Scottish Budget 2019

[Baxter Parp]

11 minutes ago, Binos said:

It's fantasy

People on 43k a year don't send their children to private schools

Course they do.  They've got partners working part-time.

[vikingTON]

Erm yes they do. A couple taking in £60k, never mind £80k combined, is absolutely capable of sending their sprogs to a private school. Which they often do of course - which is why such aberrations are still commonplace.

It’s always amusing meanwhile to see moral crusaders who’d have a meltdown about the poor spending money on fizzy juice and fags bleat about how it actually isn’t all that easy to live on fully £30k a year more before taxes.

Seems that preaching thrift is far more preferable to practicing it, despite facing absolutely no barriers to doing so.

[The OP]

 

9 minutes ago, Paco said:

 

Do you have a link to that? I don’t disbelieve you, I just find it very surprising.

After tax, NI and pension you’re probably talking around £2.5k a month on £43k. Enough to be comfortable for the most part unless you live in Edinburgh (where you’d assume a good chunk of the 8% work).

Objectively of course it’s rich, you could live in a modest house in an inexpensive area and be loaded. Given people tend to spend based on their income though, it’s not a huge surprise that uproar happens - it’s not solely greed.

 

Purely anecdotal, but I find that people on high salaries tend to be in relationships with people on high salaries. I also find that people who moan about the tax bracket which floats around the mid 40s tend to still have multiple nice cars, 3, 4 or 5 bedroom detached houses, regular holidays etc. so I tend to find their moans pretty greed-based.

5 minutes ago, Binos said:

It's fantasy

People on 43k a year don't send their children to private schools

Only around 4% of children in Scotland attend private schools. The rich aren’t only 4% of the population, unless your definition of rich is extremely restrictive. 

[Baxter Parp]

18 minutes ago, Paco said:

 

Do you have a link to that? I don’t disbelieve you, I just find it very surprising.

After tax, NI and pension you’re probably talking around £2.5k a month on £43k. Enough to be comfortable for the most part unless you live in Edinburgh (where you’d assume a good chunk of the 8% work).

Objectively of course it’s rich, you could live in a modest house in an inexpensive area and be loaded. Given people tend to spend based on their income though, it’s not a huge surprise that uproar happens - it’s not solely greed.

 

Can't find the Scotland figure but this links to figures of £70,000 to be in the top 5% for the UK, so it's not a stretch. Average or Median for Scotland is £23,000

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/70000-john-mcdonnell-salary-hmrc-rich-top-5-percent-denial-a7697561.html

[Baxter Parp]

4 minutes ago, The OP said:

Only around 4% of children in Scotland attend private schools. The rich aren’t only 4% of the population, unless your definition of rich is extremely restrictive. 

Not all rich folk have kids.

[The OP]

2 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

Not all rich folk have kids.

What’s your point caller?

[Baxter Parp]

1 minute ago, The OP said:

What’s your point caller?

I'm agreeing with you.

[18May1991]

28 minutes ago, virginton said:

Erm yes they do. A couple taking in £60k, never mind £80k combined, is absolutely capable of sending their sprogs to a private school. Which they often do of course - which is why such aberrations are still commonplace.

It’s always amusing meanwhile to see moral crusaders who’d have a meltdown about the poor spending money on fizzy juice and fags bleat about how it actually isn’t all that easy to live on fully £30k a year more before taxes.

Seems that preaching thrift is far more preferable to practicing it, despite facing absolutely no barriers to doing so.

Assume you understand that the £43k figure mentioned is before tax? Net it down and it’s not a huge amount - a good salary, yes, - but does not make someone rich.

and a couple bringing  in £60k ‘combined’ will likely have a far higher net income than one parent earning that amount alone, due to tax free allowances etc. 

[Aufc]

Erm yes they do. A couple taking in £60k, never mind £80k combined, is absolutely capable of sending their sprogs to a private school. Which they often do of course - which is why such aberrations are still commonplace.

It’s always amusing meanwhile to see moral crusaders who’d have a meltdown about the poor spending money on fizzy juice and fags bleat about how it actually isn’t all that easy to live on fully £30k a year more before taxes.

Seems that preaching thrift is far more preferable to practicing it, despite facing absolutely no barriers to doing so.

Shut up you silly fanny

[Baxter Parp]

Assume you understand that the £43k figure mentioned is before tax? Net it down and it’s not a huge amount - a good salary, yes, - but does not make someone rich.
and a couple bringing  in £60k ‘combined’ will likely have a far higher net income than one parent earning that amount alone, due to tax free allowances etc. 

Either way, we're all agreed that £43000 is a fair whack and some of them send their kids to private school and some go on skiing holidays and some do both. Also, it's fair tax them progressively.

[vikingTON]

Assume you understand that the £43k figure mentioned is before tax? Net it down and it’s not a huge amount - a good salary, yes, - but does not make someone rich.

and a couple bringing  in £60k ‘combined’ will likely have a far higher net income than one parent earning that amount alone, due to tax free allowances etc. 

 

People on £23k a year pay taxes on that income as well champ - the difference between the net incomes remains enormous. An individual who earns nearly double the average wage in a society like Scotland is both rich compared to the rest of their own society and in absolute terms as well. There simply isn’t getting around that fact.

[vikingTON]

Shut up you silly fanny

^^^ verge of tears

[Aufc]

 
People on £23k a year pay taxes on that income as well champ - the difference between the net incomes remains enormous. An individual who earns nearly double the average wage in a society like Scotland is both rich compared to the rest of their own society and in absolute terms as well. There simply isn’t getting around that fact.

I came onto say that £43k is not a “huge” salary as you said but you must have edited your post

[vikingTON]

The government and many independent organisations define relative poverty as having less than 60% of average income. Given that ‘poor’ and ‘rich’ are entirely equal descriptions, it stands to reason that an annual income of around 140% of average - roughly £33k - is the threshold for being rich in Scotland today. Having an extra £10k to play with on top of that isn’t even up for serious discussion.

The goalposts don’t get moved at the other end of the pitch just because people don’t want to recognise their own privilege.

[Granny Danger]

37 minutes ago, Aufc said:

 

I came onto say that £43k is not a “huge” salary as you said but you must have edited your post

 

£43k is not a “huge” salary but it will seem “huge” if you’re earning £23k or less.  I’m quite happy with the higher tax differential in Scotland.  I’d also like to see Holyrood in charge of other areas of taxation such as corporation taxes where the recent reductions (from which I benefit) are wholly unjustified.

 

[The_Kincardine]

1 hour ago, virginton said:

Erm yes they do. A couple taking in £60k, never mind £80k combined, is absolutely capable of sending their sprogs to a private school. 

This is mental.  A combined income of £60K is ok but isn't a big income.  Certainly doesn't make you rich.  Absolutely not enough to send 2 weans to fee-paying schools unless they live in a garret and eat beans and toast.

[18May1991]

57 minutes ago, virginton said:

 

People on £23k a year pay taxes on that income as well champ - the difference between the net incomes remains enormous. An individual who earns nearly double the average wage in a society like Scotland is both rich compared to the rest of their own society and in absolute terms as well. There simply isn’t getting around that fact.

Yes, but taking into account the tax free allowance then lower rate of tax they pay, it simply doesn’t equate to an “enormous” difference in net incomes and certainly doesn’t make them “rich”. That’s just absolute nonsense. 

My point is simply that anyone who earns double the average wage gross does not take home double the amount net of tax etc. 

[Scary Bear]

3 hours ago, blanco said:

People earning £43k aren’t rich. 

I earn that and can confirm that I am not rich, or at least I don’t feel rich. 

Can’t see where i’m finding the money to stick the kids into a private school.

 

[DublinMagyar]

This is mental.  A combined income of £60K is ok but isn't a big income.  Certainly doesn't make you rich.  Absolutely not enough to send 2 weans to fee-paying schools unless they live in a garret and eat beans and toast.

Like Oaksoft then?

[The_Kincardine]

1 hour ago, Baxter Parp said:

2 hours ago, 18May1991 said:

Assume you understand that the £43k figure mentioned is before tax? Net it down and it’s not a huge amount - a good salary, yes, - but does not make someone rich.
and a couple bringing  in £60k ‘combined’ will likely have a far higher net income than one parent earning that amount alone, due to tax free allowances etc. 

Either way, we're all agreed that £43000 is a fair whack and some of them send their kids to private school and some go on skiing holidays and some do both. Also, it's fair tax them progressively.

This is bonkers.  No one on an income of £43K sends their weans to fee-paying schools without help.  Can we just draw a line under this?

8 minutes ago, DublinMagyar said:

47 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

This is mental.  A combined income of £60K is ok but isn't a big income.  Certainly doesn't make you rich.  Absolutely not enough to send 2 weans to fee-paying schools unless they live in a garret and eat beans and toast.

Like Oaksoft then?

Sounds like VT does too.