Why Do Labour Despise The Middle Earners So Much?

[Deskdiary]

The left of Trotsky, Mad John McDonnell, has said the 'rich' earning over £80,000 will be taxed at a higher rate than others - John Ashworth this morning said we are asking (as if it would be a choice) that those with the broadest shoulders in society contribute more.

The broadest shoulders comment really irritated me because those with a broadest shoulders already proportionally contribute more to society as it is, and those with the broadest shoulders will in the most part take less out of society, so why do they want to squeeze them even more?

I would not describe somebody earning £80,000 as rich - and I find it interesting that McDonnell has chosen a threshold that is just above most MPs salaries!

[Old_Geezer]

£80,000 a year is rich. One need not despise someone for dimply noting that they have managed to attract/extract more of society's wealth to them than many doing as good a job on far less money, and so should contribute more of it back to the common purse for use paying the bills society has.

[youngmafbog]

I wonder where they got that amount from?

The basic annual salary for an MP from 1 April 2016 is £74,962

Go figure !

[youngmafbog]

One of the biggest problems with these 'rich' thresholds is that is does not take account of location. An 80K salary in the North is worth far more than one in the South (Especially London area).

Labour are the party of envy, still showing their true colours.

[Old_Geezer]

Every time I write simply this tech changes it to dimply >:-(

[ToraToraTora]

I have never understood this hatred Labour has for prosperity. 80k is far from rich and this whole tax the "rich" mantra seems to ignore the fact that they already pay more that's how percentages work. It was demonstrated in the Wilson days that even 97% tax did not bring in much for the treasury because so few pay it, it just means they leave the country.Labour never learn do they.

[Old_Geezer]

Never envy, no matter how often repeated; always fairness.

[Hopkirk]

I am a basic rate taxpayer, and always have been.

However I have never quite understood the logic that higher earners pay a higher percentage.

[Peter Pedant]

this got a good going over Sunday

The beeb hacks presumably get more than £80k
and were saying that in London that aint much

also made the point that 1p in pound more tax raises £6bn but taxing the rich at a much higher rate brings in less
( but make the Labour Party feel good)
and the reason for that is that every one pays basic tax but only a few of da filty rich would pay the higher rate ( = larger tax base on a technical note)

[ToraToraTora]

1p = 6billion on the basic rate, ie all earners pay it, on those over £80k it will bring in about one and nine!

[cassa333]

They dispose them so because it is harder to control people who have the wherewithal to earn it and not be dependant on their mantra.

Make a dependant nation and they have no option but to follow you.

[Kromovaracun]

They don't despise middle earners, they just think you need to plan for increased spending.

Contrast with the Conservative Party, who spend just as much but don't plan for how to pay for it and just borrow instead.

[Deskdiary]

It is gesture politics.

I find it fundamentally wrong for middle earners to be targeted. They are higher rate tax payers already, so in addition to proportionally paying more if the tax rate was the same for everybody, they are being penalised by also paying tax at a higher rate.

Those earning between £100k and £122k lose part of their personal allowance. Over £122k they lose it all. Over £150k the tax increases to 45%.

My point is, middle earners are already paying plenty in tax - so on what planet is it just that they should be required to pay even more.

Labour's plan is simply a tax on having the temerity to do well in life.

[Kromovaracun]

There isn't really a fairer method for them to increase revenue though. They can't promise to raise VAT or tax the poor - it's completely inconsistent with their message. They can't commit to scrapping Trident because the party is too divided over it and the public won't stand for it. They can't commit to cutting public services because a) they've already been severely cut despite what people think and b) it's inconsistent with what they want to achieve. What else is left?

[mushroom25]

//What else is left? //

how about repealing the "it is illegal not to send gazillions to corrupt third world dictators" law?

[youngmafbog]

There are still many public service areas that can be cut money-wise. They just need to be made efficient like private comapanies have to be if they are to survive.

[Jackdaw33]

I wish I were on £80k. I'd happily pay more tax.

[Kromovaracun]

Prison system is in serious fiscal crisis which staff cuts (up to about 25% now) have contributed enormously to, while prison population has not significantly increased since the Conservative govt came in in 2010 - in fact they are slightly lower than they were in 2015.

NHS is billions in debt as discussed on another thread. Majority of trusts were in surplus in 2010, now nearly all of them are over £50m in debt - a process costing the taxpayer billions.

Councils are frequently running out of money for adult social care, meanwhile many local councils across the country are running at below operating costs and simply cannot cut anymore.

The govt has to its credit been successful in cutting inefficiency, but has thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Public services have been cut so severely they are borderline dysfunctional - it does not make sense to cut them more. There is no point in paying for public services at all if they are so crippled. This idea that "inefficiency" is a bottomless reservoir from which we can solve all our fiscal problems is a simplistic fantasy peddled by people who are either dishonest or haven't done their research. It's also a good deal less realistic than being honest about the problem and making plans for raising more revenue.

[Kromovaracun]

A free-to-use hospital or school cannot be run like a private business, they are fundamentally different enterprises. That's fantasy.

[mikey4444]

Labour have said that 95% of us won't pay a penny more in income tax, VAT, or NICs. So the 5% that will see a modest increase will be contributing to paying more into our public services, like Schools, NHS and Police Force.

Can't see what on earth is wrong with that, especially as our Police have swinging cuts to their budgets and personal, and Nurses haven't had a real pay rise for years.

The choice in June is quite clear to me....if you want better funds for our public services, don't vote Tory.

[Jackdaw33]

I'm no economist, but I would have thought that paying more tax on £80k + is hardly going to fill the coffers. The most I earned before retiring was £23k. Anybody on AB in the £80k + bracket?