How is your friend paying top rate tax? He is just paying 40% higher rate, not the additional (top) rate as you suggest. Like most people on here he is in the 40% tax band. It is rather like saying I have no incentive to work harder because I pay the higher rate. Are you suggesting he shouldn't have to pay income tax on the interest?
Sounds to me like the Camelot adviser gave shockingly bad advice - maybe even tot he extent of being negligent. Good luck with moving to America and living off £1 million without working.
Indeed. The advisor sounds like an utter clown.
He is not a clown, the electricians hourly rate after the new tax rate is taken into account will reduce by about 30%. Therefore his incentive to work on PAYE is vastly reduced. As an electrician the only way to increase his pay to make up for this is to do loads more hours but why would he? I am not suggesting that he should not be liable for the tax on interest at all. He has just shown normal human nature.
Yes, but that is the same for anyone who enters the higher rate tax band. By your argument no-one should be liable for 40% tax. He has landed a massive windfall and ~£30k pa in unearned income, so I really don't see the issue here. If you are suggesting we'd be better off with a flat tax structure then at least that is a valid position. You seem to be heading into an intellectual muddle here. What do you suggest instead? HMRC's position on this is quite right.
Its a simple issue, he has a £1 million quid in the bank, if he keeps on working his hourly rate will reduce significantly. Therefore he is not going to carry on working on PAYE and is going to enjoy his windfall. He is only 28 so the idea of putting his money into a pension as it is tax efficient does not appeal to him. The current tax structure is fine, and the implications of the current tax structure for him is also totally correct. I was just stating what his reaction to it are, that his incentive to carry on working has been taken away which again is perfectly understandable. I was using this point to demonstrate what a person is likely to do when his incentive to work or wealth create is reduced, taxing more does not always lead to more taxes being collected.
HMRC's position on this isn't right if it is discouraging people from working. It's the same as the 'poverty trap' that keeps people on welfare wanting to only precisely 16 hours as if they lose more they'll lose their benefits.
Our tax and benefit system is far too complicated and creates too many cliff-edge losers. A simple flat 'negative income tax' would solve this and ensure that everyone is better off whenever they work more - both skilled workers like electricians and those entering the workforce like the 16 hours unskilled at the moment.
Sorry. You are now going down the drains with this. Some people will ALWAYS find a reason not to do extra work. What do you suggest should happen to his friend? That the interest isn't taxed? So, someone who lands a huge unearned windfall gets tax-free income off the interest but someone one PAYE earning a salary of £50k, has to pay 40% tax on any bonus? Hardly a fair system.
No I'm not going down the drains with this, people react to incentives, costs and rewards they always have and always will.
I suggest precisely what I suggested, that there is a simple flat system. I'm suggesting nobody has to pay 40% tax.
If it was up to me I'd abolish all tax credits, NI and income tax and merge them all into a simple flat system. For example a flat 25% tax with a negative income tax starting rate of £5k.
EG Someone on 0 income gets £5k in welfare. Net £5k. Someone on £10k gets £2.5k in welfare. Net £12.5k. Someone on £20k neither gets welfare nor pays any tax. Net £20k. Someone on £30k pays £2.5k in tax. Net £27.5k. Someone on £40k pays £5k in tax. Net £35k. Someone on £100k pays £20k in tax. Net £80k
Adjust numbers to make work but you get the point. Work always pays. No cliff edge. With PAYE and Real Time reporting it could all happen automatically too.
Will contrast dramatically with the Conservative conference all waving union flags.
Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels....
But as they are scoundrels can they be trusted not to find a further refuge?
TBH, I do not think that they can be trusted to do anything that is not in the interests of their party and career self-promotion. They clearly do not give a d*mn about the country.
I am actually coming round to the idea of a No-Deal-WTO-Diamond-hard Brexit. The thought of watching this bunch of total f***-wits having to deal with the outcome of their incompetence might just be worth the pain.
I love how everyone here who claims tax avoidance shouldn't happen and isn't a problem and doesn't discourage work is claiming that someone who's not avoiding tax is being badly advised because he could and should have avoided that tax so didn't need to change behaviour so the system is fine.
I mean seriously WTF? Getting better advise so you can avoid tax should not be the solution!
I see Laura Smith MP in ultra marginal Crewe and Nantwich has called for a General Strike....
Unfortunately for the Tories the locally popular Edward Timpson isn't going to stand again.
Unfortunately, in 2017 the Crewe & Nantwich CLP decided to sideline the previous excellent Labour PPC who fought the 2015 election for that seat, in favour of Laura Smith.
How is your friend paying top rate tax? He is just paying 40% higher rate, not the additional (top) rate as you suggest. Like most people on here he is in the 40% tax band. It is rather like saying I have no incentive to work harder because I pay the higher rate. Are you suggesting he shouldn't have to pay income tax on the interest?
Sounds to me like the Camelot adviser gave shockingly bad advice - maybe even tot he extent of being negligent. Good luck with moving to America and living off £1 million without working.
Indeed. The advisor sounds like an utter clown.
snip
Yes, but that is the same for anyone who enters the higher rate tax band. By your argument no-one should be liable for 40% tax. He has landed a massive windfall and ~£30k pa in unearned income, so I really don't see the issue here. If you are suggesting we'd be better off with a flat tax structure then at least that is a valid position. You seem to be heading into an intellectual muddle here. What do you suggest instead? HMRC's position on this is quite right.
Its a simple issue, he has a £1 million quid in the bank, if he keeps on working his hourly rate will reduce significantly. Therefore he is not going to carry on working on PAYE and is going to enjoy his windfall. He is only 28 so the idea of putting his money into a pension as it is tax efficient does not appeal to him. The current tax structure is fine, and the implications of the current tax structure for him is also totally correct. I was just stating what his reaction to it are, that his incentive to carry on working has been taken away which again is perfectly understandable. I was using this point to demonstrate what a person is likely to do when his incentive to work or wealth create is reduced, taxing more does not always lead to more taxes being collected.
He is being so badly advised it is beyond belief.
This debate strikes me as a bit odd.
What were his motives for continuing to work in the first place?
I would hazard a guess that it was not just about money. Otherwise why bother? As someone pointed out he is getting a decent whack of unearned income a year. I bet he was considering it partly for something to do, be with his mates, have a purpose etc etc.
I love how everyone here who claims tax avoidance shouldn't happen and isn't a problem and doesn't discourage work is claiming that someone who's not avoiding tax is being badly advised because he could and should have avoided that tax so didn't need to change behaviour so the system is fine.
I mean seriously WTF? Getting better advise so you can avoid tax should not be the solution!
It's not better advice to avoid tax that this bloke needs, it's halfway decent advice to stop him wasting the windfall he has had. Buying a house is not tax avoidance, it is setting yourself up and making an investment, while also freeing up your current income to go further.
How is your friend paying top rate tax? He is just paying 40% higher rate, not the additional (top) rate as you suggest. Like most people on here he is in the 40% tax band. It is rather like saying I have no incentive to work harder because I pay the higher rate. Are you suggesting he shouldn't have to pay income tax on the interest?
Sounds to me like the Camelot adviser gave shockingly bad advice - maybe even tot he extent of being negligent. Good luck with moving to America and living off £1 million without working.
Indeed. The advisor sounds like an utter clown.
He is not a clown, the electricians hourly rate after the new tax rate is taken into account will reduce by about 30%. Therefore his incentive to work on PAYE is vastly reduced. As an electrician the only way to increase his pay to make up for this is to do loads more hours but why would he? I am not suggesting that he should not be liable for the tax on interest at all. He has just shown normal human nature.
Yes, but that is the same for anyone who enters the higher rate tax band. By your argument no-one should be liable for 40% tax. He has landed a massive windfall and ~£30k pa in unearned income, so I really don't see the issue here. If you are suggesting we'd be better off with a flat tax structure then at least that is a valid position. You seem to be heading into an intellectual muddle here. What do you suggest instead? HMRC's position on this is quite right.
Its a simple issue, he has a £1 million quid in the bank, if he keeps on working his hourly rate will reduce significantly. Therefore he is not going to carry on working on PAYE and is going to enjoy his windfall. He is only 28 so the idea of putting his money into a pension as it is tax efficient does not appeal to him. The current tax structure is fine, and the implications of the current tax structure for him is also totally correct. I was just stating what his reaction to it are, that his incentive to carry on working has been taken away which again is perfectly understandable. I was using this point to demonstrate what a person is likely to do when his incentive to work or wealth create is reduced, taxing more does not always lead to more taxes being collected.
He is being so badly advised it is beyond belief.
What would you advise him to do?? He could go down the route of becoming self employed or setting up a company but he does not want to.
I love how everyone here who claims tax avoidance shouldn't happen and isn't a problem and doesn't discourage work is claiming that someone who's not avoiding tax is being badly advised because he could and should have avoided that tax so didn't need to change behaviour so the system is fine.
I mean seriously WTF? Getting better advise so you can avoid tax should not be the solution!
It's not better advice to avoid tax that this bloke needs, it's halfway decent advice to stop him wasting the windfall he has had. Buying a house is not tax avoidance, it is setting yourself up and making an investment, while also freeing up your current income to go further. If he then uses what is left over to set himself up for retirement, there is no tax avoidance involved - but, again, more current income is freed up. This is basic stuff. If he is not being told that, then he is not being presented with all the options available. if he has been told that and decided against it, then he has just made some bad choices. That is not the tax system's fault.
How is your friend paying top rate tax? He is just paying 40% higher rate, not the additional (top) rate as you suggest. Like most people on here he is in the 40% tax band. It is rather like saying I have no incentive to work harder because I pay the higher rate. Are you suggesting he shouldn't have to pay income tax on the interest?
Sounds to me like the Camelot adviser gave shockingly bad advice - maybe even tot he extent of being negligent. Good luck with moving to America and living off £1 million without working.
Indeed. The advisor sounds like an utter clown.
snip
Yes, but that is the same for anyone who enters the higher rate tax band. By your argument no-one should be liable for 40% tax. He has landed a massive windfall and ~£30k pa in unearned income, so I really don't see the issue here. If you are suggesting we'd be better off with a flat tax structure then at least that is a valid position. You seem to be heading into an intellectual muddle here. What do you suggest instead? HMRC's position on this is quite right.
Its a simple issue, he has a £1 million quid in the bank, if he keeps on working his hourly rate will reduce significantly. Therefore he is not going to carry on working on PAYE and is going to enjoy his windfall. He is only 28 so the idea of putting his money into a pension as it is tax efficient does not appeal to him. The current tax structure is fine, and the implications of the current tax structure for him is also totally correct. I was just stating what his reaction to it are, that his incentive to carry on working has been taken away which again is perfectly understandable. I was using this point to demonstrate what a person is likely to do when his incentive to work or wealth create is reduced, taxing more does not always lead to more taxes being collected.
He is being so badly advised it is beyond belief.
This debate strikes me as a bit odd.
What were his motives for continuing to work in the first place?
I would hazard a guess that it was not just about money. Otherwise why bother? As someone pointed out he is getting a decent whack of unearned income a year. I bet he was considering it partly for something to do, be with his mates, have a purpose etc etc.
Indeed. It is either the worst tax disincentive anecdote in PB history; or else his adviser is an utter clown. My sense is that it is the latter.
How is your friend paying top rate tax? He is just paying 40% higher rate, not the additional (top) rate as you suggest. Like most people on here he is in the 40% tax band. It is rather like saying I have no incentive to work harder because I pay the higher rate. Are you suggesting he shouldn't have to pay income tax on the interest?
Sounds to me like the Camelot adviser gave shockingly bad advice - maybe even tot he extent of being negligent. Good luck with moving to America and living off £1 million without working.
Indeed. The advisor sounds like an utter clown.
He is not a clown, the electricians hourly rate after the new tax rate is taken into account will reduce by about 30%. Therefore his incentive to work on PAYE is vastly reduced. As an electrician the only way to increase his pay to make up for this is to do loads more hours but why would he? I am not suggesting that he should not be liable for the tax on interest at all. He has just shown normal human nature.
Yes, but that is the same for anyone who enters the higher rate tax band. By your argument no-one should be liable for 40% tax. He has landed a massive windfall and ~£30k pa in unearned income, so I really don't see the issue here. If you are suggesting we'd be better off with a flat tax structure then at least that is a valid position. You seem to be heading into an intellectual muddle here. What do you suggest instead? HMRC's position on this is quite right.
Its a simple issue, he has a £1 million quid in the bank, if he keeps on working his hourly rate will reduce significantly. Therefore he is not going to carry on working on PAYE and is going to enjoy his windfall. He is only 28 so the idea of putting his money into a pension as it is tax efficient does not appeal to him. The current tax structure is fine, and the implications of the current tax structure for him is also totally correct. I was just stating what his reaction to it are, that his incentive to carry on working has been taken away which again is perfectly understandable. I was using this point to demonstrate what a person is likely to do when his incentive to work or wealth create is reduced, taxing more does not always lead to more taxes being collected.
He is being so badly advised it is beyond belief.
Indeed. To the point of negligence on the part of the Camelot chap, I dare say.
Mr. Anazina, your weird fixation on my never having visited London is just odd. I've never been to Birmingham either.
Your foot-stamping squeals because I refuse to recant the non-PC heresy of using the term 'frogs' is quite entertaining.
Mr. Thompson, blasphemy! You'll be suggesting I don't live in a castle or genetically engineer land-walking superfish next.
And don't dare question my enormous man cannon.
Yes I have previously noted that you are happy to use the word frogs to describe French people, yet bridle at being called a Little Englander yourself. You strike me as a very decent guy generally, but, really, you have a complete blindspot on this matter. 'Get out more' would be my advice. Go to London and France, you will probably enjoy them.
How is your friend paying top rate tax? He is just paying 40% higher rate, not the additional (top) rate as you suggest. Like most people on here he is in the 40% tax band. It is rather like saying I have no incentive to work harder because I pay the higher rate. Are you suggesting he shouldn't have to pay income tax on the interest?
Sounds to me like the Camelot adviser gave shockingly bad advice - maybe even tot he extent of being negligent. Good luck with moving to America and living off £1 million without working.
Indeed. The advisor sounds like an utter clown.
He is not a clown, the electricians hourly rate after the new tax rate is taken into account will reduce by about 30%. Therefore his incentive to work on PAYE is vastly reduced. As an electrician the only way to increase his pay to make up for this is to do loads more hours but why would he? I am not suggesting that he should not be liable for the tax on interest at all. He has just shown normal human nature.
Yes, but that is the same for anyone who enters the higher rate tax band. By your argument no-one should be liable for 40% tax. He has landed a massive windfall and ~£30k pa in unearned income, so I really don't see the issue here. If you are suggesting we'd be better off with a flat tax structure then at least that is a valid position. You seem to be heading into an intellectual muddle here. What do you suggest instead? HMRC's position on this is quite right.
He is being so badly advised it is beyond belief.
I'm not sure he's getting bad advice per se. It's just not been explained to him very well.
Employment work comes first when it comes to tax. So on a basic level he's being taxed exactly the same way as he was before. He gets his personal allowance, and gets taxed at 20% on it or 40% if hes over the limit.
It's the investment income, which is (lets say for the sake of simpleness) being taxed at the higher rate at maybe 40% for interest, or 32.5% for dividends etc etc. Not only that, he has to pay that tax under self-assessment. It's that which is taxed higher, not his employment/self-employment.
It's the fact he's not really seeing the 'massive' £1m which is no doubt pissing him off, and the fact he doesn't feel much better off as a result, even if he is, and still has the £1m later down the road (although inflation will eat into that).
How is your friend paying top rate tax? He is just paying 40% higher rate, not the additional (top) rate as you suggest. Like most people on here he is in the 40% tax band. It is rather like saying I have no incentive to work harder because I pay the higher rate. Are you suggesting he shouldn't have to pay income tax on the interest?
Sounds to me like the Camelot adviser gave shockingly bad advice - maybe even tot he extent of being negligent. Good luck with moving to America and living off £1 million without working.
Indeed. The advisor sounds like an utter clown.
He is not a clown, the electricians hourly rate after the new tax rate is taken into account will reduce by about 30%. Therefore his incentive to work on PAYE is vastly reduced. As an electrician the only way to increase his pay to make up for this is to do loads more hours but why would he? I am not suggesting that he should not be liable for the tax on interest at all. He has just shown normal human nature.
Yes, but that is the same for anyone who enters the higher rate tax band. By your argument no-one should be liable for 40% tax. He has landed a massive windfall and ~£30k pa in unearned income, so I really don't see the issue here. If you are suggesting we'd be better off with a flat tax structure then at least that is a valid position. You seem to be heading into an intellectual muddle here. What do you suggest instead? HMRC's position on this is quite right.
I don't know if he has a mortgage, but if he does, he can use the money to pay that off and leave the rest as an investment to build up for his pension (so reducing his need to make pension contributions, of course). It's not glamorous, but it will increase his current spending power significantly, while being very tax efficient.
Indeed so. Or just buy a house if he doesn't already own one. The Camelot guy is a clown.
How is your friend paying top rate tax? He is just paying 40% higher rate, not the additional (top) rate as you suggest. Like most people on here he is in the 40% tax band. It is rather like saying I have no incentive to work harder because I pay the higher rate. Are you suggesting he shouldn't have to pay income tax on the interest?
Sounds to me like the Camelot adviser gave shockingly bad advice - maybe even tot he extent of being negligent. Good luck with moving to America and living off £1 million without working.
Indeed. The advisor sounds like an utter clown.
.
Yes, but that is the same for anyone who enters the higher rate tax band. By your argument no-one should be liable for 40% tax. He has landed a massive windfall and ~£30k pa in unearned income, so I really don't see the issue here. If you are suggesting we'd be better off with a flat tax structure then at least that is a valid position. You seem to be heading into an intellectual muddle here. What do you suggest instead? HMRC's position on this is quite right.
Its a simple issue, he has a £1 million quid in the bank, if he keeps on working his hourly rate will reduce significantly. Therefore he is not going to carry on working on PAYE and is going to enjoy his windfall. He is only 28 so the idea of putting his money into a pension as it is tax efficient does not appeal to him. The current tax structure is fine, and the implications of the current tax structure for him is also totally correct. I was just stating what his reaction to it are, that his incentive to carry on working has been taken away which again is perfectly understandable. I was using this point to demonstrate what a person is likely to do when his incentive to work or wealth create is reduced, taxing more does not always lead to more taxes being collected.
He is being so badly advised it is beyond belief.
What would you advise him to do?? He could go down the route of becoming self employed or setting up a company but he does not want to.
The chap’s 28. Is he married, or got a partner or dependents? If he’s footloose and fancy free I suspect he’d be best advised to put half of the cash somewhere safe and spend the other half on travelling, seeing the world. If he has got family responsibilities then I suspect he’d be best off putting two thirds away in a house, support for education and keeping going. At 28 £1m really isn’t a lot! Although I wish I’d had it!
I think you miss the point. It's a quiet reminder that concern for the plight of the Palestinians is a popular and legitimate cause and should not be confused with antisemitism.
I think that’s right. The Palestinians aren’t a particularly ‘popular’ cause, but I suspect there’s widespread unease over the way they’ve been, and are being treated. Maybe at a low level, but it’s there.
Undoubtedly that price.
That is a very fair comment.
Unfortunately, the Conservative party is also willing to give succour to virulent anti-Semites. The UK's moral compass has gone missing.
Yes it has. It is very very sad. Against that, I'm afraid, I find policies about solar panels a bit of a second order issue.
For me my oldest friend contemplating leaving England if Labour come to power because of its attitudes to Jews (sadly echoing the decision of her parents to leave Germany and come to this country) is a far more important determinant of my vote than the possibility of Labour giving me an allotment (a lifelong dream) or subsidising my solar panels or green roofs, all policies I support.
It's horrible. I finally realised I had made a mistake in returning to Labour when I realised I was embarrassed to tell Jewish friends and colleagues that I was a Labour party member. I genuinely could not look them in the eye. That is no way to be. The choices voters now have are just appalling and the message that both our main parties are sending to the world is shameful.
I came to similar conclusions some time back. I had thought, at one point, that Labour might be an option since the Libs disappeared and the Tories went insane...
But no - there is no one to vote for.
I went LibDem last time, with about 2% of the other voters in my constituency. My Labour MP, Barry Sheerman, is quite possibly to the right of Blair, but I haven't voted Labour at all since Corbyn, any vote for Labour is still a vote that empowers Corbynism.
I fear I need to go further and vote to do the most damage to Corbyn. Would that mean voting for a Boris led Tory party as we hurtle towards no deal, crisis, and another bitter round of public service desecration? And all that in a constituency which, if it turned, would imply a majority well clear of the hundred mark. At the moment, I'm thinking it probably would. There is no scale of defeat too big for Corbyn.
Although to be fair if I won the lottery one of the first things I'd do is tell the lottery operators to piss off and sort my own affairs out. better to use sometone seperate, rather than them which no doubt trying to sell you investments.
How is your friend paying top rate tax? He is just paying 40% higher rate, not the additional (top) rate as you suggest. Like most people on here he is in the 40% tax band. It is rather like saying I have no incentive to work harder because I pay the higher rate. Are you suggesting he shouldn't have to pay income tax on the interest?
Sounds to me like the Camelot adviser gave shockingly bad advice - maybe even tot he extent of being negligent. Good luck with moving to America and living off £1 million without working.
Indeed. The advisor sounds like an utter clown.
He is nature.
Yes, is quite right.
Its a simple issue, he has a £1 million quid in the bank, if he keeps on working his hourly rate will reduce significantly. Therefore he is not going to carry on working on PAYE and is going to enjoy his windfall. He is only 28 so the idea of putting his money into a pension as it is tax efficient does not appeal to him. The current tax structure is fine, and the implications of the current tax structure for him is also totally correct. I was just stating what his reaction to it are, that his incentive to carry on working has been taken away which again is perfectly understandable. I was using this point to demonstrate what a person is likely to do when his incentive to work or wealth create is reduced, taxing more does not always lead to more taxes being collected.
He is being so badly advised it is beyond belief.
What would you advise him to do?? He could go down the route of becoming self employed or setting up a company but he does not want to.
Buy a house (or pay off the mortgage), buy a treat or two, put the rest of the money in investments to draw down later when he is not paying tax on a salary. His current spending power will be greater because he will have no mortgage (or pay no rent) and he will not need to pay into a pension (or substantially reduce payments), and he will be set up for later in life. £1 million in the bank at 28 will not see you through - especially if you are emigrating to the US.
Mr. Anazina, 'frogs' is just the equivalent of 'rosbifs'. 'Little Englanders' was a spectacularly ill-judged own goal that insulted half the electorate in a very tight democratic contest.
How is your friend paying top rate tax? He is just paying 40% higher rate, not the additional (top) rate as you suggest. Like most people on here he is in the 40% tax band. It is rather like saying I have no incentive to work harder because I pay the higher rate. Are you suggesting he shouldn't have to pay income tax on the interest?
Sounds to me like the Camelot adviser gave shockingly bad advice - maybe even tot he extent of being negligent. Good luck with moving to America and living off £1 million without working.
Indeed. The advisor sounds like an utter clown.
He is nature.
Yes, is quite right.
Its a simple issue, he has a £1 million quid in the bank, if he keeps on working his hourly rate will reduce significantly. Therefore he is not going to carry on working on PAYE and is going to enjoy his windfall. He is only 28 so the idea of putting his money into a pension as it is tax efficient does not appeal to him. The current tax structure is fine, and the implications of the current tax structure for him is also totally correct. I was just stating what his reaction to it are, that his incentive to carry on working has been taken away which again is perfectly understandable. I was using this point to demonstrate what a person is likely to do when his incentive to work or wealth create is reduced, taxing more does not always lead to more taxes being collected.
He is being so badly advised it is beyond belief.
What would you advise him to do?? He could go down the route of becoming self employed or setting up a company but he does not want to.
Buy a house (or pay off the mortgage), buy a treat or two, put the rest of the money in investments to draw down later when he is not paying tax on a salary. His current spending power will be greater because he will have no mortgage (or pay no rent) and he will not need to pay into a pension (or substantially reduce payments), and he will be set up for later in life. £1 million in the bank at 28 will not see you through - especially if you are emigrating to the US.
I just get the feeling that (from the limited information) that the bloke thought he would be better off than he actually is, and is pissed he's also got to pay tax on the income he's getting. but moving to the US as a result is idiotic...
How is your friend paying top rate tax? He is just paying 40% higher rate, not the additional (top) rate as you suggest. Like most people on here he is in the 40% tax band. It is rather like saying I have no incentive to work harder because I pay the higher rate. Are you suggesting he shouldn't have to pay income tax on the interest?
Sounds to me like the Camelot adviser gave shockingly bad advice - maybe even tot he extent of being negligent. Good luck with moving to America and living off £1 million without working.
Indeed. The advisor sounds like an utter clown.
.
Yes, but that is the same for anyone who enters the higher rate tax band. By your argument no-one should be liable for 40% tax. He has landed a massive windfall and ~£30k pa in unearned income, so I really don't see the issue here. If you are suggesting we'd be better off with a flat tax structure then at least that is a valid position. You seem to be heading into an intellectual muddle here. What do you suggest instead? HMRC's position on this is quite right.
Its a more taxes being collected.
He is being so badly advised it is beyond belief.
What would you advise him to do?? He could go down the route of becoming self employed or setting up a company but he does not want to.
The chap’s 28. Is he married, or got a partner or dependents? If he’s footloose and fancy free I suspect he’d be best advised to put half of the cash somewhere safe and spend the other half on travelling, seeing the world. If he has got family responsibilities then I suspect he’d be best off putting two thirds away in a house, support for education and keeping going. At 28 £1m really isn’t a lot! Although I wish I’d had it!
Yep, if he is footloose and fancy free, seeing the world for a few years and leaving a chunk in investments to grow is another option - especially as he is an electrician and so very employable when he gets back from his travels.
Mr. Anazina, 'frogs' is just the equivalent of 'rosbifs'. 'Little Englanders' was a spectacularly ill-judged own goal that insulted half the electorate in a very tight democratic contest.
So we are now entering the realms of ranking derogatory language, with Morris Dancer as judge and jury.
How is your friend paying top rate tax? He is just paying 40% higher rate, not the additional (top) rate as you suggest. Like most people on here he is in the 40% tax band. It is rather like saying I have no incentive to work harder because I pay the higher rate. Are you suggesting he shouldn't have to pay income tax on the interest?
Sounds to me like the Camelot adviser gave shockingly bad advice - maybe even tot he extent of being negligent. Good luck with moving to America and living off £1 million without working.
Indeed. The advisor sounds like an utter clown.
He is not a clown, the electricians hourly rate after the new tax rate is taken into account will reduce by about 30%. Therefore his incentive to work on PAYE is vastly reduced. As an electrician the only way to increase his pay to make up for this is to do loads more hours but why would he? I am not suggesting that he should not be liable for the tax on interest at all. He has just shown normal human nature.
Yes, but that is the same for anyone who enters the higher rate tax band. By your argument no-one should be liable for 40% tax. He has landed a massive windfall and ~£30k pa in unearned income, so I really don't see the issue here. If you are suggesting we'd be better off with a flat tax structure then at least that is a valid position. You seem to be heading into an intellectual muddle here. What do you suggest instead? HMRC's position on this is quite right.
I don't know if he has a mortgage, but if he does, he can use the money to pay that off and leave the rest as an investment to build up for his pension (so reducing his need to make pension contributions, of course). It's not glamorous, but it will increase his current spending power significantly, while being very tax efficient.
Indeed so. Or just buy a house if he doesn't already own one. The Camelot guy is a clown.
*jumping in to the fray*
I struggle to see how he could not make a better return on investment in a balanced global investment fund than the 3-4% a year he has been told in which case with mortgage rates as they are he would be better off getting a mortgage and investing the balance.
If he was ballsy and disciplined he would get an interest-only mortgage on an investment property which washes its face, then invest the notional capital in a balanced portfolio.
Have to confess I'm confused this morning. Not so long ago we were seeing the Prime Minister pledging money for housing and the NHS and more or less conceding taxes would have to rise to meet additional funding in both the NHS and the provision of care for vulnerable adults and children.
Now I read it's buckswashling tax cuts all round - I realise she might have been personally affronted by the treatment handed out to her at Salzburg though I would say, if she's going to be a politician, she's going to have to take the rough with the jagged and she gets nowhere near the abuse meted out by her supporters to Corbyn.
I also recognise that the "insult" of the Prime Minister was used as fuel to whip up anti-European hysteria by the usual suspects but now it seems all talk of "helping the hard working families" is going to be thrown away just to cock a snook at the EU.
OTOH, we have the ludicrous Laura Smith who obviously got a bit carried away at Conference (as we've all done) and starts talking about a General Strike. Regardless of the fact such an action would be hugely counter productive, that isn't how politics happens in a democratic society. Stand up and urge people to vote the Conservatives out at the next election, fine, no problem but General Strikes, seriously?
Compare and contrast - 1 person in 18 who tries to flee from Africa to Europe has died this year - that means for every 900 people who make it to Italy or Malta, 50 have drowned in the Med. That's a sobering thought for a Wednesday afternoon.
Just been looking at the HYS comments on Jezza's forthcoming speech and they don't seem particularly favourable e.g.
"Has Labour borrowing reached the magic £1 trillion yet I wonder. With a manifesto figure of £500bn, plus utilities nationalisation, HS2 extension, writing off student dept, buying back PFI, and now more child care and Green expenditure they can’t be far off!"
'“Greed is good” replaced with “Envy is better”. Brilliant.'
How is your friend paying top rate tax? He is just paying 40% higher rate, not the additional (top) rate as you suggest. Like most people on here he is in the 40% tax band. It is rather like saying I have no incentive to work harder because I pay the higher rate. Are you suggesting he shouldn't have to pay income tax on the interest?
Sounds to me like the Camelot adviser gave shockingly bad advice - maybe even tot he extent of being negligent. Good luck with moving to America and living off £1 million without working.
Indeed. The advisor sounds like an utter clown.
He is nature.
Yes, is quite right.
Its a smore taxes being collected.
He is being so badly advised it is beyond belief.
What would you advise him to do?? He could go down the route of becoming self employed or setting up a company but he does not want to.
Buy a house (or pay off the mortgage), buy a treat or two, put the rest of the money in investments to draw down later when he is not paying tax on a salary. His current spending power will be greater because he will have no mortgage (or pay no rent) and he will not need to pay into a pension (or substantially reduce payments), and he will be set up for later in life. £1 million in the bank at 28 will not see you through - especially if you are emigrating to the US.
I just get the feeling that (from the limited information) that the bloke thought he would be better off than he actually is, and is pissed he's also got to pay tax on the income he's getting. but moving to the US as a result is idiotic...
Possibly - but a decent adviser would surely explain that he is very well off and show him how. Maybe when you are 28, though, you don't listen!!
How is your friend paying top rate tax? He is just paying 40% higher rate, not the additional (top) rate as you suggest. Like most people on here he is in the 40% tax band. It is rather like saying I have no incentive to work harder because I pay the higher rate. Are you suggesting he shouldn't have to pay income tax on the interest?
Sounds to me like the Camelot adviser gave shockingly bad advice - maybe even tot he extent of being negligent. Good luck with moving to America and living off £1 million without working.
Indeed. The advisor sounds like an utter clown.
.
Yes, but that is the same for anyone who enters the higher rate tax band. By your argument no-one should be liable for 40% tax. He has landed a massive windfall and ~£30k pa in unearned income, so I really don't see the issue here. If you are suggesting we'd be better off with a flat tax structure then at least that is a valid position. You seem to be heading into an intellectual muddle here. What do you suggest instead? HMRC's position on this is quite right.
Its a more taxes being collected.
He is being so badly advised it is beyond belief.
What would you advise him to do?? He could go down the route of becoming self employed or setting up a company but he does not want to.
The chap’s 28. Is he married, or got a partner or dependents? If he’s footloose and fancy free I suspect he’d be best advised to put half of the cash somewhere safe and spend the other half on travelling, seeing the world. If he has got family responsibilities then I suspect he’d be best off putting two thirds away in a house, support for education and keeping going. At 28 £1m really isn’t a lot! Although I wish I’d had it!
Yep, if he is footloose and fancy free, seeing the world for a few years and leaving a chunk in investments to grow is another option - especially as he is an electrician and so very employable when he gets back from his travels.
Also employable in Aus, NZ, to quote only English speaking countries, if he wants to top up his spends while travelling.
How is your friend paying top rate tax? He is just paying 40% higher rate, not the additional (top) rate as you suggest. Like most people on here he is in the 40% tax band. It is rather like saying I have no incentive to work harder because I pay the higher rate. Are you suggesting he shouldn't have to pay income tax on the interest?
Sounds to me like the Camelot adviser gave shockingly bad advice - maybe even tot he extent of being negligent. Good luck with moving to America and living off £1 million without working.
Indeed. The advisor sounds like an utter clown.
He is nature.
Yes, is quite right.
Its a smore taxes being collected.
He is being so badly advised it is beyond belief.
What would you advise him to do?? He could go down the route of becoming self employed or setting up a company but he does not want to.
Buy a house (or pay off the mortgage), buy a treat or two, put the rest of the money in investments to draw down later when he is not paying tax on a salary. His current spending power will be greater because he will have no mortgage (or pay no rent) and he will not need to pay into a pension (or substantially reduce payments), and he will be set up for later in life. £1 million in the bank at 28 will not see you through - especially if you are emigrating to the US.
I just get the feeling that (from the limited information) that the bloke thought he would be better off than he actually is, and is pissed he's also got to pay tax on the income he's getting. but moving to the US as a result is idiotic...
Possibly - but a decent adviser would surely explain that he is very well off and show him how. Maybe when you are 28, though, you don't listen!!
I went LibDem last time, with about 2% of the other voters in my constituency. My Labour MP, Barry Sheerman, is quite possibly to the right of Blair, but I haven't voted Labour at all since Corbyn, any vote for Labour is still a vote that empowers Corbynism.
I fear I need to go further and vote to do the most damage to Corbyn. Would that mean voting for a Boris led Tory party as we hurtle towards no deal, crisis, and another bitter round of public service desecration? And all that in a constituency which, if it turned, would imply a majority well clear of the hundred mark. At the moment, I'm thinking it probably would. There is no scale of defeat too big for Corbyn.
I could never vote Conservative or Labour and indeed have never done so. I suppose given I live in a hyper-marginal where Stephen Timms clings on by his finger-tips to his 40,000 majority I don't suppose what I do matters very much at all.
That's the stupidity of our democracy - the ultimate postcode lottery.
How is your friend paying top rate tax? He is just paying 40% higher rate, not the additional (top) rate as you suggest. Like most people on here he is in the 40% tax band. It is rather like saying I have no incentive to work harder because I pay the higher rate. Are you suggesting he shouldn't have to pay income tax on the interest?
Sounds to me like the Camelot adviser gave shockingly bad advice - maybe even tot he extent of being negligent. Good luck with moving to America and living off £1 million without working.
Indeed. The advisor sounds like an utter clown.
He is nature.
Yes, is quite right.
Its a smore taxes being collected.
He is being so badly advised it is beyond belief.
What would you advise him to do?? He could go down the route of becoming self employed or setting up a company but he does not want to.
Buy a house (or pay off the mortgage), buy a treat or two, put the rest of the money in investments to draw down later when he is not paying tax on a salary. His current spending power will be greater because he will have no mortgage (or pay no rent) and he will not need to pay into a pension (or substantially reduce payments), and he will be set up for later in life. £1 million in the bank at 28 will not see you through - especially if you are emigrating to the US.
I just get the feeling that (from the limited information) that the bloke thought he would be better off than he actually is, and is pissed he's also got to pay tax on the income he's getting. but moving to the US as a result is idiotic...
Possibly - but a decent adviser would surely explain that he is very well off and show him how. Maybe when you are 28, though, you don't listen!!
I’d say take £100k salary for a year off work and having fun - he’s only 28 and probably wants to feel like a millionaire for a bit. Then buy a house to live in and invest the rest in a varied portfolio, and go back to work. Reinvest dividends and rents until he needs to draw on them later in life. He’s a skilled tradesman so can probably work as much or as little as he wants. He’ll probably find he can work two or three days a week if he’s not got housing to pay for.
I came to similar conclusions some time back. I had thought, at one point, that Labour might be an option since the Libs disappeared and the Tories went insane...
But no - there is no one to vote for.
I went LibDem last time, with about 2% of the other voters in my constituency. My Labour MP, Barry Sheerman, is quite possibly to the right of Blair, but I haven't voted Labour at all since Corbyn, any vote for Labour is still a vote that empowers Corbynism.
I fear I need to go further and vote to do the most damage to Corbyn. Would that mean voting for a Boris led Tory party as we hurtle towards no deal, crisis, and another bitter round of public service desecration? And all that in a constituency which, if it turned, would imply a majority well clear of the hundred mark. At the moment, I'm thinking it probably would. There is no scale of defeat too big for Corbyn.
I understand what you are saying, but I doubt I will vote Tory until they have purged the ultra-nationalists from the party.
I think it is time for me to move more assets out of the UK.
I went LibDem last time, with about 2% of the other voters in my constituency. My Labour MP, Barry Sheerman, is quite possibly to the right of Blair, but I haven't voted Labour at all since Corbyn, any vote for Labour is still a vote that empowers Corbynism.
I fear I need to go further and vote to do the most damage to Corbyn. Would that mean voting for a Boris led Tory party as we hurtle towards no deal, crisis, and another bitter round of public service desecration? And all that in a constituency which, if it turned, would imply a majority well clear of the hundred mark. At the moment, I'm thinking it probably would. There is no scale of defeat too big for Corbyn.
I could never vote Conservative or Labour and indeed have never done so. I suppose given I live in a hyper-marginal where Stephen Timms clings on by his finger-tips to his 40,000 majority I don't suppose what I do matters very much at all.
That's the stupidity of our democracy - the ultimate postcode lottery.
How is your friend paying top rate tax? He is just paying 40% higher rate, not the additional (top) rate as you suggest. Like most people on here he is in the 40% tax band. It is rather like saying I have no incentive to work harder because I pay the higher rate. Are you suggesting he shouldn't have to pay income tax on the interest?
Sounds to me like the Camelot adviser gave shockingly bad advice - maybe even tot he extent of being negligent. Good luck with moving to America and living off £1 million without working.
Indeed. The advisor sounds like an utter clown.
He is nature.
Yes, is quite right.
Its a smore taxes being collected.
He is being so badly advised it is beyond belief.
What would you advise him to do?? He could go down the route of becoming self employed or setting up a company but he does not want to.
Buy a house (or pay off the mortgage), buy a treat or two, put the rest of the money in investments to draw down later when he is not paying tax on a salary. His current spending power will be greater because he will have no mortgage (or pay no rent) and he will not need to pay into a pension (or substantially reduce payments), and he will be set up for later in life. £1 million in the bank at 28 will not see you through - especially if you are emigrating to the US.
I just get the feeling that (from the limited information) that the bloke thought he would be better off than he actually is, and is pissed he's also got to pay tax on the income he's getting. but moving to the US as a result is idiotic...
Possibly - but a decent adviser would surely explain that he is very well off and show him how. Maybe when you are 28, though, you don't listen!!
I’d say take £100k salary for a year off work and having fun - he’s only 28 and probably wants to feel like a millionaire for a bit. Then buy a house to live in and invest the rest in a varied portfolio, and go back to work. Reinvest dividends and rents until he needs to draw on them later in life. He’s a skilled tradesman so can probably work as much or as little as he wants. He’ll probably find he can work two or three days a week if he’s not got housing to pay for.
How is your friend paying top rate tax? He is just paying 40% higher rate, not the additional (top) rate as you suggest. Like most people on here he is in the 40% tax band. It is rather like saying I have no incentive to work harder because I pay the higher rate. Are you suggesting he shouldn't have to pay income tax on the interest?
Sounds to me like the Camelot adviser gave shockingly bad advice - maybe even tot he extent of being negligent. Good luck with moving to America and living off £1 million without working.
Indeed. The advisor sounds like an utter clown.
He is nature.
Yes, is quite right.
Its a simple issue, he has a £1 million quid in the bank, if he keeps on working his hourly rate will reduce significantly. Therefore he is not going to carry on working on PAYE and is going to enjoy his windfall. He is only 28 so the idea of putting his money into a pension as it is tax efficient does not appeal to him. The current tax structure is fine, and the implications of the current tax structure for him is also totally correct. I was just stating what his reaction to it are, that his incentive to carry on working has been taken away which again is perfectly understandable. I was using this point to demonstrate what a person is likely to do when his incentive to work or wealth create is reduced, taxing more does not always lead to more taxes being collected.
He is being so badly advised it is beyond belief.
What would you advise him to do?? He could go down the route of becoming self employed or setting up a company but he does not want to.
Buy a house (or pay off the mortgage), buy a treat or two, put the rest of the money in investments to draw down later when he is not paying tax on a salary. His current spending power will be greater because he will have no mortgage (or pay no rent) and he will not need to pay into a pension (or substantially reduce payments), and he will be set up for later in life. £1 million in the bank at 28 will not see you through - especially if you are emigrating to the US.
A common rule of thumb in the retire early movement is you need to be able to live on 4% of your savings. They recommend investing most/all in diversified index funds blah blah blah. If he can live on 30-40 grand a year, and i suspect he can, then he should not need to work any more.
How is your friend paying top rate tax? He is just paying 40% higher rate, not the additional (top) rate as you suggest. Like most people on here he is in the 40% tax band. It is rather like saying I have no incentive to work harder because I pay the higher rate. Are you suggesting he shouldn't have to pay income tax on the interest?
Sounds to me like the Camelot adviser gave shockingly bad advice - maybe even tot he extent of being negligent. Good luck with moving to America and living off £1 million without working.
Indeed. The advisor sounds like an utter clown.
snip.
snip
snip
Indeed so. Or just buy a house if he doesn't already own one. The Camelot guy is a clown.
*jumping in to the fray*
I struggle to see how he could not make a better return on investment in a balanced global investment fund than the 3-4% a year he has been told in which case with mortgage rates as they are he would be better off getting a mortgage and investing the balance.
If he was ballsy and disciplined he would get an interest-only mortgage on an investment property which washes its face, then invest the notional capital in a balanced portfolio.
Currystar's lucky sparky mate would have been better asking the PB Brains Trust than listening to this prat from Camelot.
And yes, @Slackbladder fair point about the adviser's conflict of interest.
I’d say take £100k salary for a year off work and having fun - he’s only 28 and probably wants to feel like a millionaire for a bit. Then buy a house to live in and invest the rest in a varied portfolio, and go back to work. Reinvest dividends and rents until he needs to draw on them later in life. He’s a skilled tradesman so can probably work as much or as little as he wants. He’ll probably find he can work two or three days a week if he’s not got housing to pay for.
Respectfully, I think this may be quite bad advice for the first year. If you inflate your expenditure to a certain level, it's difficult to get it back down again.
Although to be fair if I won the lottery one of the first things I'd do is tell the lottery operators to piss off and sort my own affairs out. better to use sometone seperate, rather than them which no doubt trying to sell you investments.
depends if they are 'genuine' IFAs or instead replica SJPs trying to hoover up monies on to their own model portfolios, DFMs etc....
OTOH, we have the ludicrous Laura Smith who obviously got a bit carried away at Conference (as we've all done) and starts talking about a General Strike. Regardless of the fact such an action would be hugely counter productive, that isn't how politics happens in a democratic society. Stand up and urge people to vote the Conservatives out at the next election, fine, no problem but General Strikes, seriously?
Those comments are utterly appalling and even more so was the fact that the Shadow Justice Secretary (Burgon) sitting next to her chose to applaud that specific comment and then to give her a standing ovation.
How is your friend paying top rate tax? He is just paying 40% higher rate, not the additional (top) rate as you suggest. Like most people on here he is in the 40% tax band. It is rather like saying I have no incentive to work harder because I pay the higher rate. Are you suggesting he shouldn't have to pay income tax on the interest?
Sounds to me like the Camelot adviser gave shockingly bad advice - maybe even tot he extent of being negligent. Good luck with moving to America and living off £1 million without working.
Indeed. The advisor sounds like an utter clown.
snip.
snip
snip
Indeed so. Or just buy a house if he doesn't already own one. The Camelot guy is a clown.
*jumping in to the fray*
I struggle to see how he could not make a better return on investment in a balanced global investment fund than the 3-4% a year he has been told in which case with mortgage rates as they are he would be better off getting a mortgage and investing the balance.
If he was ballsy and disciplined he would get an interest-only mortgage on an investment property which washes its face, then invest the notional capital in a balanced portfolio.
Currystar's lucky sparky mate would have been better asking the PB Brains Trust than listening to this prat from Camelot.
And yes, @Slackbladder fair point about the adviser's conflict of interest.
Taking £1m to the States is a BAD IDEA, surely. Maybe Canada, close to the border would be better.
Mr. Anazina, 'frogs' is just the equivalent of 'rosbifs'. 'Little Englanders' was a spectacularly ill-judged own goal that insulted half the electorate in a very tight democratic contest.
So we are now entering the realms of ranking derogatory language, with Morris Dancer as judge and jury.
I love how everyone here who claims tax avoidance shouldn't happen and isn't a problem and doesn't discourage work is claiming that someone who's not avoiding tax is being badly advised because he could and should have avoided that tax so didn't need to change behaviour so the system is fine.
I mean seriously WTF? Getting better advise so you can avoid tax should not be the solution!
It's not better advice to avoid tax that this bloke needs, it's halfway decent advice to stop him wasting the windfall he has had. Buying a house is not tax avoidance, it is setting yourself up and making an investment, while also freeing up your current income to go further.
Yes, depending on his inclination he could put a fair bit into a house, and have a good whack in investments too, such as ISAs or SIPP, and have plenty left for wine, women and song. Probably best to keep working though, just to keep off the boredom, but working with that sort of backstop means that you can afford to pick and choose your jobs and bosses.
Either that or spend it all on an almighty binge. You can't take it with you!
Mr. Anazina, your weird fixation on my never having visited London is just odd. I've never been to Birmingham either.
Your foot-stamping squeals because I refuse to recant the non-PC heresy of using the term 'frogs' is quite entertaining.
Mr. Thompson, blasphemy! You'll be suggesting I don't live in a castle or genetically engineer land-walking superfish next.
And don't dare question my enormous man cannon.
Yes I have previously noted that you are happy to use the word frogs to describe French people, yet bridle at being called a Little Englander yourself. You strike me as a very decent guy generally, but, really, you have a complete blindspot on this matter. 'Get out more' would be my advice. Go to London and France, you will probably enjoy them.
He self-described lives in a castle with a giant trebuchet and genetically engineered land-walking superfish? What more does a man need? Why should he get out more, what more to life is there than that?
I love how everyone here who claims tax avoidance shouldn't happen and isn't a problem and doesn't discourage work is claiming that someone who's not avoiding tax is being badly advised because he could and should have avoided that tax so didn't need to change behaviour so the system is fine.
I mean seriously WTF? Getting better advise so you can avoid tax should not be the solution!
It's not better advice to avoid tax that this bloke needs, it's halfway decent advice to stop him wasting the windfall he has had. Buying a house is not tax avoidance, it is setting yourself up and making an investment, while also freeing up your current income to go further.
Yes, depending on his inclination he could put a fair bit into a house, and have a good whack in investments too, such as ISAs or SIPP, and have plenty left for wine, women and song. Probably best to keep working though, just to keep off the boredom, but working with that sort of backstop means that you can afford to pick and choose your jobs and bosses.
Either that or spend it all on an almighty binge. You can't take it with you!
Given his track record, buying a million scratch-cards must be a tempting option?
I love how everyone here who claims tax avoidance shouldn't happen and isn't a problem and doesn't discourage work is claiming that someone who's not avoiding tax is being badly advised because he could and should have avoided that tax so didn't need to change behaviour so the system is fine.
I mean seriously WTF? Getting better advise so you can avoid tax should not be the solution!
It's not better advice to avoid tax that this bloke needs, it's halfway decent advice to stop him wasting the windfall he has had. Buying a house is not tax avoidance, it is setting yourself up and making an investment, while also freeing up your current income to go further.
Yes, depending on his inclination he could put a fair bit into a house, and have a good whack in investments too, such as ISAs or SIPP, and have plenty left for wine, women and song. Probably best to keep working though, just to keep off the boredom, but working with that sort of backstop means that you can afford to pick and choose your jobs and bosses.
Either that or spend it all on an almighty binge. You can't take it with you!
Given his track record, buying a million scratch-cards must be a tempting option?
That is how the house always wins. Gamblers get a win and recycle the money away back to the bookie rather than walking away.
I love how everyone here who claims tax avoidance shouldn't happen and isn't a problem and doesn't discourage work is claiming that someone who's not avoiding tax is being badly advised because he could and should have avoided that tax so didn't need to change behaviour so the system is fine.
I mean seriously WTF? Getting better advise so you can avoid tax should not be the solution!
It's not better advice to avoid tax that this bloke needs, it's halfway decent advice to stop him wasting the windfall he has had. Buying a house is not tax avoidance, it is setting yourself up and making an investment, while also freeing up your current income to go further.
Yes, depending on his inclination he could put a fair bit into a house, and have a good whack in investments too, such as ISAs or SIPP, and have plenty left for wine, women and song. Probably best to keep working though, just to keep off the boredom, but working with that sort of backstop means that you can afford to pick and choose your jobs and bosses.
Either that or spend it all on an almighty binge. You can't take it with you!
Given his track record, buying a million scratch-cards must be a tempting option?
That is how the house always wins. Gamblers get a win and recycle the money away back to the bookie rather than walking away.
OTOH, we have the ludicrous Laura Smith who obviously got a bit carried away at Conference (as we've all done) and starts talking about a General Strike. Regardless of the fact such an action would be hugely counter productive, that isn't how politics happens in a democratic society. Stand up and urge people to vote the Conservatives out at the next election, fine, no problem but General Strikes, seriously?
Those comments are utterly appalling and even more so was the fact that the Shadow Justice Secretary (Burgon) sitting next to her chose to applaud that specific comment and then to give her a standing ovation.
I’d say take £100k salary for a year off work and having fun - he’s only 28 and probably wants to feel like a millionaire for a bit. Then buy a house to live in and invest the rest in a varied portfolio, and go back to work. Reinvest dividends and rents until he needs to draw on them later in life. He’s a skilled tradesman so can probably work as much or as little as he wants. He’ll probably find he can work two or three days a week if he’s not got housing to pay for.
Respectfully, I think this may be quite bad advice for the first year. If you inflate your expenditure to a certain level, it's difficult to get it back down again.
Possibly a fair point, and young lottery winners (and sportsmen and actors) have a habit of blowing the lot in no time and having no college fund for their kids or pension to draw on.
So get a good IFA at the start, and agree to a year of fun with the rest of the money invested sensibly and for the long term. It’s a rare 28 year old working man who, confronted with someone going on about nothing but sensible stuff, won’t just tell the advisor to go screw himself.
I know that football clubs, for example, spend a lot of time working with players to make sure they don’t end up bankrupt while still letting them enjoying themselves. It’s a difficult line to draw though, and £1m isn’t as much as most people think it is.
And soon we move onto the conservative conference which may well be the most important one they have held in a generation.
Yesterday TM looked tired in her interviews and we saw her Maybot on display again. This morning she is talking of reducing corporation tax to the lowest in the G20 and making the UK the best place in the world to do business. This is a perfectly reasonable place for a conservative PM but does give the impression she is giving up on a deal.
This worries me considerably and I am concerned that her political antennae is switched off. When asked yesterday by Sky if she would sign upto their petition for leaders debates she refused to answer, when the correct response should have been an immmediate 'absolutely '. A few weeks ago she over ruled Sajid on the 3% police pay increase which is just plain stupid,
I do understand why she will not agree any deal that puts a border in the Irish sea but her stubbornness makes compromise very difficult.
I do not think she can continue like this for much longer but cannot see it is the national interest to replace her now, as desirable as that may be, but I doubt she will survive much beyond late Spring 2019
And to all of you who think I am her cheerleader I do admire her honesty, decency and dedication to public service in stark contrast to some of the objectionable speeches from hard left haters we saw at the labour conference.
Let us hope, despite my reservations, she can get a deal or at the very least a transistion period.
I do not believe we should remain in the EU now no matter the difficulties but I am sure many will start to campaign to re-join post Brexit, but I cannot see that happening in the short term
Feeling a bit melancholy today
I still reckon May will strike a last minute deal. Something like EEA+CU with a fig leaf on immigration. But I doubt much will be sorted this side of Christmas.
May won’t strike that deal. She’s boxed in.
As a matter of interest would you agree a deal that puts a border in the Irish sea
Sorry Big G, been working all morning.
Absolutely not. My Grandmother was from a Belfast.
The EU cocked up re: backstop, last December, and has been trying to foist a bad one on us ever since...
Corbyn seems to be having fun here. I still don't think he's a great speaker or even a particularly good one but he seems more comfortable than in previous appearances.
Corbyn seems to be having fun here. I still don't think he's a great speaker or even a particularly good one but he seems more comfortable than in previous appearances.
He's like a cult leader, always more prepared to preach to the converted. Less prepared to be challenged.
Corbyn seems to be having fun here. I still don't think he's a great speaker or even a particularly good one but he seems more comfortable than in previous appearances.
He's like a cult leader, always more prepared to preach to the converted. Less prepared to be challenged.
tbf he is at the Labour Party Conference. What did you expect?
Corbyn seems to be having fun here. I still don't think he's a great speaker or even a particularly good one but he seems more comfortable than in previous appearances.
He's like a cult leader, always more prepared to preach to the converted. Less prepared to be challenged.
Corbyn's been touring the country for some time talking at public meetings aimed mainly at Tory-held constituencies.
Theresa May (up until recently at least) holds stage managed events with party activists.
Corbyn seems to be having fun here. I still don't think he's a great speaker or even a particularly good one but he seems more comfortable than in previous appearances.
He's like a cult leader, always more prepared to preach to the converted. Less prepared to be challenged.
Corbyn's been touring the country for some time talking at public meetings aimed mainly at Tory-held constituencies.
Theresa May (up until recently at least) holds stage managed events with party activists.
Corbyn seems to be having fun here. I still don't think he's a great speaker or even a particularly good one but he seems more comfortable than in previous appearances.
He's like a cult leader, always more prepared to preach to the converted. Less prepared to be challenged.
tbf he is at the Labour Party Conference. What did you expect?
The last person Tony Blair ever spoke to at a party conference was those there.
Corbyn seems to be having fun here. I still don't think he's a great speaker or even a particularly good one but he seems more comfortable than in previous appearances.
He's like a cult leader, always more prepared to preach to the converted. Less prepared to be challenged.
tbf he is at the Labour Party Conference. What did you expect?
Anyone else and I'd have expected him to turn up to be interviewed by the media this morning as happens with every party leader their day at Conference!
He's confident in front of his adoring fans while giving a set piece with no questioning but shunning any media questions. Par for the course for him.
"The Jewish people have suffered a long and terrible history of persecution and genocide. I was humbled to see a memorial to that suffering two years ago, when I visited the former Nazi concentration camp at Terezin."
They literally roll that sentence out in every press release Jezza ever does on antisemitism.
"Journalists from Turkey to Myanmar and Colombia are being imprisoned, harassed or sometimes killed by authoritarian governments and powerful corporate interests just for doing their job."
But when Iran did it, I continued to do my gig on Press Tv....
spend spend spend. who would expect anything else...
I am still trying to get my head around £15bn for resurrection of the march of the loft laggers....in comparison the childcare scheme is a bargain at just £5bn.
"The Jewish people have suffered a long and terrible history of persecution and genocide. I was humbled to see a memorial to that suffering two years ago, when I visited the former Nazi concentration camp at Terezin."
They literally roll that sentence out in every press release Jezza ever does on antisemitism.
"The Jewish people have suffered a long and terrible history of persecution and genocide. I was humbled to see a memorial to that suffering two years ago, when I visited the former Nazi concentration camp at Terezin."
They literally roll that sentence out in every press release Jezza ever does on antisemitism.
Corbyn seems to be having fun here. I still don't think he's a great speaker or even a particularly good one but he seems more comfortable than in previous appearances.
He's like a cult leader, always more prepared to preach to the converted. Less prepared to be challenged.
Corbyn's been touring the country for some time talking at public meetings aimed mainly at Tory-held constituencies.
Theresa May (up until recently at least) holds stage managed events with party activists.
Beneath the waves of Brexit and anti-Semitism, Labour are sharpening up their retail offer very effectively. When they turn their minds again to the question of persuading the public rather than the question of party control, they may well get another sugar rush boost of enthusiasm in their support.
I agree; John McDonnell aside, this is a party with a keen eye on what a retail offer looks like. This feels a more purposeful Labour party than the rabble we've seen at times in the past two years.
However I think that on Brexit, everything they've done this week is what the Tories wanted them to.
Beneath the waves of Brexit and anti-Semitism, Labour are sharpening up their retail offer very effectively. When they turn their minds again to the question of persuading the public rather than the question of party control, they may well get another sugar rush boost of enthusiasm in their support.
I agree; John McDonnell aside, this is a party with a keen eye on what a retail offer looks like. This feels a more purposeful Labour party than the rabble we've seen at times in the past two years.
However I think that on Brexit, everything they've done this week is what the Tories wanted them to.
Free unicorns for everyone
My other half is strong labour (though not Corbyn supporter), we try to work through and looks for the bull crap and what are the equivalents are. It’s clear that my side think that we can shrink the welfare state by taking on the shirkers and clamping down etc etc, along with efficiency savings meaning that spending less on something won’t make a difference. While labour’s mirror image is the tax dodging corporations who are literally thieving pennies from our nhs and people in need.
Of course both of them are nonsense and neither will produce long term savings once you reach a certain point. Of course you should clamp down on tax dodging and benefit cheats where you can, but neither is going to either raise or free up substantial enough savings to fund tax cuts or increased spending.
Corbyn committed to the triple pension lock today. That might be his most expensive policy to date. If you increase spending on something you need to divert it away from something else or raise the extra income from taxation.
The implication in his speech that there will be no area of public finances getting diverted its increase after increase.
If you think that not sub contracting out work across the public sector is the way to go, thats fine, but it’s usually more expensive. That’s resorufes again that needs to be diverted from service delivery to paying for now the service is delivered.
It might be worth it, it might not, but all these things drive up costs. Driving up standards in early year education will drive up costs. You might think it’s a social good that nursery nurses are paid more, fine, but if you pay them more you need to put more into the pot to get the same result.
Remember I told you about one of our sparks who won a £1 million on a scratchcard. He wanted to carry on working. However the Camelot financial adivsior has been to see him. As he will get between 3-4% interest on his money, any income he gets from employment will be subject to the top rate of tax, therefore massively reducing his hourly rate, making it pointless for him to carry on working. He has taken his money and moved to America. One of the dangers of over taxing "rich" people, they leave.
I'd spend half of it on drink, drugs and debauchery and just waste the rest...
"Journalists from Turkey to Myanmar and Colombia are being imprisoned, harassed or sometimes killed by authoritarian governments and powerful corporate interests just for doing their job."
But when Iran did it, I continued to do my gig on Press Tv....
I think that part of his speech must take the 2018 political hypocrisy award!
Remember I told you about one of our sparks who won a £1 million on a scratchcard. He wanted to carry on working. However the Camelot financial adivsior has been to see him. As he will get between 3-4% interest on his money, any income he gets from employment will be subject to the top rate of tax, therefore massively reducing his hourly rate, making it pointless for him to carry on working. He has taken his money and moved to America. One of the dangers of over taxing "rich" people, they leave.
I'd spend half of it on drink, drugs and debauchery and just waste the rest...
"Journalists from Turkey to Myanmar and Colombia are being imprisoned, harassed or sometimes killed by authoritarian governments and powerful corporate interests just for doing their job."
But when Iran did it, I continued to do my gig on Press Tv....
I think that part of his speech must take the 2018 political hypocrisy award!
And no mention of Russia which hardly treats its journalists with kid gloves.
Doubtless Corbyn will remember these words when British journalists seek to do their job scrutinising the Labour party and the next Labour government.
Was it not one Keir Starmer who sought to imprison journalists under an ancient law and was soundly admonished by the Court of Appeal?
I’d also like to know which corporate interests have killed and imprisoned journalists and in which countries.
On the subject of Yorkshire men and travel - over the last two years I have been making trips to cities and county towns in England I have never visited before. It is proving quite a long list - so far I have been to Lincoln, Nottingham, Leicester, Warwick, Shrewsbury, Worcester, Gloucester, and ( just yesterday) Preston. Still on my list are Norwich, Derby, Bedford, Aylesbury, and Dorchester. A little game I play with myself is to try and remember the names of the local MPs. It is proving more difficult than I thought!
Comments
I suggest precisely what I suggested, that there is a simple flat system. I'm suggesting nobody has to pay 40% tax.
If it was up to me I'd abolish all tax credits, NI and income tax and merge them all into a simple flat system. For example a flat 25% tax with a negative income tax starting rate of £5k.
EG
Someone on 0 income gets £5k in welfare. Net £5k.
Someone on £10k gets £2.5k in welfare. Net £12.5k.
Someone on £20k neither gets welfare nor pays any tax. Net £20k.
Someone on £30k pays £2.5k in tax. Net £27.5k.
Someone on £40k pays £5k in tax. Net £35k.
Someone on £100k pays £20k in tax. Net £80k
Adjust numbers to make work but you get the point. Work always pays. No cliff edge. With PAYE and Real Time reporting it could all happen automatically too.
I am actually coming round to the idea of a No-Deal-WTO-Diamond-hard Brexit. The thought of watching this bunch of total f***-wits having to deal with the outcome of their incompetence might just be worth the pain.
I mean seriously WTF? Getting better advise so you can avoid tax should not be the solution!
What were his motives for continuing to work in the first place?
I would hazard a guess that it was not just about money. Otherwise why bother? As someone pointed out he is getting a decent whack of unearned income a year. I bet he was considering it partly for something to do, be with his mates, have a purpose etc etc.
Yes I have previously noted that you are happy to use the word frogs to describe French people, yet bridle at being called a Little Englander yourself. You strike me as a very decent guy generally, but, really, you have a complete blindspot on this matter. 'Get out more' would be my advice. Go to London and France, you will probably enjoy them.
Employment work comes first when it comes to tax. So on a basic level he's being taxed exactly the same way as he was before. He gets his personal allowance, and gets taxed at 20% on it or 40% if hes over the limit.
It's the investment income, which is (lets say for the sake of simpleness) being taxed at the higher rate at maybe 40% for interest, or 32.5% for dividends etc etc. Not only that, he has to pay that tax under self-assessment. It's that which is taxed higher, not his employment/self-employment.
It's the fact he's not really seeing the 'massive' £1m which is no doubt pissing him off, and the fact he doesn't feel much better off as a result, even if he is, and still has the £1m later down the road (although inflation will eat into that).
If he has got family responsibilities then I suspect he’d be best off putting two thirds away in a house, support for education and keeping going.
At 28 £1m really isn’t a lot! Although I wish I’d had it!
I fear I need to go further and vote to do the most damage to Corbyn. Would that mean voting for a Boris led Tory party as we hurtle towards no deal, crisis, and another bitter round of public service desecration? And all that in a constituency which, if it turned, would imply a majority well clear of the hundred mark. At the moment, I'm thinking it probably would. There is no scale of defeat too big for Corbyn.
As I said, blindspot.
I struggle to see how he could not make a better return on investment in a balanced global investment fund than the 3-4% a year he has been told in which case with mortgage rates as they are he would be better off getting a mortgage and investing the balance.
If he was ballsy and disciplined he would get an interest-only mortgage on an investment property which washes its face, then invest the notional capital in a balanced portfolio.
Have to confess I'm confused this morning. Not so long ago we were seeing the Prime Minister pledging money for housing and the NHS and more or less conceding taxes would have to rise to meet additional funding in both the NHS and the provision of care for vulnerable adults and children.
Now I read it's buckswashling tax cuts all round - I realise she might have been personally affronted by the treatment handed out to her at Salzburg though I would say, if she's going to be a politician, she's going to have to take the rough with the jagged and she gets nowhere near the abuse meted out by her supporters to Corbyn.
I also recognise that the "insult" of the Prime Minister was used as fuel to whip up anti-European hysteria by the usual suspects but now it seems all talk of "helping the hard working families" is going to be thrown away just to cock a snook at the EU.
OTOH, we have the ludicrous Laura Smith who obviously got a bit carried away at Conference (as we've all done) and starts talking about a General Strike. Regardless of the fact such an action would be hugely counter productive, that isn't how politics happens in a democratic society. Stand up and urge people to vote the Conservatives out at the next election, fine, no problem but General Strikes, seriously?
Compare and contrast - 1 person in 18 who tries to flee from Africa to Europe has died this year - that means for every 900 people who make it to Italy or Malta, 50 have drowned in the Med. That's a sobering thought for a Wednesday afternoon.
"Has Labour borrowing reached the magic £1 trillion yet I wonder. With a manifesto figure of £500bn, plus utilities nationalisation, HS2 extension, writing off student dept, buying back PFI, and now more child care and Green expenditure they can’t be far off!"
'“Greed is good” replaced with “Envy is better”. Brilliant.'
"Go to London and France, you will probably enjoy them."
I've always found London and Paris to be similar. Nice places spoiled by the natives.
That's the stupidity of our democracy - the ultimate postcode lottery.
I think it is time for me to move more assets out of the UK.
If he can live on 30-40 grand a year, and i suspect he can, then he should not need to work any more.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/four-percent-rule.asp
And your bigotry about Londoners does you no credit.
And yes, @Slackbladder fair point about the adviser's conflict of interest.
If you inflate your expenditure to a certain level, it's difficult to get it back down again.
Either that or spend it all on an almighty binge. You can't take it with you!
So get a good IFA at the start, and agree to a year of fun with the rest of the money invested sensibly and for the long term. It’s a rare 28 year old working man who, confronted with someone going on about nothing but sensible stuff, won’t just tell the advisor to go screw himself.
I know that football clubs, for example, spend a lot of time working with players to make sure they don’t end up bankrupt while still letting them enjoying themselves. It’s a difficult line to draw though, and £1m isn’t as much as most people think it is.
Absolutely not. My Grandmother was from a Belfast.
The EU cocked up re: backstop, last December, and has been trying to foist a bad one on us ever since...
Please!
Theresa May (up until recently at least) holds stage managed events with party activists.
He's confident in front of his adoring fans while giving a set piece with no questioning but shunning any media questions. Par for the course for him.
They literally roll that sentence out in every press release Jezza ever does on antisemitism.
But when Iran did it, I continued to do my gig on Press Tv....
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6209681/Picture-proves-anti-Israel-extremist-Labour-conference-party.html
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/09/my-evening-with-jeremy-corbyn.html
Of course both of them are nonsense and neither will produce long term savings once you reach a certain point. Of course you should clamp down on tax dodging and benefit cheats where you can, but neither is going to either raise or free up substantial enough savings to fund tax cuts or increased spending.
Corbyn committed to the triple pension lock today. That might be his most expensive policy to date. If you increase spending on something you need to divert it away from something else or raise the extra income from taxation.
The implication in his speech that there will be no area of public finances getting diverted its increase after increase.
If you think that not sub contracting out work across the public sector is the way to go, thats fine, but it’s usually more expensive. That’s resorufes again that needs to be diverted from service delivery to paying for now the service is delivered.
It might be worth it, it might not, but all these things drive up costs. Driving up standards in early year education will drive up costs. You might think it’s a social good that nursery nurses are paid more, fine, but if you pay them more you need to put more into the pot to get the same result.
Doubtless Corbyn will remember these words when British journalists seek to do their job scrutinising the Labour party and the next Labour government.
Was it not one Keir Starmer who sought to imprison journalists under an ancient law and was soundly admonished by the Court of Appeal?
I’d also like to know which corporate interests have killed and imprisoned journalists and in which countries.