Guardian journos unable to deal with being upper middle class

January 31, 2011

They’ve written an article here claiming that “Middle Britain’s tax rates ‘could rise to 83%'”.

I don’t know about you, but anyone earning over £40,000 isn’t middle class, they’re upper middle at the very least. Average individual earnings are around £26,000. If you’re earning that, you’re middle class. I’m not interested in anyone who squawks about class not being entirely defined by what you earn, because it simply is. Guardian journalists clearly can’t accept that they’re much better off than the majority of the population, and so are complaining about the Government making the better off suffer too. Let’s remember, the readjustment of the 40% rate to include more people – the subject of this article – is entirely about raising the lowest rate of tax to reduce the effective burden on the poorest. It’s as progressive (in the technical sense) as you like.

This article, therefore, is an example of wanton hypocrisy on the part of the Guardian. However, it’s not surprising – studies have repeatedly shown that whatever people earn, they think their earnings are ‘average’.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “Guardian journos unable to deal with being upper middle class”

  1. Chris said

    “I don’t know about you, but anyone earning over £40,000 isn’t middle class, they’re upper middle at the very leas”

    No they’re not. And it doesn’t just depend on income but liabilities as well, the average family income is £43,000. Also, earning £40,000 when you’re 23 is a hell of a lot different to earning £40,000 when you’re 63.

    “…It’s as progressive (in the technical sense) as you like.”

    But how is it progressive (in the less technical sense) to lower income tax but pay for it by increasing VAT?

    • declineofthelogos said

      @Chris:
      Average family income is not the same as individual income. No idea why you would draw that equivalency. Also, age is incidental to, well, tax incidence. To be honest, I’ve no idea what your point is, beyond the fact that you’re upset by the Guardian trying to convince its upper-middle class readers that they’re still down with the proletariat.

      It’s progressive because raising the lower tax band is being paid for by the lowering the 40% band. If you’d like to dispute the IFS’s maths, go right ahead.

  2. Chris said

    “Average family income is not the same as individual income. No idea why you would draw that equivalency.”

    FFS because if you earn £40,000 but have 2 kids and non-working wife you’re not that well off, you’re in fact below the average family income. And looking purely at this plan in isolation is misleading, families in the 40p tax band are losing CB equivalent to adding 6p to income tax.

    “To be honest, I’ve no idea what your point is, beyond the fact that you’re upset by the Guardian trying to convince its upper-middle class readers that they’re still down with the proletariat.”

    That is your argument, isn’t it? My argument is that £40,000 isn’t a big income compared with what the top 1-2% are earning.

    “It’s progressive because raising the lower tax band is being paid for by the lowering the 40% band. If you’d like to dispute the IFS’s maths, go right ahead.”

    I don’t need to dispute the figures, the IFS slammed Osborne’s budget as regressive. How is it progressive to reduce progressive income tax and increase regressive VAT? Also, the IFS analysis of fully implementing the £10,000 personal allowance shows it to be highly regressive.

    • declineofthelogos said

      @Chris:

      Your argument would perhaps be helped if you gave numbers for the amount of people likely to be in that situation. Fortunately, the IFS have done so and it’s 23% of the people affected by the rise – a minority.

      So you’d be happy to shift the burden of tax entirely onto the top 1-2%? Can’t say I disagree, but given that they’re not a bottomless money pit, be prepared to cut state spending in half.

      But we’re not talking about Osborne’s budget – we’re talking about these tax changes, about which the IFS have said the rich will lose out most: http://www.ifs.org.uk/pr/gb_ch12.pdf.

      I know you’re just being rabidly opposed to anything the coalition does, but you’re onto a loser with this one.

  3. Chris said

    “So you’d be happy to shift the burden of tax entirely onto the top 1-2%?”

    I’m not saying entirely just more than currently.

    “I know you’re just being rabidly opposed to anything the coalition does, but you’re onto a loser with this one.”

    LOL, take the partisan blinkers off pal – http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/02/regressive-lib-dem-tax-policies/

    • declineofthelogos said

      So, your accusation of partisanship is based on an article that conflates two separate policies with the aim of damning them both for partisan reasons. Good job.

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: