40p Tax band - history
Discussion
simoid said:
At no point have I said that I think a 50 per cent is fair, just that higher earners should pay a higher percentage of tax than the lowest earners.
I assume that reading and comprehension skills are not responsible for your higher than average wage
You assume incorrectly.I assume that reading and comprehension skills are not responsible for your higher than average wage
Are yours responsible for your (assumed, admittedly) lowly one?
NorthernBoy said:
simoid said:
At no point have I said that I think a 50 per cent is fair, just that higher earners should pay a higher percentage of tax than the lowest earners.
I assume that reading and comprehension skills are not responsible for your higher than average wage
You assume incorrectly.I assume that reading and comprehension skills are not responsible for your higher than average wage
Are yours responsible for your (assumed, admittedly) lowly one?
No, I've got more problems than that.
Perhaps you'd make a bit more cash, or not need to work as many hours, if you didn't imagine reading things
simoid said:
No, I've got more problems than that.
Perhaps you'd make a bit more cash, or not need to work as many hours, if you didn't imagine reading things
And I find it funny that someone like you would imagine that they can dispense career advice.
Spend less time advising others, more on putting in some effort, and you too could have the pleasure of not having to be subsidised by the likes of me.
NorthernBoy said:
simoid said:
No, I've got more problems than that.
Perhaps you'd make a bit more cash, or not need to work as many hours, if you didn't imagine reading things
And I find it funny that someone like you would imagine that they can dispense career advice.
Spend less time advising others, more on putting in some effort, and you too could have the pleasure of not having to be subsidised by the likes of me.
- I think a 50 per cent tax rate is acceptable, and,
- you earn more money than me?
I congratulate your creative mind.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
eccles said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Flat Screen TV, Iphone and UGGS ?
Why do you mention a 'Flat' screen TV? They have not been a luxury item for many years, and you can't buy any other type.
king TV. Better?The point made, and emphasised by the expesive items of the Iphone and Uggs etc, I believe they are Luxury Items if you have no money.
I also believe they are common place in those claiming the taxation system is unfair on the poor.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
eccles said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
eccles said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Flat Screen TV, Iphone and UGGS ?
Why do you mention a 'Flat' screen TV? They have not been a luxury item for many years, and you can't buy any other type.king TV. Better?The point made, and emphasised by the expesive items of the Iphone and Uggs etc, I believe they are Luxury Items if you have no money.
I also believe they are common place in those claiming the taxation system is unfair on the poor.
I see it.
I am unfortunately usually at work in Middlesbrough.
The North East, Middlesbrough is often proclaimed as the poorest and most out of work areas in the country.
Take the arse of Middlesbrough : Grangetown, Dormanstown, Brambles Farm etc
I say what I see.
I can see why you're outraged though, just imagine , unemployed people walking round with shoes on, using a mobile phone, and going home to a house you're paying for to watch a Flat screen telly! The cheek of it!
alfaman said:
One related issue the UK is now facing is that savings rates as a % of earnings have massively increased as people are frightened of spending money ... this in turn hampers the recovery.
Surely people are paying down their debts after the biggest credit bubble in history?Edited by Derek Chevalier on Saturday 8th December 11:42
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
eccles said:
I can see why you're outraged though, just imagine , unemployed people walking round with shoes on, using a mobile phone, and going home to a house you're paying for to watch a Flat screen telly! The cheek of it!
Nicely twisted.The point you are making is not in any way aligned with my earlier posts.
I am not outraged at all - was simply referring to earlier comments on the spare cash of the 'rich' and 'poor' to pay their taxes. The basis of one mans luxury and the others necessity.
EG a roof and four walls, food, heating.
Ugg boots and iPhones are in no way essential for survival
The necesseties I referred to are those which, when removed, result in death, so you can't avoid paying for.
An interesting study.
article said:
The UK’s biggest earners pay 30% of all income tax but only take home 10% of all earnings, according to the latest research.
The figures show a huge turnaround in the tax burden. Looking at who paid what over the past 34 years, the wealthiest earners have shouldered an increasing amount of tax. In that time, the tax man has almost tripled the money they pay into Treasury coffers.
In 1989, those earning the most paid 11% of income tax when the highest rate was 83%. Now it’s 30% paying the most, while the top tax rate has dropped to 45%.
Secret strategy
The research, by accountancy firm BDO UK, was in response to Deputy Prime minister Nick Clegg calling for the amount paid before tax to rise to £10,500 to take more low paid workers out of the tax net.
However, the government cannot afford to lose income tax while juggling an austerity budget, so has to claw the money back from other taxpayers.
While Tories do not want to increase the top rate of income tax, the only way the Chancellor can balance his books without more borrowing is to reduce the threshold at which higher paid workers pay 40% tax.
While increasing the income tax allowance in successive budgets to £8,105 this year and promising to keep pushing the ceiling up to £10,000, Chancellor George Osborne has also quietly pulled down the threshold where earners pay 40% tax.
Before 2011, the threshold was just over £43,000. This tax year, the figure is £32,010, bringing thousands more into the government’s secret strategy to soak the highest earners.
Votes and taxes
Osborne has repeatedly protested those who earn more should pay more tax, but when ordinary taxpayers think of high earners, they are not looking in the mirror but at those taking home the big bucks – like City bankers.
Even Labour, who tirelessly campaign for higher top rate taxes, have said nothing about Middle Britain who are squeezed with paying more taxes on lower wages.
Jim O’Neill, the ex-chief economist of investment bank Goldman Sachs, told the media: “It’s fair play to ask those earning more to contribute more tax and few would complain about that.
“However, the politicians who rely on the same people for votes that they are squeezing for more tax to pay for the country’s public services are not going to support them forever if they do not get something back.”
http://www.iexpats.com/britains-big-earners-squeezed-pay-tax/The figures show a huge turnaround in the tax burden. Looking at who paid what over the past 34 years, the wealthiest earners have shouldered an increasing amount of tax. In that time, the tax man has almost tripled the money they pay into Treasury coffers.
In 1989, those earning the most paid 11% of income tax when the highest rate was 83%. Now it’s 30% paying the most, while the top tax rate has dropped to 45%.
Secret strategy
The research, by accountancy firm BDO UK, was in response to Deputy Prime minister Nick Clegg calling for the amount paid before tax to rise to £10,500 to take more low paid workers out of the tax net.
However, the government cannot afford to lose income tax while juggling an austerity budget, so has to claw the money back from other taxpayers.
While Tories do not want to increase the top rate of income tax, the only way the Chancellor can balance his books without more borrowing is to reduce the threshold at which higher paid workers pay 40% tax.
While increasing the income tax allowance in successive budgets to £8,105 this year and promising to keep pushing the ceiling up to £10,000, Chancellor George Osborne has also quietly pulled down the threshold where earners pay 40% tax.
Before 2011, the threshold was just over £43,000. This tax year, the figure is £32,010, bringing thousands more into the government’s secret strategy to soak the highest earners.
Votes and taxes
Osborne has repeatedly protested those who earn more should pay more tax, but when ordinary taxpayers think of high earners, they are not looking in the mirror but at those taking home the big bucks – like City bankers.
Even Labour, who tirelessly campaign for higher top rate taxes, have said nothing about Middle Britain who are squeezed with paying more taxes on lower wages.
Jim O’Neill, the ex-chief economist of investment bank Goldman Sachs, told the media: “It’s fair play to ask those earning more to contribute more tax and few would complain about that.
“However, the politicians who rely on the same people for votes that they are squeezing for more tax to pay for the country’s public services are not going to support them forever if they do not get something back.”
jonah35 said:
Income tax should be a flat 35% on every bit of earnings. The rich would still pay more. They should merge tax and ni.
Your first £10k should be tax free.
How simple!
Quite.Your first £10k should be tax free.
How simple!
The whole point of a flat % is that the more you earn the more you pay... an increasing % means you pay exponentially more. Bit unfair.
As for the fiscal-drag, the problem is "the rich" now means anyone earning >£40k or whatever it is.. which is frankly b
ks.did some man-maths here based on 4 weekly pay.
£7p/h x 50hrs a week, x4, x13 giving me a yearly tax free of 18200, anything over that, tax 35%. done. you CAN live on 18k tax free, quite comfortably. the £7ph minimum wage might hurt some businesses, however a reduction in taxes on them would help.
where is the problem with this?
£7p/h x 50hrs a week, x4, x13 giving me a yearly tax free of 18200, anything over that, tax 35%. done. you CAN live on 18k tax free, quite comfortably. the £7ph minimum wage might hurt some businesses, however a reduction in taxes on them would help.
where is the problem with this?
Sonic said:
jonah35 said:
Income tax should be a flat 35% on every bit of earnings. The rich would still pay more. They should merge tax and ni.
Your first £10k should be tax free.
How simple!
Quite.Your first £10k should be tax free.
How simple!
The whole point of a flat % is that the more you earn the more you pay... an increasing % means you pay exponentially more. Bit unfair.
As for the fiscal-drag, the problem is "the rich" now means anyone earning >£40k or whatever it is.. which is frankly b
ks.The difference between 120k and 90k is a grand a month net so you earn 30k more and lose 60% of it.
The tax % rate should go down the more you earn not up.
Edited by Wills2 on Wednesday 4th December 15:11
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff