Those lucky enough to be earning more, happy enough to pay usually. Mon e devolution!

    • Olap@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yes, higher rates for higher earners and a progressive rate has long been a british income tax feature, with many bands having been used, including zero rated for low earners. Where this is news however is that Holyrood in Edinburgh is asking higher earners for more, as opposed to Westminster in London who are trying to cut taxes for high earners. Scotland raised an extra £1.5bn according to the article last year, and are trying for more again this year

  • hightrix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    High earner starts at 75k. This is wild and seems very behind the times. I would call 75k barely middle class, not anywhere close to the term “high earner”.

    Either way, it’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. A 45% tax starting so low may end up pushing people out of the country to more favorable tax situations.

    • SanguinePar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      I would call 75k barely middle class, not anywhere close to the term “high earner”.

      We have very different definitions of middle class and high earner.

    • Olap@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Spoilers: a deviation of tax from England hasn’t yet seen any statistical evidence of economic migration

      • hightrix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        I highly expect that to continue to be the case. But it will be interesting to watch if there is any net effect.

        • kralk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          10 months ago

          Both! It’s 45 pence in the pound, so 45%

          • roguetrick@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Should add more bands higher. I honestly think 90% gets very reasonable at a certain point. The marginal utility of the added income they’re making already makes very little difference to them. They’re just doing it to accumulate more at that point.

            Edit: To be clear, I don’t think that point should even be hit by small business owners or specialists. Pretty much only those that live on rents and CEOs should get there.

            • kralk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              10 months ago

              Yeah, I’m fully in favour of giving people a “you won capitalism” award then taking 100% tax at say, five million?

    • Lmaydev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      3 or 4 times the average wage seems fair.

      They are literally just adding more tax brackets to the existing ones.

  • anar@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Your run of the mill wealthy person doesn’t “earn high income” on paper. Expect a lot of people suddenly earning 69999 next tax cycle

    • Olap@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      That’s just not how it works. It’s income above that threshold that is taxed at the new rate. And Scotland have deviated for a year already and haven’t seen any exoduses, only extra money

      • 4am
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I think he’s talking about how rich people are valuable on paper but they’re typically not very liquid at any given time. Like how Musk or Bezos don’t actually have bank accounts with hundreds of billions of dollars in them; they just take out loans against their asset portfolio when they need something.

        Unless this hits them hard in capital gains, you aren’t doing anything but taxing workers; and even then I don’t think these loans count as income.

        EDIT: top earners get £75k? wut?

        • Hyperreality@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Top earners get 75k, because people earning more than that are rarely paid in a fixed wage.

          They get stock options, stuff gets moved to an off-shore company, you start a company that pays you out a dividend under the threshold, any income paid out gets spread between partners, etc.

          Until the Scottish government tackles large land owners, capital, and loopholes this is partly(!!!) performative. Something’s better than nothing though.

      • anar@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I think you simply didn’t understand me. I’m talking about tax dodging by wealthy people. If you think this plan doesn’t already have convenient loopholes, then I’m afraid you are naíve to think wealthy people are simply going to pay up.

        I have fair bit of insight into the UK tax world through CA circles. In fact, if you like reading, I would recommend a book called “Taxtopia” that was just recently published. That might serve as a good introduction.

        • Olap@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          This isn’t designed to close loopholes, indeed the Scottish Government cannot tackle these