40p Tax band - history
Discussion
pork911 said:
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 f
king 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 f
king weep.Why do people believe that giving away your money is fine if you have a fair amount of it ? ??
Everyone in society has to contribute, but it's fairer to tax lower earners relatively lower taxes because they have less spare cash.
If that person earning £10mil has outgoings of £9mil then giving away 30% is going to be a bit of a ball ache.
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.
Eric Mc said:
And yet - despite all the perceived job shedding - more people are employed/working in the UK than at any time in its history.
Well - er I think you will also find that the percentage of working age population has grown along with the highest immigration levels that the country has apparently ever experience too! In addition the figures include those in part time work (because they can't get full time work or can't AFFORD [ because of this governments crack down on various low earners various credits] to get full time work) But it's good that you have seen the "silver lining".simoid said:
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.
What's a non-essential? They will have a mortgage, could have staff to pay, what about funding charity initiatives?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.
That person on 10k might only need to pay for food and bills. No mortgage etc
ETA: Have you ever had a pay rise? After a month or so how much do you normally have in your account at the end of the month? Like most people I'm guessing similar to what you had before the pay rise.
Just because someone earns a lot of money doesn't mean they are like Scrooge McDuck.
Edited by London424 on Friday 7th December 16:19
London424 said:
simoid said:
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.
What's a non-essential? They will have a mortgage, could have staff to pay, what about funding charity initiatives?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.
That person on 10k might only need to pay for food and bills. No mortgage etc
You know damn fine what "essentials" are. Things that you will die without. The money to eat, and maintain a house, and keep it warm, etc.
What do you mean by staff?
simoid said:
London424 said:
simoid said:
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.
What's a non-essential? They will have a mortgage, could have staff to pay, what about funding charity initiatives?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.
That person on 10k might only need to pay for food and bills. No mortgage etc
You know damn fine what "essentials" are. Things that you will die without. The money to eat, and maintain a house, and keep it warm, etc.
What do you mean by staff?
Are you suggesting we should be taxing everyone down to the level of "as long as they can afford the essentials"?
At the end of the day, fiscal drag and blah-de-blah and allowances have next to no impact here. What they're using for the headline figures in the media is the effect of cutting benefits which is the real impact to these hard working families (I'd day hard working = 2 parents with jobs but obviously I'm too harsh for our cuddly modern world).
I dont have any issue with baby spawning becoming less attractive as a career with the introduction of some reform that makes them have to consider if its actually affordable.
I dont have any issue with baby spawning becoming less attractive as a career with the introduction of some reform that makes them have to consider if its actually affordable.
simoid said:
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.
But it ought not be for you nor I to decide how someone spends their earnings. You want to take <insert large %age> income tax off high earners and then tell them how they can spend the rest? Give over.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.
fbrs said:
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.fking hell, Strawman central.
I'm just saying it's unfair to tax someone on minimum wage at the same rate as someone earning many multiples of that.
I can't believe anyone disagrees with that.
Obviously there will be disagreements with the actual levels of taxation and the threshholds that are best for money raising/incentivising earnings but fundamentally - charging the lowest earners and the highest earners the same percentage is wrong because the money is worth more to the lowest earners.
king hell, Strawman central.I'm just saying it's unfair to tax someone on minimum wage at the same rate as someone earning many multiples of that.
I can't believe anyone disagrees with that.
Obviously there will be disagreements with the actual levels of taxation and the threshholds that are best for money raising/incentivising earnings but fundamentally - charging the lowest earners and the highest earners the same percentage is wrong because the money is worth more to the lowest earners.
simoid said:
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.
No, it really isn't.Everyone in society has to contribute, but it's fairer to tax lower earners relatively lower taxes because they have less spare cash.
Everyone paying the same percentage of their wages - above a certain tax free allowance - is simple and fair.
The personal allowance accounts for what people need to live on, after that we all pay the same.
What could be fairer than that?
Johnnytheboy said:
simoid said:
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.
No, it really isn't.Everyone in society has to contribute, but it's fairer to tax lower earners relatively lower taxes because they have less spare cash.
Everyone paying the same percentage of their wages - above a certain tax free allowance - is simple and fair.
The personal allowance accounts for what people need to live on, after that we all pay the same.
What could be fairer than that?
The lowest earners pay a smaller percentage than the richest.
Thanks for agreeing and restoring some sanity
Johnnytheboy said:
simoid said:
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.
No, it really isn't.Everyone in society has to contribute, but it's fairer to tax lower earners relatively lower taxes because they have less spare cash.
Everyone paying the same percentage of their wages - above a certain tax free allowance - is simple and fair.
The personal allowance accounts for what people need to live on, after that we all pay the same.
What could be fairer than that?
simoid said:
Johnnytheboy said:
simoid said:
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.
No, it really isn't.Everyone in society has to contribute, but it's fairer to tax lower earners relatively lower taxes because they have less spare cash.
Everyone paying the same percentage of their wages - above a certain tax free allowance - is simple and fair.
The personal allowance accounts for what people need to live on, after that we all pay the same.
What could be fairer than that?
The lowest earners pay a smaller percentage than the richest.
Thanks for agreeing and restoring some sanity
simoid said:
It's a tax on society's income to provide the things that society needs.
The burden is shared throughout society, hopefully so that those with broadest financial shoulders pay a bit more, relatively, without punishing them for working hard/smart/lucky.
At the moment the top 1% earners pay 30% of income taxes. That's not "a bit" more, we are each paying 30 times more than the average.The burden is shared throughout society, hopefully so that those with broadest financial shoulders pay a bit more, relatively, without punishing them for working hard/smart/lucky.
Let's not obfuscate the facts with slippery misleading language, eh?
Johnnytheboy said:
simoid said:
Johnnytheboy said:
simoid said:
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.
No, it really isn't.Everyone in society has to contribute, but it's fairer to tax lower earners relatively lower taxes because they have less spare cash.
Everyone paying the same percentage of their wages - above a certain tax free allowance - is simple and fair.
The personal allowance accounts for what people need to live on, after that we all pay the same.
What could be fairer than that?
The lowest earners pay a smaller percentage than the richest.
Thanks for agreeing and restoring some sanity
NorthernBoy said:
simoid said:
It's a tax on society's income to provide the things that society needs.
The burden is shared throughout society, hopefully so that those with broadest financial shoulders pay a bit more, relatively, without punishing them for working hard/smart/lucky.
At the moment the top 1% earners pay 30% of income taxes. That's not "a bit" more, we are each paying 30 times more than the average.The burden is shared throughout society, hopefully so that those with broadest financial shoulders pay a bit more, relatively, without punishing them for working hard/smart/lucky.
Let's not obfuscate the facts with slippery misleading language, eh?
simoid said:
OK the top earners pay a bit more than the people who earn slightly less
I pay over half of my wage on PAYE. I do so because Labour set a political trap for the Tories, not because anyone thought that it was the "right" rate. For six months of the year, I work 60 hours a week for "the public good". Maybe you think that that's fine and dandy, but surely you are able to understand that those paying these rates don't all agree with you.NorthernBoy said:
simoid said:
OK the top earners pay a bit more than the people who earn slightly less
I pay over half of my wage on PAYE. I do so because Labour set a political trap for the Tories, not because anyone thought that it was the "right" rate. For six months of the year, I work 60 hours a week for "the public good". Maybe you think that that's fine and dandy, but surely you are able to understand that those paying these rates don't all agree with you.I assume that reading and comprehension skills are not responsible for your higher than average wage
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff