One could go further. I wonder how many people, in general, who opine on tax policy, actually make any net income tax contribution to UK PLC?

There is an article in the Sunday Times today. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has been doing some number crunching. I believe this to be a politically independent body, so no-one can claim it to be a mouthpiece of the Conservative Party.

The top 1% pay 25% of all tax in the UK. (From reading previous articles, I seem to recall that the top 5% pay 50% of all tax.)

If you take into account tax credits, but NOT housing benefit, a family with one earner and 2 children have to earn £22,000 before they make any net contribution to the UK's exchequer. If both parents earn, that figure becomes £25,000. To put this in perspective: the median UK salary is £26,000.

I am not an analyst or economist, but these figures suggest that a significant proportion of the UK's workforce make no net contribution through their income tax to the cost of running the country.

The bottom line is that the overwhelming majority of people in the UK are financially supported by those in the higher and top tax brackets.

So 'tax the rich' is the order of the day. Because no other bugger seems to be making any net contribution. The worrying thing is that the 'rich' are not really 'rich'. An army sergeant, or a copper with a decent amount of overtime, would fall into the higher bracket.

Politics of envy, as has been said many times, a few old timers who believe themselves to be relevant when in fact they're not, decent people who you'd happily buy a pint for (either too skint or tight to buy you one back mind), who think the world owes them something, it's been the Sin Bin way for many years, it will never change, but they're at least balanced, a chip on both shoulders.

No. It's exactly trespassing


Then you're wrong.

Are you calling Coddy tight?

Define "Nett Contribution", because if you are trying to suggest that a person earning less than £22k does not pay any tax then you are wrong.

If you are also suggesting that a family with only one wage earner who is bringing in less than £22k gross should not receive some sort of tax credit then you are incapable of seeing the bigger picture and probably not a society sort of person, in other words, like Standee, a "self" person.

And for the record I do not fit either of the two scenarios, do not qualify for any benefits and have in the past paid personal tax bills that would make your eyes water, certainly paid tax bills higher than the average persons salary.

I have never said that and suggest re-reading my post.



Once again, I never suggested that.



Brave admitting that on The Sin Bin. It means you might have had some success in life and you will instantly become a hate figure, probably.

Good, quality, arguments there TB. Complete with informed opinion and supporting evidence.

No, it's only selfish b&stards, regardless of their wealth who are hated on here.

Oh and I think you do need to define "net contribution". Because under one, narrow, definition you may be right. Under others you are definitely wrong.

So then define what you mean by the statement.

I don't mind admitting that I have had some very successful years in business, I don't mind admitting that I inherited the business or that I lost it in 2009 and am now a mere salaried employee, I don't mind admitting any of that because its all in the great tapestry of life and its called "experience" and frankly its made me a more balanced person, the death of a close friend made me a more balanced person in 2009 also, in fact he died just one day after I signed the business over to the administrators and at that point I couldn't give a flying one about making money any more, there is much more to life than money and making a large income does not make you a better person and it certainly does not give you a balanced view on life, far from it in fact.

I gave up on VR's post when he claimed that the IFS was independent