politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Seven days before the Midterms Trump sees a sharp drop in his

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.

Cyclefree said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rcs1000 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Not exactly surprising news,

Stark east-west divide in attitudes towards minorities in Europe
Report also flags gulf in attitudes on nationalism, abortion, gay rights and more

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/29/stark-east-west-divide-attitudes-towards-minorities-europe-pew-report

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.

https://twitter.com/PalmerReport/status/1057079348912627712

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Chris_A said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Chris_A said:

Charles said:

Chris_A said:

Sorry back to the Budghet. Huffpost's view

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.

This explains your conundrum quite nicely

https://www.moorestephens.co.uk/msuk/moore-stephens-south/news/april-2016/the-tax-system-explained-using-a-beer-analogy

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.

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.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Its like right-wing Corbyn,

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

"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.

Richard_Nabavi said:

not_on_fire said:

Something something old people vote more

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.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in

Foxy said:

philiph said:

Chris_A said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Chris_A said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Chris_A said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Chris_A said:

Charles said:

Chris_A said:

Sorry back to the Budghet. Huffpost's view

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.

This explains your conundrum quite nicely

https://www.moorestephens.co.uk/msuk/moore-stephens-south/news/april-2016/the-tax-system-explained-using-a-beer-analogy

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.

Half of that is just inflation.

rkrkrk said:

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.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in

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.

IanB2 said:

rkrkrk said:

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.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in

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

Foxy said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

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.

Yorkcity said:

Foxy said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

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.

And the King Power racehorses, don't forget.

philiph said:

IanB2 said:

rkrkrk said:

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.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in

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.

IanB2 said:

rkrkrk said:

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Chris_A said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Chris_A said:

Charles said:

Chris_A said:

Sorry back to the Budghet. Huffpost's view

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.

This explains your conundrum quite nicely

https://www.moorestephens.co.uk/msuk/moore-stephens-south/news/april-2016/the-tax-system-explained-using-a-beer-analogy

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.

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.

Who pays council tax of £1500 per month??

Londoners

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.

Terrible decision by China btw:

https://twitter.com/cnni/status/1057158951249297408?s=19

rkrkrk said:

IanB2 said:

rkrkrk said:

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.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in

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!