Jeez Neil, did I say they were propping anything up? Yes there are over 11,000 people earning £1million or a lot more, i would be interested to know just how much they did contribute as a percentage of total revenues but i think you're just making an argument for yourself to try to say I think they are propping the system up.
<shrug> you specifically raised the mil + earners, I just questioned the veracity of that. You mentioned an average household having to pay tax for around 50 years to balance that. Problem is, that's an unrealistic proposition on a few grounds. Realistically how many people earn the same amount for 50 years, so more realistic to compare them on ratio grounds.
How many "average" 40k households per mil+ earner. And what proportion of income are these mil+ earners actually paying in taxation - because I think the assumptions of PAYE proportions are somewhat unlikely.
My point is there are fewer net contributors than receivers, and some may be surprised to learn they are not net contributors despite earning a good income and not claiming benefits, it's a point of interest. That is all, thank you and good night.
That there is some shift is not without any kind of predictability, and is somewhat influenced by apolitical factors. All the same, it's rather far from the oversimplification of the beer analogy, and best keep the high earners sweet and hope and pray that they continue with their magnanimous tolerance of personal taxation levels.
The fish were a courtesy.
This page intentionally left blank