40p Tax band - history

[pork911]

for simplicity sake better to have no personal allowance at all - never understood why there is one other than smoke and mirrors

a flat rate is imo far better than progressive rates - but even then the rich pay more £ so is imo unfair

perhaps we should work out a level at which any individual is considered to have paid their due and earnings over and above that be tax free

then more work could be done on streamlining the state

while there are many accidents that contribute to someone's wealth or poverty the individual usually plays some part and I don't share the view that the rich are rich because the poor are poor or they somehow stole from / owe the poor ....or owe the state anymore than someone poorer


(and of course rich and poor are merely relative)

Edited by pork911 on Friday 7th December 14:19

[TankRizzo]

simoid said:

Do you agree that removing 30% of £10k annual earnings is a greater burden than removing 30% of £10m annual earnings?

Without knowing the lifestyles of the people involved, it is impossible to say.

[anonymous-user]

i used to agree with the ridiculously named 'progressive' taxation on the basis that income is a reasonable proxy for wealth and it is the wealthy who have the most to lose when society breaks down. the more one earns over the cost of living the higher opportunity you have to accumulate assets which the mob would otherwise steal or burn. looked at like that the jump up to the higher rate makes sense, infact the threshold is quite generously above the 'asset accumulation' level. sadly the uk government has taken upon its self responsibilities and liabilities which have nothing to do with providing the infrastructure for civilised society to flourish which i do not think i have any moral duty to pay for. soaking the 'rich' is all well and good when it's actually for everyones benefit, it's not when its for politicians vanity and self agrandisement

[scenario8]

pork911 said:

a flat rate is imo far better than progressive rates - but even then the rich pay more £ so is imo unfair

If your definition of fairness, therefore, is each paying the same sum then I'm sure you know already that a sizeable majority would see their tax bill far exceed their income. (Almost all pensioners for starters!).

Fine, but I imagine we'd need a state sector smaller than that of Somalia for the sums to add up and I think we'd then enter a whole World of doom.

spelling again

Edited by scenario8 on Friday 7th December 14:32

[scenario8]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I can see the merit of the argument in raising the income tax free threshold uplwards across the board, my point, as above, is to question why this would be beneficial because of its effect on pensioners. My view is that it would be a good thing because it would lower the tax burden on low income households (a group that might well include an awful lot of pensioners). I'd contend an individual earning, say £18k pa is in greater need o (or would receive greater utility from) a tax break/state subsidy (call it what you will) on that final £1k of earnings than a pensioner in the position of receiving an income from his/her pension of £18k pa.

[simoid]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

simoid said:

Do you agree that removing 30% of £10k annual earnings is a greater burden than removing 30% of £10m annual earnings?

all this talk of burden makes my teeth itch.
It is not about 'burden' - You earn money and have to give it away. Yes. Give your money away.
I am not PH double director, but it makes me fking weep to see how much I have to give away every year.

If I earned double, and had to give away the appropriate Taxation, I would still fking weep.

Why do people believe that giving away your money is fine if you have a fair amount of it ? ??

What is with all the hyperbole? Who said that "giving money away is fine"?

Everyone in society has to contribute, but it's fairer to tax lower earners relatively lower taxes because they have less spare cash.

[pork911]

scenario8 said:

pork911 said:

a flat rate is imo far better than progressive rates - but even then the rich pay more £ so is imo unfair

scenario8 said:

If your definition of fairness, therefore, is each paying the same sum then I'm sure you know already that a sizeable majority would see their tax bill far exceed their income. (Almost all pensioners for starters!).

as long as the % is less than 100 how is that posssible?

scenario8 said:

Fine, but I imagine we'd need a state sector smaller than that of Somalia for the sums to add up and I think we'd then end a whole World of doom.

now we're getting there, though I disagree that would be the consequence

if i'm finding it hard to pay my bills I don't just look at increasing my income

[anonymous-user]

pork911 said:

for simplicity sake better to have no personal allowance at all - never understood why there is one other than smoke and mirrors

i'm not sure how dragging millions of people who earn under 10 grand back in to the tax system can be seen as simple. i'll bet the cost of administering it would be more than what you raised. in any event i doubt many would be capable of filling correctly and on time. blood from a stone. if anything the personal allowance should be raised still further

[London424]

simoid said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

simoid said:

Do you agree that removing 30% of £10k annual earnings is a greater burden than removing 30% of £10m annual earnings?

all this talk of burden makes my teeth itch.
It is not about 'burden' - You earn money and have to give it away. Yes. Give your money away.
I am not PH double director, but it makes me fking weep to see how much I have to give away every year.

If I earned double, and had to give away the appropriate Taxation, I would still fking weep.

Why do people believe that giving away your money is fine if you have a fair amount of it ? ??

What is with all the hyperbole? Who said that "giving money away is fine"?

Everyone in society has to contribute, but it's fairer to tax lower earners relatively lower taxes because they have less spare cash.

How do you know that though?

If that person earning £10mil has outgoings of £9mil then giving away 30% is going to be a bit of a ball ache.

[simoid]

fbrs said:

pork911 said:

for simplicity sake better to have no personal allowance at all - never understood why there is one other than smoke and mirrors

i'm not sure how dragging millions of people who earn under 10 grand back in to the tax system can be seen as simple. i'll bet the cost of administering it would be more than what you raised. in any event i doubt many would be capable of filling correctly and on time. blood from a stone. if anything the personal allowance should be raised still further

There's this thing called PAYE too...

Incidentally, when slagging off the administrative ability of others, it may help your case to use capital letters and punctuation.

[pork911]

fbrs said:

pork911 said:

for simplicity sake better to have no personal allowance at all - never understood why there is one other than smoke and mirrors

i'm not sure how dragging millions of people who earn under 10 grand back in to the tax system can be seen as simple. i'll bet the cost of administering it would be more than what you raised. in any event i doubt many would be capable of filling correctly and on time. blood from a stone. if anything the personal allowance should be raised still further

disagree the cost would exceed - and any what a job creator!

regardless, is there no similar admin involved in the payment of tax credits???

[pork911]

London424 said:

simoid said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

simoid said:

Do you agree that removing 30% of £10k annual earnings is a greater burden than removing 30% of £10m annual earnings?

all this talk of burden makes my teeth itch.
It is not about 'burden' - You earn money and have to give it away. Yes. Give your money away.
I am not PH double director, but it makes me fking weep to see how much I have to give away every year.

If I earned double, and had to give away the appropriate Taxation, I would still fking weep.

Why do people believe that giving away your money is fine if you have a fair amount of it ? ??

What is with all the hyperbole? Who said that "giving money away is fine"?

Everyone in society has to contribute, but it's fairer to tax lower earners relatively lower taxes because they have less spare cash.

How do you know that though?

If that person earning £10mil has outgoings of £9mil then giving away 30% is going to be a bit of a ball ache.

like a parkinsons law for money - imagine it may have its own name tho

[simoid]

London424 said:

simoid said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

simoid said:

Do you agree that removing 30% of £10k annual earnings is a greater burden than removing 30% of £10m annual earnings?

all this talk of burden makes my teeth itch.
It is not about 'burden' - You earn money and have to give it away. Yes. Give your money away.
I am not PH double director, but it makes me fking weep to see how much I have to give away every year.

If I earned double, and had to give away the appropriate Taxation, I would still fking weep.

Why do people believe that giving away your money is fine if you have a fair amount of it ? ??

What is with all the hyperbole? Who said that "giving money away is fine"?

Everyone in society has to contribute, but it's fairer to tax lower earners relatively lower taxes because they have less spare cash.

How do you know that though?

If that person earning £10mil has outgoings of £9mil then giving away 30% is going to be a bit of a ball ache.

Do you think the outgoings of £9mil are on housing, food and clothing costs? The essentials?

Or could they perhaps cut their outgoings on non-essentials more easily than someone on £10k paying, £3k tax, leaving £130 to be spent before rent/food/getting to work.

[Mark Benson]

fbrs said:

pork911 said:

for simplicity sake better to have no personal allowance at all - never understood why there is one other than smoke and mirrors

i'm not sure how dragging millions of people who earn under 10 grand back in to the tax system can be seen as simple. i'll bet the cost of administering it would be more than what you raised. in any event i doubt many would be capable of filling correctly and on time. blood from a stone. if anything the personal allowance should be raised still further

To my mind, the personal allowance should be at least as much as 40 hours @ minimum wage, if not slightly higher to account for overtime etc.
It may encourage people to go out and earn, instead of remaining on benefits when they don't need to, and end this ridiculous situation where someone would need an above averagely paid job to replace the benefits they receive. It can't all be about the stick, sometimes you have to offer a carrot to people as well.

[pork911]

Mark Benson said:

fbrs said:

pork911 said:

for simplicity sake better to have no personal allowance at all - never understood why there is one other than smoke and mirrors

i'm not sure how dragging millions of people who earn under 10 grand back in to the tax system can be seen as simple. i'll bet the cost of administering it would be more than what you raised. in any event i doubt many would be capable of filling correctly and on time. blood from a stone. if anything the personal allowance should be raised still further

To my mind, the personal allowance should be at least as much as 40 hours @ minimum wage, if not slightly higher to account for overtime etc.
It may encourage people to go out and earn, instead of remaining on benefits when they don't need to, and end this ridiculous situation where someone would need an above averagely paid job to replace the benefits they receive. It can't all be about the stick, sometimes you have to offer a carrot to people as well.

then cut benefits? a job is no longer a stick then

[pork911]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

simoid said:

London424 said:

simoid said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

simoid said:

Do you agree that removing 30% of £10k annual earnings is a greater burden than removing 30% of £10m annual earnings?

all this talk of burden makes my teeth itch.
It is not about 'burden' - You earn money and have to give it away. Yes. Give your money away.
I am not PH double director, but it makes me fking weep to see how much I have to give away every year.

If I earned double, and had to give away the appropriate Taxation, I would still fking weep.

Why do people believe that giving away your money is fine if you have a fair amount of it ? ??

What is with all the hyperbole? Who said that "giving money away is fine"?

Everyone in society has to contribute, but it's fairer to tax lower earners relatively lower taxes because they have less spare cash.

How do you know that though?

If that person earning £10mil has outgoings of £9mil then giving away 30% is going to be a bit of a ball ache.

Do you think the outgoings of £9mil are on housing, food and clothing costs? The essentials?

Or could they perhaps cut their outgoings on non-essentials more easily than someone on £10k paying, £3k tax, leaving £130 to be spent before rent/food/getting to work.

One mans essentials is anothers luxury.

and vice versa

[anonymous-user]

simoid said:

There's this thing called PAYE too...

huh? thats exactly the point. you remove the personal allowance and these poor folks are going to have to file a self assessment to pay tax on their 20 quid of interest and any other tiny incomes. waste of time all round.

[scenario8]

pork911 said:

as long as the % is less than 100 how is that posssible?

I thought you were arguing that if a rich man paid any more £s in taxation that was in itself unfair. I thought you were highlighting the difference between a nominal sum and a flat rate? I extended that logic then that if we all had the same nominal sum to pay in taxation that sum would likely be a sum much greater than most peoples' incomes (at current tax take) in which case we would need to lower that nominal sum dramatically in order fo rit to be anywhere near affordable. The consequence would be that overall income tax take would be massively lower and we'd then need a much much smaller state sector to balance the books.

Gordon Brown style PSBR cluster£uck notwithstanding.

[anonymous-user]

Mark Benson said:

To my mind, the personal allowance should be at least as much as 40 hours @ minimum wage, if not slightly higher to account for overtime etc.
It may encourage people to go out and earn, instead of remaining on benefits when they don't need to, and end this ridiculous situation where someone would need an above averagely paid job to replace the benefits they receive. It can't all be about the stick, sometimes you have to offer a carrot to people as well.

completely agree. the benefit trap, whereby working leaves you out of pocket compared to sitting on your ar5e is utterly retarded and imo brown/blairs worst legacy.

[pork911]

scenario8 said:

pork911 said:

as long as the % is less than 100 how is that posssible?

I thought you were arguing that if a rich man paid any more £s in taxation that was in itself unfair. I thought you were highlighting the difference between a nominal sum and a flat rate? I extended that logic then that if we all had the same nominal sum to pay in taxation that sum would likely be a sum much greater than most peoples' incomes (at current tax take) in which case we would need to lower that nominal sum dramatically in order fo rit to be anywhere near affordable. The consequence would be that overall income tax take would be massively lower and we'd then need a much much smaller state sector to balance the books.

Gordon Brown style PSBR cluster£uck notwithstanding.

yep, smaller state pls (tho you'll be aware income isn't the only thing taxed )