Ian Informed and the Hundred Pounds
By TheophileEscargot (Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 01:28:23 PM EST) (all tags)
Ian Informed earns a hundred pounds, which pushes him into the 40% tax bracket.

He puts his salary of £37,400 and average council tax of £1,078 into the IFS calculator and sees that he's in the 95th income percentile.

"I could whinge about this", he thinks. "But what a grotesque and repugnant exercise in overprivileged self-pity it would be for someone richer than 19 out of 20 of his fellow Britons to complain about the fact." So he didn't.
Ian Informed and the Hundred Pounds | 44 comments (44 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
vs2fp by infinitera (4.00 / 1) #1 Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 01:44:40 PM EST

[…] a professional layabout. Which I aspire to be, but am not yet. — CheeseburgerBrown

Beat me to it by Driusan (4.00 / 1) #2 Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 02:54:48 PM EST
+1FP

--
Vive le Montréal libre.
[ Parent ]
Taking this to it's logical conclusion by Breaker (4.00 / 2) #3 Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 04:58:31 PM EST
Ian puts on his best leftist hairshirt, and donates a further 20,000 pounds to the Treasury, because they can spend his money far far better than anything he can come up with.

are those percentiles right? by garlic (2.00 / 0) #4 Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 05:04:33 PM EST
because if 37400 lbs is \$55900, then Ian would be somewhere between the 40th and 60th percentile in the US.

Are you looking at personal or household income? by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #5 Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 05:17:47 PM EST
That's a personal income. Those tables have the top quintile (i.e. 20%) for personal income at \$52,500 as I read them.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
I looked at the graph for my statement by garlic (2.00 / 0) #6 Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 05:33:41 PM EST
the tables disagree with the graph. typical wikipedia. Looking at the census source, it's 79 percentile of those making income, and 86% of the total.

[ Parent ]
Also, by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #7 Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 06:31:11 PM EST
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom seems to put £37,400 of taxed income at a bit below 90th percentile.

Also, you can add on another £6,475 to that £37,400 to make £43,875 of income, which makes things look less poor here. And exchange rates are somewhat more flexible too.

[ Parent ]
Also, the IFS calculates by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #8 Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 06:36:42 PM EST
with net income, not gross. I'm not up to calculating the income tax and NI thresholds to work out what the net income of someone at the threshold of the 40% tax band is.

[ Parent ]
That wikipedia page by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #10 Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 01:32:17 AM EST
Cites this source which refers to taxpayers only. So it presumably excludes pensioners, students, the unemployed etc.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
this is why getting these stats are hard. by garlic (2.00 / 0) #19 Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 12:39:47 PM EST
gross vs net, taxpayers vs all people, UK, vs US.

[ Parent ]
SO MUCH WIN! by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #9 Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 07:19:10 PM EST
You may have one internets as your perpetual reward.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

stop trolling. I did, so can you! by dmg (4.00 / 2) #11 Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 06:16:52 AM EST
"grotesque and repugnant exercise in overprivileged self-pity"

Who decides Ian is overprivileged? You seem to be suggesting he doesn't deserve to be rewarded for his labour. Sounds like jealousy plain and simple. If you don't like it, find some way to get a better paid job instead of redistributing other's wealth, Mugabe-style.

--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
Do you think by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #13 Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:22:16 AM EST
We live in a pure meritocracy where those who are capable can simply work their way into a higher tax bracket? You don't think any luck, privilege or chance of birth is involved?

--------

[ Parent ]
WIPO by anonimouse (4.00 / 2) #17 Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:16:28 AM EST
We don't live in a pure meritocracy, but we do live in a meritocracy. If you wish to be higher paid then there is little to stop you trying. I would say that despite the fact that higher education is more available, I don't think the situation is better than the early-mid 80s when I think being a student had less financial hurdles

Girls come and go but a mortgage is for 25 years -- JtL
[ Parent ]
Social mobility in the Uk by nebbish (4.00 / 1) #18 Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:07:47 AM EST
Is appalling

--------

[ Parent ]
It's OK though by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #30 Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 05:12:35 PM EST
We've been told that there's a "future fair for all".

So the last 13 years don't count, it's all about the future.

That's OK then.

[ Parent ]
Up to a point by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 5) #20 Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 02:00:32 PM EST
But with Britain's very low social mobility, 50% of a Briton's income depends on his father's income.

So, the combined effects of luck, effort, and maternal influence come to 50% at most.

If we take an optimistic guess and say 10% is luck, 10% is maternal influence; then Britain is still only 30% meritocratic. Possibly a lot less.

It's also interesting that it's the most rigidly stratified countries where the rich yawp the loudest about how they deserve their wealth and that all taxation is theft.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
Australia is where it's at. by Phage (4.00 / 1) #25 Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 05:20:34 AM EST
I did work my way up from nowhere through the TAFE system, then night school undergraduate, and finally postgraduate. This took 10 years.

I suspect that much more could be done in the UK, but it's not as bad as people think. It can be done. It just requires more work and more time than people want it to.

[ Parent ]
this sounds like by garlic (2.00 / 0) #35 Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 11:08:54 AM EST
it explains the low social mobility via genetics: lazy father is most likely going to equal lazy son.

[ Parent ]
Hilarious by Phage (2.00 / 0) #36 Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 12:49:32 PM EST
Get a life.

[ Parent ]
Not as far-fetched by dmg (4.00 / 1) #37 Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 04:44:42 PM EST
As it might seem at first sight.
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
Science by codemonkey uk (2.00 / 0) #38 Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:16:41 AM EST
I wish I had a doctorate so I could sell out my credibility to write a report for 3rd rate TV channel PR.

Almost as Smart As you.
[ Parent ]
Why does anyone get a doctorate? by dmg (4.00 / 1) #39 Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:40:22 PM EST
If not to make a living.
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
making a living by codemonkey uk (2.00 / 0) #40 Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:43:28 PM EST
doesn't necessarily mean sacrificing your intellectual dignity

Almost as Smart As you.
[ Parent ]
Are you saying you DON'T think man will speciate? by dmg (4.00 / 1) #41 Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:54:14 PM EST
It seems quite plausible to me. However, I don't have a Phd, so my opinions are worthless.
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
not in the time frame he is talking about by codemonkey uk (2.00 / 0) #42 Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:08:09 PM EST
long term, its possible, assuming either (a) civilisation collapses, or (b) we colonise off-planet, and the isolated populations survive largely in isolation for tens or hundreds of generations

Almost as Smart As you.
[ Parent ]
britain's social mobility is lower now that it was by nathan (4.00 / 1) #44 Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:28:35 PM EST
Under the evil Tories. Apparently New Labour was not good at increasing social mobility via increasing taxes and the size of the state.

[ Parent ]
Well then by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #26 Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 05:23:14 AM EST
luck, privilege or chance of birth

I was born to an electrician and a housewife in a council house.

Was I lucky - yes, to have supportive parents who pushed me to get a good education, and who sacrificed much to make sure I got it.

Was I privileged - yes to have selfless parents.

Was it a chance of birth?  Who knows.  But both of my sisters also earn a good living.

Not one of us went to private school nor a top level university.

But we all worked our bollocks|tits off whenever an opportunity presented itself.

[ Parent ]
I think you mean by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 1) #28 Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 08:57:10 AM EST
Pushed you to STEAL a good education.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
Who exactly, did I steal it from? by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #29 Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 05:02:40 PM EST
As far as I can tell, it was bought and paid for.

[ Parent ]
The taxpayer by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 1) #31 Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 05:50:03 PM EST
In your other diaries, you refer to taxation as theft. You say your education was not private, so a little consistency please.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
Already paid for by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #32 Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 05:35:58 AM EST
With my parents taxes and my taxes.

[ Parent ]
Don't be silly by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 3) #33 Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 06:07:09 AM EST
Remember, there's no middle ground between these two statements:

a) All property is theft from the state.
b) All taxation is theft from the individual.

If your education is not theft, you're denying statement b. Which means you subscribe to statement a, you dirty communist.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
In view of your withering argument by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #34 Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 06:53:54 AM EST
I have signed over a further 60% of my earnings to the state.

[ Parent ]
Lol by nebbish (4.00 / 1) #12 Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 07:54:48 AM EST
Can anyone set me straight on this - if you earn enough to take you into the next tax bracket, is it only the money you earn that is above that threshold that gets taxed at the higher rate?

--------

this is correct by codemonkey uk (4.00 / 1) #14 Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:28:39 AM EST
otherwise a pay rise could result in a reduction in what you actually take home, which would clearly be insane

Almost as Smart As you.
[ Parent ]
Thought so but wasn't sure by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #15 Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:43:38 AM EST
Some people I've argued with in the past have got it wrong and said all your income is taxed at the higher rate, and were in uproar about the non-existent insanity.

--------

[ Parent ]
There have been occassions by anonimouse (4.00 / 2) #16 Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:10:22 AM EST
Where it was possible to be taxed at more than 100%. I believe the Inland Revenue cites two such occassions, and in combination with other taxes (e.g. NI) there may be other points.

In addition, it is often uneconomic to transfer from being paid benefits to going into employment.

Girls come and go but a mortgage is for 25 years -- JtL
[ Parent ]
the case i can think of most easisly by aphrael (2.00 / 0) #21 Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 04:15:22 PM EST
has to do with expats.

all money earned overseas is subject to income tax in the country earned.

the first \$x of money earned overseas is exempt from US income tax.

if the combined overseas rate and US rate exceed 100%, which is possible, then the money above the \$x threshold is taxed at more than 100%.
If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.

[ Parent ]
That's why by brokkr (2.00 / 0) #22 Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 07:35:59 PM EST
most civilized countries have bilateral tax agreements.
--
Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjalfr it sama,
ek veit einn, at aldrei deyr: dómr um dau∂an hvern.

[ Parent ]
brokr's right by Scrymarch (2.00 / 0) #27 Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 05:26:58 AM EST
Most countries expats don't suffer from that, it is mainly a US issue.

Iambic Web Certified

[ Parent ]
Ian Informed by gpig (4.00 / 1) #23 Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 11:26:34 PM EST
I hate that guy. I mean, he has the right idea about tax, but I'm so sick of his interjecting with corrections or supporting information every time I say something. These days the conversation goes something like:

Me: "Hey, I noticed Lord Ashcroft admitted he's a non-dom"

Ian: "Yes, but did you know that the UK has a tax treaty with over ...."

Me: "Ok, no more information Ian, that must be the tenth time today"

Ian: "Twelfth, actually -- and reciprocal tax agreements are very important to facilitate the movement of ...."

Me: "SHUT THE FUCK UP IAN"
---
`(,   ,') -- eep`

Whereas my response would be by anonimouse (2.00 / 0) #24 Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 08:41:37 AM EST
...so?

Girls come and go but a mortgage is for 25 years -- JtL
[ Parent ]
If your income is exactly 37400 by Dull Griffith (2.00 / 0) #43 Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 08:26:38 AM EST
then you don't actually have any income taxed in the 40% band, is that not correct? Only those pounds earned above that level are taxed at that rate.

Ian Informed and the Hundred Pounds | 44 comments (44 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback