LBC caller blows Nick Ferrari away with tax proposals
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 сер 2022
- This LBC caller blew Nick Ferrari away with tax proposals amid the cost of living crisis. This clip has been taken from Nick Ferrari's LBC show on August 11th 2022.
#nickferrari #LBC
LBC is the home of live debate around news and current affairs. We let you join the conversation and hold politicians to account.
Subscribe for more: l-bc.co/subscribe
The latest videos from LBC: l-bc.co/Latest
Listen live to LBC on Global Player: l-bc.co/ListenNow
Nick Ferrari’s latest show: l-bc.co/3biHVvM
James O’Brien’s latest show: l-bc.co/3ONyPVI
Shelagh Fogarty’s latest show: l-bc.co/3JkNEha
Join in the conversation and listen at www.lbc.co.uk/
Sign up to LBC’s weekly newsletter here: l-bc.co/signup
Like, follow and subscribe to LBC!
Website: lbc.co.uk
Facebook: lbc
Twitter: / lbc
Instagram: / lbc
This is not your ordinary talk radio stream. LBC is the leading UA-cam channel for live debate around the news and current affairs. We have live interviews and debates and you can even phone in to join in the conversation.
Genius! Only thing stopping it is this guy isn't corrupt and living in big business and oligarchs pockets
We spent 37 billion on an app billions wasted on not fit for purpose PPE Brexit costing 5% of gdp . This country voted for known lying thieves . All this wouldn’t have been needed if the general public weren’t so thick .
And the best part is none of the ones that get tax rises would feel it.
@@cwfutureboy Innit. If you had exponential tax (or at least some kind of rising scale?) for the rich, guess what? They'd still be rich. But really what's going on, is the exponential greed of politicians, funded by public money.
Ohh yes fantastic, so the very richest who aren't even on PAYE don't pay an additional penny. Genius...
I bet this guy isn't a mind washed Tory
better proposal than the last 4 Tory PMs combined
Or the last few labour ones.
agreed lol
@@andrewgrimshaw5180 if Labour ever proposed this, it would get hammered by the media as a massive tax rise for the rich and the Tories would never ever do this.
@@andrewgrimshaw5180 love you little closet Tories voters. Every response well labour can't do better... Bless your little socks
@@andrewgrimshaw5180 he proposed a corporation tax rate of 21%. Until 2010 corporation tax was about 28%. He doesn’t even suggest going back to Labour tax rates.
my jaw dropped! give this man a job in government immediately!
People earning over 100k already lose their personal allowance, its called the taper. Once you earn 125k you lose your PA completely.
Neither the caller or the host were aware of this, the caller didn't even do the sums and his idea would have cost an extra 12b
Thats kinda crazy that's not even all that much money really depending on where you live...
@@oakinwol It's shocking really, a lot of Surgeons, for example, earn over £100k and start losing their tax-free allowance. It's a national scandal, they should be getting more not less.
Exactly.. the argument falls apart right there.. the 60% tax trap nobody talks about..
It shows how easy it is to make a difference-if you have the will to do it.
Does not tackle real inequality, the ultra wealthy are not PAYE.
And unless I'm mistaken, an inability to do maths.
Indeed.
@@stuartwillison6840 Attention seeker repeatedly posting the same comment that you haven't justified or explained despite requests from various others to do so.
@@coleuk8817 Give me a chance, I went to bed. Happy to reply to them and also, it was the same reply to different people. Otherwise, how would they know !!! (Logic Cole,... logic and common sense... come on man, give 'em a go)
Why is that guy not on the television and speaking to the so called government experts. His comments make perfect sense to me.
He’s a leaver
Because he sounds capable of an intelligent debate. That's why they don't want to speak to him
Because he's capable of solving the problem, therefore taking away the profits of the ruling class, which goes against the interests of everyone involved in TV/Media
Because the immediate response is that cutting people's income further reduces their discretional spending which ultimately leads to a net loss to the Exchequer through lost VAT receipts.
Because he can't do maths.
The guy lacks basic understanding of taxation in the UK, same as many people in the comments below.
People earning over 100K do NOT have a personal allowance of 12.5K.
It's half of that between 100 to 125K, the so called "tax trap".
Those earning more than 125K have no personal tax allowance at all.
Yep, I'm no fan of the Tories but clearly many Labour supporters don't have an understanding of how tax allowances are given. A bit like that clown Gordon Brown who when he scrapped the 10p tax rate didn't have a clue that that would just about double the amount of tax paid by millions of low paid workers.
It's likely that many above the 125k will have a negative tax code.
I remember a long time ago when the tax trap came in, explaining to an annoyed employee why his net pay showed less than £4k of a £10k bonus.
If you have an income of £100,000 your personal allowance is currently £12,570. It goes down by £1 for every £2 of income above the £100,000 limit.
@@MrHeadloc that's right. The caller thinks that those earning over 100k have the full allowance
@@oorya1780 well that's funny because government website confirms the caller is correct
What a legendary caller. So well thought out and delivered
Mmmm except for the fact that he's assuming governments aren't incompetent, profligate, cavalier & obscenely wasteful with other people's (our) money. Seldom is tax money raised, spent efficiently, wisely & in the right direction!
PowerToThe People............Read the rest of the comments, his point about scrapping the tax free allowance from those earning over £100,000 is already in place. The guy commenting on the radio show was a clown.
Yes, because she took into account the influences of a pandemic and the war on Ukraine didn't she?
This bloke has spoken more sense than I’ve heard any politician spout in the last …for ever .
@@tomjones8715 Please explain in more detail about what you mean by your post. Are you one of the 1.4 million high earners. Take care I AM AN ACCOUNTANT, A REAL ONE.
@@Demun1649 The reality is that any idea like this will be rejected because it does not serve to make us all poorer, which is the true aim.
@@GEOFF0906 Maybe. But without a TORY government, with its inbuilt historical bias in favour to the corrupt monarchy, and protection of land-stealing, historical figures, and greedy MPs who wwork for their own profits and sod the country, we would have the REAL chance to have a fairer wealth distribution.
@@tomjones8715 |One. I don't use Amazon anymore, the biggest data theives in the world, nor eBay, same reason plus their prejudice against PayPal iusers. eBay wants data tyo steal and sell, they don't get that info when using PayPal. I don't use Apple either, nor Facebook, because they illegally migrated British users from secure servers in Europe to totally unsafe servers in California, that has no data protection for anyone who is not a resident of that corrupt state.
You sound like one of those cowboy landlordss who dumps people on the street when it suits you. Lovely person. NOT!
@@tomjones8715 Regarding your first question. I can explain ALL the implications of any future rise in CT, but it will cost you the full fees I charge, and get. YOU don't get it for free, same as you have no sympathy for tenants who fall on hard times.
As to the 1970s, everything about taxes is cyclical, just the same greedy TORIES hoping no one remembers what was promised first time round.
This caller just laid out a brilliantly simple plan that most of us would be absolutely happy with. But there's one simple problem. He just asked Tory ministers to raise taxes on themselves. Ergo, this plan is dead on arrival.
But they’ll also be getting the money
@@kaitheinamori3112 . Are you suggesting that Tory ministers are directly stealing money from the public purse?
Tory ministers have their salaries paid for out of the public purse.
It would be a tax on the population in the private sector, who already pay to much tax.
Remember the public finance doesn't produce wealth. Anything paid with taxes is a net drain on the economy.
Problem is, its not brilliantly simple. Anyone who earns over 100K already loses their tax free allowance. For every £2 you earn over 100K you lose £1 of tax free income. Meaning if you earn >125,140 (which the majority of those mentioned will do) you have no tax free income. So his plan has just become about £5 billion short.
Afraid he is completely wrong though. The first idea about removing £12500 tax allowance off everyone who earns more than £100k is wrong as you lose your personal allowance as soon as you hit £125000 so only people in that band would be affected here, plus corporation tax is increasing from 19% to 25% in 6 months so raising it to 21% instead will actually take money out of tax funds.... LOL...He certainly wont be chancellor, he was right about that.
This guy spoke more sense in 60 seconds than Sunak has spoken his entire life. If only our elected government would put the needs of our country before the needs of themselves we could recover our economy in no time. This guys friends and family should encourage him to run for his local MP position and we may still stand a chance.
Individual MPs have next to no power. And such a great idea will be subject to lobbying influence and money creamed off the tip.
He didn't speak sense, he spoke utter nonsense and with complete ignorance. Anyone earning over £125k a year already has their tax free lump (£12,500) removed, they pay tax on the full amount. This is why it's best that the uneducated who don't know what they are talking about stay out of such important matters.
Agreed. More sense than Liz trust too... Let's be fair
They dont create tax hikes for themselves, hence the 1p national insurance hike on the poor, they now now that they cant squeeze the poor any longer or it will kick off, but they wont solve it by dipping in their or friends pockets.
Did you actually do the sums? His figures are way off
He’s missed 1 small detail from his idea… once you earn over 100k you already start to lose your personal allowance, so for most over 100k they already have given up their personal allowance
Google tax rates it’s 125k
John has more savy than the entire British government
Difference is that John is trying to fix our economy.
There are Labour MPs who have called for this. Even Gordon Brown has talked about it constantly. He suggests a Bank Levy & Windfall Tax.
@@AB-zl4nh I'm not a labour fan but if they are behind this idea I'm all for it
Ohh yes fantastic, so the very richest who aren't even on PAYE don't pay an additional penny. Genius...
@@s44yyr move out of your mums house
Finally, someone with common sense.
Yes people, it's that easy.
Yeah sounds great but people are in need now and that's the only problem.
Particularly if you can't do maths.
Politics is an easy game made difficult by politicians!
@@b00ts4ndc4ts you would borrow the money now, knowing you’re going to get in back in income taxes
Edit - hence not raising the deficit and putting the same amount of money into the economy as you take out. So no inflationary effect.
We already do #1 though and idea #2 is legislated to happen next year anyway, only it's going up to 25% not 21%.
This guy made more sense in 60sec then any MP I’ve listen to in my 40+ on this earth.
This caller reminds me of a member of the BBC'S question time audience who was an accountant, he explained how the £14b we sent the EU annually could be used as loans to small and medium businesses at sensible interest rates and pay off our balance of payments deficit within 3 years, the panel of 'experts ' were voiceless in any response.
probably the same guy
Except this guy doesn't now that everyone on over 125k already loses their personal allowence and secondly what he suggested would have raised 12b and cost 24b
I’m going to see if there’s a clip of that too, sounds excellent
Make this man the Chancellor ffs I'm begging.
I hope not
A thoughtful, fair & simple proposal.
Which is exactly why the government won't pursue it.
Theft
Well the first hole in this is that if you earn over £125,140 your tax free allowance is zero. ZERO. For every £2 you earn over £100k your tax free allowance goes down by £1.
@@grtcara8386 why theft as trickle down taxation doe's not work what is wrong with a fair tax system where those with the broader shoulders take up the slack, and proportionally pay more. The benifits you recieve from the state far exceed your "Its mine all mine" mentality just remember that if you crash your car the person cutting you out and administering your care is a public servant payed for by all of us. You get all manner of inferstructure built by your taxes, education, the list is endless so again why Theft
@@johnlongcake3564 cos you chose Brexit which comes at a cost the costs is financial and has to be paid. The disease currently in the Uk is that none of you think you should pay, you think your choices shouldn’t have any negative consequences to you and if they do then somebody else should pay. I earn over 100k so why should I pay extra taxes for your messed up dumb decisions? Answer, I shouldn’t you should!
@@grtcara8386 libertarian idiot
A prime example of how a non "so called expert" can provide a sensible and logical solution to a problem. As in many cases the person on the street can provide the answer without spending millions on committees who know nothing.
This often occurred back in 80s/90s when companies brought in consultants - at great expense - to cut costs and efficiency, when the guy on the factory floor knew the answer.
Back to the clip...Nick was irritating, as in usual presenter style, he kept interrupting the caller rather than let him finish when all would become clear. It is a trait with all presenters to interrupt, basically they like the sound of their own voices, but only show their lack of grasp re subject matter.
Bill Wilkinson....see the many replies on here about the tax free allowance tapering off when one has taxable earnings on not just salary or pension when one reaches £100,000 then disappears when the earnings reach £125,000. The chap was sadly clueless.
This needs to be shared to everyone you know.
The personal allowance is already tapered down for individuals with more than £100,000 of taxable income (whether employed or not), PA reduced by £1 for every £2 in excess of £100k…
it's just nonsense mate. wages are what is causing this crisis, scrap the minimum wage and all in work benefits and cut wages in the retail and hospitality industries....that will bring down inflation.... companies and wealthy individuals will leave in droves if we start trying to attack them.
Exactly. £100,000 salary is not "wealthy". You are still a rat slaving to the system. A millionaire is wealth. Company executives getting £500,000 pay offs for tanking the company is wealthy
I no expert on these matters but at least this caller is proposing ideas that might work for the betterment of the nation.
He’s come up with more in three minutes than our current corrupt,detached clowns in power have in months.👊🏾
Years*
@@GanghisKhan Decades*
The government would propose setting up a committee to look into the ideas. In the unlikely event a committee was formed it would take months to look into the proposals. It would then conclude that proposals were not workable without giving any concrete reasons.
12 years…
months? decades.
Putting our time and effort in activities and investments that will yield a profitable return in the future is what we should be aiming for. Success depends on the actions or steps you take to achieve it. Show me a man without investment and I'll tell you how long it takes to go bankrupt. Investing creates a safe haven for the future. With the right investment choice that has at least a 10% minimum risk and with the advice of an expert, profits and interest is guaranteed.
I am not here to converse for her but to testify just for what I am sure of, she's trust worthy and reliable.
Now is the best time to purchase and invest in Bitcoin, stop proscastinating!!
I'm interested in investing just 5,000 us dollars with Stephanie but can trust her. Can she be trusted 100% ?
Don't remain poor out of ignorance forex trading is legit and it's pays
No profit in an investment is guaranteed. Absolute nonsense.
Nick, get this guy in the studio ASAP.
This just reinforces what I’ve been saying, not one MP is fit for purpose, get rid of all of them and get a government made up of real sensible people, and if the present MPS concentrated on running our country instead of everyone else’s , we may not have been in this mess that they’ve created 😒think this guy should be chancellor
So how exactly would you get these 'real sensible people'? Explain.
@@johncraske if I may, by forming a pool of the best in the country, in their respective fields, chosen by their peers. From this pool people are selected to serve, like jury duty, for a fixed term, then return to their former roles. All paid the same. No lobbying, no campaigning, no ambition, no backstabbing, no lying......its a dream I have.
@@allosaurusfragilis7782 in theory that is similar to the house of Lords, with peers being selected on merit (aside from remaining inherited positions). Of course that's not what actually happens as we all know.
Oh dear, I smell a Soviet council heading this way....
Nonsense. Many MPs have ideas like this, mostly on the benches opposite the Tories. They just don't have the power to enact them.
the Tories would never do that because these large, rich companies are in bed with the Tories
The world & its wife knows that the wealthy in Britain took the country out of the EU to avoid impending taxes on the wealthy about to be approved by the EU.
Makes so much sense to the man and woman in the street.
So, what has to happen now is, Nick Ferrari has to pose this completely logical and viable solution to every minister he has on his show, he also needs to consult all of his journalistic friends on LBC, other media outlets, which include newspapers, etc and bang the drum about this fantastic solution. If Nick Ferrari has a newspaper column, he should do an editorial about this solution, basically Nick Ferrari needs to be championing this brilliant idea as often and as loud as possible. Now if Nick doesn't do this, then you have to question who Nick is working for, you have to question whether Nick is for the people or against the people.
If only there was someone in government with that savvy they need to employ him
I don't think a lack of savvy is the issue uinfortunately.
There’s plenty of left wing Labour Party MPs that have been calling for something like this for years.
"If only there was someone in government" You could have stopped there. There is no government, currently...
They won't. They've already got the brightest brains in government but choose to use there gift for selfish reasons.
Everyone in the government is about his level, they too struggle with maths. Unless I'm mistaken it's well out.
Unless there's a flaw in this that I can't see, He needs to be at the very least, a government advisor.
There is a flaw with his first proposal
@@dylanmckeith5500 Which is? 🤔
@@Shard3432 but his first proposal doesn't tax poor people, it removes the personal allowance of people earning £100,000 a year or more
@@Shard3432 he’s not taxing the poor
@@SuperSupermanX1999 yes, i misheard it hence the delete....
I wish politicians spoke like this, Logical, direct and no hyperbole.
Fantastic, simple to implement. This needs sharing far and wide
Ferrari tried to poo poo the plan when he heard "tax the rich and corporations' but his brain couldn't think fast enough to muster anything in rebutal.
Just a fat tabloid journalist. Talks over most people to get rid of them, this guy stuffed him!
Fair play. Not a big fan of the Nick Ferrari show but at least this was an actual solution.
The solution had nothing to do with Ferrari it was to do with one clever person. But I (as a someone who'd lose their allowance under this plan) I have zero issue with -- however I think your tax free allowance should taper out between £80k and £100k, otherwise you'd earn less at £101k than at £98,500.
@@ajwright5512 a lot of people who earn over 100k often do salary sacrifice to pension to maximise personal allowance but also maximise tax free pension too. This helps you avoid the 60% tax trap. So the tapering is much fairer. You taper down when you get to 125k you lose all your personal allowance and pay 45% tax at over 150k I think. you need to start being clever with your income or choose stock options or dividends.
@@lehoff It's not a "tax trap" it's paying your dues to society. When you have millions of people living in poverty it's utterly immoral do anything less. No one should be paid £100k anyway.
@@zannfilm9645 Some people deserve 100k a year, brain surgeons for example.
The greedy billionaires and tax dodging corporations are the real problem.
@@ktwine7994 Whilst the do a fantastic job and are very highly skilled, no they do not deserve £100k a year whilst other people are suffering due to the poverty caused by inequality.
This bloke is a genius…..he needs to be Chancellor!
The personal allowance for those earning over £100k is already ZERO. The caller has done zero research and lost his credibility in the first 10 seconds. Shameful
Your Personal Allowance goes down by £1 for every £2 that your adjusted net income is above £100,000.
@@southofthemersey7351 That’s correct. I should’ve been clearer in my original post, thanks for clarifying. My view is to focus on ways to generate more cash from any employed individual will just mean an ever increasing burden on the people. We need to take a much closer look at where the obscene levels of tax is spent by the government. For instance, sending billions abroad while the cost of living in the UK spirals out of control needs to be examined very closely. Wasting millions on temporary hospitals which were never used and the millions spent on face masks then storing them in unsanitary conditions (shipping containers dumped in fields) meaning they were destroyed! £320 million awarded to one company for a contract to provide covid advertising! £70 million to a company with only 2 employees to provide a web platform! That’s just off the top of my head. We don’t need higher taxation, we need government accountability for the insane level of taxation currently imposed.
This caller smartly and perfectly proves how the job really can be done, instead of the political and bureaucratic mess of a nightmare that governing has been made into. The system is rigged and has been for a long time.
@@Anic978 No he wasn't. Explain how it was inaccurate.
@@samgreenwood7207 People earning over 100k already lose some of their their 12.5k allowance anyone on 125k loses it totally.
Over night youd see people earning 100k start earning 99.999k to stay under the bracket.
No talk on NI effects.
Look dude its ok to not know these things but to pretend like its a great idea because it makes sense in your simple mind is just disingenuous.
Stop being that kind of commenter seriously, its better for the world and you.
@@Anic978 Still waiting......
Also makes the Westminster process seem to be engaged with inerta.
@@Anic978
You bang on ..
Folk have no idea 🤷..
Company’s making any think over £100 k
Put the corporate tax up by 2%
Lol
All that does is it makes the company’s have less to invest in there people.
The more company’s retain in the bank as in cash flow this is imperative to keep it going..
Governments just waste money..
"I'm not the chancellor and never will be." Doing a better job than the last few we've had.
I would also add a 4th thing to make it work and that would be closing tax loopholes that the rich use.
While wholeheartedly agreeing with tightening up loopholes, that's a medium to long term solution and would do little to help immediately.
Wouldn’t work they would all go somewhere else to build businesses and we’d become a poorer country. Don’t forget who pays the piper holds the power. We need investment and incentives.
@@robgrainger5314 yeah but the idea of raising taxes for the rich is pointless if they are paying taxes already.
the major reason why we are in this Mess in the first Place !
no use raising Company Tax if the Tax is not collected !
He might be doing a job at a similar level... but I hope they could do the maths better than he could. He was well out by my reckoning.
Well said, hope someone takes note’s
Ive went through everything this bloke has forwarded and it works the problem is governments are corrupt and wont accepted it
He gets my vote.
..but he's a tory...
@@chatham43 Not Nick Ferrari
@@chatham43 if it works who cares....
Raise corporation tax permanently, then provide tax breaks based on the amount they invest into R&D, CAPEX and employee development. This Bs idea that cutting corporation tax leads to investment is ludicrous, all it leads to is stock buy bucks and dividends.
This is exactly what I said today.
Although the chaps idea of 100k is quite low, service companies should be ok as they have lower outgoings than a something like a small tool shop - nothing is perfect.
I agree but R&D tax credits already exist.
@@enjek5654 I know, but nothing to say you can’t improve how it works.
Well said!
I am actually a corporate tax adviser, and I can confirm you are along the right lines.
The intriduction of the super deduction for plant and machinery recently, has seen a surge in my clients of CAPEX investment.
I have yet to come across a client where the payment of corporate tax has been an issue.
There is already a scheduled increase to 25% for profits over a high threshold though I do fear that particularly Truss would repeal it.
Make MPs more accountable & no 2nd jobs
Make this guy chancellor 😂
Just remember how simple that policy was, next time tories pretend it's an extremely hard topic to desern
It's really not that simple. Progressive taxation should be taken from the top margins, not by applying a different regime to those individuals and firms judged to be in a different category.
Applying the same rules to everyone is part of what gives the system legitimacy.
@@MattOGormanSmith I don't think you understood one thing he said, his idea is progressive taxation.
Also there is no such thing as progressive taxation that doesn't take more money from the top, as by defintion that's what it means.
The Multi-cultural Party would still be dishing out handouts for people to stay at home, if they were in power. How much would that be costing?? Multi-cultural Party supporters are actually delusional....
@@MattOGormanSmith Correct me if I'm wrong but we already we do something similar to what this bloke has suggested in that there is no personal allowance for people who earn over £125,140. I have no problem bringing that down to £100k as he suggested but I fail to see what your issue is with the proposal when we already do it?
"Your Personal Allowance goes down by £1 for every £2 that your adjusted net income is above £100,000. This means your allowance is zero if your income is £125,140 or above."
It's only bringing a limited amount of money from people with sallaries between 100k and 125k. Is this really going to raise 6bn?
He is correct ...make it simply not complicated BS from a bent conservative party
They make it complicated to disguise the corruption
U guys could probably say bent pollies not just one party they all do it that’s y I don’t care about politics they are all you know what
All parties.
For those earning over £100K the personal allowance is already tapered away to nil, at £1 for every £2. So for those over £125K they don't have one.
He needs to be the chancellor. Brilliant
Everything that came out his mouth was absolute brilliance
and are labour ideas
@@A1K300 from who??
@@kennyliverpool8842 raising corporation tax? windfall taxes? really? no one ever mentioned windfall taxes until labour did. Try watching some PMQ’s
@@A1K300 well, I’m a labour supporter and my dad is a labour councillor in Liverpool, so I’m well aware of Labour and it’s policies/plans. But, these figures have never been so precisely displayed in an open-accounting format; as displayed here - and I’m a Quantity Surveyor by trade, so if there’s one thing I know; it’s numbers/figures.
What would PMQ’s have told me about this? That’s a chance for the opposition to challenge the current leadership, not to lay out future tax regimes.
@@kennyliverpool8842 clearly you haven’t watched it as they’ve been asking the conservatives to do this stuff
This gentleman makes a lot of sense, and deserves to be heard by this Government. Well done Sir!
any attack on people who earn a lot of money wont be entertained by the Tories.
They know it already they choose not to see it because it will hurt thier rich friends in the pocket and we can t have that can we
What about the 40% tax which now kicks in at £37,700? nobody seems to be talking about that, how many working class now are in the 40% tax band, absolute disgrace!
A shame such a thing would never happen.
John, you sir are the exact type of person we need in government but unfortunately we will never have and your simplistic AND fair approach for all is brilliant. I am one of the other millions never mentioned, not rich nor poor but in the middle somewhere who has also voted either Labour or Tory, so I don’t fit into any “box”. What’s so depressing is that these simple solutions won’t even be thought of by the people in government who make policy but will continue to look after their own. This 60 second brief has actually made my day, there is a solution.
This caller should be chancellor, he seems to know more about economics than any chancellor I can recall. However, there is one small problem.... The super rich all have slippery tax lawyers who squirrel money away in the Cayman Islands and then claim everything as a tax write off. That needs to stop now.
He doesn’t understand personal allowance. It’s gets reduced on earnings over £100000 already. Also the super wealthy you talk of earn most of their wealth through increased asset values and dividend payments not paye.
@@DrBlack1987 he was only quoting PAYE numbers, and tax codes.
there are more people worth over 100k pa but he wasn't saying tax those earnings in the same way.
@@DACatface I understand that. But to say he should be chancellor when he doesn’t understand the tax system we have in place for those earning over 100k via paye is silly. The video should have cleared this up aswell as many take their fact and news from such videos
Gordon Brown knew what he was doing. He negotiated our continued membership of a club, without having to pay its biggest price, i.e. taking the euro. We had all the benefits, of being in the club, whilst still being able to manipulate our own currency, to suit market, and other conditions, for our own benefit, unlike most of the other countries in the EU, whose economies, using the euro, then had to always directly compete with German industry.
Why the EU allowed us to have that deal, is beyond me, but it shows you what a savvy oooperator Brown was. It's jujust a shame that he didn't have power, when there was loads of money around, like when narcissistic Blair had power, instead of directly after the financial crisis.
David Cameron, Johnson and to a slightly lesser extent, the 52%, who voted for Brexit, have tossed this all away!
And a Tory govt will NEVER stop that!
This man on the phone would get my vote for chancellor
Better than the clowns we have now.
Nope. What he's describing doesn't work for a whole range of reasons. Impressing Nick Ferrari has never been hard though.
This is amazing, this needs to be shared and go viral. Maybe then it will hit the right buttons?
Afraid he is completely wrong though. The first idea about removing £12500 tax allowance off everyone who earns more than £100k is wrong as you lose your personal allowance as soon as you hit £125000 so only people in that band would be affected here, plus corporation tax is increasing from 19% to 25% in 6 months so raising it to 21% instead will actually take money out of tax funds.... LOL...He certainly wont be chancellor, he was right about that.
@@vilasolapartments4955 Bingo! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Great caller. First time I have seen Nick lost for words and couldn’t keep up with the callers marathon brain 😂😂
Give this man a job 👍
It's like when Partridge had a bloke call into his radio show and he liked him so much he asked to meet him for a pint down his local
a very balanced and responsible caller
No, an ill informed caller
Balanced if you earn less than £25000 a year a thief if you're more successful
@N K explain why he’s wrong? I don’t get it I don’t live in the UK
@@kaitheinamori3112 He wants to take away the tax free sum of all people earning over £100k, but didn't take into account that if you earn over £125k then you have no tax free sum anyway, so he is targeting only those people raising £100k-£125k and in an rather unfair manner i.e. people on £99k would immediately be better off than those on £100k. A smart employer could help out any employees near this threshold by lowering their pay below 100k, reducing both the employees tax burden and their own payroll burden, which would further reduce the number of people that would contribute.
@@ferrumignis thanks for the breakdown. I think I read a comment on here saying that this could be fixed by lowering the threshold to 90k
To be fair, you could blow Nick's mind with KS2 maths or science. He's a gormless shoulder joint
And yet has somehow still given a more productive response to this issue than you.
Gormless shoulder joint! 😂😂😂😂
@@tomgl6684 Nick is the presenter… not the caller with the idea…that doesn’t work…. Anyone earning over £125k already has NO PERSONAL ALLOWANCE.
..get back in your box Dale..final warning...
....well I know that for a fact..
I think it's important to mention that a largenpart of inflation is energy prices. Giving households £2k to pay their energy bills would likely lead to higher inflation. However, the goverment capping prices now and paying the money directly could cut significantly cut inflation.
Giving the government more taxes is absolutely NOT the thing to do!.
Brilliant. We want that man in office!! 👏👏
His calculations on those earning over 100k will be skewed by the reducing personal allowance once you hit 100k. For every £2 over 100k you lose £1 of tax free allowance, so anyone earning over 125k already has no allowance. It would still raise a lot but perhaps not as much as he suggests.
Probably not all that much, I suspect that the proportion of those earning £100-125k is less than all those on £125k+, then factor in that as you've pointed out that those in the 100-125k bracket have already lost some PA and it really reduces the amount raised. Then the fact that this is a knife edge means that those who earn £100,000 would be paying £2.5k more tax than those earning £99,999 and you have a real disincentive to earn more. In fact you'd need to jump up to about £105k before you saw any more net income. So you'd have people refusing a £3k pay rise because it would cost them money. Add in people putting more into pensions to avoid this cliff edge and you quite possibly would see a net tax intake reduction. This is the reason tax legislation is complex, so many unintended consequences that then need to be balanced and adjusted for by more legislation.
@@hovishead1982 Also, anyone earning that much is also already on the 40%. So it's more like £4,000 and it's just a cliff edge for the caller. You'll see a lot of £99,999 incomes over night.
Furthermore, is he aligning NICs contributions to zero as well? Cause they're only paying 2% by that point anyway.
Came here to say this - people over £100,000 start losing their tax free allowance already - not for two years, but as part of the standard level of taxation.
Yeah thats the first thing I thought as soon as he said that. Also this policy would not to down well as there are a lot of people earning over 100k around London and they are already paying a lot of tax into the system.
This guy is quite naive tbh
All very true. The caller’s calculations are too simplified. However, I will agree that tax free allowances should be increased to encourage the benefits of work. Instead of this, RS froze personal allowances and tax bands, ensuring more and more of us pay more tax due to the glorious‘benefits’ of fiscal drag.
It's hard to sell taking more in tax from higher earners while simultaneously removing any benefit that comes with paying tax. They already removed personal allowance, childcare vouchers etc. The sooner we return to universal benefits for all and implement simple incremental tax bands then the better for everyone.
How about being serious about cutting public spending and stopping the huge public sector wastage. CUT THE TAXES!
Just a correction people earning over 125,140 have zero allowance and have to already pay tax on the 12,570. So I think we should raise a 2.514% tax on anyone earning over 100,000 and that would raise even more than 6 billion.
No they still get the zero on the first 12k, double check the .gov Web site because you had me doubting my self. If you can show me otherwise fine
@@tmarritt I can only prove it by directing you to the government website as well
@@Alex-cw3rz nope you're correct I missed the link.
Appologies
@@tmarritt that's alright, it someone I wasn't aware of until recently
People earning more than 125k don’t get anything tax free. It’s called the personal allowance tax trap.
Wow, just wow. Is this too good/too simple to be true?
For the personal allowance restriction yes sadly, already a tapering to nil in place post 100k
@@ryanbarry34 true, but doesn’t matter since all you have to do is not distribute to revenue from windfall tax to people earning over 100k
Words of wisdom.
I didn’t hear any costings for making the changes themselves (albeit relatively small, likely in the tens of millions).
One problem with the figures: those earning over £100k already have their personal allowance tapered away until it's gone for those earning over circa £120k. So these personal tax proposals would only affect those earning £100k to £120k who still get some PA. That didn't seem to be factored in.
His other proposals could work, but what concerns me is that if he didn't appreciate the personal allowance at 125k is 0 then what other issues has he missed in the other 2 suggestions?
@@lehoff next year the corp tax rate is going to be 25%, so hes proposing
to lower the corp rate
John for chancellor! You got my vote
A brilliant caller, rational, cool, fair. Can he please start a web site, or something.
I mean the only qualms would be the cost in resources which if they run low could get dicey (but given the specific resources involved in the windfalls it's extremely unlikely) and the fact that rich people don't like to share...
This caller confirms my belief that there should be a set of psych, social, ethical, and financial tests and exams in place before a person can stand for office. You need people who are fit for running a country in power not the Sunaks , Trusses and Johnsons - none of who would have passed any such tests
I would go further than that. I would make voting dependent on passing exams. I'm sick of my life being determined by the ignorant and uneducated.
@@mikelheron20 i agree totally - but with decent human beings in power , it should lead to a more open, honest and transparent government whose aim is to really resolve issues that affect us all. Perhaps we could see if we could get it debated in Parliament.
I’d actually apply that to citizens in order to vote along with in-depth historical and modern political classes.
Too many idiots buying into the two party system to ever right this ship.
@N K go on… explain the errors ….and my comments were not about tests for voters but qualifications for people standing for office
@@carllucasdfndr he can't
Just a correction people earning over £125,140 have zero allowance and have to already pay tax on the £12,570. So I think we should raise a 2.514% tax on anyone earning over £100,000 and that would raise even more than £6 billion.
How will they survive on less than £100,000 year? Their lifestyle can't support it. You have to realise that certain people are just more valuable than you are, people like rishi sunak and Boris Johnson and Nigel farage. They're just better people And better human beings, that's why we elect them to lead our country and direct our policy. A person's wealth should determine his power, that's always been true and will always be true, so instead of taxing the rich, serve them and you'll be better off.
Bringing in an additional threshold at a very specific rate would be a headache administration wise.
A solution you may be looking for would be a lowering of the 45% profit threshold, or an increase in the rate.
Or you could go after dividends (my preference)
@@ryanbarry34 they have a system now in which every 1 pound over 100,000 2 pounds is removed from an allowance this is exceptionally complex. 2.514% over 100,000 is unbelievably simple
@@Alex-cw3rz i am aware.
You are introducing an additional income band, more akin to the scottish system.
An alteration to the existing bands would be easier to implement administrative wise.
@@ryanbarry34 it's a temporary tax so making it a separate bracket would be more useful than less.
It's possible to make very simple changes. What makes it complicated is the poltical intransigence.
This is the best thing I've heard for years and it's fair !!
"Well why do I have to pay more tax and poor people have to pay less? I've worked hard all my life!" - some guy with 3 properties who was fortunate enough to live through an economic boom and then contribute to the current economic disaster through greed
Because you can... Not everyone has had your oportunities. Could your afford those properties if you started out as a school leaver today? Plenty of low wage earners work very hard, and long hours and will struggle to even pay rent... which will end up in your pocket.
@@rattyboots maybe read the whole comment before replying 😅
If the UK was a company, a rich person would be a larger shareholder than a poor person, as they're taking more out in dividends. There is no central company account, so the overheads for UK plc are paid directly by the shareholders, proportionate to what they own. If a person is so poor that after paying their overheads for themselves, they have nothing left, by this logic they take no dividends and aren't a shareholder, so they should pay nothing toward the overall running of the company in tax. Tax the rich.
This caller really makes me wonder what the chancellor and economic advisors do all day
Look to make more money for their interests when they leave politics.
The pay over £100k is actually in place already. For every £1 over £100k your personal allowance reduces by 50p. Also, the windfall tax is already happening. You've got to be careful raising corporate tax too much because we've got to be competitive with other countries overwise why would a company bother starting shop here? Plus handing out money is in itself inflationary because people will go out and spend pushing up demand.
@@simeon-1383 that abhorrent word again 'competitive'
@@simeon-1383 The whole competitive comment reminds of the pathetic trickle-down economy excuse. A company will bother starting shop here because we're a economical heavyweight with an immense pool of potential customers. Also the windfall tax for the energy suppliers gets reduced to next to nothing if they're investing in the UK, Rishi made sure to add that part in so all of his mates were looked after
If you’re a senior doctor who earns £100,000 a year you get less than £5,000 a month after tax. It’s hardly competitive to attract doctors or other professionals to work here.
NHS staff have lost 30% of their income in the past 10 years and are forced to accept a much worse pension than they were promised.
Your suggestions would make doctors earn less again.
Why hasn't this guy got a petition in motion for this!
Give this genius the job, what great sense and a greater understanding that MP's will never have.
One small problem with these otherwise reasonable ideas. Once your income exceeds £100k, you lose £1 of the personal allowance for every £2 of income received (so once income hits about £125k, personal allowance is £0).
While I haven't got the numbers, I don't think outright removing the personal allowance once income reaches £100k (rather than tapering) would have as profound an effect as suggested.
His numbers are wrong anyway, because the marginal rate would likely be 40 or 45% so he really does not know what he is talking about t as this would only raise tax from those earning between 100-125 anyone earning more than 125k hasn't got a personal allowance.
This is how it's done. Not through meetings costing us an absolute fortune. Get working class people who have lived and worked. Not rich boys and girls with no common sense. They've had their chance and fudged it up time and time again. Get this in place today.
One slight flaw, when you earn over £100000 you don’t get a personal allowance. Tell your kids not to achieve at school as it’s not worth it.
What an intelligent man....he will never make a politician! 👏
He’s forgetting the loophole that needs to be built in so that the Tory mates gets more than everyone else. But he can leave that part to the experts.
I agree except for the timescales. Make it permanent.
I adore this idea. Adore it. Do it!!
Isn't it amazing how 'John' is able to raise & distribute money across the board without costing anything extra but the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not.
Really, and what happens with the tax money raised? It goes straight into systems that waste the money or given directly to poor people who also waste the money and it ends back up in the pockets of the rich.
@@Durram258 You spelled 'invest' & 'spend' wrong.
Is this caller familiar with the word incentive.Lets all lie in bed and let someone else pay
@@Durram258 Mate, poor people are still people and I'm sure the priority of 99% would be to pay their bills and debts and provide a cushion for themselves and their family- just like anyone else in the same circumstances. If money isn't ending up in the hands of those who need it, where SHOULD it be going exactly?
@@Lacoaster That's not true though is it, just spending doesn't actually help the economy, anyone who knows anything about economy knows this. Its capital and expansion that does, new technology, new services.
When it goes to the welfare system, it literally goes on paying admin staff to do nothing, if it does go to people, it goes on keeping them trapped in the system.
If it goes to the NHS, its wasted on management and admin as well as ludicrous new job positions.
The more I listen to how many ideas there are out there of things that could work to combat the cost of living crisis the more depressed and hopeless I get that our government literally couldn’t possibly give any less of a s**t about whether the vast swathes of us on lower to middle incomes sink or swim
Yep, you are spot on with your assumptions
They don’t. They never have. They Never Will. Unless you are a billionaire that can throw a million into Tory Party Funds each year.. Then they care
@@graemeglass7566 These are not assumptions, (a decision based on a lack of knowledge), or presumptions, (a decision based on very little information), they are DEDUCTIONS, ( a use of all information and made using a thorough knowledge of financial structures.
@ppodism. Sink or swim? Rescue is reserved for the invaders!
@@donaldhoult7713 only if you let it happen
eminently sensible and fair, doesn't stand a chance
I'd vote for this man right now
In 1992 when Lord Owen at Sarajevo Airport said to Bosnian people:" Don't dream dreams, that West will come and help to solve this problem. Don't dream dreams!"
Same massage to UK!
Shows how simple and possibly this all is. Just one mistake I found... The initial 6 billion raised would not give £2000 per household but £200. I think the caller incorrectly assumed there are 3 million and not 30 million UK households
This guy should be at No10 giving advice.
His proposals would prevent mass poverty this winter.
Two problems with this. 1. Personal Allowance already tapers off after £100k. 2. “One off” taxes have a habit of becoming permanent.