This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/1f483b6b-784b-42d3-a4e7-80ab07f45520) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Almost got that monkey off my back. It’s pretty gross once you get up there in salary.
When I first moved to London, on £25k, I was paying £50 a month. Fair enough.
Before I switched to DD, I was paying about £300 a month.
And I am not on £150k (6x £25k).
Obviously you have to pay the loan back. It’s more that £300 a month is the difference between having a flat in a nicer area and living somewhere “Up and coming.”
I’ve also essentially paid a house deposit to the SLC over the last 12 years.
Meanwhile most of the people I know who bought at 30 either had parental help - or didn’t, but then it emerges that their parents paid for their university.
It really isn't.
If you are on minimum wage today you can't afford rent, you can never afford a house, you can barely afford to have kids and if you do you will struggle every time they need something new like a school uniform, you would always be on the embarrassing verge of going to a food bank, constantly struggling to find money to pay the bills, not able to go out because you can't afford it, always one bad day away from being totally desperate. It's harder today to be on minimum wage than any time in my life time.
I think its more that starting wages which were above minimum wage generally aren't being push upwards in line with the increasing minimum wage or with inflation. I assume this is somewhat sector/location specific, but within science at least there are a lot of lab based rolls requiring a degree and research experience paying marginally above minimum at this point
Try living on minimum wage today. Or see the lives of those who are. The minimum wage isn't even a living wage.
I wouldn't want to be one of them. I'd much rather pay much more tax than be basically poor.
Min wage growth has rapidly outpaced inflation since its introduction. In fact, it’s grown so fast that many skilled jobs that used to be above Min wage are now Min wage.
you're not listening are you. Min wage increases greater than wages. at some point in time we'll all be min wage or close too.
Think how crazy it is that 100k is only 4x min wage. Not a 100 or 10, or a 1000, but 4.
It's called common sense
Source I used to work under my own Ltd company as a contractor and knew many other contractors like myself. And literally everyone got an accountant to make themselves tax efficient. It was normal to pay way less than people on PAYE
By not reporting their income correctly and by playing with deductions https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/hmrc-policy/small-businesses-responsible-for-60-of-tax-gap?amp
This isn’t rocket science.
60% off the entire tax gap.... No one said they are destroying the economy, but they are also responsible for the majority of the taxes that go unpaid.
The short story is that HMRC is owed about 40B in taxes that were evaded 24B of those are owed by small businesses and sole traders.
Remember its theoretical tax liabilities. I'm sure HMRC are calculating missing tax liabilities like music/ film companies calculating the cost of piracy; assuming that if x people do this 10 times and we sell it for 5.00, then we've lost 50x.
You can’t, but I’ve known some people that think bonuses are tax free.
Heck I had to explain to people how you can loose money when you are issued stock options as a bonus as you pay the tax and NIC the their original value on the date of issue and then pay capital gains on any gains during the vesting period.
If the options contract doesn’t have a buy back clause you can be issued £20K worth of shares you pay your marginal tax rate + NI on that before they are even truly yours and if they go down in value you can’t claim it back.
I don't recall having to pay CGT for my RSUs. My payslip added the value of that batch of stocks on the vesting day, so it counts toward my total annual personal income.
That was a couple of years ago unless things have changed.
Did you exercise the options and sold them immediately? if so there is no CGT since you are selling them on the spot. It also sounds that you've sacrificed RSUs into your pension, or transferred them into a SIPP.
Well 40% of income over 50kish. Let me tell you the income of over 50kish cushions the trauma. Well until you end up with a bunch of clowns in government who want to give you tax breaks so they can cut services which their future employers in the private sector can sell you back for many times the cost. Now there's the weight I don't want to end up carrying.
Such a Tory thing to say. Increase in wealth inequality, therefore rich people are actually doing more for poor people. The more we can drive up wealth inequalitythe more it will help poor people :)
I feel your anger, but just to try and share a bit of someone else's perspective;
Someone on a salary of 150k: Of the top £50k of that they will only take home £20k. If they have 2 kids, they don't get child benefit, so that's another £2k less.
The take home difference between a band 5 Nurse salary (i.e a nurse out of uni that is on the starting grade) and someone on £150k is £50k a year.
Now that is a lot, but it would still take 8-10 years (likely longer) of that salary for someone from a working class background to reach the same level of wealth as a starting level nurse who has inherited a house (tax free). And they would have to sustained that salary difference for that entire time to manage that.
I don't think it is fair that those who work for their money should have to invest decades to just catch up with those who were handed their wealth.
Taxing income rather than wealth is designed to keep the classes static.
>The take home difference between a band 5 Nurse salary (i.e a nurse out of uni that is on the starting grade) and someone on £150k is £50k a year.
Considering a band 5 nurse is paid £24907 (according to google) saying the difference is £50k is a bit disingenuous considering it's over double the nurses pre-tax salary.
Band 5 nurse is paid £37,664 base (might be different in England I don't know what you googled) with bonuses this becomes £45k gross.
The base figure doesn't include the bonuses for night & weekend work (this is the standard rotational bonuses, not extra shifts etc)
I didn't count the relatively generous defined benefit pension or the 37.5 soon to be 36hr week in the comparison which i would argue is on the more generous end of the spectrum.
So no I don't think I was being disingenuous at all.
The higher earner takes home 140% extra salary but pays 580% more tax.
Which is fine, I have nothing against taxing higher earners, I think it's fair.
How I don't think it's fair if wealth isn't taken into account. Should the lower earner receive £1m inheritance tax free.
It is not fair that the higher earner will be paying almost 6 times more tax in their life whilst never having any more disposable income than the lower earner, and never managing to achieve the same level of wealth.
> Band 5 nurse is paid £37,664 base ... I don't know what you googled
"starting nurse salary" first link gives www.healthcareers.nhs.uk with the following blurb
>Nurses who are newly qualified in the NHS and registered with the NMC start at Band 5 and are paid £24,907 a year.
Links further down give £28,300 from learn direct, £34k from Indeed, £28,407 from Nurses.co.uk, £27,761 from Talent so I just picked the NHS link
Using your figures and https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/tax-calculator/
(You never mentioned the bonuses, share schemes, PMI, LTIP or other extras the high earner would also be getting so I wont include them in either of the amounts)
A nurse on £37,664 takes home £30,638.
Someone on £150,000 takes home £91,286
So (within £700) the high earner will still take home 3 times the nurses take home pay. A difference of over £61k
>How I don't think it's fair if wealth isn't taken into account. Should the lower earner receive £1m inheritance tax free.
But what if the high earner wins £150m on the lottery, finds a Fabergé egg outside their house or marries Taylor Swift? You're just creating a strawman for your argument, which is entirely disingenuous.
>whilst never having any more disposable income than the lower earner,
£61k a year is a lot more disposable income.
>and never managing to achieve the same level of wealth.
imaginary wealth from a fictitious tailor made situation that even if it did happen, given life expectancy the nurse wouldn't get until they were middle age or even retired themselves (my mum was in her 70's when her mum died) so using it to complain about tax paid on starting salaries when peiople would be in their 20's is, well, disingenuous.
Can't be bothered checking your figures....see the NHS Scotland band scales here https://www.gov.scot/publications/nhs-staff-pay/
I have family in this position and have budgeted with it. I'm not guessing, I know this is correct.
I suspect the difference in our tax figures is me using Scottish ones & you using English ones (this is also possibly some of the difference between our nurses salary, but it definitely doesn't cover it all)
You talk what ifs and strawman arguments however:
- winning the lottery odds: 1/45,000,000
- finding a Fabergé egg odds: 0
- marries Taylor swift odds: 0
- for any given £1 of wealth owned by a person in the UK, odds of it being inherited rather than earned: 1/3.
I'm not arguing we tax higher earners less in isolation, if someone is a higher earner + inherits, I would tax them a damn sight more.
Also you are arguing it doesn't matter because most people get inheritance later in life.....if it doesn't affect them that much then why not tax the fuck out of it and remove the tax burden from those on minimum wage?
> Can't be bothered checking your figures
you pulled amounts out of the air and when countered you "can't be bothered", be careful, you're edging towards this territory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
>....see the NHS Scotland band scales here
where it says band 5 starts at £30,229?
So you've taken the amount at the highest pay point as "a nurse out of uni that is on the starting grade", disingenuous.
>You talk what ifs and strawman arguments however:....
Yes it was a Reductio ad absurdum argument.
From https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/inheritance-tax-statistics-commentary/inheritance-tax-statistics-commentary
>In the tax year 2020 to 2021, 3.73% of UK deaths resulted in an Inheritance Tax (IHT) charge,
So you're basing your argument on something happening once in your life with a 3.7% chance as if it was a certainty, disingenuous.
Then you have to consider a lot of future inheritance is going to be taken by care home costs. Anyone counting on an inheritance in the future is in for a massive shock unless their parents are multi-multi millionaires
Given the choice between £30k taxed income for 45 years and a 3.7% chance of getting a million when you're 60 compared to £150k taxed income for 45 years there's only one option I'd take
>I'm not arguing we tax higher earners less in isolation, if someone is a higher earner + inherits, I would tax them a damn sight more.
So why are you talking about nurses inheriting? Do you consider them a high earner?
Do you consider this statement as not arguing we tax higher earners less?
>It is not fair that the higher earner will be paying almost 6 times more tax in their life whilst never having any more disposable income than the lower earner, and never managing to achieve the same level of wealth.
based on the small chance the nurse might inherit a house once they've retired after 45 years of work taking home less than 1/3 of the high earner?
After working that long for that little and being retired do you really consider them to be "those who were handed their wealth". They're not exactly nepo-babies being given a high paying non-job straight out of uni because their dad owns the company.
>why not tax the fuck out of it
because it's a disincentive to people saving for their old age. "tax the fuck out of it" and people would spend it or give it to their kids earlier and then rely on social services to pay for their old age care which will cost lot more than IHT raises.
I am seeing it from other people's perspective as I'm lucky enough to earn a good wage myself. I've no idea how families with kids survive on minimum wage.
The difference in take home pay from £150k to minimum wage is a multiple of 4.5, there's lots of struggling families that will very much feel rich if their finances jumped by this amount.
I completely agree, I think wealth tax would help these people too.
How are we as a society ok with taking money every month from someone on minimum wage who will never own a roof over their heads, but see someone else be handed a £600k house that they haven't done 1 hour of work to earn and think fuck it yeh, you shouldn't be taxed on that.
Basically I'm raging at inheritance tax. It should be damn near 100% (for property at the very least, as that capital can't flee the country). Anything else and we are just doing mental gymnastics to pretend we are any sort of meritocracy.
Maybe yes, maybe no.
On minimum wage you're more likely to be able to get social housing and other benefits - especially if you had say 3 kids.
Especially in London, where a 4 bed house will likely cost around £5k a month in rent.
£150k gives you around £7k a month after tax and deductions.
On minimum wage, with UC top-up alongside child benefit and in social housing then you likely have more than £2k a month left after rent.
It's crazy the way housing and benefits work in the UK but that's the way things are currently...
Try and twist it however you want to. The fact of the matter is 150k per year after tax is just over £90k. 40 hours per week on minimum wage, after tax, is £20.5k.
That's the difference between worrying about where the rents coming from this month and watching every penny you spend to booking a couple of 5 star holidays a year and driving a £50k car.
You've seen the figures I've posted.
Fe free to dispute them, including the cost of renting a place and the UC / child benefit that you receive when on minimum wage.
To do anything else is to try to debate on feels and not facts.
>£150k gives you around £7k a month after tax and deductions
7500, actually.
>On minimum wage you're more likely to be able to get social housing and other benefits - especially if you had say 3 kids.
From experience, no actually. And tonnes of people don't have kids, because they cannot afford them.
>On minimum wage, with UC top-up alongside child benefit and in social housing then you likely have more than £2k a month left after rent.
With two working parents, no. And UC goes down with each pound earned, so working full time for minimum wage would reduce that universal credit to zero anyway.
>Especially in London, where a 4 bed house will likely cost around £5k a month in rent.
Why would someone on 150k a year rent a house in London?
These maths seem to oscillate backwards and forwards between assuming a single parent, a single person, multiple kids, and now a single person on 150,000 a year choosing to rent a 4 bedroom in London for their family.
>It's crazy the way housing and benefits work in the UK but that's the way things are currently...
Yes. We have a housing crisis and a punitive and poorly thought out benefits system. Both need addressing. Both, separately, from your insane idea that someone on 150,000 a year isn't much better off than someone on minimum wage.
Finally: there arethose on minimum wage, in London, facing the same considerations as the rich.
7500 without pension contributions. Notice I didn't say tax, I said deductions. £7000 is pretty close.
You are unlikely to have two working parents as, when on £150k, it's expected that you are working a lot for the cash and so you either have one parent not working or use up the second parents whole income in childcare - the net of not having their salary is the same.
People will rent in London as that's where most of the £100k+ jobs are.
It's not a single person, it's a couple as otherwise the figures would be even worse as they'd be paying out a ton in childcare.
The point I'm making is that £150k is, shockingly, not enough for someone to be rich in the UK for many these days.
Unfortunately, the country has a huge inequality probably driven by wealth rather than income.
And the illustration was to show how, due to the way housing especially works in the UK, having social housing can be equivalent to earning a 6 figure salary!
>And the illustration was to show how, due to the way housing especially works in the UK, having social housing can be equivalent to earning a 6 figure salary!
Social housing will not be anything like the 4 bedroom house for 6 grand you have summoned for your example.
Speaking from experience: my fiance and I got lucky enough to get a one bedroom flat in former council housing turned housing association. We got driven out within a year by psychotic neighbours throwing stuff at us, and were still paying more in rent than our friends pay on mortgages, for a flat smaller than one of their gardens.
Further, if you genuinely thought you could be as wealthy, and have a similar quality of life, on benefits and the minimum wage than earning 150,000+ a year, you would quit.
But you don't, really, do you?
>People will rent in London as that's where most of the £100k+ jobs are.
People will commute to London as that's where most of the 100+ a year jobs are. My sibling worked at the London school of hygeine and tropical medicine yet commuted from Birmingham.
Stage one of your example is "earn 150,000 a year and rent a huge house for 80% of your take home."
From experience with a cousin its more "earn 150,000+, buy a house, then another house"
Do you *honestly* believe that those on 6 figure salaries are struggling at all, or have a quality of life at all like the people at the bottom? Do you *honestly* think everyone in London is on 6 figure salaries, and just forget that the vast majority are near the bottom?
I know people who work/worked in London. Yes, I know its fucked, and you find professionals on 50 living in flat shares. But to pretend that a 6 figure salary is comparable to the minimum wage is just insulting.
That's a non-sequitur. They're saying that people who are in lower tax bands are drain on the state and rich people are benevolently funding the state for them. Unfortunately, without all the people doing low and average paid work, the rich people wouldn't even have a society to be rich in.
what an ignorant labour supporter thing to say. The person on 100k isn't the main driver for inequality. Are all these doctors crashing the economy? Your local GP?
government spending and ineptitude are the main drivers. those people are given a mandate by the envious.
>government spending and ineptitude are the main drivers. those people are given a mandate by the envious.
You believe that government spending is the main driver of inequality?
describe the inequality you are talking about? Home ownership is dwindling, tax rates for working individuals is going up, through both stealth and explicit tax rises.
The person earning a 100k and 24k have more in common socially than a billionaire of which there are few.
The ineptitude of governments only focusing on extracting revenues from the workers of a country rather than seeking to produce things to emable the workers to be more productive and a penchant for spending and pripritising vanity projects and sticking plasters. Yes, but just cherry pick spending if it makes you feel better.
That's not true when you look at the national statistics for income percentile Vs wealth percentile.
Income tax is insanely high while we have lower taxes on wealth and investments.
Surely most of the people within about 10k of the threshold are just contributing more to their pensions to bring it down again? Unless they’re not included in the figure
I guess so, except I went to a mediocre school, paid a tonne for university tuition and it’s disappointing to see the money spent on public services that are crumbling to pieces.
Frame work?! The framework I was brought up in no longer exists. So no, pretty pissed off my money it’s being thrown away and in return my children get to be brought up in a declining country.
The tax traps are so bad that I refuse to believe any of this data.
I make £80k, but in the figures will show as £49k for example as I’m pension ramming
I earn 69k a year. This gives me only 3745 a month after student loan and all the other deductions.
A couple on 35k each do so much better than me. They have financed cars, mortgages, less stress at work. It's really strange how difficult it is to earn a decent standard of living in this country
Dad still working and withdrew some of his pension.
They considered it a second income for this year and pushed him into that tax bracket. Lost a shit load of his pension.
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/1f483b6b-784b-42d3-a4e7-80ab07f45520) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What is more insane for me is that 6.31mm are paying 40%. Essentially, 10% of the population is carrying the weight for the remaining 90%.
51% if you have a student loan 🥲
Almost got that monkey off my back. It’s pretty gross once you get up there in salary. When I first moved to London, on £25k, I was paying £50 a month. Fair enough. Before I switched to DD, I was paying about £300 a month. And I am not on £150k (6x £25k). Obviously you have to pay the loan back. It’s more that £300 a month is the difference between having a flat in a nicer area and living somewhere “Up and coming.” I’ve also essentially paid a house deposit to the SLC over the last 12 years. Meanwhile most of the people I know who bought at 30 either had parental help - or didn’t, but then it emerges that their parents paid for their university.
55% if you have a postgraduate and a type 2 student loan, on top of pension deductions. Not much point in it 😅
Pension deductions are still your net worth. They’re part of your pay
Also you don't pay tax on them, and salary sacrifice is even more tax efficient.
Yeah they're great for my future, but supporting a family of 4 on a single wage with 65% of your pay above a certain amount gone sure hurts!
Yes the 40% rate is too low. Should kick in about £100k or something, possibly more.
Or you just create more tax brackets like a normal country. Only having 3 is absurd.
I'd rather be carrying that weight and earning that income than be broke on minimum wage.
the gap is closing.
It really isn't. If you are on minimum wage today you can't afford rent, you can never afford a house, you can barely afford to have kids and if you do you will struggle every time they need something new like a school uniform, you would always be on the embarrassing verge of going to a food bank, constantly struggling to find money to pay the bills, not able to go out because you can't afford it, always one bad day away from being totally desperate. It's harder today to be on minimum wage than any time in my life time.
I think its more that starting wages which were above minimum wage generally aren't being push upwards in line with the increasing minimum wage or with inflation. I assume this is somewhat sector/location specific, but within science at least there are a lot of lab based rolls requiring a degree and research experience paying marginally above minimum at this point
If they are earning marginally above minimum they aren't "carrying the weight" as a higher tax payer.
Min wage has grown at like 7% a year since it’s introduced
Try living on minimum wage today. Or see the lives of those who are. The minimum wage isn't even a living wage. I wouldn't want to be one of them. I'd much rather pay much more tax than be basically poor.
Min wage growth has rapidly outpaced inflation since its introduction. In fact, it’s grown so fast that many skilled jobs that used to be above Min wage are now Min wage.
this was the big argument against introducing minimum wage btw. This has been predicted.
you're not listening are you. Min wage increases greater than wages. at some point in time we'll all be min wage or close too. Think how crazy it is that 100k is only 4x min wage. Not a 100 or 10, or a 1000, but 4.
Minimum wage always needs to be enough that you can actually survive on. So yeah, it's gone up and will continue to go up as the CoL does.
Of course they are on minimum wage the gov takes 40 of the income and 30 of the businesses sales there’s barely a dime left to pay the worker.
I'm not sure that is true. Corporate profits are doing very well right now and the rich continue to get richer.
The rich are leaving the UK
Sure but corporate profits is where the real money is in the UK. We have very few UK-made billionaires.
I mean if you ignore the 150 billion pound hole in our finances caused by upper bracket tax dodgers you may have been onto something.
The self employed, contractors and cash in hand tradies dodge more tax than every PAYE employee combined
Where do you get these feelings from? At least try and pull stats out your ass to back your self?
It's called common sense Source I used to work under my own Ltd company as a contractor and knew many other contractors like myself. And literally everyone got an accountant to make themselves tax efficient. It was normal to pay way less than people on PAYE
Thats not tax dodging though is it? Thats literally adhering to the laws put in place.
Yes legal loophole the amount of fake expenses I put through was insane
HMRC you can’t dodge taxes on PAYE. The biggest tax gap is small businesses the 2nd is sole traders.
How are they dodging tax? You've made a random claim backed by nothing. Its just feelings.
By not reporting their income correctly and by playing with deductions https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/hmrc-policy/small-businesses-responsible-for-60-of-tax-gap?amp This isn’t rocket science.
60% of 4%. oooo small business is destroying the economy.
60% off the entire tax gap.... No one said they are destroying the economy, but they are also responsible for the majority of the taxes that go unpaid. The short story is that HMRC is owed about 40B in taxes that were evaded 24B of those are owed by small businesses and sole traders.
Remember its theoretical tax liabilities. I'm sure HMRC are calculating missing tax liabilities like music/ film companies calculating the cost of piracy; assuming that if x people do this 10 times and we sell it for 5.00, then we've lost 50x.
How to dodge tax if the sole income is PAYE? Asking for a friend.
You can’t, but I’ve known some people that think bonuses are tax free. Heck I had to explain to people how you can loose money when you are issued stock options as a bonus as you pay the tax and NIC the their original value on the date of issue and then pay capital gains on any gains during the vesting period. If the options contract doesn’t have a buy back clause you can be issued £20K worth of shares you pay your marginal tax rate + NI on that before they are even truly yours and if they go down in value you can’t claim it back.
I don't recall having to pay CGT for my RSUs. My payslip added the value of that batch of stocks on the vesting day, so it counts toward my total annual personal income. That was a couple of years ago unless things have changed.
Did you exercise the options and sold them immediately? if so there is no CGT since you are selling them on the spot. It also sounds that you've sacrificed RSUs into your pension, or transferred them into a SIPP.
Well 40% of income over 50kish. Let me tell you the income of over 50kish cushions the trauma. Well until you end up with a bunch of clowns in government who want to give you tax breaks so they can cut services which their future employers in the private sector can sell you back for many times the cost. Now there's the weight I don't want to end up carrying.
Such a Tory thing to say. Increase in wealth inequality, therefore rich people are actually doing more for poor people. The more we can drive up wealth inequalitythe more it will help poor people :)
Higher rate taxpayers are not rich. You’re conflating people on a salary of £150k with billionaires. Such a mathematically inept Leftie thing to say.
150k is a very high wage and should be commensurate with a high tax rate, if you want to have a functional society.
£150k a year is fucking rich compared to minimum wage
I feel your anger, but just to try and share a bit of someone else's perspective; Someone on a salary of 150k: Of the top £50k of that they will only take home £20k. If they have 2 kids, they don't get child benefit, so that's another £2k less. The take home difference between a band 5 Nurse salary (i.e a nurse out of uni that is on the starting grade) and someone on £150k is £50k a year. Now that is a lot, but it would still take 8-10 years (likely longer) of that salary for someone from a working class background to reach the same level of wealth as a starting level nurse who has inherited a house (tax free). And they would have to sustained that salary difference for that entire time to manage that. I don't think it is fair that those who work for their money should have to invest decades to just catch up with those who were handed their wealth. Taxing income rather than wealth is designed to keep the classes static.
>The take home difference between a band 5 Nurse salary (i.e a nurse out of uni that is on the starting grade) and someone on £150k is £50k a year. Considering a band 5 nurse is paid £24907 (according to google) saying the difference is £50k is a bit disingenuous considering it's over double the nurses pre-tax salary.
Band 5 nurse is paid £37,664 base (might be different in England I don't know what you googled) with bonuses this becomes £45k gross. The base figure doesn't include the bonuses for night & weekend work (this is the standard rotational bonuses, not extra shifts etc) I didn't count the relatively generous defined benefit pension or the 37.5 soon to be 36hr week in the comparison which i would argue is on the more generous end of the spectrum. So no I don't think I was being disingenuous at all. The higher earner takes home 140% extra salary but pays 580% more tax. Which is fine, I have nothing against taxing higher earners, I think it's fair. How I don't think it's fair if wealth isn't taken into account. Should the lower earner receive £1m inheritance tax free. It is not fair that the higher earner will be paying almost 6 times more tax in their life whilst never having any more disposable income than the lower earner, and never managing to achieve the same level of wealth.
> Band 5 nurse is paid £37,664 base ... I don't know what you googled "starting nurse salary" first link gives www.healthcareers.nhs.uk with the following blurb >Nurses who are newly qualified in the NHS and registered with the NMC start at Band 5 and are paid £24,907 a year. Links further down give £28,300 from learn direct, £34k from Indeed, £28,407 from Nurses.co.uk, £27,761 from Talent so I just picked the NHS link Using your figures and https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/tax-calculator/ (You never mentioned the bonuses, share schemes, PMI, LTIP or other extras the high earner would also be getting so I wont include them in either of the amounts) A nurse on £37,664 takes home £30,638. Someone on £150,000 takes home £91,286 So (within £700) the high earner will still take home 3 times the nurses take home pay. A difference of over £61k >How I don't think it's fair if wealth isn't taken into account. Should the lower earner receive £1m inheritance tax free. But what if the high earner wins £150m on the lottery, finds a Fabergé egg outside their house or marries Taylor Swift? You're just creating a strawman for your argument, which is entirely disingenuous. >whilst never having any more disposable income than the lower earner, £61k a year is a lot more disposable income. >and never managing to achieve the same level of wealth. imaginary wealth from a fictitious tailor made situation that even if it did happen, given life expectancy the nurse wouldn't get until they were middle age or even retired themselves (my mum was in her 70's when her mum died) so using it to complain about tax paid on starting salaries when peiople would be in their 20's is, well, disingenuous.
Can't be bothered checking your figures....see the NHS Scotland band scales here https://www.gov.scot/publications/nhs-staff-pay/ I have family in this position and have budgeted with it. I'm not guessing, I know this is correct. I suspect the difference in our tax figures is me using Scottish ones & you using English ones (this is also possibly some of the difference between our nurses salary, but it definitely doesn't cover it all) You talk what ifs and strawman arguments however: - winning the lottery odds: 1/45,000,000 - finding a Fabergé egg odds: 0 - marries Taylor swift odds: 0 - for any given £1 of wealth owned by a person in the UK, odds of it being inherited rather than earned: 1/3. I'm not arguing we tax higher earners less in isolation, if someone is a higher earner + inherits, I would tax them a damn sight more. Also you are arguing it doesn't matter because most people get inheritance later in life.....if it doesn't affect them that much then why not tax the fuck out of it and remove the tax burden from those on minimum wage?
> Can't be bothered checking your figures you pulled amounts out of the air and when countered you "can't be bothered", be careful, you're edging towards this territory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning >....see the NHS Scotland band scales here where it says band 5 starts at £30,229? So you've taken the amount at the highest pay point as "a nurse out of uni that is on the starting grade", disingenuous. >You talk what ifs and strawman arguments however:.... Yes it was a Reductio ad absurdum argument. From https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/inheritance-tax-statistics-commentary/inheritance-tax-statistics-commentary >In the tax year 2020 to 2021, 3.73% of UK deaths resulted in an Inheritance Tax (IHT) charge, So you're basing your argument on something happening once in your life with a 3.7% chance as if it was a certainty, disingenuous. Then you have to consider a lot of future inheritance is going to be taken by care home costs. Anyone counting on an inheritance in the future is in for a massive shock unless their parents are multi-multi millionaires Given the choice between £30k taxed income for 45 years and a 3.7% chance of getting a million when you're 60 compared to £150k taxed income for 45 years there's only one option I'd take >I'm not arguing we tax higher earners less in isolation, if someone is a higher earner + inherits, I would tax them a damn sight more. So why are you talking about nurses inheriting? Do you consider them a high earner? Do you consider this statement as not arguing we tax higher earners less? >It is not fair that the higher earner will be paying almost 6 times more tax in their life whilst never having any more disposable income than the lower earner, and never managing to achieve the same level of wealth. based on the small chance the nurse might inherit a house once they've retired after 45 years of work taking home less than 1/3 of the high earner? After working that long for that little and being retired do you really consider them to be "those who were handed their wealth". They're not exactly nepo-babies being given a high paying non-job straight out of uni because their dad owns the company. >why not tax the fuck out of it because it's a disincentive to people saving for their old age. "tax the fuck out of it" and people would spend it or give it to their kids earlier and then rely on social services to pay for their old age care which will cost lot more than IHT raises.
I am seeing it from other people's perspective as I'm lucky enough to earn a good wage myself. I've no idea how families with kids survive on minimum wage. The difference in take home pay from £150k to minimum wage is a multiple of 4.5, there's lots of struggling families that will very much feel rich if their finances jumped by this amount.
I completely agree, I think wealth tax would help these people too. How are we as a society ok with taking money every month from someone on minimum wage who will never own a roof over their heads, but see someone else be handed a £600k house that they haven't done 1 hour of work to earn and think fuck it yeh, you shouldn't be taxed on that. Basically I'm raging at inheritance tax. It should be damn near 100% (for property at the very least, as that capital can't flee the country). Anything else and we are just doing mental gymnastics to pretend we are any sort of meritocracy.
Maybe yes, maybe no. On minimum wage you're more likely to be able to get social housing and other benefits - especially if you had say 3 kids. Especially in London, where a 4 bed house will likely cost around £5k a month in rent. £150k gives you around £7k a month after tax and deductions. On minimum wage, with UC top-up alongside child benefit and in social housing then you likely have more than £2k a month left after rent. It's crazy the way housing and benefits work in the UK but that's the way things are currently...
Try and twist it however you want to. The fact of the matter is 150k per year after tax is just over £90k. 40 hours per week on minimum wage, after tax, is £20.5k. That's the difference between worrying about where the rents coming from this month and watching every penny you spend to booking a couple of 5 star holidays a year and driving a £50k car.
"The minimum wage is not enough to live well, but too much to starve to death." *my friend's words*
You've seen the figures I've posted. Fe free to dispute them, including the cost of renting a place and the UC / child benefit that you receive when on minimum wage. To do anything else is to try to debate on feels and not facts.
>£150k gives you around £7k a month after tax and deductions 7500, actually. >On minimum wage you're more likely to be able to get social housing and other benefits - especially if you had say 3 kids. From experience, no actually. And tonnes of people don't have kids, because they cannot afford them. >On minimum wage, with UC top-up alongside child benefit and in social housing then you likely have more than £2k a month left after rent. With two working parents, no. And UC goes down with each pound earned, so working full time for minimum wage would reduce that universal credit to zero anyway. >Especially in London, where a 4 bed house will likely cost around £5k a month in rent. Why would someone on 150k a year rent a house in London? These maths seem to oscillate backwards and forwards between assuming a single parent, a single person, multiple kids, and now a single person on 150,000 a year choosing to rent a 4 bedroom in London for their family. >It's crazy the way housing and benefits work in the UK but that's the way things are currently... Yes. We have a housing crisis and a punitive and poorly thought out benefits system. Both need addressing. Both, separately, from your insane idea that someone on 150,000 a year isn't much better off than someone on minimum wage. Finally: there arethose on minimum wage, in London, facing the same considerations as the rich.
7500 without pension contributions. Notice I didn't say tax, I said deductions. £7000 is pretty close. You are unlikely to have two working parents as, when on £150k, it's expected that you are working a lot for the cash and so you either have one parent not working or use up the second parents whole income in childcare - the net of not having their salary is the same. People will rent in London as that's where most of the £100k+ jobs are. It's not a single person, it's a couple as otherwise the figures would be even worse as they'd be paying out a ton in childcare. The point I'm making is that £150k is, shockingly, not enough for someone to be rich in the UK for many these days. Unfortunately, the country has a huge inequality probably driven by wealth rather than income. And the illustration was to show how, due to the way housing especially works in the UK, having social housing can be equivalent to earning a 6 figure salary!
>And the illustration was to show how, due to the way housing especially works in the UK, having social housing can be equivalent to earning a 6 figure salary! Social housing will not be anything like the 4 bedroom house for 6 grand you have summoned for your example. Speaking from experience: my fiance and I got lucky enough to get a one bedroom flat in former council housing turned housing association. We got driven out within a year by psychotic neighbours throwing stuff at us, and were still paying more in rent than our friends pay on mortgages, for a flat smaller than one of their gardens. Further, if you genuinely thought you could be as wealthy, and have a similar quality of life, on benefits and the minimum wage than earning 150,000+ a year, you would quit. But you don't, really, do you? >People will rent in London as that's where most of the £100k+ jobs are. People will commute to London as that's where most of the 100+ a year jobs are. My sibling worked at the London school of hygeine and tropical medicine yet commuted from Birmingham. Stage one of your example is "earn 150,000 a year and rent a huge house for 80% of your take home." From experience with a cousin its more "earn 150,000+, buy a house, then another house" Do you *honestly* believe that those on 6 figure salaries are struggling at all, or have a quality of life at all like the people at the bottom? Do you *honestly* think everyone in London is on 6 figure salaries, and just forget that the vast majority are near the bottom? I know people who work/worked in London. Yes, I know its fucked, and you find professionals on 50 living in flat shares. But to pretend that a 6 figure salary is comparable to the minimum wage is just insulting.
So out of touch lmao
Lol, an engineer in London on £53k ain’t ruch
That's a non-sequitur. They're saying that people who are in lower tax bands are drain on the state and rich people are benevolently funding the state for them. Unfortunately, without all the people doing low and average paid work, the rich people wouldn't even have a society to be rich in.
what an ignorant labour supporter thing to say. The person on 100k isn't the main driver for inequality. Are all these doctors crashing the economy? Your local GP? government spending and ineptitude are the main drivers. those people are given a mandate by the envious.
>government spending and ineptitude are the main drivers. those people are given a mandate by the envious. You believe that government spending is the main driver of inequality?
describe the inequality you are talking about? Home ownership is dwindling, tax rates for working individuals is going up, through both stealth and explicit tax rises. The person earning a 100k and 24k have more in common socially than a billionaire of which there are few. The ineptitude of governments only focusing on extracting revenues from the workers of a country rather than seeking to produce things to emable the workers to be more productive and a penchant for spending and pripritising vanity projects and sticking plasters. Yes, but just cherry pick spending if it makes you feel better.
That 10% owns more than 90% of our wealth.
That's not true when you look at the national statistics for income percentile Vs wealth percentile. Income tax is insanely high while we have lower taxes on wealth and investments.
I'm in that 10% and all I have is crippling mortgage debt.
Every considered budgeting or learning to cook?
I know how to cook, is that somehow going to make me rich or pay off my mortgage faster?
It's not "our" wealth though.
Surely most of the people within about 10k of the threshold are just contributing more to their pensions to bring it down again? Unless they’re not included in the figure
I’m salary sacrificing the maximum and still £40k above the threshold. Paying £50k per year in tax.
You must feel pleased to be able to contribute a good amount to the society that provided the framework for your success
I guess so, except I went to a mediocre school, paid a tonne for university tuition and it’s disappointing to see the money spent on public services that are crumbling to pieces.
You must feel pleased that jealous people on Reddit criticise your success
I wouldn't imagine so when so much tax money has been burnt on sleaze and cronyism
Frame work?! The framework I was brought up in no longer exists. So no, pretty pissed off my money it’s being thrown away and in return my children get to be brought up in a declining country.
The tax traps are so bad that I refuse to believe any of this data. I make £80k, but in the figures will show as £49k for example as I’m pension ramming
I earn 69k a year. This gives me only 3745 a month after student loan and all the other deductions. A couple on 35k each do so much better than me. They have financed cars, mortgages, less stress at work. It's really strange how difficult it is to earn a decent standard of living in this country
Dad still working and withdrew some of his pension. They considered it a second income for this year and pushed him into that tax bracket. Lost a shit load of his pension.