Should UK income tax be higher - discuss

[turbobloke]

zygalski 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.

How do you explain what is wasted spending? Adding cycle & bus lanes might seem like a total waste to you but money very well spent by someone who doesn't want to waste 90 minutes commuting 20 miles on their own in their car every day...

Travelling by car is better for your health than taking the bus, you have to wonder if that's taken into account in any cost-benefit calculations. Also cycling to work is a non-starter for people who work nationwide, it's not just locals that use the roads.

zygalski said:

Then there is the magic bullet goodwill efficiency theory which crops up on here all the time. Namely that we should be able to have greater accountability but not have to pay for it. Moaning about the cost of regulatory bodies & qangos then at the same time expecting the system to magically regulate itself. Cloud cuckoo land thinking.

Agreed, having it both ways is not on, so abolish more quangos and then decide not to moan about it

zygalski said:

The taxation system should be progressive & there should be more banding and a reduced increase at each increment.

A flat rate with an initial tax-free allowance would be better, and fairer, as everyone would pay the same proportion and those who earn more pay proportionately more.

zygalski said:

It should never be the case that a promotion & 3% pay rise results in a -2% reduction in your take home pay. That is clearly bonkers.

Definitely bonkers.

Back to more tax is not better.

Higher taxes will not give us a better quality of life

[craigjm]

sidicks said:

Err....Please explain how this would happen.

if your promotion took you into the 40% bracket at the very low end?

[sidicks]

craigjm said:

if your promotion took you into the 40% bracket at the very low end?

How?

[Murph7355]

sidicks said:

Err....Please explain how this would happen.

IIRC if you tip into the 100k bracket you lose your personal allowances. So are paying tax on circa 10k more. It's Sunday morning so haven't bothered with the tricky maths, but I think there are circumstances where this might happen. Limited set of circumstances granted, but there should not be any IMO.

[sidicks]

Murph7355 said:

IIRC if you tip into the 100k bracket you lose your personal allowances. So are paying tax on circa 10k more. It's Sunday morning so haven't bothered with the tricky maths, but I think there are circumstances where this might happen. Limited set of circumstances granted, but there should not be any IMO.

1. the previous post was about the 40% rate

2. You don't lose the entire tax free allowance at £100k, it is reduced proportionally above this earning, creating a marginal rate of 60%.

Marginal rates are not >100%

Or to put it another way, do you think that am employee would accept a pay rise that would make them worse off....??

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 7th September 10:15

[Rovinghawk]

fblm said:

mph1977 said:

In that case the public sector 'pay their own wages' becasue they pay tax and NI just the same as other people .

Jesus fvcking Christ. PH reaches new levels of thick.

I think he's just suggested that the entire public sector costs nothing.

[sidicks]

Russ T Bolt said:

It is very simple, for years public sector salaries( like for like) have been below private sector. The employers have chosen instead to offer recompense by way of pensions. The alternative was to pay market rates, that money would have gone already.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/public-and-private-sector-earnings/march-2014/rpt---march-2014.html

ONS Article said:

Key Points

Average pay levels vary between the public and private sectors because of the different jobs and characteristics of the people within each sector

In April 2013 it is estimated that on average the pay of the public sector was between 2.2% and 3.1% higherafter adjusting for the different jobs and personal characteristics of the workers

After further adjusting for the different organisation sizes between the public and private sector, in April 2013 it is estimated that on average the pay of the public sector was between 1.3% and 2.4% lower than the private sector.

Looking at those who are among the lowest earners in each sector, using the bottom 5% as a cut off point, public sector workers earned on average around 13% more than private sector workers in 2013 when adjusting for the different jobs and personal characteristics of the workers. When further adjusting for the different organisational sizes the estimate was around 8% more.

For the higher earners, using the top 5% as a cut off point, public sector workers earned on average around 6% less than private sector workers in 2013 when adjusting for the different jobs and personal characteristics of the workers. When further adjusting for the different organisational sizes the estimate was around 11% less.

Most importantly, note that none of the above takes into account a 20-30% pension subsidy....

QED!

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 7th September 10:34

[paranoid airbag]

turbobloke said:

zygalski 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.

How do you explain what is wasted spending? Adding cycle & bus lanes might seem like a total waste to you but money very well spent by someone who doesn't want to waste 90 minutes commuting 20 miles on their own in their car every day...

Travelling by car is better for your health than taking the bus, you have to wonder if that's taken into account in any cost-benefit calculations. Also cycling to work is a non-starter for people who work nationwide, it's not just locals that use the roads.

You're taking him to literally/narrowly.

Whatever you think is wasteful spending (assuming you even have a specific idea), I can guarantee it's either:

a)chickenfeed on any govt scale - the equivalent of a 2000W vacumn cleaner;
b)immensely valuable to someone.

"Cutting waste" is just as much populist bks as free money is. You want to cut spending, usually somebody's going to get hurt.

[Rovinghawk]

paranoid airbag said:

You want to cut spending, usually somebody's going to get hurt.

The NATO summit in Wales at the moment- what's the wine bill?

As a guide, the stuff they're drinking is about £200-300 per bottle; having attended a few of this type of function, I can assure you that they don't drink sparingly.
It's not just the top bods, either. I've witnessed lots of medium level civil servants getting lightly hammered on taxpayer-funded best quality booze and there's rather a lot of these events. I have fond memories of five minor functionaries whingeing because there were only 2 limos between them to ferry them home.

You want to cut spending? Here's a good place to start. Let's restrict them to £30 per bottle stuff, make them pay their own way home from the party and cut down the guest list.

[turbobloke]

paranoid airbag said:

You're taking him to literally/narrowly.

Whatever you think is wasteful spending (assuming you even have a specific idea), I can guarantee it's either:

a)chickenfeed on any govt scale - the equivalent of a 2000W vacumn cleaner;
b)immensely valuable to someone.

"Cutting waste" is just as much populist bks as free money is. You want to cut spending, usually somebody's going to get hurt.

£120bn isn't chickenfeed, it's close to the current UK deficit.

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/home/2013/06/bump...

Cutting waste doesn't hurt anyone, it should never happen in the first place.

[0000]

It's not cutting waste that hurts.

[mph1977]

bradders said:

So, back to the question that you didn't answer.....

Do you agree that tax take and borrowing fund the public sector services and salaries? If not, can you explain why? I'm open to be swayed if you can remain on tack. I am very interested to hear a well thought out view to the contrary. More than happy to go into the breakdown of the tax take and the perception of tax payers afterwards.

For public sector services ( and associated products) provided from the tax take (central and local) and the fairly notional part payments ( prescription charges, NHS dental charges ) - of course the running costs come from this income and government borrowing .

However the point i am making is that these services are provided on the basis of need or on the basis of equal access and prioritised on the basis of need , not that they are provided on the basis of how much you've paid - unlike the contribution based DWP benefits where benefit is paid to otherwise ineligible by need persons ( e.g. Contribution Based JSA /ESA can be paid even if your OH works - where generally you wouldn't be eligible for the income based versions).

Playing the ' i am considerably richer than yow ' and ' i pay your wages' lines doesn;t change the criteria by which the service is provided and I 'm not sure how or why other than immaturity and sociopathic traits people think that they should get preferential treatment based on the size of their "wad" .

there is a lot of anger targetted at frontline professionals rather than the party politicla meddling , and the 13 years of untrammeled growth of none jobs under the blair and brown adminstrations...

while Cameron suggested no top down reorganisations top down reorganisation was and is sorely needed in many public sector organisations ( look at the clear out of lay Managers Circle undertook at Hinchingbrooke) as the obssessions with improving service via crowd pleasing but operationally meaningless targets we suffered under the statist and authoritarian Nulabour governments had created a culture where lay Managers were the ones who held the whip hand and professionals in Managerial roles were rewarded for forgetting their professional responsibilities -

It took until the aftermath of the Francis report for any Clinicians as Managers to face professional discipline , meanwhile the whistle blowers and the competent but struggling were being reported to regulatorsd left right and centre as it;s seen as 'decisive management' in the NHS in particualr to dismiss junior staff regardless of the systemic failures within the manager's span of control .

[sidicks]

mph1977 said:

For public sector services ( and associated products) provided from the tax take (central and local) and the fairly notional part payments ( prescription charges, NHS dental charges ) - of course the running costs come from this income and government borrowing .

So you're now admitting that your previous comments were total boll*cks? Maybe we're finally getting somewhere.

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 7th September 12:35

[Countdown]

AJS- said:

Their infrastructure is mostly terrible and I will concede that Britain's is much better in many ways. On and off the beaten track.

We do seem to have a habit of over complicating things in this country though. I just Googled it and found this

http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/parkingtransportandstr...

£1500 for a light on a stick. How?! And an extra £1000 for an "ornamental" one.

£60 a meter for a cable in the ground.

And it goes on and on. £150 for a sign, £1 a meter for white paint. A village name sign (on two posts!) and an additional £150. £150 to write "Please drive carefully." It's insane. And there are forests of these things at every unnecessary £18,000 mini roundabout.

The parking one is probably most telling where the "formulating the proposals, the consultation and the progression of the associated traffic orders" costs £5000 per site. Really?

I know some standards have to be kept and some processes have to be followed but I can't help thinking that any of these could be done for at least half the price by anyone with a brain. Or anyone spending their own money. When you're mass producing them to the extent we are they should cost pennies.

I agree. We in the UK do seem to create an awful lot of bureaucracy, rules which are intended to protect against every possible eventuality, as well as the Nanny State stepping in at every opportunity rather than expecting people to look after themselves and their families. The recent free school meals is an excellent example. Another one that sticks to my mind is the monitoring of packed lunches. Noble and well-intentioned but are they a priority?

[AdamD]

Without wishing to wade into the public vs private sector quandary, significant experience from the evil public sector side suggests that public sectors need to be sharper at setting briefs/contracts with private suppliers to avoid getting taken for an expensive ride, particularly levying penalties for failing to deliver on time or to quality.

I would be happier keeping taxation level similar but paying a greater proportion to local council/county taxation and less into general taxation. We would be better placed to influence how it is spent in the local communities we live in and likely to benefit more from it. Problem is I expect some areas would thrive whilst others become slums...

I don't feel like I get value for money for the tax I currently pay as I see no link to it of it improving my local area and quality of life. I seldom visit a doctor or dentist, have no children, and have private health insurance, perhaps I can get a discount?

[vonuber]

AJS- said:

Oh yeah and I bet there's a whole level of complication this simpleton didn't think of about the special paint and careful planning that must go into writing "Please drive carefully" underneath "Welcome to Great Spending."

You might want to read the highways design guide. There is a set letter height, style, distance, visibility splays etc.
regardless, most of the design work is done by the private sector as council engineering departments were all closed - I know, the guy next to me is ex-council from when they closed the department 15 years ago.
If I were to be honest I think it would be better done by the Council (albeit run as a proper business) as they generally had the benefit of people who lived and worked locally and thus knew the underlying issues and tended to have a vast amount of experience of the area. A lot of the expertise is now lost and it probably costs more to do it how we do now.
A very good example of that is the area I specialise in (drainage / flooding) - a lot of the local knowledge of problem areas and how systems work 9which the council would normally have) has gone completely.
ironically with the setting up of SABs (whenever they actually get funded) is reverting back to that.

[AJS-]

No I really don't want to read the Highway Design Guide. The fact that there are set standards for these things should make it even easier to get them done at a reasonable cost.

[bradders]

mph1977 said:

For public sector services ( and associated products) provided from the tax take (central and local) and the fairly notional part payments ( prescription charges, NHS dental charges ) - of course the running costs come from this income and government borrowing .

Thanks. I believe that we are on the same page there.

mph1977 said:

However the point i am making is that these services are provided on the basis of need or on the basis of equal access and prioritised on the basis of need , not that they are provided on the basis of how much you've paid - unlike the contribution based DWP benefits where benefit is paid to otherwise ineligible by need persons ( e.g. Contribution Based JSA /ESA can be paid even if your OH works - where generally you wouldn't be eligible for the income based versions).

Playing the ' i am considerably richer than yow ' and ' i pay your wages' lines doesn;t change the criteria by which the service is provided and I 'm not sure how or why other than immaturity and sociopathic traits people think that they should get preferential treatment based on the size of their "wad" .

I agree fully with your thoughts on how they are provided, and why they are provided that way, but why do you believe that anyone is advocating them to be provided differently simply because they they are arguing an imbalance on pension contributions from tax take / borrowing when compared to private pension arrangements?

I do however believe that if someone wishes to sign up for private healthcare, education and the like, using their "wad", then they should be free to do so, and should expect to receive top service for their money - extra money they are choosing to pay.

Another question - do you believe that the country should be run as closely to break even as possible?

[bradders]

mph1977 said:

Playing the ' i am considerably richer than yow ' and ' i pay your wages' lines doesn;t change the criteria by which the service is provided and I 'm not sure how or why other than immaturity and sociopathic traits people think that they should get preferential treatment based on the size of their "wad" .

Just another thought - do you think that tax payers have the right to question where the tax take and borrowing taken on their and future generations behalf is spent by government?

[mph1977]

bradders said:

mph1977 said:

Playing the ' i am considerably richer than yow ' and ' i pay your wages' lines doesn;t change the criteria by which the service is provided and I 'm not sure how or why other than immaturity and sociopathic traits people think that they should get preferential treatment based on the size of their "wad" .

Just another thought - do you think that tax payers have the right to question where the tax take and borrowing taken on their and future generations behalf is spent by government?

they have the right to question this, but should not do so by attacking all Public sector workers as parasites. We know there are cultural issues in many public sector organisatiosn but the problems related to organisation culture in the NHS ( both the long standign ones and as a result of the blair -brown 'bread and circuses' crowd pleasing ) are very different to the issues in local authorities.