Should UK income tax be higher - discuss

[Guybrush]

NDA said:

A flat rate of 35% would be my preference.

35% of someone earning £500k is a much larger contribution than someone earning £30k. I don't like the sentiment behind 'additional tax penalties' for those that earn more.

Neither do I. I suspect though, that it's aimed at those who haven't thought things through very much. Flat rate tax is surely 'logical' as well as not a disincentive to work once at a certain level. Agree, though that the primary task should be to reduce spending, particular attention should be given to NHS penpushers, public sector non-frontline 'managers' and benefits - particularly housing.

[BlackLabel]

By changing the tax thresholds this government has taken nearly 2 million people out of the tax system however this has meant that a million more people are being forced to pay the upper 40p rate.

So which group do you start raising taxes from - the group who earn very little anyway or those who have already been squeezed by successive governments?

[Rovinghawk]

mph1977 said:

[
i'm not sure where this subsidy is coming from i've never seen it on any of my private sector payslips and on my public sector payslips i'm paying the same income tax and NI as any other worker ...

In simple terms:

Work out how much a typical public sector employee pays into their pension scheme.

Work out how much they take out as a benefit (assume average lifespan, etc).

The second minus the first is the subsidy from the government ie the taxpayer.

Is the subsidy reasonable or excessive? My view is that if it's several times higher than the open market can provide then it's very generous.
If it gets to the stage that I can't afford to fund my own reasonable pension due to paying the taxes needed to fund those of the public sector then it's excessive.

[sidicks]

Rovinghawk said:

In simple terms:

Work out how much a typical public sector employee pays into their pension scheme.

Work out how much they take out as a benefit (assume average lifespan, etc).

The second minus the first is the subsidy from the government ie the taxpayer.

Is the subsidy reasonable or excessive? My view is that if it's several times higher than the open market can provide then it's very generous.
If it gets to the stage that I can't afford to fund my own reasonable pension due to paying the taxes needed to fund those of the public sector then it's excessive.

[AJS-]

Dr Jekyll said:

But do we want a large number of voters who are immune to income tax increases?

It works for Hong Kong. I think the deceptive thing about income tax is that at nearly all wage levels people tend to think that those a bit richer than them should pay tax. When only a few high earners are paying tax then the bulk of people just forget about it.

[mph1977]

Rovinghawk said:

mph1977 said:

[
i'm not sure where this subsidy is coming from i've never seen it on any of my private sector payslips and on my public sector payslips i'm paying the same income tax and NI as any other worker ...

In simple terms:

Work out how much a typical public sector employee pays into their pension scheme.

Work out how much they take out as a benefit (assume average lifespan, etc).

The second minus the first is the subsidy from the government ie the taxpayer.

Is the subsidy reasonable or excessive? My view is that if it's several times higher than the open market can provide then it's very generous.
If it gets to the stage that I can't afford to fund my own reasonable pension due to paying the taxes needed to fund those of the public sector then it's excessive.

QED

one of the powerfully built PH idiots, Mr Roving of the family Hawk no less, who ignores the employer contribution or considers it irrelevant to the sums ...


6-10 % of salary as employee contribution
15 -20% of salary as employer contribution ( i.e. accounted for in year from the funding the employer recieves )
a figure our actuarial friends will supply for the return if the scheme were run funded ( shall we say 3 to 6 % -

suddenly we've reached a figure approaching that given as the 'cost' of the pension ...

meaning any top-up runs in the realms of a few percent rather than the majority as suggested ...

there does seem to be a blind spot in the minds of the
kipper/ sociopath / tea party / libertarians that the tax of public secotr workers and the way in which poublic secotr organisatiosn operate is exactly the same as 'real ' businesses - and that the issues are with middle management in general or the tolerance of none income earning people in lower to middle management grades ...

[sidicks]

mph1977 said:

QED

one of the powerfully built PH idiots, Mr Roving of the family Hawk no less, who ignores the employer contribution or considers it irrelevant to the sums ...


6-10 % of salary as employee contribution
15 -20% of salary as employer contribution ( i.e. accounted for in year from the funding the employer recieves )
a figure our actuarial friends will supply for the return if the scheme were run funded ( shall we say 3 to 6 % -

suddenly we've reached a figure approaching that given as the 'cost' of the pension ...

meaning any top-up runs in the realms of a few percent rather than the majority as suggested ...

there does seem to be a blind spot in the minds of the
kipper/ sociopath / tea party / libertarians that the tax of public secotr workers and the way in which poublic secotr organisatiosn operate is exactly the same as 'real ' businesses - and that the issues are with middle management in general or the tolerance of none income earning people in lower to middle management grades ...

Who is the employer....??


What is the average private sector employer contribution rate? (circa 7.5%)...

Who is taking all of the pre-retirement investment risk in the public sector schemes?
Who is taking all of the post-retirement investment risk in the public sector schemes?
Who is taking all of the inflation risk in the public sector schemes?
Who is taking all of the longevity risk in the public sector schemes?

Edited by sidicks on Saturday 6th September 17:56

[mph1977]

sidicks said:

<snip>
Who is the employer....??

it isn't 'the tax-payer' as portrayed by some , usually using the same fallacious arguements as those who object to being prevented from using school playing fields for their dogs to st all over ' it;s public land ...'

sidicks said:

What is the average private sector employer contribution rate?

that's a contractural matter - in many places it's considerably higher for 'staff' than it is for the hourly paid scum ...

what's the average private sector spend on *employer provided* B-i-Ks and other perks ?

sidicks said:

Who is taking all of the pre-retirement investment risk in the public sector schemes?
Who is taking all of the post-retirement investment risk in the public sector schemes?
Who is taking all of the inflation risk in the public sector schemes?
Who is taking all of the longevity risk in the public sector schemes?

the exchequer because previous governments chose to make many Public sector schemes schemes PAYG rather than ring-fencing the funds ...

[sidicks]

mph1977 said:

sidicks said:

Who is the employer....??

it isn't 'the tax-payer' as portrayed by some , usually using the same fallacious arguements as those who object to being prevented from using school playing fields for their dogs to st all over ' it;s public land ...'

Seriously?

You really do think money grows on trees, don't you?!

mph1977 said:

sidicks said:

What is the average private sector employer contribution rate?

that's a contractural matter - in many places it's considerably higher for 'staff' than it is for the hourly paid scum ...

and? what's your point...?

mph1977 said:

what's the average private sector spend on *employer provided* B-i-Ks and other perks ?

Miniscule in comparison, and further tax is paid on on BIK

mph1977 said:

Who is taking all of the pre-retirement investment risk in the public sector schemes?
Who is taking all of the post-retirement investment risk in the public sector schemes?
Who is taking all of the inflation risk in the public sector schemes?
Who is taking all of the longevity risk in the public sector schemes?

the exchequer because previous governments chose to make many Public sector schemes schemes PAYG rather than ring-fencing the funds ...

No, for the last time, the funding manner doesn't matter, and the contributions simply aren't sufficient to fund the benefits being provided...

It's still the taxpayer picking up the bill.

"taxpayers don't fund my pension the 'exchequer' does....."

Edited by sidicks on Saturday 6th September 18:16

[craigjm]

I think it would be interesting to look at a flat rate whatever you earn. The problem for me with having say zero tax below 20k is that it produces a buffer above which some people will say its not worth working. If you were going to do that you would have to align the benefits system so that it all worked.

They really need to look at waste and efficiency and do it seriously. Do we need 33 councils in London all pretty much with separate contracts for waste collection, IT etc (OK some are joining up). Does every council / civil service dept need its own HR, finance and other support functions? If we had one way of doing these things across the sector surely that would be much better?

Why can't the public sector budget for a whole parliament or council term to prevent the spending of money at the end of the financial year so it isn't "lost"?

[powerstroke]

Breadvan72 said:

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.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Saturday 6th September 11:59

I think the public sector has got it right !! I go and do some work for the council they go home at about 4 pm and I work on like a fool until well after six most days to keep my business afloat and look after my customers ... Self employment a mugs game !!!!

[Murph7355]

mph1977 said:

...
it isn't 'the tax-payer' as portrayed by some , usually using the same fallacious arguements as those who object to being prevented from using school playing fields for their dogs to st all over ' it;s public land ...'...

And you called others idiots?

[sugerbear]

powerstroke said:

Breadvan72 said:

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.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Saturday 6th September 11:59

I think the public sector has got it right !! I go and do some work for the council they go home at about 4 pm and I work on like a fool until well after six most days to keep my business afloat and look after my customers ... Self employment a mugs game !!!!

Maybe they start earlier than you. Plus I am sure that there are many many private businesses that use and abuse and in some cases bribe there way into over priced contracts for public sector work.

[mph1977]

sidicks said:

mph1977 said:

sidicks said:

Who is the employer....??

it isn't 'the tax-payer' as portrayed by some , usually using the same fallacious arguements as those who object to being prevented from using school playing fields for their dogs to st all over ' it;s public land ...'

Seriously?

You really do think money grows on trees, don't you?!

Public sector services are funded by the tax take, but not in practice ,in the simplistic way beloved of the 'I pay your wages' powerfully built borderline sociopath all too common on PH or the Daily Mail Reader ... .

Ironically this sense of common ownership of state services is almost Marxist in it's naivety.

Interestingly enough what happens when a state service is provided by a private provider does the money transmogrify into Good Capitalist Pounds instead of Evil Socialist Pounds?

sidicks said:

mph1977 said:

sidicks said:

What is the average private sector employer contribution rate?

that's a contractural matter - in many places it's considerably higher for 'staff' than it is for the hourly paid scum ...

and? what's your point...?

i'm sure at some point in such discussions the 1 % employer contribution required as the bare minimum with the current 'auto enrolment' stuff will be brought up.

the rates of employer contribution for higher paid / professional 'staff' will be more relevant when discussing the topic ...

[quote]

mph1977 said:

what's the average private sector spend on *employer provided* B-i-Ks and other perks ?

