It is nonsensical to use salary (even more so salary before tax) as a definition of wealth/"richness". At best one can say that all things being equal an individual on a higher salary will be better off than someone on a lower salary.
Wealth/richness can only really be measured by what an individual has in the bank/available in disposable assets. Simply looking at earnings is irrelevant without considering personal circumstances, where one lives, financial dependants etc etc.
Obviously those on higher salaries may be in a position to partially trade off wealth with personal standard of living (live in a nice area, eat nicer food, spend more on personal luxuries etc but this is a marginal question.
If one is earning £50k a year (before tax) but is paying thousands a month in rent, has children to support etc then they are unlikely to have much to put aside to build up their personal wealth. Contrast with somebody earning substantially lower, but with no children, possibly living with an earning partner/others to dramatically reduce personal living costs, or having inherited/paid off a mortgage and the difference shows very rapidly. In favour of the individual on the lower salary being the 'rich' one.
If Theresa May's will-to-power muscles are functioning, she will surely want to seize the opportunity to step into the void of leadership in the EU left by Merkel.
What's interesting, though, is how quickly attitudes can change. Forty years ago, the idea that Ireland would be a land with legal abortions and gay marriage would have been inconceivable.
65 years ago the idea that England would be a land with legal abortions and gay marriage would have been inconceivable.
Autres temps, autres moeurs
If a prevailing culture can change one way, it can also change again in a very different direction. We should never be complacent about the liberties we have won. People often assume that all change will necessarily be progressive. And that ain’t necessarily so. There are some trends now which make me worried about whether in 40 or 50 years Western society will be as liberal and free as it is now.
Quite. Gay men and women in Berlin in the 1920s presumably had high hopes for the future.
If Theresa May's will-to-power muscles are functioning, she will surely want to seize the opportunity to step into the void of leadership in the EU left by Merkel.
The comparative impact in 2020 and 2021 is even more stark. “A basic rate taxpayer will have an average gain of £20. A higher rate taxpayer will have an average real gain of £228,” the Treasury admits in the small print. £228 is an astonishing 11 times greater benefit. The most telling thing came when Hammond hailed all this as “a tax cut for 32 million people”. It turns out that was made up of 26.1 million on lower incomes getting a small tax break, and 4.1 million better off earners getting a much bigger payout. You could call it a tax policy for the few, not the many.
Rubbish. If Hammond had increase the personal allowance and left the higher rate threshhold unchanged every single tax payer would have benefited by £130. He could then have used the money frittered away on handouts to the rich by putting it into schools or social care, for example. He could also have perhaps increased the personal allowance even more and given every taxpayer a £150 reduction and you can bet your life that extra £20 would be far more valuable to the minimum wage earner than the rich on £50k.
How do you define the rich
Certainly anyone on the 88% centile of earnings is rich and it's sophistry to pretend otherwise.
The left do not like anything to do with success and resent even train drivers, senior nurses, teachers, police officers, and fire service personal earning £50,000 plus and snear at them as rich
The true politics of envy
Largely a matter of definition. £50 000 is nearly twice median national household income, so not unreasonable to classify as rich.
50k, with a council tax of 1,500/month and 2 young children puts you 35% up the income distribution according to this IFS calculator.
It puts you in the top third if you don't have kids but have a partner to support, and if you're single it puts you in the top 15%.
Given that most higher rate taxpayers will earn more than 50k, I think it's fair to say that higher earners have done well out of this change. That is pretty standard Tory orthodoxy, so I find it a bit surprising that some are seeking to deny it.
The comparative impact in 2020 and 2021 is even more stark. “A basic rate taxpayer will have an average gain of £20. A higher rate taxpayer will have an average real gain of £228,” the Treasury admits in the small print. £228 is an astonishing 11 times greater benefit. The most telling thing came when Hammond hailed all this as “a tax cut for 32 million people”. It turns out that was made up of 26.1 million on lower incomes getting a small tax break, and 4.1 million better off earners getting a much bigger payout. You could call it a tax policy for the few, not the many.
Rubbish. If Hammond had increase the personal allowance and left the higher rate threshhold unchanged every single tax payer would have benefited by £130. He could then have used the money frittered away on handouts to the rich by putting it into schools or social care, for example. He could also have perhaps increased the personal allowance even more and given every taxpayer a £150 reduction and you can bet your life that extra £20 would be far more valuable to the minimum wage earner than the rich on £50k.
How do you define the rich
Certainly anyone on the 88% centile of earnings is rich and it's sophistry to pretend otherwise.
The left do not like anything to do with success and resent even train drivers, senior nurses, teachers, police officers, and fire service personal earning £50,000 plus and snear at them as rich
The true politics of envy
Largely a matter of definition. £50 000 is nearly twice median national household income, so not unreasonable to classify as rich.
50k, with a council tax of 1,500/month and 2 young children puts you 35% up the income distribution according to this IFS calculator.
It puts you in the top third if you don't have kids but have a partner to support, and if you're single it puts you in the top 15%.
Given that most higher rate taxpayers will earn more than 50k, I think it's fair to say that higher earners have done well out of this change. That is pretty standard Tory orthodoxy, so I find it a bit surprising that some are seeking to deny it.
Too young to be there for the 70s, ignore his dodgy past as Fake News, life was much better then than now, etc etc etc
"Life was much better then" would be the elderly. "Things are rotten now and need to change" (or, "a better world must be possible") would be the young.
The comparative impact in 2020 and 2021 is even more stark. “A basic rate taxpayer will have an average gain of £20. A higher rate taxpayer will have an average real gain of £228,” the Treasury admits in the small print. £228 is an astonishing 11 times greater benefit. The most telling thing came when Hammond hailed all this as “a tax cut for 32 million people”. It turns out that was made up of 26.1 million on lower incomes getting a small tax break, and 4.1 million better off earners getting a much bigger payout. You could call it a tax policy for the few, not the many.
Rubbish. If Hammond had increase the personal allowance and left the higher rate threshhold unchanged every single tax payer would have benefited by £130. He could then have used the money frittered away on handouts to the rich by putting it into schools or social care, for example. He could also have perhaps increased the personal allowance even more and given every taxpayer a £150 reduction and you can bet your life that extra £20 would be far more valuable to the minimum wage earner than the rich on £50k.
How do you define the rich
Certainly anyone on the 88% centile of earnings is rich and it's sophistry to pretend otherwise.
The left do not like anything to do with success and resent even train drivers, senior nurses, teachers, police officers, and fire service personal earning £50,000 plus and snear at them as rich
The true politics of envy
Largely a matter of definition. £50 000 is nearly twice median national household income, so not unreasonable to classify as rich.
50k, with a council tax of 1,500/month and 2 young children puts you 35% up the income distribution according to this IFS calculator.
It puts you in the top third if you don't have kids but have a partner to support, and if you're single it puts you in the top 15%.
Given that most higher rate taxpayers will earn more than 50k, I think it's fair to say that higher earners have done well out of this change. That is pretty standard Tory orthodoxy, so I find it a bit surprising that some are seeking to deny it.
No, I don't think that's it. Currently only about 10% of pensioners work, and over half only work part-time or are self-employed, and so wouldn't pay much NI. The figure was much lower a few years ago, when the change should have been made - it will get more difficult in the future as there will be more losers from any change.
I think the real reason for not doing it is that civil servants and governments want to maintain the fiction that National Insurance is national insurance.
Morning Richard.
Don't you think there's at least a chance that it's because it makes older workers more attractive to employers, and therefore allows them to find work more easily, and keeps them from claiming their pensions for a bit longer?
So the figures I should have put are: 50k, 1500/year council tax, 2 young kids + 1 adult to support = 71% of income distribution 50k, 1500/year council tax, no kids + 1 adult to support = 88% of income distribution 50k, 1500/year council tax, no kids, single = 96% of income distribution.
Field work: 24/10/18 – 26/10/18 Sample size: 1,017"
Because of the glorious FPTP voting system. None of this coalition backroom deal nonsense.
Lol. On the biggest issue of the day (or generation, if you will) neither Labour not Tory voters really know what they will be getting, until the politicians emerge from that back room.
The comparative impact in 2020 and 2021 is even more stark. “A basic rate taxpayer will have an average gain of £20. A higher rate taxpayer will have an average real gain of £228,” the Treasury admits in the small print. £228 is an astonishing 11 times greater benefit. The most telling thing came when Hammond hailed all this as “a tax cut for 32 million people”. It turns out that was made up of 26.1 million on lower incomes getting a small tax break, and 4.1 million better off earners getting a much bigger payout. You could call it a tax policy for the few, not the many.
Rubbish. If Hammond had increase the personal allowance and left the higher rate threshhold unchanged every single tax payer would have benefited by £130. He could then have used the money frittered away on handouts to the rich by putting it into schools or social care, for example. He could also have perhaps increased the personal allowance even more and given every taxpayer a £150 reduction and you can bet your life that extra £20 would be far more valuable to the minimum wage earner than the rich on £50k.
Certainly anyone on the 88% centile of earnings is rich and it's sophistry to pretend otherwise.
The left do not like anything to do with success and resent even train drivers, senior nurses, teachers, police officers, and fire service personal earning £50,000 plus and snear at them as rich
The true politics of envy
Not quite true, they support them if they are on strike for even more money.
I'm not sneering at what anyone earns I'm sneering at people like you who think that £50k is a normal salary. It isn't.
Whent?
When did I say I was sneering at the rich? If £50k pa is not rich then what is it? And please don't tell me it's middle income because that's risible.
The answer to that may depend on the out goings
Being rich is not so much about absolute income, I agree. It is perhaps about having spare money, from income, capital or family assets.
Following Hammonds budget, I have an extra tenner a week, so am definitely richer.
So the figures I should have put are: 50k, 1500/year council tax, 2 young kids + 1 adult to support = 71% of income distribution 50k, 1500/year council tax, no kids + 1 adult to support = 88% of income distribution 50k, 1500/year council tax, no kids, single = 96% of income distribution.
That's a bit meaningless without considering housing costs. There is an ocean between someone paying a huge mortgage (or, worse, London rent) and someone who owns their home outright.
So the figures I should have put are: 50k, 1500/year council tax, 2 young kids + 1 adult to support = 71% of income distribution 50k, 1500/year council tax, no kids + 1 adult to support = 88% of income distribution 50k, 1500/year council tax, no kids, single = 96% of income distribution.
That's a bit meaningless without considering housing costs. There is an ocean between someone paying a huge mortgage (or, worse, London rent) and someone who owns their home outright.
It is pretty simple.
If you are young, have kids you are likely to not have much disposable income as you will be stretched by maxing out on mortgage and suporting kids.
When you are older, or don't have kids your costs are lower and you are more comfortable.
So the figures I should have put are: 50k, 1500/year council tax, 2 young kids + 1 adult to support = 71% of income distribution 50k, 1500/year council tax, no kids + 1 adult to support = 88% of income distribution 50k, 1500/year council tax, no kids, single = 96% of income distribution.
That's a bit meaningless without considering housing costs. There is an ocean between someone paying a huge mortgage (or, worse, London rent) and someone who owns their home outright.
Must admit I didn't even consider there were people who owned their own home outright without a mortgage! Yes, I think you're right overall - housing costs change the picture hugely.
So the figures I should have put are: 50k, 1500/year council tax, 2 young kids + 1 adult to support = 71% of income distribution 50k, 1500/year council tax, no kids + 1 adult to support = 88% of income distribution 50k, 1500/year council tax, no kids, single = 96% of income distribution.
That's a bit meaningless without considering housing costs. There is an ocean between someone paying a huge mortgage (or, worse, London rent) and someone who owns their home outright.
It is pretty simple.
If you are young, have kids you are likely to not have much disposable income as you will be stretched by maxing out on mortgage and suporting kids.
When you are older, or don't have kids your costs are lower and you are more comfortable.
Applies if you earn 25k or 75k
Very true.
Nearly had a heart attack on black Wednesday. Two little children, and was told at work , the interest rate had gone up 5 %
My wife said she spoke , to the next door neighbour , who was hanging out washing in the garden. Who also had two little children, she was in tears.
I can confirm that on returning from Wembley.... I am definitely sad..... But not surprised.
Leicester now the only team to score every match in the PL. If only we could stop shipping goals.
Amazing love being shown for Vichai. Foreign owners are rarely so popular, but he was genuinely a kind and thoughtful lover of the game and fans.
All the Arsenal fans I know worry about the unbeaten season being matched - it might be this season - but I care more about the scoring in every game record. I'm not too worried about Leicester doing it...
I have wondered what the reaction would have been like had Mike Ashley snuffed it.
The comparative impact in 2020 and 2021 is even more stark. “A basic rate taxpayer will have an average gain of £20. A higher rate taxpayer will have an average real gain of £228,” the Treasury admits in the small print. £228 is an astonishing 11 times greater benefit. The most telling thing came when Hammond hailed all this as “a tax cut for 32 million people”. It turns out that was made up of 26.1 million on lower incomes getting a small tax break, and 4.1 million better off earners getting a much bigger payout. You could call it a tax policy for the few, not the many.
Rubbish. If Hammond had increase the personal allowance and left the higher rate threshhold unchanged every single tax payer would have benefited by £130. He could then have used the money frittered away on handouts to the rich by putting it into schools or social care, for example. He could also have perhaps increased the personal allowance even more and given every taxpayer a £150 reduction and you can bet your life that extra £20 would be far more valuable to the minimum wage earner than the rich on £50k.
How do you define the rich
Certainly anyone on the 88% centile of earnings is rich and it's sophistry to pretend otherwise.
The left do not like anything to do with success and resent even train drivers, senior nurses, teachers, police officers, and fire service personal earning £50,000 plus and snear at them as rich
The true politics of envy
Largely a matter of definition. £50 000 is nearly twice median national household income, so not unreasonable to classify as rich.
50k, with a council tax of 1,500/month and 2 young children puts you 35% up the income distribution according to this IFS calculator.
It puts you in the top third if you don't have kids but have a partner to support, and if you're single it puts you in the top 15%.
Given that most higher rate taxpayers will earn more than 50k, I think it's fair to say that higher earners have done well out of this change. That is pretty standard Tory orthodoxy, so I find it a bit surprising that some are seeking to deny it.
I can confirm that on returning from Wembley.... I am definitely sad..... But not surprised.
Leicester now the only team to score every match in the PL. If only we could stop shipping goals.
Amazing love being shown for Vichai. Foreign owners are rarely so popular, but he was genuinely a kind and thoughtful lover of the game and fans.
Very true a real tragedy for Leicester.
Will his family continue with their interest in the city ,and the football club.
York even in the early seventies, when they were in the old second division. Never had any rich backers.
His son Top is also heavily involved, indeed laid a wreath yesterday with the players. I am sure that he will want to keep the club. He will be very involved with sorting out the King Power business and family affairs for the next months though.
Vichai used to give a cup cake and beer or soft drink for every fan at the stadium on his birthday, amongst many other small kindnesses.
Not too much criticism yet of the 40p threshold going up - perhaps because many of the journos are beneficiaries...
If £46k per year puts you in the top 14% of earners, then that sounds like being of limited electoral benefit. However, those earning that sort of money are likely to vote. I also reckon they might be more likely to live in marginals in London and Southern England.
It seems strange to think that the battle ground is richer people, but that's what happened in 2017. Counter-intuitively, I reckon these people are quite attracted to Jeremy Corbyn.
I can confirm that on returning from Wembley.... I am definitely sad..... But not surprised.
Leicester now the only team to score every match in the PL. If only we could stop shipping goals.
Amazing love being shown for Vichai. Foreign owners are rarely so popular, but he was genuinely a kind and thoughtful lover of the game and fans.
All the Arsenal fans I know worry about the unbeaten season being matched - it might be this season - but I care more about the scoring in every game record. I'm not too worried about Leicester doing it...
I have wondered what the reaction would have been like had Mike Ashley snuffed it.
We are a team in transition, and I quite like Puel's system and style. Results are going to be a bit patchy though.
So the figures I should have put are: 50k, 1500/year council tax, 2 young kids + 1 adult to support = 71% of income distribution 50k, 1500/year council tax, no kids + 1 adult to support = 88% of income distribution 50k, 1500/year council tax, no kids, single = 96% of income distribution.
That's a bit meaningless without considering housing costs. There is an ocean between someone paying a huge mortgage (or, worse, London rent) and someone who owns their home outright.
Must admit I didn't even consider there were people who owned their own home outright without a mortgage! Yes, I think you're right overall - housing costs change the picture hugely.
Yet there are more of them than people within mortgages!
One thing I've noticed about the recent tv coverage of Trump's electioneering is the framing of the camera angles. In the Presidential hustings, there were lots of shots from the back of the meetings showing filled halls and stadia with large crowds standing behind him wearing the named t-shirts and waving placards. Nowadays, no shots from the back of the hustings and the numbers of people on stage are getting noticeably smaller.
Interestingly, one of the things about the US political system is the Town Hall meetings, where the elected representative reports back to their constituencies about what they are doing in Washington DC.This is obviously viewed from a distance, but from my reading, many recent reports have been about the Rep. politicians avoiding them like the plague after TV reports at several, showing lots of anger rather than the expected "love in".
Comments
Wealth/richness can only really be measured by what an individual has in the bank/available in disposable assets. Simply looking at earnings is irrelevant without considering personal circumstances, where one lives, financial dependants etc etc.
Obviously those on higher salaries may be in a position to partially trade off wealth with personal standard of living (live in a nice area, eat nicer food, spend more on personal luxuries etc but this is a marginal question.
If one is earning £50k a year (before tax) but is paying thousands a month in rent, has children to support etc then they are unlikely to have much to put aside to build up their personal wealth. Contrast with somebody earning substantially lower, but with no children, possibly living with an earning partner/others to dramatically reduce personal living costs, or having inherited/paid off a mortgage and the difference shows very rapidly. In favour of the individual on the lower salary being the 'rich' one.
Why Young People Helped Elect A Far-Right Authoritarian In Brazil
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joRrWSZmXdo
Too young to be there for the 70s, ignore his dodgy past as Fake News, life was much better then than now, etc etc etc
https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in
It puts you in the top third if you don't have kids but have a partner to support, and if you're single it puts you in the top 15%.
Given that most higher rate taxpayers will earn more than 50k, I think it's fair to say that higher earners have done well out of this change. That is pretty standard Tory orthodoxy, so I find it a bit surprising that some are seeking to deny it.
Don't you think there's at least a chance that it's because it makes older workers more attractive to employers, and therefore allows them to find work more easily, and keeps them from claiming their pensions for a bit longer?
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/
50k, 1500/year council tax, 2 young kids + 1 adult to support = 71% of income distribution
50k, 1500/year council tax, no kids + 1 adult to support = 88% of income distribution
50k, 1500/year council tax, no kids, single = 96% of income distribution.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in
If you are young, have kids you are likely to not have much disposable income as you will be stretched by maxing out on mortgage and suporting kids.
When you are older, or don't have kids your costs are lower and you are more comfortable.
Applies if you earn 25k or 75k
Amazing love being shown for Vichai. Foreign owners are rarely so popular, but he was genuinely a kind and thoughtful lover of the game and fans.
Will his family continue with their interest in the city ,and the football club.
York even in the early seventies, when they were in the old second division.
Never had any rich backers.
Nearly had a heart attack on black Wednesday.
Two little children, and was told at work , the interest rate had gone up 5 %
My wife said she spoke , to the next door neighbour , who was hanging out washing in the garden.
Who also had two little children, she was in tears.
I have wondered what the reaction would have been like had Mike Ashley snuffed it.
Vichai used to give a cup cake and beer or soft drink for every fan at the stadium on his birthday, amongst many other small kindnesses.
If £46k per year puts you in the top 14% of earners, then that sounds like being of limited electoral benefit. However, those earning that sort of money are likely to vote. I also reckon they might be more likely to live in marginals in London and Southern England.
It seems strange to think that the battle ground is richer people, but that's what happened in 2017. Counter-intuitively, I reckon these people are quite attracted to Jeremy Corbyn.
https://twitter.com/cnni/status/1057158951249297408?s=19
Interestingly, one of the things about the US political system is the Town Hall meetings, where the elected representative reports back to their constituencies about what they are doing in Washington DC.This is obviously viewed from a distance, but from my reading, many recent reports have been about the Rep. politicians avoiding them like the plague after TV reports at several, showing lots of anger rather than the expected "love in".