LET THOSE WITH THE BROADEST SHOULDERS BEAR THE HEAVIEST BURDEN….

Bearair said:
It still fascinates me how people fall for the lie that the hardest workers earn the most, it is simply rubbish. The chances are that if you are earning enough to pay the higher tax bracket it is because you were born into relative wealth and privilege, not because you worked harder or were born with more intelligence. Whilst I may have some sympathy with the very few who started with nothing and worked their way to the highest income bracket, there are very very few of them. Personally I think happiness comes from knowing when you have enough, something which seams to have become alien to our greedy culture. In general it is not the ones with the broadest shoulders who are paying the most but those who had the best start in life.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and it's why the Torys prosper (and increasingly politicians in general) and why we will never have equality.
 
nilagin said:
An ISA is just a tax free loophole much the same as there are other loop holes to avoid paying tax. It's no different to someone gifting someone else money every year, rather than having to wait for it as inheritance and then paying 40% tax on anything over the tax free sum.
A big difference between avoiding paying your share legally and illegally.
Click to expand...
An ISA is capped on how much you can save per year. Tax avoidance can involve huge amounts of money. Not the same in any way shape or form, but it's usually used as a comparison by the wealthy to justify their financial shenanigans.
 
Bearair said:
It still fascinates me how people fall for the lie that the hardest workers earn the most, it is simply rubbish. The chances are that if you are earning enough to pay the higher tax bracket it is because you were born into relative wealth and privilege, not because you worked harder or were born with more intelligence. Whilst I may have some sympathy with the very few who started with nothing and worked their way to the highest income bracket, there are very very few of them. Personally I think happiness comes from knowing when you have enough, something which seams to have become alien to our greedy culture. In general it is not the ones with the broadest shoulders who are paying the most but those who had the best start in life.
Click to expand...

Hahaha what a lot of tosh.

I was lucky when paying 40% tax! worked hard! got myself qualified and earnt the money! despite growing up in what would be called poverty these days and my dad was a gas fitter.
My wife started her own company, her dad was one of the sun printers sacked and ended up working at Tescos.
Personally the majority of people I know are doing significantly better than there parents, but that's possibly more down to a huge reduction in manufacturing or manual skilled jobs which were lower paid.

Nice to know I was born into wealth and privilege, never realised palmers green was such an area.
 
Byker28i said:
Hahaha what a lot of tosh.

I was lucky when paying 40% tax! worked hard! got myself qualified and earnt the money! despite growing up in what would be called poverty these days and my dad was a gas fitter.
My wife started her own company, her dad was one of the sun printers sacked and ended up working at Tescos.
Personally the majority of people I know are doing significantly better than there parents, but that's possibly more down to a huge reduction in manufacturing or manual skilled jobs which were lower paid.

Nice to know I was born into wealth and privilege, never realised palmers green was such an area.
Click to expand...

You need to add comprehension to your reading skills. He didn't say 'everyone'.
 
Bearair said:
It still fascinates me how people fall for the lie that the hardest workers earn the most, it is simply rubbish. The chances are that if you are earning enough to pay the higher tax bracket it is because you were born into relative wealth and privilege, not because you worked harder or were born with more intelligence. Whilst I may have some sympathy with the very few who started with nothing and worked their way to the highest income bracket, there are very very few of them. Personally I think happiness comes from knowing when you have enough, something which seams to have become alien to our greedy culture. In general it is not the ones with the broadest shoulders who are paying the most but those who had the best start in life.
Click to expand...

I am a 40% tax payer. My father clocked on every day at the factory gate and clocked out again on his way home, my mother was a copy typist. If that's "wealth and privilege" then so be it, I don't consider it such when I compare my upbringing with other children at the same primary school and some of the detached houses I used to visit when compared to our tiny semi. I worked hard at school, got good A levels and into a good university (my parents expected me to leave school at 16, just like they did), got a good degree and a job in the industry I wanted to be in. By the time I was 26 I was earning more than my father ever earned at any point in his working life. I still earn less than any head teacher and many school teachers though.

I program computers for a living, although today I'm waiting in for a gas plumber as I'm not allowed to do that myself as our political masters have outlawed it.
 
I have noticed that the (very wealthy) left wing of british politics have been demonizing the well-off and hard-working a lot more than they normally do in the run up to this election. Some of the comments in this thread show that there are people falling for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
Steep said:
You need to add comprehension to your reading skills. He didn't say 'everyone'.
Click to expand...

Who said he did? He implied the majority were...

The chances are that if you are earning enough to pay the higher tax bracket it is because you were born into relative wealth and privilege, not because you worked harder or were born with more intelligence.
 
viv1969 said:
Family size is irrelevant.
Children are a choice and should have no bearing on tax paid.
Click to expand...
I agree children should have no bearing on tax paid, but the fact is if you want kids and want to self finance raising them rather than living of tax credits you need to earn more money. Depending where you live in the country also determines how much money it is going to cost. Because the 40% threshold has remained relatively so low more and more people fall into the bracket. Depending how much you need to earn to live a comfortable but by no means lavish life could mean having to work extra hours to offset the high level of tax, becoming a catch 22 and your working even more hours to not only take care of your own family but contributing to look after other families too. 30% tax would be a much more acceptable increase, and 40% from £80k.
 
h14nha said:
An ISA is capped on how much you can save per year. Tax avoidance can involve huge amounts of money. Not the same in any way shape or form, but it's usually used as a comparison by the wealthy to justify their financial shenanigans.
Click to expand...
Earlier you said ISAs were introduced to encourage the poor to save, yet they were capped at £3k per year, I can't imagine many poor people having any money to save let alone get anywhere near the £3k limit. The limit is now £15240 per year, ok interest rates aren't that great at the moment, but you have the potential to save £15240 per year and receive a tax free income from it. It's still a form of legal tax avoidance just as there are many others.
 
nilagin said:
Earlier you said ISAs were introduced to encourage the poor to save, yet they were capped at £3k per year, I can't imagine many poor people having any money to save let alone get anywhere near the £3k limit. The limit is now £15240 per year, ok interest rates aren't that great at the moment, but you have the potential to save £15240 per year and receive a tax free income from it. It's still a form of legal tax avoidance just as there are many others.
Click to expand...

ISA's were £2400 on launch. There was better employment back then with 40 hour jobs not 16 or 25 hours. Houses weren't 10 x the average wage either so poorer people had a chance to save. Again, it was a savings incentive brought in by the government, not a backdoor chance to cheat the exchequer dreamt up by a clever accountant.
 
h14nha said:
ISA's were £2400 on launch. There was better employment back then with 40 hour jobs not 16 or 25 hours. Houses weren't 10 x the average wage either so poorer people had a chance to save. Again, it was a savings incentive brought in by the government, not a backdoor chance to cheat the exchequer dreamt up by a clever accountant.
Click to expand...
Obviously your definition of poor is quite different from mine.
Mine agrees with the Oxford Dictionary
"Lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society"
Hence unlikely to have any savings regardless of working a 40hr week. They'd be lucky to have £2.40 in savings.
 
nilagin said:
Obviously your definition of poor is quite different from mine.
Mine agrees with the Oxford Dictionary
"Lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society"
Hence unlikely to have any savings regardless of working a 40hr week. They'd be lucky to have £2.40 in savings.
Click to expand...
Maximum £2400 or did you choose to ignore that. A child today is considered to be living under the basic minimum if they don't have a bedroom each, hardly a good indicator.
 
deleted a pile of posts as they're nothing to do with the discussion. If you want to start a topic on gas and hot air feel free to do so. :)
 
h14nha said:
Maximum £2400 or did you choose to ignore that. A child today is considered to be living under the basic minimum if they don't have a bedroom each, hardly a good indicator.
Click to expand...

I must admit I read that too just a few days ago.
Absurd!
 
h14nha said:
Maximum £2400 or did you choose to ignore that. A child today is considered to be living under the basic minimum if they don't have a bedroom each, hardly a good indicator.
Click to expand...
Poor means barely having enough money to make ends meet. They won't have any spare money to save, or did you choose to ignore that.
 
nilagin said:
Poor means barely having enough money to make ends meet. They won't have any spare money to save, or did you choose to ignore that.
Click to expand...

That is your definition (and most peoples), but it is not the definition of the government.

Also make ends meet. What defines the requirements? Is a room per child a requirement? Is Sky TV a requirement, holiday etc.

There is making ends meet meaning of being poor and there is the governments definition of being poor.

Some definitions of poor....

http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/poverty-definitions.pdf

Not what we really think of poor.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Dale_tem said:
Also make ends meet. What defines the requirements? Is a room per child a requirement? Is Sky TV a requirement, holiday etc.
Click to expand...
Making ends meet is having just enough money to pay for a roof over your head, basic utility bills, food and clothing. You don't necessarily have to be poor to be in that position as you may well have something of worth. If you have nothing of worth and are struggling to make ends meet then that would be poor.
 
To be honest I just can't be @rsed reading the whole thread, but just incase its not been said, the poorer paid have been propping up the wealthy for years, now people are asking for the tables to be turned there seems to be some disquiet., after all is'nt austerity simply the poor paying for the cock-ups of the rich.
 
nilagin said:
Making ends meet is having just enough money to pay for a roof over your head, basic utility bills, food and clothing. You don't necessarily have to be poor to be in that position as you may well have something of worth. If you have nothing of worth and are struggling to make ends meet then that would be poor.
Click to expand...

That is not what the government and statistics say is poor.
 
mex said:
To be honest I just can't be @rsed reading the whole thread, but just incase its not been said, the poorer paid have been propping up the wealthy for years, now people are asking for the tables to be turned there seems to be some disquiet., after all is'nt austerity simply the poor paying for the cock-ups of the rich.
Click to expand...

Please explain how the poor are propping up the rich?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
nilagin said:
Poor means barely having enough money to make ends meet. They won't have any spare money to save, or did you choose to ignore that.
Click to expand...
My parents neighbour would be classed as poor on paper by your definition. She has 3 kids and has never worked in the 10 years she has been there. She manages go go out most weekends ( and noisily wakes my parents up returning @ 2/3am ) and drives a car ( an Audi A3 which is a couple of years old ). She takes the kids to school in her pyjamas and is still wearing them when she collects them later. Her dad cuts her grass whilst she sits on her arse watching sky TV ( she had the dish put in when she moved in ).

On paper she would be classed as a single mother struggling to make ends meet. In reality, she has quite a nice little life enjoying more than the people around her who worked all their lives.

Large TV, smart phones, tablets/PC's, smoking, drinking, holidays are not essential to make ends meet.
 
mex said:
To be honest I just can't be @rsed reading the whole thread, but just incase its not been said, the poorer paid have been propping up the wealthy for years, now people are asking for the tables to be turned there seems to be some disquiet., after all is'nt austerity simply the poor paying for the cock-ups of the rich.
Click to expand...

Yeah. You really might want to read the thread or not bother posting.
 
h14nha said:
My parents neighbour would be classed as poor on paper by your definition. She has 3 kids and has never worked in the 10 years she has been there. She manages go go out most weekends ( and noisily wakes my parents up returning @ 2/3am ) and drives a car ( an Audi A3 which is a couple of years old ). She takes the kids to school in her pyjamas and is still wearing them when she collects them later. Her dad cuts her grass whilst she sits on her arse watching sky TV ( she had the dish put in when she moved in ).

On paper she would be classed as a single mother struggling to make ends meet. In reality, she has quite a nice little life enjoying more than the people around her who worked all their lives.

Large TV, smart phones, tablets/PC's, smoking, drinking, holidays are not essential to make ends meet.
Click to expand...
That is nothing like my classification of poor. You need to read my posts again.
 
Dale_tem said:
That is your definition (and most peoples), but it is not the definition of the government.

