Should UK income tax be higher - discuss
Discussion
Given the years of minimal cuts we are now needing police and army cuts when we actually need more.
When such issues arise surely it makes sense to up income tax to pay for the added costs not cut.
My view is that we have a 0% up to £20k and thereafter 35% (or adjust the % /tax free £ value to balance the books).
Let's aim for a £10/hr minimum wage
When such issues arise surely it makes sense to up income tax to pay for the added costs not cut.
My view is that we have a 0% up to £20k and thereafter 35% (or adjust the % /tax free £ value to balance the books).
Let's aim for a £10/hr minimum wage
Something far less complex would be far better.
Like you say WB 0% up to say £20k then 35% beyond that to infinity. Everyone gets paid their gross salary, there is a list of allowable expenses which can be paid from gross income and everyone pays their tax on self assessment based on that difference.
So you earn £24k a year and you have £4ks worth of allowable expenses zero tax. You earn £135k a year and have £15k of allowable expenses and you pay £35k in tax.
Things like P11D benefits as they are today could easily be accommodated as they are given a value and they essentially add to your gross figure, so you get a company car that has a P11D value of £10k then your gross declarable income has £10k added to it.
I think that is similar to how the US system works but I am not certain, it would certainly remove massive amounts of complexity from the system IMO and I am sure that if enough effort was put into achieving it the rates could be set where the overall tax take would not be affected and possibly even increase.
It will never happen though as there will be far too much politicking going around about how it is a tax cut for the rich etc etc.
Like you say WB 0% up to say £20k then 35% beyond that to infinity. Everyone gets paid their gross salary, there is a list of allowable expenses which can be paid from gross income and everyone pays their tax on self assessment based on that difference.
So you earn £24k a year and you have £4ks worth of allowable expenses zero tax. You earn £135k a year and have £15k of allowable expenses and you pay £35k in tax.
Things like P11D benefits as they are today could easily be accommodated as they are given a value and they essentially add to your gross figure, so you get a company car that has a P11D value of £10k then your gross declarable income has £10k added to it.
I think that is similar to how the US system works but I am not certain, it would certainly remove massive amounts of complexity from the system IMO and I am sure that if enough effort was put into achieving it the rates could be set where the overall tax take would not be affected and possibly even increase.
It will never happen though as there will be far too much politicking going around about how it is a tax cut for the rich etc etc.
ks. Heads are going to roll. 
Where the money goes and where it comes from (2013 budget)
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/p...
If anyone wants to pay more tax, perhaps Mr Osborne will take a cheque.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/p...
If anyone wants to pay more tax, perhaps Mr Osborne will take a cheque.
Welshbeef said:
My view is that we have a 0% up to £20k and thereafter 35%
The problem with policies like this is that you become ever more reliant on a smaller group of people to pay income taxes.Even with an allowance of £10k per annum only circa 30 million people in the UK pay any income tax.
Of that 30 million the top half pay 90% of all income tax.
Qwert1e said:
UK taxes are already massive.
Income Tax
National Insurance
VAT
Council Tax
Fuel duty
Even non-taxpayers are paying about 25% through this lot.
The problem isn't raising taxes; the problem is wasteful spending.
Completely agree, spending less is the answer. Taxes are too high as it is.Income Tax
National Insurance
VAT
Council Tax
Fuel duty
Even non-taxpayers are paying about 25% through this lot.
The problem isn't raising taxes; the problem is wasteful spending.
ralphrj said:
The problem with policies like this is that you become ever more reliant on a smaller group of people to pay income taxes.
Even with an allowance of £10k per annum only circa 30 million people in the UK pay any income tax.
Of that 30 million the top half pay 90% of all income tax.
Which creates a problem for democracy - the two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner kind of problem.Even with an allowance of £10k per annum only circa 30 million people in the UK pay any income tax.
Of that 30 million the top half pay 90% of all income tax.
RYH64E said:
Qwert1e said:
UK taxes are already massive.
Income Tax
National Insurance
VAT
Council Tax
Fuel duty
Even non-taxpayers are paying about 25% through this lot.
The problem isn't raising taxes; the problem is wasteful spending.
Completely agree, spending less is the answer. Taxes are too high as it is.Income Tax
National Insurance
VAT
Council Tax
Fuel duty
Even non-taxpayers are paying about 25% through this lot.
The problem isn't raising taxes; the problem is wasteful spending.
We're a nation of only 60M, in a tiny island. Yet we have 4 national parliaments/assemblies, layer on layer of local and regional government and on top of it all the debacle that is the EU.
It is patently ridiculous to think that there are not massive opportunities to save many billions from our budgets. No need at all for tax increases.
REALIST123 said:
RYH64E said:
Qwert1e said:
UK taxes are already massive.
Income Tax
National Insurance
VAT
Council Tax
Fuel duty
Even non-taxpayers are paying about 25% through this lot.
The problem isn't raising taxes; the problem is wasteful spending.
Completely agree, spending less is the answer. Taxes are too high as it is.Income Tax
National Insurance
VAT
Council Tax
Fuel duty
Even non-taxpayers are paying about 25% through this lot.
The problem isn't raising taxes; the problem is wasteful spending.
We're a nation of only 60M, in a tiny island. Yet we have 4 national parliaments/assemblies, layer on layer of local and regional government and on top of it all the debacle that is the EU.
It is patently ridiculous to think that there are not massive opportunities to save many billions from our budgets. No need at all for tax increases.
Welshbeef said:
My view is that we have a 0% up to £20k and thereafter 35% (or adjust the % /tax free £ value to balance the books).
Except it doesn't come close to the current take on income tax, so you still need either more tax from somewhere else or reduced spending.heppers75 said:
Something far less complex would be far better.
Yes. Citizens get one vote per pound of tax paid. That would align the incentives of the various groups involved quite nicely.Newc said:
...
Yes. Citizens get one vote per pound of tax paid. That would align the incentives of the various groups involved quite nicely.
What happens if the taxpaying voters don't vote for an NHS or state schools because they don't think that they need them? Yes. Citizens get one vote per pound of tax paid. That would align the incentives of the various groups involved quite nicely.
Also, your system gives a footballer or a Big Brother winner more votes than, say, a head teacher, doctor, or police officer. Sensible?
Sweden is a country with which I am very familiar. There, earnings are not much different to the UK yet income tax is around the 50% mark plus the additional VAT and duty in booze (the sale of which on anything over 3.5% proof is controlled by the government) pushes this to nearer 55% plus, if not more.
The upside....
All social services are truly excellent. Schools, hospitals, childcare. The roads are superb, public transport is a breeze, efficient, clean and cheap. The place is, by and large, spotless and as a result, the population exist in a very contended manner, crime is very low and life is good.
The downside....
Ambition is very hard to realise. Most Swedes follow the pattern of School > University > Job > Flat > Marriage > House (one that they stay in for their entire career) > Retirement flat. And that's kind of it. You don't really see 'wealthy' areas and 'poor' areas; more areas for people at different stages in their life-cycle.
Ambitious Swedes tend not to live in Sweden so the economic benefit that these ambitious people generate benefits the country they reside and operate in, not Sweden.
The result is a country (which I love by the way) which has a certain 'blandness' about it. Not necessarily in a bad way and for some, the certainty of life this affords is more appealing than the risk associated with the constant drive to ascend through the class structure that we have in the UK and which doesn't exist there.
In developing countries such as Bulgaria, they have a very low Income Tax - 16% IIRC. This has the effect of increasing the gap between rich and poor which is difficult to fill because they don't raise sufficient tax revenue to do much about it.
And in countries where there is no income tax at all (most of the oil rich Middle Eastern states such as KSA), life is very good for those at the top of the pile but utterly terrible for the others - although historical tribal issues do have a part to play in this.
On balance, I think the UK has it more or less right.
The upside....
All social services are truly excellent. Schools, hospitals, childcare. The roads are superb, public transport is a breeze, efficient, clean and cheap. The place is, by and large, spotless and as a result, the population exist in a very contended manner, crime is very low and life is good.
The downside....
Ambition is very hard to realise. Most Swedes follow the pattern of School > University > Job > Flat > Marriage > House (one that they stay in for their entire career) > Retirement flat. And that's kind of it. You don't really see 'wealthy' areas and 'poor' areas; more areas for people at different stages in their life-cycle.
Ambitious Swedes tend not to live in Sweden so the economic benefit that these ambitious people generate benefits the country they reside and operate in, not Sweden.
The result is a country (which I love by the way) which has a certain 'blandness' about it. Not necessarily in a bad way and for some, the certainty of life this affords is more appealing than the risk associated with the constant drive to ascend through the class structure that we have in the UK and which doesn't exist there.
In developing countries such as Bulgaria, they have a very low Income Tax - 16% IIRC. This has the effect of increasing the gap between rich and poor which is difficult to fill because they don't raise sufficient tax revenue to do much about it.
And in countries where there is no income tax at all (most of the oil rich Middle Eastern states such as KSA), life is very good for those at the top of the pile but utterly terrible for the others - although historical tribal issues do have a part to play in this.
On balance, I think the UK has it more or less right.
Sweden is a country with which I am very familiar. There, earnings are not much different to the UK yet income tax is around the 50% mark plus the additional VAT and duty in booze (the sale of which on anything over 3.5% proof is controlled by the government) pushes this to nearer 55% plus, if not more.
The upside....
All social services are truly excellent. Schools, hospitals, childcare. The roads are superb, public transport is a breeze, efficient, clean and cheap. The place is, by and large, spotless and as a result, the population exist in a very contended manner, crime is very low and life is good.
The downside....
Ambition is very hard to realise. Most Swedes follow the pattern of School > University > Job > Flat > Marriage > House (one that they stay in for their entire career) > Retirement flat. And that's kind of it. You don't really see 'wealthy' areas and 'poor' areas; more areas for people at different stages in their life-cycle.
Ambitious Swedes tend not to live in Sweden so the economic benefit that these ambitious people generate benefits the country they reside and operate in, not Sweden.
The result is a country (which I love by the way) which has a certain 'blandness' about it. Not necessarily in a bad way and for some, the certainty of life this affords is more appealing than the risk associated with the constant drive to ascend through the class structure that we have in the UK and which doesn't exist there.
In developing countries such as Bulgaria, they have a very low Income Tax - 16% IIRC. This has the effect of increasing the gap between rich and poor which is difficult to fill because they don't raise sufficient tax revenue to do much about it.
And in countries where there is no income tax at all (most of the oil rich Middle Eastern states such as KSA), life is very good for those at the top of the pile but utterly terrible for the others - although historical tribal issues do have a part to play in this.
On balance, I think the UK has it more or less right.
The upside....
All social services are truly excellent. Schools, hospitals, childcare. The roads are superb, public transport is a breeze, efficient, clean and cheap. The place is, by and large, spotless and as a result, the population exist in a very contended manner, crime is very low and life is good.
The downside....
Ambition is very hard to realise. Most Swedes follow the pattern of School > University > Job > Flat > Marriage > House (one that they stay in for their entire career) > Retirement flat. And that's kind of it. You don't really see 'wealthy' areas and 'poor' areas; more areas for people at different stages in their life-cycle.
Ambitious Swedes tend not to live in Sweden so the economic benefit that these ambitious people generate benefits the country they reside and operate in, not Sweden.
The result is a country (which I love by the way) which has a certain 'blandness' about it. Not necessarily in a bad way and for some, the certainty of life this affords is more appealing than the risk associated with the constant drive to ascend through the class structure that we have in the UK and which doesn't exist there.
In developing countries such as Bulgaria, they have a very low Income Tax - 16% IIRC. This has the effect of increasing the gap between rich and poor which is difficult to fill because they don't raise sufficient tax revenue to do much about it.
And in countries where there is no income tax at all (most of the oil rich Middle Eastern states such as KSA), life is very good for those at the top of the pile but utterly terrible for the others - although historical tribal issues do have a part to play in this.
On balance, I think the UK has it more or less right.
Welshbeef said:
Given the years of minimal cuts we are now needing police and army cuts when we actually need more.
When such issues arise surely it makes sense to up income tax to pay for the added costs not cut.
My view is that we have a 0% up to £20k and thereafter 35% (or adjust the % /tax free £ value to balance the books).
Let's aim for a £10/hr minimum wage
I like the idea of a much simpler tax system, not least because it costs money to collect money. We should scrap as many complications as possible, including different tax regimes for singles/couples/parents/older people, and have the same tax rates for income, interest, capital gains and so on. We should completely get rid of taxes that don't raise much but cost a fair bit to collect (inheritance tax comes to mind). Also, separating NI from income tax is ridiculous, so let's put them together which neatly stops all the games played by "self-employed consultants" at the BBC and so on.When such issues arise surely it makes sense to up income tax to pay for the added costs not cut.
My view is that we have a 0% up to £20k and thereafter 35% (or adjust the % /tax free £ value to balance the books).
Let's aim for a £10/hr minimum wage
We "need" to collect ~£250bn out of a GDP of ~£1.7trn to maintain current government income, which implies an average tax rate of ~14%. Setting a zero rate up to a little under the median income makes sense, as it takes a lot of people out of tax entirely and saves a lot of money on collection, so Welshbeef's proposal of £20k works. We'd need to have an independent system to recalculate that threshold each year.
To get~£250bn we'd need a total tax/NI of 38.5% on all income above £20k. I've used ONS stats for 2011-12 for my calculation, so the percentage might be very slightly lower now.
How do people feel about those numbers: no NI, 38.5% tax on all income above £20k?
Edited by NNH on Saturday 6th September 11:53
REALIST123 said:
RYH64E said:
Qwert1e said:
UK taxes are already massive.
Income Tax
National Insurance
VAT
Council Tax
Fuel duty
Even non-taxpayers are paying about 25% through this lot.
The problem isn't raising taxes; the problem is wasteful spending.
Completely agree, spending less is the answer. Taxes are too high as it is.Income Tax
National Insurance
VAT
Council Tax
Fuel duty
Even non-taxpayers are paying about 25% through this lot.
The problem isn't raising taxes; the problem is wasteful spending.
We're a nation of only 60M, in a tiny island. Yet we have 4 national parliaments/assemblies, layer on layer of local and regional government and on top of it all the debacle that is the EU.
It is patently ridiculous to think that there are not massive opportunities to save many billions from our budgets. No need at all for tax increases.
It is theft, pure and simple.
The private sector is working hard for the public sector to laze around.
If the UK state were well run, like a proper business, you could cut everyone's taxes by at least a third.
Having said that, if you actually work for the state, it is a great place to be. Do few hours, take days or weeks off for no reason, have zero chance of getting the boot, retire early on a fat wedge, etc. etc.
lamboman100 said:
UK taxes are grotesque.
It is theft, pure and simple.
The private sector is working hard for the public sector to laze around.
If the UK state were well run, like a proper business, you could cut everyone's taxes by at least a third.
Having said that, if you actually work for the state, it is a great place to be. Do few hours, take days or weeks off for no reason, have zero chance of getting the boot, retire early on a fat wedge, etc. etc.
Have you any experience of working in the public sector? I have seen a bit of both private and public sector over several years when advising various organisations. The people who work in the public sector mostly work in much the same way as those working for businesses, and they are mostly taxpayers too. Some public sector workers work very hard for less than they could earn in the private sector. Others are lazy and inefficient, just as in some businesses. Some businesses are efficient, some (including a few that do public work on contracts) are inefficient or even corrupt. The idea of some vast horde of public sector idlers is a daft stereotype. It is theft, pure and simple.
The private sector is working hard for the public sector to laze around.
If the UK state were well run, like a proper business, you could cut everyone's taxes by at least a third.
Having said that, if you actually work for the state, it is a great place to be. Do few hours, take days or weeks off for no reason, have zero chance of getting the boot, retire early on a fat wedge, etc. etc.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 6th September 11:59
lamboman100 said:
<snip>
Having said that, if you actually work for the state, it is a great place to be. Do few hours, take days or weeks off for no reason, have zero chance of getting the boot, retire early on a fat wedge, etc. etc.
Last time I checked the basic full time hours across much of the public sector were 37 -42 hrs / week with a requirement to be at work for 40 - 45 hours - as although you may intheory be able ot leave site during the 30 minutes unpaid lunch break , you'd have to get changed out of workwear/ uniform in roles where a uniform is required ... Having said that, if you actually work for the state, it is a great place to be. Do few hours, take days or weeks off for no reason, have zero chance of getting the boot, retire early on a fat wedge, etc. etc.
The rules surrounding the legals of sickness absence in the public sector are exactly the same as in the private sector - 1- 7 dfays off self cert , 7 + days off needs a 'Fit Note' saying you are not fit to work or a fit note with adaptations that your employer cannot accomodate .
In my experience sickness absence is far more proactively managed i nthe public sector with proper return to work processes and a very low threshold for both to Occupational health referral and for using the full extent of the Attendance management policy including disciplinary processes up to termination of contract.
Zero chance of getting the boot?, a significant proportion of NHS staff will be have been formally 'at risk' at least one if not not several times in the past decade. the military has seen compulsoryt redundancies, local authorities have been gutted at an operational level while the snouts in trough political commissars invent more roles in ticking the boxes of pointless crowd pleasing targets . the Military has seen significant numbers of redundancies ...
As for dismissal / termination of contract in the public sector - it happens regularly and for the same reasons as i nthe private sector , in addition dismissal of subordinates is often used to cover up for poor Managers in the public sector particuarly Managers who are untouchable by virtue of race / religion/ nepotism.
dismissal of subordinates is also a way to cover up poor management becasue the poor manager is seen to 'take decisive action' even if s/.he is leaving the actual causes of the problems in place usually because she can't behave like a proper manager and still favours her old mates )
as for retiring 'early' the only people who retire 'early' in the public sector are Sworn Police Officers, Operational Fire fighters and those who serve a full (24 years from age 18 / enlistment if over 18 at that point for ORs and LE Officers and 20 something years for DE Officers). 9 enhanced accrual for Police and fire fighters went years if not decades ago)
teachers, LGPS and NHS pensions currently require 40 years full time service to get the full (50 % of final basic salary) pension - which means many staff in these female heavy professions stand little or no chance of a full pension even if they work to 65 or beyond...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff