Rishi Sunak only pays £8,000 NI a year...

Didn’t boris justify appointing him
Chancellor of the exchequer by saying he’s used to handling large sums of money.
 
MolteniArcore said:
...which is the equivalent of what you would pay of a £200k (ish) annual salary. He is worth personally £200 million.

Is it just me or shouldn't the likes of him be paying more and the lower paid shouldn't be getting an NI hike??

(He admitted these figures on GMB just now).
Click to expand...
NI is a tax on employment income not on wealth. If you are proposing to increase his tax burden then NI increases isnt the way
 
He is EVERYTHING that is wrong with our democracy.
He bought his seat in a true blue constituency populated by an electorate that voted Tory because their Dad did.
How does he therefore have any relevance to a check-out girl in Bolton or a school cleaner in Swansea?
He has no relevance to the region whatsoever and now sits in the second most powerful seat in the Country.
Yes, that's the system but it stinks and always has done of entitlement and favour.
 
Zoophonic said:
NI is a tax on employment income not on wealth. If you are proposing to increase his tax burden then NI increases isnt the way
Click to expand...

I understand how NI works - I was just suggesting that an NI increase isn't the way to raise funds when you have the likes of Sunak paying next to nothing as a % of wealth compared to people with no savings paying having to pay more NI thanks to him. Doesn't seem fair.
 
MolteniArcore said:
I understand how NI works - I was just suggesting that an NI increase isn't the way to raise funds when you have the likes of Sunak paying next to nothing as a % of wealth compared to people with no savings paying having to pay more NI thanks to him. Doesn't seem fair.
Click to expand...
Of course and agree but you were suggesting an “NI hike“ in your original post. Apologies if I read that wrong
 
jam69 said:
NI should apply to all income and not just earnings.
A landlord renting out 10 properties pays no NI on that income if I understand it properly?
Click to expand...
That depends how the property rental business is structured. Most property portfolios are held in companies where the business owner will either take a salary (NI applicable for both the company and the owner), or dividends (tax hike also includes dividends) and/or the company will pay corporation tax on its profits. If the business/portfolio grows and is sold, then the owner is liable for capital gains tax.
that’s the theory, anyway. Loads of loopholes within the company structures and this is where the very rich avoid the bulk of what should be a fair taxation
 
Zoophonic said:
NI is a tax on employment income not on wealth. If you are proposing to increase his tax burden then NI increases isnt the way
Click to expand...
agreed, and it shows an issue. Tax is largely garnered through employment income, not wealth accumulated. This leads to a growing gap between the uber rich and everyone else. Without a super tax against the very wealthy, the rich will continue to get rich, find ways to avoid tax, offshore their wealth, and the rest of us will pick up the slack.
 
What I find unfair about NI is if 2 different employers employ the same 2 people in part time jobs then potentially there is no NI liability, but if they each employed 1 employee full time there would be.
I know some people want to work part time but for me this leads to too many part time roles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top