Should UK income tax be higher - discuss

[London424]

Countdown said:

London424 said:

I'm pretty sure he's turned up at Glencore Xstrata.

I seem to recall Gulf Keystone Petroleum being on his CV somewhere. Nothing like being held accountable. I heard on the news this morning that BP could be paying out up to $55 billion in compo....

Private sector efficiencies for you

At least he's been sacked and none of it has come out of my pocket though...something for small mercies.

[Rovinghawk]

mph1977 said:

Once again you attempt to conflate the state as employer / commissioner of services with the Exchequer and place blame for a political decision made by Government on workers and employers...

The government is the employer. Any additional money going into PS pensions either comes from the employer (government) or the government.

Where does the money come from? Taxation. (Or borrowing, which will eventually be repaid via taxation).

It's very simple- the current pension system is unsustainable, ie it cannot be sustained. I do not wish to increase my taxes paid in order that others can enjoy the kind of pension I can't afford for myself. Many others feel exactly the same.

[Rovinghawk]

Simond S said:

Average property cost £130k min wage for any companies in that area £9ph. Ave £250k then raise it to £14ph. This would mean that any income earning family should be able to survive comfortably without the need for state top ups.

Surely those in lesser paid jobs (typically lower skilled, lower responsibility than average) should be looking at cheaper than average properties?

[ellroy]

Simond S said:

I would like to see income at the lower end increased and related to home ownership costs.

Average property cost £130k min wage for any companies in that area £9ph. Ave £250k then raise it to £14ph. This would mean that any income earning family should be able to survive comfortably without the need for state top ups.

Companies will state that they are unable to fund this. Very simple. If any company wishes to use a chapter 11 scheme to drop salaries below the minimum wage for their area then all directors must take the new lower income as well. At this point state top ups can be applied to the company. Additionally, no dividends may be paid to stakeholders until the state top ups have been repaid by the company.

Reducing the burden for state top ups is (in my opinion) the biggest burden that we have. The largest employers in the UK pay the lowest possible income whilst stakeholders enjoy massive dividends.

I also believe that all companies working within the UK "on license" whereby they have to pay a foreign head office to trade here (Tesco, Starbucks, Costa, Google, Microsoft, Paypal, Ebay etc..) should pay a fixed fee of 2.5% of turnover to the UK. If the companies don't wan to do this then they can trade elsewhere.

The burden of national funding is placed to much on the individual when the focus should be on a fairer share from all.

Really? Wow.

House price inflation? International law and freedom of movement/employment?

Fairer to all? I can get behind that, why should I pay more tax for services I hardly use? That's not fair. A nice flat rate of tax, as we all use roughly the same costs of services would be fair I'd suggest?

No? Why not? oh yes, because taxation is not about fairness is it, it's about political envy and redistribution of wealth.

Most of us realise this and also realises that taxes are the price of a relatively civilised society. However, you're being more than naive to expect the socialist utopia you paint working in the real world.

[anonymous-user]

Simond S said:

I would like to see income at the lower end increased and related to home ownership costs.

Simplistic tripe. All that will acheive is higher house prices.

[sidicks]

fblm said:

Simplistic tripe. All that will acheive is higher house prices.

And inflation with higher prices for goods and services...

[Murph7355]

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.

You're not going far enough back to basics...

Why even spend £10 on a "Please Drive Carefully" sign?

Either stop buying them altogether and save the full amount (plus cut numbers in the sign department of every council) or teach convicts screenprinting/sign writing and do it that way (opt 1 preferred).

Same for mini roundabouts - blighting a country where many can't even use full sized ones properly.

A ton of stuff just needs to stop being bought out of taxes. Let alone just trimmed here and there.

[Countdown]

^^^^ fairly sure that the manufacture/installation of signs is outsourced but yes, in principle, I agree. There are lots of areas of council spending that I think could be cut quite easily. Meals on wheels for example.

[RYH64E]

Simond S said:

I also believe that all companies working within the UK "on license" whereby they have to pay a foreign head office to trade here (Tesco, Starbucks, Costa, Google, Microsoft, Paypal, Ebay etc..) should pay a fixed fee of 2.5% of turnover to the UK. If the companies don't want to do this then they can trade elsewhere.

Don't forget that 16.667% of gross turnover already goes to the taxman as VAT, for every £1.20 you spend at Starbucks HMRC get £0.20. Then there's business rates, employers NI, plus a host of other taxes on things like insurance, even before you begin to calculate corporation tax. If you think that 2.5% of turnover is fair then maybe they're due a refund?

[anonymous-user]

Simond S said:

The burden of national funding is placed to much on the individual when the focus should be on a fairer share from all.

Who else is there?

[markcoznottz]

Socialists can always find 'other people' to fund thier ideas. It's beyond ironic that those luvvies at the bbc actually are encouraged to go self employed to save on holidays, ni, etc, talk about do as I say.....

[AJS-]

Simond S said:

I would like to see income at the lower end increased and related to home ownership costs.

Average property cost £130k min wage for any companies in that area £9ph. Ave £250k then raise it to £14ph. This would mean that any income earning family should be able to survive comfortably without the need for state top ups.

Companies will state that they are unable to fund this. Very simple. If any company wishes to use a chapter 11 scheme to drop salaries below the minimum wage for their area then all directors must take the new lower income as well. At this point state top ups can be applied to the company. Additionally, no dividends may be paid to stakeholders until the state top ups have been repaid by the company.

Reducing the burden for state top ups is (in my opinion) the biggest burden that we have. The largest employers in the UK pay the lowest possible income whilst stakeholders enjoy massive dividends.

This total economic illiteracy is interesting and deserves an answer.

Firstly on housing - it won't create any more houses in any given area, so with more money chasing the same amount of housing, what do you think will happen?

Directors have to take a pay cut if they want to hire people at a competitive wage locally. So if you live in a depressed area, great news! Now companies are legally barred from paying the wages to hire capable and experienced people who can grow businesses.

And due to the last one on share dividends they can't even raise investment.

Fortunately you covered it all off with giving them government top ups before stressing the need to cut government top ups as well.

Are you Gordon Brown?

[Countdown]

markcoznottz said:

Socialists can always find 'other people' to fund thier ideas. It's beyond ironic that those luvvies at the bbc actually are encouraged to go self employed to save on holidays, ni, etc, talk about do as I say.....

They aren't.

For central govt There are quite strict Treasury-mandated checks on employment status for anybody being paid over £220 per day. If a Govt Dept or one of its ALBs is found not to have followed the correct procedure it is fined 5x the gross amount paid to the "Contractor"

[Hol]

AJS- said:

Simond S said:

I would like to see income at the lower end increased and related to home ownership costs.

Average property cost £130k min wage for any companies in that area £9ph. Ave £250k then raise it to £14ph. This would mean that any income earning family should be able to survive comfortably without the need for state top ups.

Companies will state that they are unable to fund this. Very simple. If any company wishes to use a chapter 11 scheme to drop salaries below the minimum wage for their area then all directors must take the new lower income as well. At this point state top ups can be applied to the company. Additionally, no dividends may be paid to stakeholders until the state top ups have been repaid by the company.

Reducing the burden for state top ups is (in my opinion) the biggest burden that we have. The largest employers in the UK pay the lowest possible income whilst stakeholders enjoy massive dividends.

This total economic illiteracy is interesting and deserves an answer.

Firstly on housing - it won't create any more houses in any given area, so with more money chasing the same amount of housing, what do you think will happen?

Directors have to take a pay cut if they want to hire people at a competitive wage locally. So if you live in a depressed area, great news! Now companies are legally barred from paying the wages to hire capable and experienced people who can grow businesses.

And due to the last one on share dividends they can't even raise investment.

Fortunately you covered it all off with giving them government top ups before stressing the need to cut government top ups as well.

Are you Gordon Brown?

There is one large service company that doesn't pay minimum wage to any of its employees. It has a huge customer base and guaranteed income from them.

Sadly, it makes a huge loss every year and needs to borrow vast sums of money from the international banks at a low rate that no other UK company could ever hope to match.

It's called HM Government.

[98elise]

Simond S said:

I would like to see income at the lower end increased and related to home ownership costs.

Average property cost £130k min wage for any companies in that area £9ph. Ave £250k then raise it to £14ph. This would mean that any income earning family should be able to survive comfortably without the need for state top ups.

Companies will state that they are unable to fund this. Very simple. If any company wishes to use a chapter 11 scheme to drop salaries below the minimum wage for their area then all directors must take the new lower income as well. At this point state top ups can be applied to the company. Additionally, no dividends may be paid to stakeholders until the state top ups have been repaid by the company.

Reducing the burden for state top ups is (in my opinion) the biggest burden that we have. The largest employers in the UK pay the lowest possible income whilst stakeholders enjoy massive dividends.

I also believe that all companies working within the UK "on license" whereby they have to pay a foreign head office to trade here (Tesco, Starbucks, Costa, Google, Microsoft, Paypal, Ebay etc..) should pay a fixed fee of 2.5% of turnover to the UK. If the companies don't wan to do this then they can trade elsewhere.

The burden of national funding is placed to much on the individual when the focus should be on a fairer share from all.

You have very little grasp of how the economy works.

The increase in money supply drives prices up, thats why prices came down when we had the recent crisis. The government recently introduced help to buy, and prices have shot up again.

Companies already pay a fixed fee on turnover, its called VAT. They then pay a corporation tax on profits. Then a tax on employing people, emplyers NI.

Over tax companies and they will trade elsewhere as you put it. This is why there are so called tax havens. All they are in reality is conuntries with lower tax regimes, which attract businesses. We want to attract business he, not make them trade elsewhere.

As an example everyones favourite whipping boy is bankers. The banking sector accounts for about 10% of our economy. Its also very portable. It would be very easy for the banking sector to simply fk of to another european country.

You mention dividends quite a lot, can you point me to the massive dividents shareholders are getting. Most companies pay no dividends, so the shareholders get zero return for their investment unless the company can grow. Those that do pay very little. 5% would be considered very high, even when bank interest rates were around that level.

[paulrockliffe]

RYH64E said:

Simond S said:

I also believe that all companies working within the UK "on license" whereby they have to pay a foreign head office to trade here (Tesco, Starbucks, Costa, Google, Microsoft, Paypal, Ebay etc..) should pay a fixed fee of 2.5% of turnover to the UK. If the companies don't want to do this then they can trade elsewhere.

Don't forget that 16.667% of gross turnover already goes to the taxman as VAT, for every £1.20 you spend at Starbucks HMRC get £0.20. Then there's business rates, employers NI, plus a host of other taxes on things like insurance, even before you begin to calculate corporation tax. If you think that 2.5% of turnover is fair then maybe they're due a refund?

And all that tax comes from the consumer anyway. Although there are arguments about the proportion of taxes companies pay when compared with each other, it's fundamental that any increase in tax paid by companies, is tax paid by the consumer public. Ie me and you.

[Hol]

98elise said:

Simond S said:

I would like to see income at the lower end increased and related to home ownership costs.

Average property cost £130k min wage for any companies in that area £9ph. Ave £250k then raise it to £14ph. This would mean that any income earning family should be able to survive comfortably without the need for state top ups.

Companies will state that they are unable to fund this. Very simple. If any company wishes to use a chapter 11 scheme to drop salaries below the minimum wage for their area then all directors must take the new lower income as well. At this point state top ups can be applied to the company. Additionally, no dividends may be paid to stakeholders until the state top ups have been repaid by the company.

Reducing the burden for state top ups is (in my opinion) the biggest burden that we have. The largest employers in the UK pay the lowest possible income whilst stakeholders enjoy massive dividends.

I also believe that all companies working within the UK "on license" whereby they have to pay a foreign head office to trade here (Tesco, Starbucks, Costa, Google, Microsoft, Paypal, Ebay etc..) should pay a fixed fee of 2.5% of turnover to the UK. If the companies don't wan to do this then they can trade elsewhere.

The burden of national funding is placed to much on the individual when the focus should be on a fairer share from all.

You have very little grasp of how the economy works.

The increase in money supply drives prices up, thats why prices came down when we had the recent crisis. The government recently introduced help to buy, and prices have shot up again.

Companies already pay a fixed fee on turnover, its called VAT. They then pay a corporation tax on profits. Then a tax on employing people, emplyers NI.

Over tax companies and they will trade elsewhere as you put it. This is why there are so called tax havens. All they are in reality is conuntries with lower tax regimes, which attract businesses. We want to attract business he, not make them trade elsewhere.

As an example everyones favourite whipping boy is bankers. The banking sector accounts for about 10% of our economy. Its also very portable. It would be very easy for the banking sector to simply fk of to another european country.

You mention dividends quite a lot, can you point me to the massive dividents shareholders are getting. Most companies pay no dividends, so the shareholders get zero return for their investment unless the company can grow. Those that do pay very little. 5% would be considered very high, even when bank interest rates were around that level.

SS,
Whilst I agree it would be 'nice' if the profits made in this one country remained in this country, it has never-ever worked that way. As a country we have historically benefitted from that money flowing into the Uk economy and cascading down as income taxes.

It is only because recent governments (last 30years worth) have forced such high corporate taxes onto some of those companies, that they move their head offices to places like Ireland - meaning that have to increase the squeeze on what is left.

We are not the only ones who have this problem and the Americans have been putting a lot of emotional (there is nothing illegal about it) to make any American company that merges with a European one move the combined head office to the US.

Low Tax regimes such are Ireland and Luxembourg are benefitting because they get huge incomes for nothing - they simply allow those companies to exist there.



When it comes to 'dividends and shareholders' what a lot of people do not realise is that we are ALL hidden shareholders in many of the large institutions.
The physical shareholders are the companies that administer all of our pension funds and every time Barclays, or BP take a hit and reduce their dividend payments - our pensions directly suffer as a result.


Also, a majority of small trademen who operate limited companies also pay themselves via dividends and so any changes to the way they are viewed, will impact them heavily.