Tax Hike Disaster.

[flag of convenience]

The issue comes down to what is a fair tax. Nobody has yet to show me why the more you earn the higher rate you pay is a fair system.

 

I imagine the 40 highest paid senior executives of major UK banks may well share your sentiments. The recent tax cuts in UK have given them an extra GBP 4 million. That works out at almost GBP 100,000 each.

But what a grand job they're doing I'm sure worth every penny..not. Oh well they can stash away their gains in UK tax haven jurisdictions like the Br Virgins I suppose, with the other what is it 37 trillion dollars out of circulation parked in such places.

[The Fisheys]

More a case of middle and lower income fed up with being the ones who pay a disportionate level of income to the Inland Revenue. The rich have avoidance schemes in place and will continue to do so regardless what the rate of tax is.

My understanding in the UK the rate has been cut for the wealthy so don't get what the fuss is about.

 

Meanwhile folk in the middle have seen their tax credits and family allowance squeezed and are worse off by an average of around GBP 900 since 2010......

 

Love this blather about tax cuts for the wealthy. I always imagine a burglar robbing all your furniture, then, three years later you get your DVD player back, and are supposed to be grateful, and vote for the burglar.

Of course ordinary people will be getting squeezed, the country was bankrupted by the last government, and those who could got out of it.

[The Fisheys]

The issue comes down to what is a fair tax. Nobody has yet to show me why the more you earn the higher rate you pay is a fair system.

 

Spot on! There is no moral or economic case for charging tiered tax rates.

[The Fisheys]

Oh right yes of course, I forgot that VAT was only paid by "poor people" on their utility bills. Good pick up...

 

:confused:

 

The point being it is disproportionately heavier on poorer people.

[The Fisheys]

I imagine the 40 highest paid senior executives of major UK banks may well share your sentiments. The recent tax cuts in UK have given them an extra GBP 4 million. That works out at almost GBP 100,000 each.

But what a grand job they're doing I'm sure worth every penny..not. Oh well they can stash away their gains in UK tax haven jurisdictions like the Br Virgins I suppose, with the other what is it 37 trillion dollars out of circulation parked in such places.

 

 

If there is any sense at all to this then it is further evidence that we should cut our tax rates to encourage repatriation of such vast amounts of money. 10% of £Squadzillions is a lot more than the zilch we are getting now. It all depends on whether you see taxation policy as a business method to obtain income to fund schools, hospitals, pensions etc., or an ideological badge to wear.

[VERYSTORMY]

I imagine the 40 highest paid senior executives of major UK banks may well share your sentiments. The recent tax cuts in UK have given them an extra GBP 4 million. That works out at almost GBP 100,000 each.

But what a grand job they're doing I'm sure worth every penny..not. Oh well they can stash away their gains in UK tax haven jurisdictions like the Br Virgins I suppose, with the other what is it 37 trillion dollars out of circulation parked in such places.

 

But, there are lots of people, other than the 40 highest paid exec that get slugged with higher taxes.The rate in the UK is 40% for those earning more than 32k. That is not a high income. The top bracket also hits everyone earning more than 150k. That is still, particularly in London, not an obscene amount.

 

The more you slug people, the keener they will be to try to avoid tax.

 

If I was based in the UK, according to online tax calculator, i would pay about 47k a year in tax, but i would use less services - no children, full private healthcare, not claiming benefits, not using public transport. But, i would be paying more than the average salary in tax. Please justify?

[flag of convenience]

Love this blather about tax cuts for the wealthy. I always imagine a burglar robbing all your furniture, then, three years later you get your DVD player back, and are supposed to be grateful, and vote for the burglar.

Of course ordinary people will be getting squeezed, the country was bankrupted by the last government, and those who could got out of it.

 

Just as the narrative for tax cuts for the rich can be equally admired. The dreary agenda of tax the rich less, less help for the poor and less regulation of business sadly appears to be gaining ground beyond the neo liberals at least in some quarters.

 

That's not to say aspects of the UK tax system can't be looked at. High rates do kick in too soon but easier to take from middling earners could be something to do with that.

[newjez]

That's 42K VS. You have to be careful. You need to include the ten grand tax free allowance. But these days even 42K is not what I'd consider high income. Many teachers earn around this figure. You find that the top rate has been decreasing rapidly.

 

But, there are lots of people, other than the 40 highest paid exec that get slugged with higher taxes.The rate in the UK is 40% for those earning more than 32k. That is not a high income. The top bracket also hits everyone earning more than 150k. That is still, particularly in London, not an obscene amount.

 

The more you slug people, the keener they will be to try to avoid tax.

 

If I was based in the UK, according to online tax calculator, i would pay about 47k a year in tax, but i would use less services - no children, full private healthcare, not claiming benefits, not using public transport. But, i would be paying more than the average salary in tax. Please justify?

[newjez]

I know it is a simplistic argument - and I invite people to cut me down in flames, but the way I see the last 30 years is thus.

 

Certain people thought it would be a good idea if we channelled money from the poor to the rich, as the rich would invest it wisely, making the world better for all.

 

This worked well, but then the poor had no money to buy stuff from the rich. This was a problem, so the rich let them borrow. This had the added benefit of making the rich richer.

 

After the poor had borrowed all they could and could borrow no more, we had a GFC.

 

The only solution I can see is to find a way to channel some money from the rich to the poor. But the rich make the decisions - and they don't like this idea. Hence - we have stagnation until someone decides to move forward.

[The Fisheys]

Just as the narrative for tax cuts for the rich can be equally admired. The dreary agenda of tax the rich less, less help for the poor and less regulation of business sadly appears to be gaining ground beyond the neo liberals at least in some quarters.

 

That's not to say aspects of the UK tax system can't be looked at. High rates do kick in too soon but easier to take from middling earners could be something to do with that.

 

 

If only you could for one second put any prejudices aside, and actually consider the economic reality behind what I am saying. If you stop having a punitive and confiscatory top tax rate, telling successful people that we don't like them, and don't want them, then more of them will live in the UK and pay more tax.

The overall amount they pay therefore increases, both as a percentage of total taxation income, and in cold cash. This means that more money is available for whatever your particular economic tipple may be, be it more money for the NHS, Schools, Hospitals, Welfare, or even, heavens to Murgatroyd, repaying the National Debt.

As I keep saying, supporting punitive tax rates will earn a standing ovation at the Labour Party Conference, but the poorest will suffer.

[VERYSTORMY]

I know it is a simplistic argument - and I invite people to cut me down in flames, but the way I see the last 30 years is thus.

 

Certain people thought it would be a good idea if we channelled money from the poor to the rich, as the rich would invest it wisely, making the world better for all.

 

This worked well, but then the poor had no money to buy stuff from the rich. This was a problem, so the rich let them borrow. This had the added benefit of making the rich richer.

 

After the poor had borrowed all they could and could borrow no more, we had a GFC.

 

The only solution I can see is to find a way to channel some money from the rich to the poor. But the rich make the decisions - and they don't like this idea. Hence - we have stagnation until someone decides to move forward.

 

Define rich and poor

[flag of convenience]

Define rich and poor

 

The richer are usually those that constantly harp on about a fixed tax rate to which most of as know favours the well off.

[flag of convenience]

I know it is a simplistic argument - and I invite people to cut me down in flames, but the way I see the last 30 years is thus.

 

Certain people thought it would be a good idea if we channelled money from the poor to the rich, as the rich would invest it wisely, making the world better for all.

 

This worked well, but then the poor had no money to buy stuff from the rich. This was a problem, so the rich let them borrow. This had the added benefit of making the rich richer.

 

After the poor had borrowed all they could and could borrow no more, we had a GFC.

 

The only solution I can see is to find a way to channel some money from the rich to the poor. But the rich make the decisions - and they don't like this idea. Hence - we have stagnation until someone decides to move forward.

 

Indeed. Many fell between a rock and a hard place. The rich have moved away from the progressive tax scheme somewhat ias well in favour of a one tax rate for all. May sound feasable and fair but as usual the devil is in the detail.

 

Nothing but greed and further enriching themselves. The kitty meanwhile ever shrinks as do benefits for those that work. The trade off in the way the rich pay more in the way of tax, which is indeed a form of wealth dispersal in the name of ensuring domestic political and social harmony is being eroded with not to hard to imagine consquences if allowed to continue.

[The Fisheys]

The richer are usually those that constantly harp on about a fixed tax rate to which most of as know favours the well off.

 

I am going to excuse myself from the Sisyphaean Task of teaching you economics.

You seem completely impervious to the subject.

[flag of convenience]

If only you could for one second put any prejudices aside, and actually consider the economic reality behind what I am saying. If you stop having a punitive and confiscatory top tax rate, telling successful people that we don't like them, and don't want them, then more of them will live in the UK and pay more tax.

The overall amount they pay therefore increases, both as a percentage of total taxation income, and in cold cash. This means that more money is available for whatever your particular economic tipple may be, be it more money for the NHS, Schools, Hospitals, Welfare, or even, heavens to Murgatroyd, repaying the National Debt.

As I keep saying, supporting punitive tax rates will earn a standing ovation at the Labour Party Conference, but the poorest will suffer.

 

So how is it that the rich are forever getting richer? How come a top executive who earned 25 times the average wage in 1950 earns over 100 times that today? Please the rich are doing fine with countless perks and what have you. A flat rate would see far less tax collection than now.

How much does one need? Effective and efficent tax collection is only where the less damage is caused to a economy. How about no tax under 20,000? Now that would stimulate as wel as giving choice which should not only be the preserve of the or wanna be rich.

[flag of convenience]

I am going to excuse myself from the Sisyphaean Task of teaching you economics.

You seem completely impervious to the subject.

 

Don't flatter yourself the ideas you spruot are old hat. I hope you are better at pulling teeth than at economic matters then...

[VERYSTORMY]

The richer are usually those that constantly harp on about a fixed tax rate to which most of as know favours the well off.

 

Ah, so then when i was unemployed and living in a council house in Middlesbrough i was rich. I wish someone had told me, as i believed in fairer tax rates for everyone then and could see the folly of penalising people for being succesful.

[pablo]

Ah, so then when i was unemployed and living in a council house in Middlesbrough i was rich. I wish someone had told me, as i believed in fairer tax rates for everyone then and could see the folly of penalising people for being succesful.

 

Arent they just taxing people on income earned?like a sliding scale,in the same way someone on 25k a year will be taxed more than someone on 10k a year,whats the whinge for then? you salt your £ away anyway dont yer,so why worry

[VERYSTORMY]

Arent they just taxing people on income earned?like a sliding scale,in the same way someone on 25k a year will be taxed more than someone on 10k a year,whats the whinge for then? you salt your £ away anyway dont yer,so why worry

 

No, because the tax rate increases the more you earn. So, you are hit twice - arguably 3x if you accept that higher earners use less services. Why should someone pay 40% of their income for earning over 32k

[Perthbum]

Even without the evidence it is just commonsense that if you raise the tax rate unreasonably you will get increased tax avoidance and some will leave altogether, this happened, it isnt imaginary and I realise it probably annoys Labour supporters.

No it hasent, give me links to anybody moving their family abroad because of UK tax, do you not realise tax is higher in most European countries...it's all hot air and a fraction leave the country.

[pablo]

No, because the tax rate increases the more you earn. So, you are hit twice - arguably 3x if you accept that higher earners use less services. Why should someone pay 40% of their income for earning over 32k

 

They earn more they pay more,its no great crime in my eyes,its how i expect to be taxed anyway

However,i think a sliding scale based on earnings would be fairer than the system that says once you earn £1 over x amount your tax jumps up by 20%

[newjez]

Define rich and poor

Several million a year income

[jimmyay1]

The "rich" earning over 40k would pay more tax anyway, by virtue of earning more money. Why should the rate also increase? Flat rates are fairer.

[Love Shoes]

No it hasent, give me links to anybody moving their family abroad because of UK tax, do you not realise tax is higher in most European countries...it's all hot air and a fraction leave the country.

 

 

I doubt very much that the OPs are referring to a 'normal rich family' I.e., someone who earns over 40 k .... I think we are talking big as in massive earners here, like corporate companies, who move their HQ to another country with lower taxation policies, rock stars, footballers, film stars .... The ordinary family probably move away for a better lifestyle, because think of it, these are the people, like you and I who have no say in tax rates, we work hard, we get penalised, but we don't have the option to have our salaries paid into a Swiss bank .... It isn't so much the taxes IMO it is the NI contributions which are a killer too .... not quite as bad as they were (the way they kick in these days) but the rate is still pretty high, so added on top of income tax it makes taxes much higher than they at first seem to be .....

 

I remember in the 90s when I was working in real estate, I had quite a few sales (I was on commission) and rather than claim them as a trickle, I saved them up for Christmas, it was the silliest move I could have made, my top line was 1.900 pounds and I drew just over a grand, the tax was 300 and something and the rest was NI because it was not taken on a sliding scale for the annum but as PCM ..... Left a nasty taste, half of my months salary was taken away in stoppages, I wasn't an high earner, just a normal working wife and mother, I think my annual gross salary ... Base ... Was 7.500 pa ....

[northshorepom]

No it hasent, give me links to anybody moving their family abroad because of UK tax,.

 

It's not THE reason I left, but it was a factor. I pay quite a bit less tax here in Aus....there were a couple of particular tax hikes in the UK that incensed me. I possibly wouldn't have looked for a job abroad without them. The economic outlook in the UK at the time didn't help either. Would I have left if I had felt better about the medium-term prospects, despite the tax hike? I'm not sure

 

EDIT: I'm not a mega-earner in the footballer scale, obviously. But well off enough to cop for tax rises governments think people won't notice, and/or be in the category where many think I either deserve it, or can afford it without noticing (I wish!), so why complain?

 

EDIT 2: I should add I'm not a flat taxer. I buy into the principle of progressive taxation. It's stealth taxes and swingeing one-off hits I resent. Be clear, transparent and honest in tax (ie, don't shift it all into stuff like NI), don't tinker too much (KISS!) and phase any substantial changes in, and I'm happy. Ish.