Home > Uncategorized > Adele has a point on tax.

Adele has a point on tax.


Adele became the subject of a twitter backlash last night after this piece in the Guardian where she complained about the 50% tax rate.

The main quote from Adele being:

“I’m mortified to have to pay 50%! [While] I use the NHS, I can’t use public transport any more. Trains are always late, most state schools are shit, and I’ve gotta give you, like, four million quid – are you having a laugh? When I got my tax bill in from [the album] 19, I was ready to go and buy a gun and randomly open fire.”

Now while some of the argument may be flawed in that trains are not always late and not all state schools are rubbish but the argument that I think confuses most people is the argument that if you earn the money why do you have to give up half of your earnings in tax? I think it rings especially true when you barely use the services. You just don’t see value for money.

Ok, Adele has 4 million left over so can afford a nice house, car, can put food on the table and has no one who is dependent on her whilst there are people who struggling earning less that £10k a year but the point still stands, why should someone who works hard (ok there is argument about how hard singers work but considering we live in a capitalist country & people choose to buy her music therefore she earns a lot of money) give up their hard earned cash to pay for services that they do not use to subsidise those that do not or can not (for whatever reason) earn as much as them?

I have to say I support helping the weakest and most vulnerable in our society but that is still a valuable question.

EDIT: Its been pointed out to me that my numbers are wrong. I do think a 30% tax band is a good idea though.

Another question that Adele brought up by her tax complaint is that of some absurdities made by the tax bands in that if you earn £150k (50% tax rate) you have to pay the Chancellor of Exchequer £75k (you keep £75k of your hard earned money) whereas if you earn £149,999 (40% tax rate) you have to pay the Treasury approximately £60k therefore keeping just under £90k so around the tax band it is actually worth earning less so that you keep more of your money. This is far more acute around the lower tax threshold between paying 20% and 40% at £35k.

Update 2: I want to explain my confusion. Its not that I don’t get the tax system but as I was thinking about Adele’s point of view where she is effectively giving up half her income to the taxman, it did make me forget about the degradations in income tax. Perhaps it is wrong for the tax system to ever look like they are giving away half of their income. They probably shouldn’t be earning that much anyway but I don’t think you can blame Adele for being angry when it does actually look like she is giving up 50p in every pound she earns. I don’t think it should ever appear like your giving up half your income otherwise you can hardly blame the Ashcroft’s and Goldsmith’s who become non-domilciled for tax reasons.

If you earn £35k, top threshold of 20% tax band then you pay the Treasury £7k whereas if you earn £1 more you start giving 40% of your hard earned cash therefore pay the Chancellor £14k. Around £35k p.a. that is a significant decrease in your income & makes life that much harder.

I’m going to be labelled right-wing by what I’m about to say but I honestly don’t care. You should never be better off by earning less. That is backwards. Our tax system has to be reformed so that if you earn more then you should still have earned more after tax than someone who earned slightly less than you pre-tax.

I think introducing a 30% tax band at £35k & then introducing 40% at £60-70k would probably go along way. It will decrease the tax revenues but it might inject confidence into consumers in the middle income bracket who will have more disposal income.

We need to look seriously at the tax system.

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. Cat
    May 26, 2011 at 18:26

    @Nic

    Oh dear, sorry, I’ll try not to be too rude but FFS you haven’t got a f*cking clue how the tax system works!!!!!!!!!

    “you earn £150k (50% tax rate) you have to pay the Chancellor of Exchequer £75k (you keep £75k of your hard earned money) whereas if you earn £149,999 (40% tax rate) you have to pay the Treasury approximately £60k therefore keeping just under £90k”

    You’ve got the wrong end of the stick, you pay the 50% band on earning *over* £150k. You *don’t* pay 50% on all earnings once you earn over £150k.

    “If you earn £35k, top threshold of 20% tax band then you pay the Treasury £7k whereas if you earn £1 more you start giving 40% of your hard earned cash therefore pay the Chancellor £14k.”

    No, No, No! Once you earn over the 40% threshold you pay 40p in a £1 to the taxman so in your (slightly incorrect) example you’d pay £7000.40p

    And Adele has got a f*cking brassneck, she was born to a teenage, single mum in bloody Tottenham – unless her grandparents were loaded it is highly likely her mum got shit loads of benefits and didn’t have to look for work until Adele went to secondary school.

  2. May 26, 2011 at 18:37

    The tax system doesn’t work in the way you describe.

    A person earning 40,000 a year pays 6,505 in income tax.

  3. georgewpotter1066
    May 26, 2011 at 19:18

    Why did you just delete your post about Adele’s comments on income tax? Deleting an entire post just because you got your facts wrong is rather cowardly. A far better act would be to publish a retraction or to post an update at the top of the post to acknowledge your mistake.

    For the record, since you tried to delete it, here is what you said along with my response:

    “Another question that Adele brought up by her tax complaint is that of some absurdities made by the tax bands in that if you earn £150k (50% tax rate) you have to pay the Chancellor of Exchequer £75k (you keep £75k of your hard earned money) whereas if you earn £149,999 (40% tax rate) you have to pay the Treasury approximately £60k therefore keeping just under £90k so around the tax band it is actually worth earning less so that you keep more of your money. This is far more acute around the lower tax threshold between paying 20% and 40% at £35k.”

    As has already been pointed out, this isn’t true. The 50%

  4. georgewpotter1066
    May 26, 2011 at 19:20

    Bugger. I’m very sorry, I accidentally posted the whole of the comment I made on your other thread instead of just the latter half.

  5. georgewpotter1066
    May 26, 2011 at 19:21

    P.S.

    A 30% tax band does sound like a good idea though.

  6. Cat
    May 26, 2011 at 23:54

    “I think introducing a 30% tax band at £35k. It will decrease the tax revenues but it might inject confidence into consumers in the middle income bracket who will have more disposal income.”

    Well, actually the 40p band doesn’t start until about £43kish as the personal allowance is added to the threshold of £35kish.

    But why would cutting the 40p tax band to 30p help the middle income bracket? Those over the 40p threshold are actually in the *top* 10% of earners, so in reality you’d be cutting taxes for the top income decile not the middle one.

    If you wanted to help out those on low and middle incomes you should cut VAT, which would also have the added bonus of reducing inflation.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: