All the drivers freely admit that they're driving for all the apps, which is great, but it can be a nightmare actually getting a car sometimes due to supply being spread across 4 or 5 apps now. Feels like a TFL run app would be best, but maybe that's communist or something?
From memory Uber penalises being online and passing on work, so assume there’s algorithms for that with all of them. Then you have the fun one where someone accepts a ride, but is clearly finishing one on another app, so your 3 minute wait magically becomes 15.
I wonder if there will be a way to spin all these threads together someday, I suppose in private hands that would become a monopoly.
Indeed, only black cabs may be hailed in the street. All the others are minicabs and have to be booked by phone by calling them or their company, and now also through apps.
Even with a number of different apps it's still simpler than before.
We definitely have a "privatized == better" meme in government despite the public generally hating it. What the people seem to want is a Tory government that delivers state-funded public services, but only for the over-65s.
Also not really having a policy on brexit, and letting it be one of the issues the party fought inwardly about, made brexit a policy issue so it is hard to make the distinction that you do above: there are people who would have voted if a more direct stance against was taken.
(context: remain and Labour voter in all the key national polls in recent years, but they never managed to make themselves look better than "vaguely better one from a terrible set of options" even to the likes of me so convincing floating voters to swing that way was not going to happen)
Employer NI is 13.8%, but rarely counted as a tax on the worker (crazilly)
Of course plenty of people earning big bucks don't do it via PAYE, just take their money as far lower capital gains, split income amongst multiple people, leave income in businesses for longer, etc.
2017-2018 figures [0] and taxes [1]
Someone on 90%ile 45,500 pre tax, has a cost (including employer NI) of £50,616, and a net wage of £34,322, total tax of 32%
Someone on 95%ile 59,300 pre tax, has a cost (including employer NI) of £66,320, and a net wage of £42,413, total tax of 36%
Someone on 99%ile 116,000 pre tax, has a cost (including employer NI) of £130,845, and a net wage of £72,099, total tax of 45%
I believe Corbyn's income tax proposals were to increase the rate for 80k-150k to 45%. That would only affect the top 2.5% of income tax payers, but the person on the 99%ile above would pay an extra £1800 a year in tax. Their tax rate would change from 45% to 46%, hardly an earth shattering change.
That £1800 a year extra is about what the tories took off single mothers earning £60k when they introduced the child tax [2]
[0] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-f...
[1] https://listentotaxman.com/
[2] high income child benefit tax charge".
It is a cost of the employment. As I wrote above, it goes to the treasury and proportionate to the salary. It doesn't matter how we label it. Doesn't matter neither to the company's, nor the individual's taxation.
> Of course plenty of people earning big bucks don't do it via PAYE, just take their money as far lower capital gains
No, the people who earn big bucks do it in a non tax-resident way. They don't declare tax in the UK or any high-taxpaying region.
> That would only affect the top 2.5% of income tax payers
No, 1.6M people, the top 5%: https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/article/labour-s-propos...
"The top 5% of income tax payers contribute half of all income tax revenues today." With the current level of digitalisation, there is only so much weight you can put on the most performant segment of the workforce before they pack and leave.
> Their tax rate would change from 45% to 46%, hardly an earth shattering change.
No, the former 45% would be higher than 50%, because it would have started from £125K, and they would introduce a 45% above £80K.
80k is between 97 and 98.
I also provided the breakdown of how much income tax, employer NI and employee NI is paid.
My high income friends tend to get their income from dividends and avoid NI completely. Only working schmucks pay NI.
You can choose to ignore the data if you want.
I agree with your point that your effective tax rate is always lower than your marginal tax rate - but anyone earning £100,000 who has asked themselves "How much of a bonus do I need to earn to pay for a £20,000 loft conversion" will have done a calculation like aries1980 has and winced.
Besides
100k income in 2009/10 (when Labour were last in power): Net income £65,312. 120k income in 2009/10: Net income £77,112.
Marginal tax 41%
100k income in 2019/20: Net income £66,539. 120k income in 2019/20: Net income £74,139
Marginal tax 62%
That's not even the top level. If you're a masters graduate on £50k with 2 kids your marginal tax is 75%.
There are many myths, that conservatives are good for the economy, that they don't have boom and bust, that the stock market does better, than employment does better, that taxes are lower for everyone, that taxes are lower for "rich" workers, that the country has less debt.
They're all myths, but they all seem to stick in the national psyche.
How do we know that the concerns were insincere? Well, Claire Fox spent twenty years in the Revolutionary Communist Party and supported IRA bombing of Warrington in the 90s, but has now been made a member of the UK's permanent unelected legislature, the House of Lords.
People will hate socialism if they're told to do so. Whereas Revolutionary Communist Party members can be promoted to baronetcy once they fall in line. Welcome to Britain.
e: according to the downvotes, no, it is because people hate socialism. It must be nice to live in a world with such simple answers eh :)
I went door to door in December, spoke personally to hundreds of people from all backgrounds. A significant number were switching Labour to Tory because they did not like Corbyn. More voted Tory rather than Lib Dem because they were worried about Corbyn.
Should they have been worried? Probably not. Were they influenced by unfair media coverage? Probably. Would Corbyn have been better than Johnson? Certainly. That doesn't matter, what matters is what people believe, and Corbyn was a massive millstone around Labour's neck in 2019, which (when combined with a non-democratic voting system) led to a Conservative landslide.
Had they dumped Corbyn in November and replaced him with Keir Starmer, we'd likely have had a government of national unity instead of an election, a referendum which would have swung to remain just like the Swiss referendum did, and competence rather than corruption throughout this pandemic.
It's probably because a lot of users on here are American (and thus pre-disposed to hate "socialism") and also a large number of users on here are wanna ultra-paneer libertarian bozos who think they want a minimalist, economically liberal government so that their startup can _finally_ make the millions it would be making if it wasn't held back by the red menace
In the UK, a middle class earner already pays 40% income tax + 20% VAT + 13.8% NI, that's a neat 73.8% to the community already (not to mention the extra taxes, like the Council Tax or extra duties when you pour a gin). The labour wanted to increase this by 5-25 percentage point. What is communism, if not the political ruling that strips the common people to build up wealth?
e: in fact if you earn 80k and spend ALL your takehome on 20% VAT goods, you still end up with the majority share.
Employment salary cost: 91.04K (gross salary + employer's national insurance) Gross income: 80K Take home pay: 55.04K VAT: 11K
The value you can get if you buy everyday items after your 91K salary cost is 44K or 48%, the rest, 47K goes to the treasury. My figures were wrong indeed.
That sounds like capitalism to me.
> In the UK, a middle class earner already pays 40% income tax + 20% VAT + 13.8% NI, that's a neat 73.8% to the community already (not to mention the extra taxes, like the Council Tax or extra duties when you pour a gin). The labour wanted to increase this by 5-25 percentage point.
I am a very middle-class earner and I'd very happily pay more tax if it went to funding the NHS, metal health programs, real addition treatment (not criminalisation of addicts), house building, arts programs. In fact I have consistently voted for this.
Your post insinuates that these taxes are just taken with nothing gained. I am happy to pay council tax because I know that pays for services I benefit from, like rubbish collection, parks and landscape maintenance, street cleaning, etc. I am happy to pay duty on alcohol because I know it is an addictive substance, and although I don't suffer from addiction, others do, and in order for me to freely consume alcohol I have to accept that as a society we have to pay for those to do suffer because of it. I am happy to pay income tax and NI because I use NHS services, I went to a state funded school, I use the railways, etc.
Capitalism encourages private ownership and keeping the means of your labour. High taxation is the opposite of this, because it doesn't leave enough profit at the individual, which prevents private ownership.
> Your post insinuates that these taxes are just taken with nothing gained.
That's not true. Just because to me the current and Labour-proposed level of taxation is not motivating to do more doesn't mean some level of taxation is not necessary. It is not all or nothing.
> I have to accept that as a society we have to pay for those to do suffer because of it.
This is the fundamental difference from our point-of-view. I look at free and adult individuals as who are responsible for their actions and can be held accountable.
If I were Uber I’d be pushing for a lot more regulation to keep competitors out, drivers locked in and the cost of building an alternative as artificially high as possible.