The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:
For the year 2016-7
Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.
I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of deaths at the time". This demonstrates that a percentage yield of 10% is used to determine the equivalence of a capital amount which is how a 10% yield on £1,000,000 means that the equivalence is an income of £100,000.
The fact is, however, that as a result of inflation and other changes there are a lot of people who have an income over £100,000. It should be remembered that it is a small minority of the population, however. Hence people should think carefully about how others are impacted.
According to the article: "Prof John Van Reenen, director of the Centre for Economic Performance, says you need to be making more than £140,000 a year to be among the top 1% of UK earners. (See the entry below on the 1%.)".
Hence the Labour candidate's income would have been just outside enough to be in the 1% top earners on the 2011 figure.
My fundamental point on this, however, is that with an income of £131,534.82 the Labour Candidate should not criticise me for being wealthy.
This is an extract from one of Labour's 2015 leaflets criticising me for having an (admittedly) high income.
For the year 2016-7
| Annual Income from Parliament | 74,962 |
| Specifically for her book | 51,250 |
| Other media income etc | 5,322.82 |
| Total declared income | 131,534.82 |
Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.
I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of deaths at the time". This demonstrates that a percentage yield of 10% is used to determine the equivalence of a capital amount which is how a 10% yield on £1,000,000 means that the equivalence is an income of £100,000.
The fact is, however, that as a result of inflation and other changes there are a lot of people who have an income over £100,000. It should be remembered that it is a small minority of the population, however. Hence people should think carefully about how others are impacted.
According to the article: "Prof John Van Reenen, director of the Centre for Economic Performance, says you need to be making more than £140,000 a year to be among the top 1% of UK earners. (See the entry below on the 1%.)".
Hence the Labour candidate's income would have been just outside enough to be in the 1% top earners on the 2011 figure.
My fundamental point on this, however, is that with an income of £131,534.82 the Labour Candidate should not criticise me for being wealthy.
This is an extract from one of Labour's 2015 leaflets criticising me for having an (admittedly) high income.
Comments