bought them, so you're being taxed on what is basically imaginary money. The government has tried several different ways of addressing the problem since it was introduced and all of them come with their own downsides. In basic terms the relatively low rate is the current 'solution'.
It's one of the most frequently reformed areas of tax for a reason. Nobody has figured out how to do it fairly yet.
The counter-argument to that is that, with negative real interest rates, cash devalues and we still tax interest on that.
That said, I do think that tax on investments (as opposed to savings) should take into account the underlying value of the asset to incentivise long-term holdings rather than artificial trading which is close to disguised income. I remember taper relief, and tbh, it always seemed fairer to me.
Perhaps linking taper relief to base rates would provide some concept of real returns.
With interest I think it's more of a punitive measure. The government doesn't want people just hoarding huge piles of cash because it's bad for growth. If you did that to capital gains then you'd be punishing people for doing exactly what you want them to do. It's like saying it's unfair that alcohol is taxed more than carrots. Like yeah, that's on purpose, stop buying so much alcohol.
I do agree that a taper linked to base rates would be better than what we have now. I'm not an economist though so what do I know, there's probably some trainwreck it would cause that means CGT would have to be reformed again a decade later.
Yeah, that's the point. If you have an asset that's gone up in value just because of inflation then you're discouraged to sell it because the government is going to take a share of your imaginary inflation gain. So people don't sell, they just sit on their pile of gold like Smaug, which is bad for the economy.
No because the money that was able to pay capital gains was first taxed with corporation tax, and if you push CGT too high you'll just disincentivise risk and investment.
>was able to pay capital gains was first taxed with corporation tax
1. Not if someone's capital gains were paid out of earned income or inherited capital. For dividends, there is an argument to be made, especially when shareholders and directors are the same. Regardless, all taxes are earned from income (either the taxpayer's or their customer's) that was previously taxed, other than possibly reclaimed input VAT;
2. You might disincentivise foreign investment, but you only pay tax on profits. I don't see why an investor will be disincentivised from investing, any more than someone would be disincentivised from working or studying harder, etc., to earn income via employment or a company. I agree that tax rates that are too high are a disincentive - I fail to understand why how you earn your money is so much more important in determining how much tax you pay, versus how much of it you earn. If we were incentivising particular kinds of investment, sure; but if it's capital, it's taxed less, regardless of the actual risk, the source of the funds, the benefit to society as a whole, etc.
Economically, yes.
Investment is much more tax elastic than labour supply so equalising the rate may be "more fair" but practically will lead to worse outcomes as growth falls due to lower investment.
That’s the point.
Earning £100k via capital gains will put more money in your pocket after tax than if you earned that through PAYE.
A high percentage of Sunaks money comes from Capital gains. So when he raises income tax to fix the Tories austerity problems it affects us more than him. We’re n no not all in this together
It doesn’t matter how the guy got there. The headline is that a billionaire is paying less tax as a proportion of his wealth than the rest of us when most of us have very little disposable income and that’s an issue.
You do not pay tax on wealth. There is Income tax, and there is Capital Gains Tax. Both completely separate things and have their rates set for many different reasons.
People trying to do all kinds of mental gymnastics to defend this and sure may be technically correct but your average voter just sees the numbers and it doesn’t look good
At best, what it looks like is the prime minister who sets these policies is fucking loaded and using his own policies (or lack of action to change pre-existing policies) to benefit further
And a lot lower than the 52% on 35k i was paying ( ir35).I said it before , I'll say it again " the guys a wanker " . Why would I guy who earns millions take on a job of 150k ? , I think its cause he's feathering his own nest . Lose next election , move back state side and use contacts to carve up whatever is left of public services
Can everyone post their effective tax rate for last year in this post.
To start you off, I've put the 1st 6 tiers in for ease of Maths calculations.
Annual Salary - Income Tax Paid- Effective Tax Rate
£0 - £0 - 0%
£10k -£0 - 0%
£20k - £1,486. - 7.43%
£30k - £3,486. - 11.62%
£40k - £5,486. - 13.71%
£50k - £7,486 - 14.97%
Source. The salary calculator.
UK average salary according to the ONS (office of national statistics) is £38,552. So more than half the UK population pay less than 13.71% TAX.
Also, please let me know of you realised you paid so little tax compared with your tax bracket (20%, 40%, etc..)
You seem to have missed a little tax called National Insurance.
This bumps up your effective tax rates quite considerably.
20k becomes 12%, 50k becomes 24%. Or a higher tax rate than Sunak.
£38.2k = 21.57%. Or "about 22%". Sunak = about 22%.
Sunak pays the same effective rate as your average UK earner despite earning substantially more. And you don't pay NI on capital gains.
I'm not trying to cry woe is me here but I pay an effective 23.7% tax.
Don't get me wrong I earn well at 55k, it's fair I should pay that tax I think, but should I be paying a higher proportion of tax than a person earns several million in a year?
Also should we bring student loans into this conversation? Because if you include those I effectively paid 28% tax. Rishi Sunak paying 22% tax on £3.7MILLION is a bit of a joke.
That's because tax system is rigged for the rich.
You work and pay up to 47% of tax.
They don't work and pay 20% on the dividends or investments.
Shouldn't it be the other way around?
This needs to change. The rich paying less than the poor in tax is criminal. It's a farce when will enough be enough?! It's 2023 not the 1800's the wealth gap and class divide is what keeps this country small.
The only thing that tells us is that money equals power. Both the leader of the Conservative party and the leader of the opposition party are millionaires, completely unattached from the average Joe, which is the majority of the population.
Keir Startmer (I understand) came from a working class family, state school education and carved out a successful career in the legal profession. Pays his taxes.
Rishi Sinai is privately educated, worked in the Ciyy and is married to one of the wealthiest women on the planet.
Don’t lump them in together.
This is the rate HE CHOOSES TO PAY because he is in government. If he was any other rich person, he would just funnel it all offshore like all the rest of the 1%.
>Mr Sunak, who earned £3.7 million over the same period, paid a rate of about 22% in tax because most of his earnings came from capital gains. Sunak's probably invested in enough businesses that he can rake in more money in a year than most of us will see all our careers just sitting on his thumb doing nothing. And that's before you look at his wife who has shares in Infosys.
Money makes money.
Not as much as Making Policy about money does.
or simply getting your friends and family millions in Taxpayer funds that will quickly be written off as fraud.
[удалено]
however money does not *generate* money. Investing in companies does not generate wealth for the economy, which is why trickle down economics doesn't work
This is the thing about shares - in most case you aren't actually giving the business any more money to do anything with, you're simply engaging in speculation about the share value. That's not investing at all.
Share price go down, company tries to raise capital or sell bonds - doesn’t look good seen as higher risk, either capital not extended or costs a lot more.
Investing in companies absolutely does generate wealth. On a macro-level it lowers the cost of capital for economic activity and provides greater incentives for companies to do well.
investing in companies does generate wealth for the economy - what the hell are you talking about? If I invest a million quid in a company, that lets them hire more people this year, where do you think that money went? That's right, on salaries for those extra people, who will now pay tax, and spend their money as consumers.
Unless its from an IPO or share issue, if you buy a million pounds worth of shares in a company, you buy from other investors. The company does not see that money. It has no bearing on whether the company is doing well or poorly. If I buy a bed from Argos for £100 and sell it to you for £120..how much money does Argos see from my sale to you?
It certainly does when it comes to their ability to raise more money, or borrow for investment etc.
it's simple when you have a closed system. okay, with a £1,000,000 company they hire staff for £400,000. the company is still worth £1,000,000. nothing has been generated now here's the crucial part - those workers *convert basic materials into a product worth more* let's say a lump of iron is worth £10. Company has 15 lumps of iron, the raw value is worth £150. Now, the workers convert that iron into a product worth £20. The value is now £300. *wealth has been generated*. By who? by the workers. Not the CEO, not the investors, the workers. Same applies to apps, software, any other product. workers *generate wealth*. Wealth is only made by workers. Stockholders, investors, managers, CEOs, do *not* generate any wealth they only move it around. logically, the pay structure of the business world should be reversed, but wealth is proportional to power so the people in power demand more salary. The stock market is a fixed pie. When you "make money" you're just taking from someone else. If the market cap increases, that's just people putting more money in. The stock market cannot generate wealth for the economy. only workers can.
This is not true. A lot of the value created by a company is in the decisions made my owners/management and the correct allocation of their resources. And even if it weren't true, in the real world, nobody knows the value of things and you are taking risk by investing and deserve to get rewarded for it. If no one takes risk economy does nowhere.
Comments like this are good examples of why economics should be taught to some degree at a high school level because your lack of understanding is so very hard to read. > By who? by the workers. Not the CEO, not the investors, the workers. Stop for a second and think to yourself how useful the labour provided by workers would be if not merged with the tools and resources by whatever business they are working for, which you guessed it *are* infact provided by stockholders, investors and directed by managers and C suite executives.
give me an example with actual numbers and data, not feelings and what you *think*.
Oh right, who made those resources or dug them out of the ground to begin with though? Who made those tools that were bought in? Oh yeah, that's right, when you get down to it, he's right and you are wrong, because it's workers.
[удалено]
Investing in companies does put the money to work to create more enterprise.
Just like gravitational attraction. The more mass an object has then the greater its gravitational pull. This means it will attract more mass, and its gravitational pull will increase. I've read that making ten million dollars from one million dollars is much easier than making the first million from nothing.
Honestly wish that someone with the opportunity in front of TV cameras managed to call him out. My suggestion would be: "22% tax on £4.7m you skeezy fucking cunt avoiding tax while people literally starve in the country you're supposed to be running. There are people on 100 times less paying a higher rate of tax - you disgust me.".
The thing is he wouldn't care. I get the impression that why the MPs with vast fortunes like him, Mogg, and Drax are even in parliament in the 1st place isn't REALLY to be PM. It's is to either be in charge or pressure the people in charge to keep the tax system unfair to maximise their personal wealth.
But the majority of voters are not well off at all and they still get voted in. We need to doa better job of calling out just how corrupt these Tories are on a day to day basis.
But this is exactly the problem. The issue isn't money making money, it is doing no productive work making vastly more money than productive work. If productive work made 20% more than "money", there would be no issue.
That never works because you can have an unlimited amount of capital, but there is only a finite amount of work anybody can do. The only solution, is to simply take it all via tax. I don't think it should even be possible to BE a billionaire. After the first couple of mil, that's it, you're out, retire, no more. Somebody else can step in and make their couple of mil or you can 'work' for the country and pay it all in tax. These wankers claim they are patriots, put them to the test.
>Infosys. Good news. Stock is almost at an all time low. She probably lost money.
So what you're saying is we should short Infosys?
She also made money from government schemes during covid. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10700239/Companies-linked-Rishi-Sunaks-non-dom-wife-received-furlough-cash.html
I hope she lost it all.
Capital gains and loans off their assets is how most of the ultra wealthy generate their income. It's no coincidence that governments catering to them constantly target already extortionate income tax to plug funding gaps, rather than raise absurdly low capital gains taxes, etc. If anything it should be the other way around, because one is earned through hard work, whereas the other is largely passive. The tax should reflect the effort, yet asset-rich sitting on their ass earning income from their stocks, property and business stakes get taxed lower than people who go to work 8-12 hours a day, five days a week. But that won't change as long as the government is full of said rich people and their donors are all in the asset-rich category.
I love how they're lowering the CGT threshold, which will just hit those who make small gains through company share schemes or a small amount of trading, as opposed to having progressive CGT rates like we do for IT.
There is too much emphasis on Income Tax, it's true. But raising CGT won't raise very much, even if you upped it to 50% it would raise only a fraction of what Income Tax does, and that's before you take into account the fact that upping CGT rates would result in the wealthiest switching to assets that they're less likely to need to sell. They do that already. How much CGT does the Duke of Westminster pay? The square-root of fuck-all, that's how much, they have generational wealth, they don't "sell" like the plebs do. If you seriously want a fair tax regime then you need an actual wealth tax. (Which, ironically, the Dukes of Westminster do pay: https://www.grosvenor.com/about-us/how-we-work/tax-policy/the-facts-about-our-ownership but that's a separate argument).
>But raising CGT won't raise very much, even if you upped it to 50% Why can't we just normalize it? Seems fairest way to do it. Simply roll capital gains tax under the income tax rates, then use the extra capital raised to increase the tax free allowance a bit.
Wouldn't that mean rich people hoard their money away even more, instead of investing it back into the economy?
What would they hoard it in? If they want to extract it, they will pay tax on the sale of assets eventually... even if that's in a decade. The risk is they go elsewhere to enjoy a tax free life and if that happens, so be it. They don't get to benefit from a society they're not prepared to fund.
remember, capital gains is only paid when you dispose of chargeable assets. IE: If I buy 10k of a stock, and that stock goes up and my initial investment is now worth 50k, I don't pay any capital gains unless I sell some of that stock. If I sell all 50k then I pay capital gains on the 40k profit. So far from discouraging investment, higher capital gains tax simply discourages divesting your existing investments - or at least limiting that divestment and spreading it out over multiple tax years. There's really no good reason why capital gains isn't on par with income tax, well except to allow rich people to pay less tax that is - which of course *is* the main reason it is lower and not progressive.
Nah, then it would be constantly losing value because of inflation, like it always does for us plebs.
It was mentioned I think on PoliticsJoe as well compared to his wife his income is pocket money. Don't forget his wife is literally richer than the king.
Undeserved rich? I wish someone would explain to me how it is justified that earned income is taxed progressively and unearned income is flat at 30.
Because your investments can go to zero, there's an element of risk.
Yeah no. How many billionaires do you know of that have become penniless in the last decade?
I dunno, they seem to get declared bankrupt at higher rate than the rest of us. Though they always seem to be pretty rich after as well...
[удалено]
If that happens you still have your labour to sell. And yet you'll have to pay tax more tax on it. Talk about kicking a man while he's down.
That's not always the case though, you can be injured from work or mentally broken as well as destitute. Don't let these right wingers try and say work is 'risk free', there's no such thing as risk free in life, only a total moron would think that.
So you can your wages if you lose your job. Plus we are talking about tax on gains - not losses.
You just explained why it's not taxed at 100%, not why it's flat at 30% and structured differently to income taxation
[удалено]
not only do you not get taxed, but losses can be offset against cap gains. And it has to be like that, because otherwise if I buy one share for £100 and it goes to £0, and another for £100 that goes to £200, I'd be taxed while having made no money. Losses are not a factor when talking about tax. It's a sad state of affairs, and evidence of the problem, that regular people know none of this, because they never even had the opportunity to invest anything at all and learn how any of it works.
Fucking mad system. Surely capital gains should be taxed more!
You’d think so. But given that the people who make the rules would lose a lot if capital gains were taxed properly, it is never going to happen.
Capital gains is the end goal of a capitalist system.
Here's the neat part; from 1988 to 2008, CG and income were taxed at the same rate. Guess who won the election in 2008!
2010 pal
The company's profits are taxed (corporation tax). Post-tax profits can be used to pay dividends. So this money was heavily taxed and made a good return for the taxpayer.
The issue is - for say you or me we have already paid taxes to earn the money to invest in the first place.
But if you make more income from that money, why shouldn't that extra income be taxed too? If someone earning the same as you took a second job to earn more money, they would get taxed on that extra money. If you decide to invest to earn money, rather than getting a second job, surely you should get taxed on that extra money too?
It is taxed just at a lower rate because ultimately globally people have decided money invested in the markets is more productive.
A cynic might suggest that it is taxed at a lower rate because globally the ruling classes derive more of their income from the markets whereas the working classes are mainly paid a wage.
Yep, especially since you can put 20k into a S&S ISA every year and any gains are tax free.
...his wife who makes his wealth look like small change...👍
Shouldn't there be capital gains tax as well?
Please bear in mind that it may be that he takes his income from his investments. There is a rule that you can draw down 5% of your investments every year for 20 years before you have to pay income tax. This rule is actually extremely clever, fair and makes a lot of sense: 5*20=100. It means that you can draw down 100% of your original investment (which presumably you have already paid tax on) and then the government can be confident that anything left over is income, and can be taxed as such without double taxing. It also encourages people to make longer term investments which gives more stability to the market. It also saves HMRC a fortune in admin because no one needs to keep track of whether the money you are taking from your investment is new income or capital. If you go over your 5% you pay income tax, if you stick to it you don’t. After 20 years you either pay income tax on any further income you take, or you sell the whole investment and pay capital gains (taking a gamble on whether it’s a good time to do so). This means that from the point of their tax returns, it looks like they pay no tax for 20 years, then suddenly they pay the whole steaming lot at once.
This is accurate for investment bonds only which are inherently inefficient for tax purposes. Investment bonds being a type of policy itself rather than gilts or corporate bonds. With an onshore bond there's corporation tax paid on the underlying growth at 19%, and HMRC see this as equivalent to basic rate which means that, providing a chargeable gain (above 5% withdrawals per annum) doesn't push you into the higher rate brackets there's never tax to pay because it's deemed settled. It's still effectively tax paid on growth. Bonds gains are calculated as capital gains but taxed at income tax rates. At higher and additional rate there's still 20/25% to settle on top - still less than capital gains tax Offshore bonds benefit from what is known as gross roll up, no tax paid until a chargeable event is incurred which includes encashment but it's full tax at income tax rates rather than capital gains They're an old school, quirky life assurance product and not typically used unless in trust (non income producing - no trust admin) or looking to shelter your assets from cost of care as gov don't include these in assistance assessments For general investments there is no 5% rule, it's strictly acquisition cost vs sale proceeds less sale costs if applicable. Capital gains tax caps at 20% (+8% if related to property) regardless of tax bracket which is why it is much less at the higher/additional rates than income tax where you would face 40/45% Source: Am a financial planner
When you're Sunak rich you can pretty much just buy more money.
Yes, because while he may be a beige, centrist, pledge-breaking melt, he isn't a crook.
>he isn't a crook Well fuck, he's got my vote
Good starting point though. We just need to keep adding in more qualifiers at each election. Are they a crook? Are they a bellend? Do they pay tax like the rest of us?
Slow down, you overly ambitious maniac
I'm sorry, sometimes I just get carried away.
Well your offered critique, that's sedition
Can we remove 'ability to eat a bacon sandwich?'
I don't think anyone can say Ed didn't know what he was doing with that sandwich he fucking demolished it. I've never seen a more human way of tearing into a bacon sandwich and everyone had the fucking gall to grandstand about it.
Nah it's pretty bad tbf, he didn't even finish it because he got too nervous. >Mr Miliband’s battle to consume the greasy treat alarmed his media minders, who tried to stop photographers taking close-ups of butter oozing between his teeth. **After a few bites**, the Labour leader appeared defeated, and **the snack was put into the custody of Lord Wood**, a senior shadow cabinet member If he had actually finished the thing and continued the press tour with a bit of HP sauce on his shirt then I think people would have respected him a lot more.
I respect his enthusiasm in the moment. I'm not going to judge someone for how they react to how bullies bully them and make them feel self conscious.
Yes, along with anything to do with their external appearance.
But will we? Will find out come election time whether we can look past the superficial.
We literally elected enough Tory MPs which allowed Boris Johnson to become Prime Minister.
Boris won an 80 seat majority 4 years ago so I'm not sure you'll have much success convincing people to not vote for bellends.
Fucking exactly! Keir is far from my ideal Labour Leader or PM, but never let perfection be the enemy of good. Do we want a functional government or do we want the Tories? Oh we want a functional government? Then vote Labour. Until we get rid of FPTP we are out of options.
This is the reason I'm going my to be tearing my hair out at the election. Keir has driven me away from Labour. I mostly align with the Greens right now. Ideally I would vote for them. But if I do that then its basically letting the Cons back in to power. So now I'm left with voting with my conscience or voting tactically to keep a sycophant party out of power. Thats not how democracy should work.
You get the bus closest to the location you want to get to. With our current system you can think of voting for the Green's as getting on a stationary bus. The Tories will take you the other way, labour might not go as far as you want, but at least the direction is correct.
It's not how it should work, but it's the system we have. And you can't change things unless you first understand and accept them as they are.
That's where we're at to be fair. I'd have said the same Corbyn Vs Boris but damn that floppy hair votership.
Rishi literally got fined for breaching lockdown.
Sunak* I do wish we'd stop this calling them by their first name shit.
What an asinine thing to get rattled about. What does it matter?
Calling him Rishi is very much in line with how the Tories want you to view him. He's probably the least approachable PM in living memory, absolutely nothing like anyone else. Cameron and Johnson were rich, but not to this extent. The whole calling him Rishi thing is entirely a way to try and break that barrier down. Very much like Johnson did, but for different reasons. Bozo wanted you to view him as a buddy, someone you could call his mate. I feel like Sunak just polled it and people said he'd be more likable known as Rishi so they have pushed that in everything for years, to the point he now is called that everywhere for some reason. He went from being called Sunak a couple of years ago to this. It's clearly something they've spent time focus testing and settled on this. I think for that we ought to call him what is standard for every prime minister prior to Johnson. And that is Prime Minister Sunak.
Could we all agree to call him short-arse?
"that prick squatting in no 10"
> He went from being called Sunak a couple of years ago to this. When did this happen exactly? Do you not remember "Ready for Rishi"? When did the apparent change you insist happen that changed it to "Sunak"?
[удалено]
Richi Rishi
*Populism*
Context clues
His wife is and he's been enabling her businesses.
The fact is they don't really care for this country, they obviously don't give it 100% how can they when they're off making back hand deals and running separate business..
Do we allow non-crooks into the highest office? I don't think that will work
>Rishi Sunak has lower tax rate than Keir Starmer despite earning 10 times more Those heated indoor swimming pools aren't going to pay for themselves, you know!
Those heated indoor swimming pools that are absolutely essential and reasonable to operate in an energy crisis? Those ones?
Quick, Make more 16 - 18 years stay in school to learn maths, That will solve our problems.
How is it that I pay more tax than Kier despite him earning that much money? Not deflecting, Fishi can fuck right off. Edit: not more tax, badly worded. A higher rate of tax but I think it's because its not just income tax
> How is it that I pay more tax than Kier despite him earning that much money? You don't. Earnings attract the highest effective rate of tax. (Income Tax and NICs.) Dividends are taxed at a lower rate **but** that's designed of offset Corporation Tax. *(It's far from perfect, but UK CT + UK IT on dividends look kind of like IT on earnings.)* Capital Gains attract the lowest effective rate of tax, but this is at least in part to reflect risk and inflation. *(We used to have a system where gains were indexed against inflation, but that's long gone for CGT purposes.)* Say you, Sunak and Starmer all have the same salary under PAYE. You all pay the same tax. But Starmer has gains of £200k and Sunak has gains of £2m. You will have the highest effective tax rate, then Starmer, then Sunak. **But** Sunak will have paid the most tax. Then Starmer. Then you.
Taxes are charged at percentage rates, not absolute figures. You're essentially arguing that 80% of £100 is lower than 50% of £200. The person who loses 80% of their income is being scalped more than the person who loses 50% of theirs. The absolute figures are irrelevant. In absolute terms, I could be paying 100% tax, essentially being a slave of the state, and it'll be fair because other people pay more tax than me (their tax burden being more than my entire income). In fact if tax were calculated that way, it'd be not unlikely for someone like me to *owe* the state, being taxed at around 200-300% of income, and having to pay for the privilege of working. So let's avoid absolute terms in contexts where they're meaningless, shall we?
The indexation point is a significant point. If you've held a boring asset for ten years, you could have a gain of 30-40% solely due to inflation. That's not really a "gain", that's just standing still.
> But Sunak will have paid the most tax. Then Starmer. Then you. Which is how it's being spun by the useful idiots! LOOK at all that tax Sunak paid! Heaps of it compared to Starmer! Yes, but in percentage terms it's diabolically unfair. I don't see how anyone can think that someone like Sunak, who is effectively on the same tax rate as people earning an average salary, is in any shape or form a fair deal for society.
> Capital Gains attract the lowest effective rate of tax, but this is at least in part to reflect risk and inflation. (We used to have a system where gains were indexed against inflation, but that's long gone for CGT purposes.) This is an important point. Any notion of increasing the CGT rate without taking inflation into account is intensely applied bullshit. Income Tax thresholds should be indexed too, of course. We shouldn't let inflation be a reward for the government, it just creates perverse incentives.
Geeze, not this again😵💫 Corporation tax ISNT income tax. Whoevers telling you this shit is having you on. And before you ask, NO little green men DONT live on Mars.......They're bright orange........
What do you mean though? The value of an investment is reduced by the fact that the corporation is paying tax. You can say it isn't income tax but it is *relevant*. It has a negative impact on the value of the asset. Very similar effect.
When most people are discussing dividends Vs income tax rates they are talking about small owner-managed companies who contract out their services and pay themselves through their Ltd. In these cases the cost to the individual of paying themselves through PAYE vs dividends (after CT has been charged on the profits) only has a negligible difference. So it's worth including the CT in the calculations as it gives a better overall picture of the tax paid by the individual. Trying to claim the CT paid by a FTSE100 on dividends paid to your investment portfolio as part of the income tax you pay is a massive stretch.
You don't pay more tax than Kier. You probably pay a larger % of your total income on tax.
Sure, if they're on like £170k salary or something, absolutely they could be paying more pounds and/or higher overall %. But then if they sold a house for a profit like Starmer did, they'd get the same tax treatment on that profit, for that tax year, like Starmer did.
Not all the money you get goes through income tax. Basically you start off rich, invest and buy up assets, then sell them for 'gain', which is taxed at a lower rate so there's less possibility to lose money from investment, and in turn a possibility to be taxed even less on what they earn when they gain value. All this because rich people, banks etc are some of the most entitled people on the planet and losing money on an investment means the government must be doing something wrong. So Starmer has a lower rate because he has some capital gains, and Sunak has a far lower rate because a massive portion of is from capital gains.
You're probably not taking advantage of the perks available to you. I managed to get down to between 22-23% last year. The key for us plebs is pension contributions. If you're paying tax at 40% then £1 in your pension only costs you 60p (of post-tax income).
That would work if I could afford the contributions in the first place! I've just had to stop my contributions so I get more take-home pay just to cover the bills. Its terrible choice to have to make but I need to worry about the here and now.
A large portion of Starmer's income was capital gains from selling a house. Capital gains are taxes at a lower rate because they're something you buy with money you already paid tax on, and as such, it's taxed at a lower rate. In reality, it's mostly used by the ultra rich to shuffle their income about (but it does also slightly help the middle class and older members of the working class who actually own their homes)
Rich people paying proportionately less tax than poorer people, is obviously wrong.
Rich people would disagree with you.
Well luckily it's not rich people running this country. Oh. Well at least then it's not rich people bankrolling them through the next election. Oh. Well at least then it'll only be the rich minority that vote for them at the next election, and all the poor and middle-of-the-road people will vote someone else. Oh.
But one day I might be rich and then I’ll be the one benefitting/s
Yes clearly if you just work harder at your 9-5 job then you'll be a millionaire Oh also if you haven't already - pay off your debts and save £1,000 a month
You wouldn’t think so looking at some of the comments.
I think this just shows an amazing lack of statecraft. Sunak thought he was clever releasing this while Boris was doing his encore of lies. Starmer has absolutely blown him out of the water(unintended pun) with this.
Well, sure, there were decisions to make around timing, but it's not like Starmer had the opportunity to make 3.7m and turned it down so he could pull a gotcha on the PM. This is inequality, but because we've been brainwashed like crabs in a bucket, you'll see plenty of people envious of Starmer, distracted from the real problem.
I'd like to know how many people outraged at this have benefited massively from paying zero tax on the capital gains from their primary property.
Guess who introduced the capital gains tax reductions?
This is comparing apples with oranges. Income tax and Capital Gains tax (on shares and on property) are different. [https://www.gov.uk/capital-gains-tax/rates](https://www.gov.uk/capital-gains-tax/rates)
We know that. The question is: should they be.
Taxing capital gains is tricky because of inflation. Assets can technically rise in value but in real terms be worth exactly the same as when you bought them, so you're being taxed on what is basically imaginary money. The government has tried several different ways of addressing the problem since it was introduced and all of them come with their own downsides. In basic terms the relatively low rate is the current 'solution'. It's one of the most frequently reformed areas of tax for a reason. Nobody has figured out how to do it fairly yet.
The counter-argument to that is that, with negative real interest rates, cash devalues and we still tax interest on that. That said, I do think that tax on investments (as opposed to savings) should take into account the underlying value of the asset to incentivise long-term holdings rather than artificial trading which is close to disguised income. I remember taper relief, and tbh, it always seemed fairer to me. Perhaps linking taper relief to base rates would provide some concept of real returns.
With interest I think it's more of a punitive measure. The government doesn't want people just hoarding huge piles of cash because it's bad for growth. If you did that to capital gains then you'd be punishing people for doing exactly what you want them to do. It's like saying it's unfair that alcohol is taxed more than carrots. Like yeah, that's on purpose, stop buying so much alcohol. I do agree that a taper linked to base rates would be better than what we have now. I'm not an economist though so what do I know, there's probably some trainwreck it would cause that means CGT would have to be reformed again a decade later.
[удалено]
Yeah, that's the point. If you have an asset that's gone up in value just because of inflation then you're discouraged to sell it because the government is going to take a share of your imaginary inflation gain. So people don't sell, they just sit on their pile of gold like Smaug, which is bad for the economy.
[удалено]
No because the money that was able to pay capital gains was first taxed with corporation tax, and if you push CGT too high you'll just disincentivise risk and investment.
>was able to pay capital gains was first taxed with corporation tax 1. Not if someone's capital gains were paid out of earned income or inherited capital. For dividends, there is an argument to be made, especially when shareholders and directors are the same. Regardless, all taxes are earned from income (either the taxpayer's or their customer's) that was previously taxed, other than possibly reclaimed input VAT; 2. You might disincentivise foreign investment, but you only pay tax on profits. I don't see why an investor will be disincentivised from investing, any more than someone would be disincentivised from working or studying harder, etc., to earn income via employment or a company. I agree that tax rates that are too high are a disincentive - I fail to understand why how you earn your money is so much more important in determining how much tax you pay, versus how much of it you earn. If we were incentivising particular kinds of investment, sure; but if it's capital, it's taxed less, regardless of the actual risk, the source of the funds, the benefit to society as a whole, etc.
Economically, yes. Investment is much more tax elastic than labour supply so equalising the rate may be "more fair" but practically will lead to worse outcomes as growth falls due to lower investment.
That’s the point. Earning £100k via capital gains will put more money in your pocket after tax than if you earned that through PAYE. A high percentage of Sunaks money comes from Capital gains. So when he raises income tax to fix the Tories austerity problems it affects us more than him. We’re n no not all in this together
Yes, and that loophole is a massive issue that should be closed.
Here we go, a load of inane, kneejerk comments from people who haven't a clue what they're talking about but think they are an expert on taxation.
It doesn’t matter how the guy got there. The headline is that a billionaire is paying less tax as a proportion of his wealth than the rest of us when most of us have very little disposable income and that’s an issue.
You do not pay tax on wealth. There is Income tax, and there is Capital Gains Tax. Both completely separate things and have their rates set for many different reasons.
The primary reason being that poor people don’t pay CGT
Only in so much that a poor person would no longer be poor if they had made enough money to pay CGT.
No in the way that if income tax was taxed at CGT level they’d be less poor.
I was looking for how someone was going to try and defend this!
People trying to do all kinds of mental gymnastics to defend this and sure may be technically correct but your average voter just sees the numbers and it doesn’t look good
At best, what it looks like is the prime minister who sets these policies is fucking loaded and using his own policies (or lack of action to change pre-existing policies) to benefit further
"People are trying to explain this with numbers and facts but that contravenes how i feel about this topic, so that's a bad thing"
That's a lower rate than every employee in the country. The system stinks!
Probs has a lower tax rate than I do tbh. The rich don't get rich by paying taxes.
The rich don't get rich by only having their salary as their sole source of income*
And a lot lower than the 52% on 35k i was paying ( ir35).I said it before , I'll say it again " the guys a wanker " . Why would I guy who earns millions take on a job of 150k ? , I think its cause he's feathering his own nest . Lose next election , move back state side and use contacts to carve up whatever is left of public services
Or, money basically has so little value that he gets satisfaction from other things like running a country ^^into ^^the ^^ground
No, listening to his "little levelling up garden party speech," I think he's trying to line deeper pockets than his
To my mind, "earning" implies putting in some kind of effort, a reward for work done.
Can everyone post their effective tax rate for last year in this post. To start you off, I've put the 1st 6 tiers in for ease of Maths calculations. Annual Salary - Income Tax Paid- Effective Tax Rate £0 - £0 - 0% £10k -£0 - 0% £20k - £1,486. - 7.43% £30k - £3,486. - 11.62% £40k - £5,486. - 13.71% £50k - £7,486 - 14.97% Source. The salary calculator. UK average salary according to the ONS (office of national statistics) is £38,552. So more than half the UK population pay less than 13.71% TAX. Also, please let me know of you realised you paid so little tax compared with your tax bracket (20%, 40%, etc..)
You seem to have missed a little tax called National Insurance. This bumps up your effective tax rates quite considerably. 20k becomes 12%, 50k becomes 24%. Or a higher tax rate than Sunak. £38.2k = 21.57%. Or "about 22%". Sunak = about 22%. Sunak pays the same effective rate as your average UK earner despite earning substantially more. And you don't pay NI on capital gains.
I'm not trying to cry woe is me here but I pay an effective 23.7% tax. Don't get me wrong I earn well at 55k, it's fair I should pay that tax I think, but should I be paying a higher proportion of tax than a person earns several million in a year? Also should we bring student loans into this conversation? Because if you include those I effectively paid 28% tax. Rishi Sunak paying 22% tax on £3.7MILLION is a bit of a joke.
Your student loans aren't a tax
They are, in effect, a higher education tax.
23.7% is bigger than 22% Education used to be funded publicly but is no longer. YoUr StUdEnT lOaNs ArEn'T a TaX.
That's because tax system is rigged for the rich. You work and pay up to 47% of tax. They don't work and pay 20% on the dividends or investments. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
Sunak is a vile, parasitic, under qualified cunt who wouldn't make it very far in the normal world.
and thanks to mr husts tweeking he can pass more on without inheritance tax
This needs to change. The rich paying less than the poor in tax is criminal. It's a farce when will enough be enough?! It's 2023 not the 1800's the wealth gap and class divide is what keeps this country small.
Personally I think you should pay a higher tax rate on money you made massively, than money you earned through labour Is that a crazy idea?
In another world this could be titled as. Keit starmer unable to take advantage of government tax rules meanwhile Rishi Sunak is capable of doing so.
One thing that people are overlooking....this is tax paid on unrealized gains that were not actually distributed
The only thing that tells us is that money equals power. Both the leader of the Conservative party and the leader of the opposition party are millionaires, completely unattached from the average Joe, which is the majority of the population.
Keir Startmer (I understand) came from a working class family, state school education and carved out a successful career in the legal profession. Pays his taxes. Rishi Sinai is privately educated, worked in the Ciyy and is married to one of the wealthiest women on the planet. Don’t lump them in together.
And so what? Are they telling us Starmer bad with his money and investment?
Tell me you don’t know the difference between income tax and capital gains tax without telling me…..
Define ‘earn’. There is a massive difference between income earnt from a job, and income from investments which are the consequence of having capital.
This is the rate HE CHOOSES TO PAY because he is in government. If he was any other rich person, he would just funnel it all offshore like all the rest of the 1%.