Steady rider wrote:
For Cameron, whose combined wealth with wife Samantha has been estimated at £30million, the ministerial pay cut means he will be £7500 a year worse off. He will receive a ministerial salary of £142,500 on top of his MP's pay of £64,766.
2010 reporthttp://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/polit ... -22257470/
How the £30 million is made up and if any is income producing could be of interest. If it returned 5% - 10% on investment, £1.5 - £3 million. Add on to this possibly £200+ if the above report is accurate. Total income could be £1.7 to £3.2+ million per year.
Speculating that is income is about £2.5 million, this could be £2.35 million at the old rate of 50%, £1.175 million payable and at 45% rate £1.0575 million, a net gain of £117500. My guess is that Cameron has made a good profit or will make a good profit from the tax cut. The public would only know if he published his tax return. He has probably reduced the effective income of some pensioner cyclists and has free membership to the CTC, while pocketing £100k. My sums may need some attention.
Nonsense from beginning to end.
Firstly it is simply untrue that David and Samantha Cameron are worth £30 million.
The £30 million figure originates from Sunday Times richlist compiler, Philip Beresford. I don't think these 'Rich Lists' are terribly reliable, I know an oil company director who has a £36 million stake in the firm, £4 million of houses, and so on, and he's not even on the list. It's no secret either, it was published in the national press.
That aside, what Mr. Beresford actually said was:"I put the combined family wealth of David and Samantha Cameron at £30million plus. But the key phrase is "family wealth"
Adding later "That calculation has been coming back to haunt me ever since I made it. It does not refer to David and Samantha Cameron alone. It refers to the considerable wealth of their wider families.
They are classic London upper-middle class, comfortably off."
David Cameron's father was a stockbroker and estate agent and was worth £10m+. He died in 2010. BUT, his wife, Cameron's father, is still alive, and Cameron has 3 siblings, so while it's possible some money was passed to him on the death of his father, it's also possible that there wasn't.
Sam Cam's family are loaded but there's no reason at all to suppose that any of the money has gone to her (of course she will have had every possible privilege growing up)http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... money.html
The Cameron's do own two houses, the one in London had £600k spent on improving it, and I don't see any reason to suppose that they have significant assets beyondthese. The London set plough their wealth into housing, where it attracts no tax on the substantial capital growth it has enjoyed.
As for Cameron's salary, the journalist who wrote that article is either setting out to deceive, or he's just clueless.
An MP's salary was:
On top of which the Prime Minister's salary entitlement was:
However the actual total amount paid was cut to £150,000 by Gordon Brown in 2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... meron.html
This was cut by Cameron himsef to £142,500 also in 2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... sters.html
The Daily Record comment about £142,500 on top of the MP's salary is just wrong. It should be £132,923 on top of the MP's salary, however he actually gets paid £142,500 INCLUDING his MP's salary.
Moving on, the idea that anyone 'worth' £30 million would be able to generate 10% on every penny of it in the current economy is laughable, and moreover, while 5% on £30 million would be possible, nobody with that much cash would be stupid enough to subject it all to income tax at 50%, when the capital gains tax rate is 10% for Entrepeneur's Relief (on up to £10 million life time), or 28% at the highest. Certainly, at a bare minimum, if you had £30 million of liquid assets, you would expect a great deal of your return to come from capital growth, and not income.
Quite apart from this of course, there is the fact that the Camerons are not actually worth £30 million, and whatever they ARE worth, they have no reason at all to generate income to be taxed at the highest rate of tax in a generation when they have no need for the money, and it can just remain inside a more tax-efficient vehicle.
The tax arrangements of Ken Livingstone should prove instructivehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... cheme.html
He earned £758,000 in income, which he paid into a personal services company. Once there, the money is taxed at an effective rate of under 20% (taking into account allowable deductions, which would not legally be deductable if Mr. Livingstone was classed as self-employed). Any money taken out is tax-free within the basic-rate allowance, and 25% is payable of the divdend up to the £150k allowance, with 36.1% payable of the dividend above that.
With £250k left in the company at the end of the last year, it is quite evident that Mr. Livingstone and his wife were happy to pay the 40% tax rate but baulked at 50%, leaving surplus cash (which they don't need for their expenses here and now today) in the company pending either leaner times or lower tax rates.
We know what Cameron earns from his job, and with all the PM's perks, as I said he has no need at all for any more income, so there woud be no point in him exposing the yield from whatever assets he does have to 50% income tax as it is both unnecessary and incredibly stupid.
The people who are paying 50% tax are those with very high salaries, paid by regular PAYE. The PM does not fall into this category. People who are asset rich (which the Camerons are to an extent, in terms of their two houses, but to the tune of a few million, not £30m) have a very high degree of control over the amount of income they actually receive. The amount of dividends paid out to £150k+ earners went from £9.6b in 2008 to £17.2b in 2009, and then down to only £4.7b in 2010. This reflects the decision of those with personal assets to pay out retained cash from their investment vehicles/personal companies at the 40% rate in 2009, in order to avoid tax in 2010.