meic wrote:thelawnet wrote:Steady rider wrote:Mr Cameron salary is about £142k per year. Roughly £100k would have been taxed at 50% previously, now it will be taxed at 45%, so he gains about £5000 per year if I have the sums near (not including other possible income).
Completely and utterly wrong.
The 50% band starts at £150k, so on his PM's salary he wouldn't pay it at all.
After the most recent budget, he is worse off by a few hundred pounds due to fiscal drag on the 40% band and the £100k personal allowance withdrawal.
He also loses £2,449.20 in Child Benefit.
I am no expert on Cameron's financial status but I have heard that he is is a pretty rich chap prior to his PM's salary.
No idea.
So he may well be a beneficiary of the reduction of the 50% rate (next, next year)
I can't imagine he would have ever paid it. Whatever income-generating assets he might have will be split between him and his wife to make use of both of their tax allowances. With a threshold of £150k, that's £300k between the two of them.
Much of the Camerons' lifestyle is publicly financed, in the course of their duties as PM, so there's simply no way they need £200k+ of net income, so they'd have to be pretty stupid, quite frankly, to have paid it.
That's why it's such bad politics, and why the 45% reduction was a foolish cop-out. I would much rather people paid 40% on their entire income, than 40% on only part, baulking at paying 50% on the rest.
Study here:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2012/exche ... x-2042.pdf and the decrease in corporation tax.
The small companies (under £1.5 million) rate is being abolished. So he would pay more anyway.
Also when he ceases to be PM and collects all his "consultancy fees" from various corporations who coincidently benefited from the policies which he introduced etc etc he will benefit from it then.
Not as much as a certain Labour ex-primeminister does though.
Indeed.
