Starving Pelican wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:41 pm
So, kungfufister, answer my question. Under what criteria would a person be deemed wealthy? What would their net worth be? And what geographic location are we referring to here?
Oh, ok, I thought you were making a joke that the criteria a wealthy person should have above all, is wealth.
I guess it could be characterized by an abundance of money or assets.
Some currently believe it starts at 2.4 million dollars. It seems a good enough place to start. Although I'd say a million, myself.
We could look at Corbyn's definition:
He said: “If Labour is elected next month we will guarantee that for the next five years there will be no tax rises for income taxpayers earning less than £80,000 a year, no hikes in VAT and no changes in your national insurance contributions either.
So, £80,000 pa. That sounds about right for taxable purposes.
I mean, if someone on 80 grand a year doesn't think they earn enough to put a bit more into the pot, they should perhaps remember how others in full time employment on food stamps, or on zero hour contracts, or homeless on the street, or waiting for cancer treatment etc etc etc are living.
I seem to remember he will reintroduce a 5% rise to 50%, for those earning over £125,000 pa.
It's not as if it will force them into a choice between Fortnum and Mason's and Pound Stretcher's.
The average worker is doing more than just tightening their belt, why shouldn't those earning more than enough be penalised for being alive too?
The real problem are the super rich that the Tories panda to at the population's detriment.