Miniscule in comparison, and further tax is paid on on BIK

so thousands of pounds per worker per year ( for graduate / professional roles) is miniscule ...

cars , phones, computing devices, health insurance , discounts / preferential access to product ....

don't forget to include the on site parking that many public sector staff are required to pay for - i'm struggling to think of a private sector workplace with parking that charges for it ( and again where parking is limited in a private sector workplace it's the grade rather the need that determines allocation ... )

mph1977 said:

Who is taking all of the pre-retirement investment risk in the public sector schemes?
Who is taking all of the post-retirement investment risk in the public sector schemes?
Who is taking all of the inflation risk in the public sector schemes?
Who is taking all of the longevity risk in the public sector schemes?

the exchequer because previous governments chose to make many Public sector schemes schemes PAYG rather than ring-fencing the funds ...

No, for the last time, the funding manner doesn't matter, and the contributions simply aren't sufficient to fund the benefits being provided...

It's still the taxpayer picking up the bill.

"taxpayers don't fund my pension the 'exchequer' does....."

Edited by sidicks on Saturday 6th September 18:16

funny how the 'deficeits' in pensions seem to be based on a chicken little scenario of every liability suddenly becoming due at once ... ( much as the idiots who though that a charity with asset value of 140 million gbp could carry on with a operating loss of 8 million gbp / year despite the fact the realisable funding without selling off the ability to function was 30 ish million)

It seems you are just deliberately misunderstanding the nature of the 'ownership' and management of the public sector in your jealous assault on a pay package that is constructed differently to that which has become the norm in the style over substance world of 'big business'...

tthe PHer/ DMR leives is a bizarre bubble whish appears to be a cross between a marxist utopia and maggie's share owning upotia ...

[Scuffers]

Breadvan72 said:

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.

my experience is this...

stand at the entrance to your council offices at 3pm and see how long you can remain upright!

last time I did a project in a council, I was the first one in and the last out 99.9999% of the time - to the point I ended up being a key holder.

[sidicks]

mph1977 said:

Public sector services are funded by the tax take, but not in practice...

This gets better and better....!

mph1977 said:

funny how the 'deficeits' in pensions seem to be based on a chicken little scenario of every liability suddenly becoming due at once ..

That's not what a deficit means...

mph1977 said:

It seems you are just deliberately misunderstanding the nature of the 'ownership' and management of the public sector in your jealous assault on a pay package that is constructed differently to that which has become the norm in the style over substance world of 'big business'...

It's seems like you have zero understanding - go back to watching your cartoons, leave the discussions about pensions to those who actually know what they're talking about!!

mph1977 said:

tthe PHer/ DMR leives is a bizarre bubble whish appears to be a cross between a marxist utopia and maggie's share owning upotia ...

WTF???

[mph1977]

Scuffers said:

Breadvan72 said:

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.

my experience is this...

stand at the entrance to your council offices at 3pm and see how long you can remain upright!

last time I did a project in a council, I was the first one in and the last out 99.9999% of the time - to the point I ended up being a key holder.

another wonderful fallacious set of PH powerfully built arguements

1. time at work = productivity rather productivity = productivity

2. there is only one set of acceptable working hours and that's what the pHer decides it is , conveniently forgetting it is possible to work in an office and start work at 0700-0730 .....

[Scuffers]

mph1977 said:

another wonderful fallacious set of PH powerfully built arguements

1. time at work = productivity rather productivity = productivity

2. there is only one set of acceptable working hours and that's what the pHer decides it is , conveniently forgetting it is possible to work in an office and start work at 0700-0730 .....

sorry to burst your bubble, but I can tell you for a fact, whilst there are a few real workers, the vast majority I have dealt with are the worlds best clock watchers ever.

[Russ T Bolt]

sidicks said:

You're the one that is focusing on the accrual rate and ignoring the lump sum benefit (and ignoring the other schemes which are 1/60ths....)

It's patently false to claim that these vastly subsidised schemes are anything but hugely generous. And yet you keep trying to mis-represent the benefits and post misleading information about those benefits

Edited by sidicks on Saturday 6th September 13:31

But they aren't and haven't been since 2007 across the Civil Service

The pensions my friends get in the Civil Service are pitiful compared to the pension I had in the private sector.

For info final salary accruing at 1/40 ths

Edited to add, on a salary at least 3 times what a Civil Servant would earn for the same job. (In IT if that helps)

Edited by Russ T Bolt on Saturday 6th September 19:45

[powerstroke]

sugerbear said:

powerstroke said:

Breadvan72 said:

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.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Saturday 6th September 11:59

I think the public sector has got it right !! I go and do some work for the council they go home at about 4 pm and I work on like a fool until well after six most days to keep my business afloat and look after my customers ... Self employment a mugs game !!!!

Maybe they start earlier than you. Plus I am sure that there are many many private businesses that use and abuse and in some cases bribe there way into over priced contracts for public sector work.

Maybe earlier if its before about 630am they do!!, I'm just a S/E service tech and would guess there are thousands of self employed who only by working long hours make a living but hey its my choice and yes I'm sure a hell of a lot of us would be better of working for some big faceless co or public sector outfit.