Also make ends meet. What defines the requirements? Is a room per child a requirement? Is Sky TV a requirement, holiday etc.

There is making ends meet meaning of being poor and there is the governments definition of being poor.

Some definitions of poor....

http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/poverty-definitions.pdf

Not what we really think of poor.
Click to expand...

Oh I don't know, the first page has a couple of definitions that seems reasonable to me:-

“resources are so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that they are, in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities”.

“People are said to be living in poverty if their income and resources are so inadequate as to preclude them from having a standard of living considered acceptable in the society in which they live. Because of their poverty they may experience multiple disadvantage through unemployment, low income, poor housing, inadequate health care and barriers to lifelong learning, culture, sport and recreation. They are often excluded and marginalised from participating in activities (economic, social and cultural) that are the norm for other people and their access to fundamental rights may be restricted.”
 
Rapscallion said:
“They are often excluded and marginalised from participating in activities (economic, social and cultural) that are the norm for other people and their access to fundamental rights may be restricted.”
Click to expand...

Do they mean not wearing Superdry, not drinking Prosecco and not watching the Premiership on Sky on a 50" TV as poor then?
 
The Q&A is quite simple:

Ask anybody earning less than £50k a year: "Would you like to earn £50k a year (in my case, 22k a year more than I am now), but as a "penalty", you'd have to pay more tax?"
YES, yes, a thousand times yes! I would be more than happy to pay more tax.


I'm at the top of my band as a staff nurse, and have had a wage freeze for the past few years (effectively a pay cut), I'm personally looking forward to my 1% that we literally had to fight for in the NHS.

£50K? I'd love it.
 
Last edited:
BintyMcFrazzles said:
The Q&A is quite simple:

Ask anybody earning less than £50k a year: "Would you like to earn £50k a year (in my case, 22k a year more than I am now), but as a "penalty", you'd have to pay more tax?"
YES, yes, a thousand times yes! I would be more than happy to pay more tax.


I'm at the top of my band as a staff nurse, and have had a wage freeze for the past few years (effectively a pay cut), I'm personally looking forward to my 1% that we literally had to fight for in the NHS.

£50K? I'd love it.
Click to expand...
But it depends on what you have to do to earn that extra money. A bit of overtime takes me up to the 40% threshold. I'd like to earn more to supplement my pension when I retire, but once I get past that threshold, If I work Saturday and Sunday overtime on top of my normal working week, I can wave goodbye to Saturday's pay as it goes in extra tax. I don't mind paying extra tax, as I said before it's the amount we have to pay once past the threshold. 40% is too much especially with the NI on top.
 
nilagin said:
But it depends on what you have to do to earn that extra money. A bit of overtime takes me up to the 40% threshold. I'd like to earn more to supplement my pension when I retire, but once I get past that threshold, If I work Saturday and Sunday overtime on top of my normal working week, I can wave goodbye to Saturday's pay as it goes in extra tax. I don't mind paying extra tax, as I said before it's the amount we have to pay once past the threshold. 40% is too much especially with the NI on top.
Click to expand...

How does that work? If you earn more you don't suddenly pay extra tax on all of your earnings. So if you earn £100 on Saturday, and pay £20 tax on that, but then if you earn the same on the Sunday, it bumps you up to 40%, then on the Sunday you'll pay £40 tax. That's still £140 instead of £80.

However, if your tax is set up on Non-Cumulative, you'll be over-taxed and have to claim it back at the end of the year. So make sure your tax code on your pay slip has a C after it, if it doesn't, call HMRC and they'll just change it.
 
KitsuneAndy said:
How does that work? If you earn more you don't suddenly pay extra tax on all of your earnings. So if you earn £100 on Saturday, and pay £20 tax on that, but then if you earn the same on the Sunday, it bumps you up to 40%, then on the Sunday you'll pay £40 tax. That's still £140 instead of £80.

However, if your tax is set up on Non-Cumulative, you'll be over-taxed and have to claim it back at the end of the year. So make sure your tax code on your pay slip has a C after it, if it doesn't, call HMRC and they'll just change it.
Click to expand...

Um... the current standard tax code is 1060L. L being the standard letter used. If someone is on an emergency non-cumulative code they'll have a W1 or M1 extension depending on their pay frequency. I've never seen a C code.

The rest is correct though. On a standard code overtime can be taxed at the higher rate but when (if) your average pay drops back below the threshold that extra tax will be automatically refunded.
 
H2O said:
Um... the current standard tax code is 1060L. L being the standard letter used. If someone is on an emergency non-cumulative code they'll have a W1 or M1 extension depending on their pay frequency. I've never seen a C code.

The rest is correct though. On a standard code overtime can be taxed at the higher rate but when (if) your average pay drops back below the threshold that extra tax will be automatically refunded.
Click to expand...

It's after that, should be on your pay slip. Mine says - Tax Code 973L C.

It changed to N when I took some benefits out with work that adjusted my tax code mid-year, which meant when I got my bonus I'd have been too heavily taxed that month, a 5 minute phonecall sorted it out though and now it's back to a C.
 
KitsuneAndy said:
It's after that, should be on your pay slip. Mine says - Tax Code 973L C.

It changed to N when I took some benefits out with work that adjusted my tax code mid-year, which meant when I got my bonus I'd have been too heavily taxed that month, a 5 minute phonecall sorted it out though and now it's back to a C.
Click to expand...


That's odd. It may just be down to the payroll software your employer uses then. For reference i do the payroll for the company i work for so deal with a lot of coding stuff & our emergency code displays as 1060L W1. The standard code just shows as 1060L. IIRC these are the only codes i've used in the last 5-10 years.

https://www.gov.uk/tax-codes/letters-in-your-tax-code-what-they-mean
 
Last edited:
H2O said:
That's odd. It may just be down to the payroll software your employer uses then. For reference i do the payroll for the company i work for so deal with a lot of coding stuff & our emergency code displays as 1060L W1. The standard code just shows as 1060L. IIRC these are the only codes i've used in the last 5-10 years.

https://www.gov.uk/tax-codes/letters-in-your-tax-code-what-they-mean
Click to expand...

Yeah, might be that our software just prints a W1 or M1 code as an N then. HMRC knew what I meant when I called and said I wanted it changed back to Cumulative though :)
 
& that's the most important thing. :)

It should be much easier for them to sort issues for people on PAYE now than it used to be as the RTI system means they know your pay to date as soon as it's paid rather than just getting the figures once a year.
 
KitsuneAndy said:
How does that work? If you earn more you don't suddenly pay extra tax on all of your earnings. So if you earn £100 on Saturday, and pay £20 tax on that, but then if you earn the same on the Sunday, it bumps you up to 40%, then on the Sunday you'll pay £40 tax. That's still £140 instead of £80.
Click to expand...
Saturday is paid at time and a half, Sunday is at double time. When on the 40% bracket, if I work all day Saturday and Sunday, the amount of extra tax I have to pay is almost equal to all of Saturday's pay, in actual fact out of an 11.75hr shift, I'm left with under 2hrs pay. So if I want to take home a certain amount of money, I have to put in almost an extra day's overtime for nothing to get it.
 
nilagin said:
Saturday is paid at time and a half, Sunday is at double time. When on the 40% bracket, if I work all day Saturday and Sunday, the amount of extra tax I have to pay is almost equal to all of Saturday's pay, in actual fact out of an 11.75hr shift, I'm left with under 2hrs pay. So if I want to take home a certain amount of money, I have to put in almost an extra day's overtime for nothing to get it.
Click to expand...

But the amount you come out with, is still more than if you just did one day of overtime.
 
KitsuneAndy said:
But the amount you come out with, is still more than if you just did one day of overtime.
Click to expand...
Yes, but I'm still working two days just to get paid for just over 1 day. Giving up 1/5th of your pay or 1/3 is ok but when your working all weekend to lose 40% of it it's a bit much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top