Who are common folk? What social or earnings bracket do you have to fall within to no longer be classed as common folk and thus seemingly spared from Austerity? Presumably you could have started off as common folk, had no private education, university education, no inheritance, no wealthy parents and now be earning reasonable wage through hard graft, and because of all of that you're no longer recognised as common folk? Back to the Starbucks point, Tightening tax avoidance loopholes, and ensuring that the global brands such as the ones you've mentioned pay their fair share is without question a good thing. They should pay if every other SME UK business is, no argument there I can assure you. But away from those very obvious players regularly mentioned in the press, how do you think raising corporation tax a massive 7% will effect the other 1.8m or so Ltd companies, their plans, their pricing policies and their expansion aspirations It's ok saying that other countries have corporation tax as high or higher, but UK residents aren't buying their products and services there are they. So what reasoned argument is there to think that prices won't rise for everyone, even these 'common folk'? Common sense is not in any way a Tory owned trait. I appreciate having none at all tends to be more regularly attributed to the current crop of Labour half wits, so can understand why you're confused. For the many.....all of them
Yeah that just makes him sound retarded so god only knows who pays him £80k, wonder if they've got anymore jobs
Misleading/Fake. The bloke said he wasn't in the top 5% of earners (as claimed by Labour aparently?) .... not 50%. I watched QT btw.
Got this from indeed.com The average Amazon.com salary ranges from approximately £14,449 per year for Operations Assistant to £67,655 per year for Senior Partner. Average Amazon.com hourly pay ranges from approximately £7.52 per hour for Food Service Associate to £17.55 per hour for Receiver. Macdonalds about £7 an hour. Just saying, it is a bigger jump in wages in the UK so comparing to what they pay in the US not really relevant.
Shareholders want all they can & why not. If all they can have is reduced somewhat, that will become the new norm. Corporation tax was once 28%, as far as I am aware shareholders wanted all they could in those years too.
Yes. I'm reasonably confident they would look for other ways to not reduce what they get though. Whether that is reducing staff of raising prices, who knows.
The man said he earnt more than £80K. Labour say people who earn over £80K are in the top 5% of earners in the UK. Do 95% of people in the UK earn less than £79,999?
considering its all averaged out, and you get big big earners being thrown in to the mix. many many are making less than the average.
The really big money boys have their stashes in various schemes round the world which do not attract any tax, if their wealth is included in the numbers then it is farcical, HMRC will know what the 5% cut off is but it doesn't seem to be public knowledge. What I remember is (and this is probably spin too so take with a pinch) the when the Thatcher government introduce a high tax band (40%) at approx £33k back in the late 80's it was stated that this level was expected to cath the 'so called' rich. The tax threshold has not been raised in line with either wages or inflation so many more than the rich are paying it (hands up if you've never had to pay a bit of 40 % tax) it has become more normalised. New Labour attempted to re-dress this with the £150k band at 50% (now 45%) which I don't believe is very well funded in terms of numbers of people paying it, but it probably brings in quite a bit of revenue. £80k gets spouted by both sides, BloJo said he wanted to increase the tax band from £45k (less in Scotland) to £80k (what was the reasoning for £80k?) and Labour are saying the rich are getting paid over £80k - are they actually in agreement??! Taxing higher earners is seen as fair bur inevitably causes them to conceal some of their income (in a legal way) through tax efficient schemes etc which then forces the tax band to drop to hoover up more money. This argument will never cease or be correct, I think the new Scottish system (more progressive) is probably a better 'compromise' but it will have to be tested over some time to prove its worth and lack of abuse. Average wage is now about £28k I believe so £80k may well be a reasonable number to start with?
yip, i remember this from out tax change debates. its a fine line changing tax rates as people can change their tax arrangments. if they aint on PAYE.
Most people are on PAYE. Of course if they are "high earners" on PAYE they can't usually "change their arrangements" but the point nobody seems to get is that they can change their income in some cases. The man on QT mentioned doctors as an example of those who make more than £80K (for a moment I thought he was saying he was one, but I think probably not) - has anyone noticed how many GPs work part time now? As well as the pressure of the job, that may have something to do with the 60% tax rate which currently applies from £100K (due to personal allowance withdrawal - and that would rise to 65% under Labour's plans). The stupid "pension input annual allowance tapering" measure introduced by Hammond has caused chaos in the NHS with some senior medical staff genuinely finding themselves in a situation where they can end up paying more in tax than they earn extra if they put in overtime (so they don't). Apologies if this has already been posted! https://metro.co.uk/2017/05/19/chee...the-tax-system-and-it-involves-booze-6648029/
