Footballers wages and the government.

I'm sure it's not as bad as people think it is. First of all, Lampard's income isn't limited to his Chelsea salary. He gets bonuses and sponsorships as well. I'm not sure about UK tax law, but there are ways you can reduce your tax liability by tax deductions. For example, stocks are taxed at a lower tax percentage than regular income in the US. So he could end up paying 50-60% of his actual income, down from 78%. Regardless, I wouldn't hesitate to switch places with Lampard. They can tax me all they want, I'd still be fucking rich.

the masses are often short sighted! i am Bush's biggest critic but any tax cuts which enable small businesses to employ more staff, increase productivity, buy more "raw materials" and produce more finished products thus stimulating the economy in a recession is a good thing.

a small business needs to remain profitable for it to be worthwhile for its owner. if im not making the same profits i will make cuts until i find a way to do so, and if i have to halve my workforce i will, 'cos im not a communist!

raising taxes for higher earners, stifles economic growth and penalises the successful!

That's great in theory, but the "Trickle-down" theory has its flaws.

We'd all love to be in Lampards position but that's not my point. My point is that the government are taking 78% of someones salary after property and retail purchases which is extortion. Even taking away 50% just with income tax is awful.

I've just found out that the 50% income tax rate comes in when you earn over £150k a year. So if I earned £130k a year I'd end up with around £106k after tax but if my boss earns £200k a year he'd still end up with less than me.

Mal wrote:We'd all love to be in Lampards position but that's not my point. My point is that the government are taking 78% of someones salary after property and retail purchases which is extortion. Even taking away 50% just with income tax is awful.

I've just found out that the 50% income tax rate comes in when you earn over £150k a year. So if I earned £130k a year I'd end up with around £106k after tax but if my boss earns £200k a year he'd still end up with less than me.

I'm not quite sure what you are arguing. The point that the tax system isn't a flat tax system or the fact that the top bracket tax rate is too high?

I personally prefer flat tax rates where everyone is taxed at the same percentage. But since flat tax rates are a rarity (if they even actually exist), I understand and support the point of taxing the rich and giving tax cuts to the poor.

If the high tax rate is what is bothering you, you have to understand that the government uses that money to provide service for its citizens (so it's mostly for good cause). Since European countries have socialized health care, Europeans pay more taxes than Americans.

EDIT: Oh by the way, your tax example is not true. If you earn £130k a year and your boss earns £200k, your boss will still have more income after taxes. The reason is he doesn't get tax 50% on all of his taxable income (unless it's different in the UK). Instead, he will get taxed 40% on the first £150k he makes. Then he will get taxed 50% on his remaining balance.

You: (20% of £37,400) + (40% of £92,600) = £44,520 of taxes (£85,480 remaining disposable income)
Boss: (20% of £37,400 + (40% of £112,600) + (50% of £20,000) = £62,520 (£137,480 remaining disposable income)

Too much maths, fuck off.

Mal wrote:We'd all love to be in Lampards position but that's not my point. My point is that the government are taking 78% of someones salary after property and retail purchases which is extortion. Even taking away 50% just with income tax is awful.

I've just found out that the 50% income tax rate comes in when you earn over £150k a year. So if I earned £130k a year I'd end up with around £106k after tax but if my boss earns £200k a year he'd still end up with less than me.

It's not as simple as that. My dad earns around £130k a year and his income tax is more than 40%.

Also think you worked it out wrong. £79,300 of £150,000 is not 78%.