40p Tax band - history
Discussion
I don't think I've ever paid the higher rate tax in the 37 years that I've been on PAYE, despite doing plenty of overtime, etc. I'm now living on an income of about £18k pa. I've got a nice house and 2 cars. I really don't understand all the bleating by people earning £40-odd k plus about losing a few quid on non-means tested benefits and higher rate tax liability. They are the lucky ones, as am I.
The people that I feel for are those who work part time or in low-paid jobs (because that's all they can get), who rely on tax credits and other means-tested top-ups to raise their kids and keep a roof over their heads. Many of these people would be better off on the dole, but they stick with it.
The people that I feel for are those who work part time or in low-paid jobs (because that's all they can get), who rely on tax credits and other means-tested top-ups to raise their kids and keep a roof over their heads. Many of these people would be better off on the dole, but they stick with it.
simoid said:
Odie said:
And again someone needs to explain to the chancellor how a percentage works... This countries tax system pisses me off.
Everyone should be on the same income tax %
Serious? Everyone should be on the same income tax %
cerbfan said:
simoid said:
Odie said:
And again someone needs to explain to the chancellor how a percentage works... This countries tax system pisses me off.
Everyone should be on the same income tax %
Serious? Everyone should be on the same income tax %
Would be interesting to see how the maths worked. 4m of the richest in the population would pay less, presumably at least a few of the remaining 26m taxpayers would have to pay more.
cerbfan said:
simoid said:
Odie said:
And again someone needs to explain to the chancellor how a percentage works... This countries tax system pisses me off.
Everyone should be on the same income tax %
Serious? Everyone should be on the same income tax %
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I'm in for that one !
At what rate? If you remove the higher and highest income tax rates and put everyone on a flat rate the only people that will impact negatively are the people that are currently on the standard rate, as the standard rate would have to go up significantly to cover the shortfall of not getting all that extra tax from the people currently paying 40% and 50%.So you would push the poorest families further into the mire while making the richer richer.
To me that doesn't sound like such a super idea.
durbster said:
Is there any reason tax can't be applied on an increasing scale? Why can't the tax equate to, say, 0.5% for every £1k of your taxable income?
Having massive steps of tax seems to be a very blunt solution and is unfair to people around that level of income.
Does it just make it too complicated for accountants, because there's a great invention called the spreadsheet which can do the hard sums
dear godHaving massive steps of tax seems to be a very blunt solution and is unfair to people around that level of income.
Does it just make it too complicated for accountants, because there's a great invention called the spreadsheet which can do the hard sums
are you allowed to vote?
furtive said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I'm in for that one !
At what rate? If you remove the higher and highest income tax rates and put everyone on a flat rate the only people that will impact negatively are the people that are currently on the standard rate, as the standard rate would have to go up significantly to cover the shortfall of not getting all that extra tax from the people currently paying 40% and 50%.So you would push the poorest families further into the mire while making the richer richer.
To me that doesn't sound like such a super idea.
cerbfan said:
simoid said:
Odie said:
And again someone needs to explain to the chancellor how a percentage works... This countries tax system pisses me off.
Everyone should be on the same income tax %
Serious? Everyone should be on the same income tax %
Allow me...
You earn £0 and you get a £15,000 pay rise - what is that 15,000 worth to you and what effect does it have on your life?
You earn £20,000,000 and you get a £15,000 pay rise - that's a rounding error.
Or to be a little more sensible, what makes more difference to your life, the first 40k of salary or the second? The fact that they're both £40k has nothing to do with their actual *value*.
Whilst the threshold for 40% tax is not increasing as fast, don't forget the personal allowance - the point at which you start paying tax on income - is rising.
If they move together, then the impact is minimised.
A progressive tax system - is one where you pay a higher burden of tax the more you earn (what we're supposed to have)
A regressive tax system - is one where you pay less of a proportion of tax the more you earn (what we actually have at the top end, give the effectiveness of "tax planning")
A flat rate (proportionate) on all income "sounds" nice, and would save a shed load of HMRC work, but the personal allowance and rate would need to be careful thought out. The theory of tax is that if you get the rate "right", you minimise losses of people avoiding / evading.
What I hate is these stupid case studies on TV news, wheeling out some sorry looking Mum saying how difficult everything is. One Mum quit her job to look after her kids, and now her husband lost his job too.
At which point the interviewer should have pointed out the simple answer was for her going back to work again, letting her husband do the childcare. But no, we had to listen to her dribble about why her benefits weren't high enough.
boo-hoo
not
If they move together, then the impact is minimised.
A progressive tax system - is one where you pay a higher burden of tax the more you earn (what we're supposed to have)
A regressive tax system - is one where you pay less of a proportion of tax the more you earn (what we actually have at the top end, give the effectiveness of "tax planning")
A flat rate (proportionate) on all income "sounds" nice, and would save a shed load of HMRC work, but the personal allowance and rate would need to be careful thought out. The theory of tax is that if you get the rate "right", you minimise losses of people avoiding / evading.
What I hate is these stupid case studies on TV news, wheeling out some sorry looking Mum saying how difficult everything is. One Mum quit her job to look after her kids, and now her husband lost his job too.
At which point the interviewer should have pointed out the simple answer was for her going back to work again, letting her husband do the childcare. But no, we had to listen to her dribble about why her benefits weren't high enough.
boo-hoo
not
Ian Geary said:
A flat rate (proportionate) on all income "sounds" nice, and would save a shed load of HMRC work, but the personal allowance and rate would need to be careful thought out. The theory of tax is that if you get the rate "right", you minimise losses of people avoiding / evading.
The Adam Smith Institute calculated that a 30% flat tax would bring in enough tax receipts to cover the budget, including paying off the deficit, this also included a £15k allowance.NorthernBoy said:
You seem to be assuming that it works like stamp duty, with the total jumping when you hit the next barrier, but it's not like that. It's only the portion above the threshold that is taxed at the higher rate.
Yeah I understand that but why have fixed steps and not a gradual increase, so every additional £xk earned moves into a slightly higher tax bracket. Basically my question is: why don't we have more tax brackets with less difference between them?
cerbfan said:
But just going into the 40% tax bracket is not a massive loss is it? Just means that the few hundred quid that is above the threshold of 40% instead of the previous rate. I'd swear that a lot of people think that once you go above the threshold you pay 40% on your whole salary the way its bleated on about.
That's one of those things that doesn't get mentioned isn't it? The way it's reported, if you're a few pence into the 40% bracket you pay 40% on the lot.simoid said:
Odie said:
And again someone needs to explain to the chancellor how a percentage works... This countries tax system pisses me off.
Everyone should be on the same income tax %
Serious? Everyone should be on the same income tax %
"The danger of disproportional taxes was already apparent in that they could be voted by those who would not have to pay them and on a scale to which there was no defined limit".
Democracy and proportinate taxation work very well together - if we all paid the same proportion of our income in tax, we'd all have the same vested interest in keeping public spending down.
Johnnytheboy said:
simoid said:
Odie said:
And again someone needs to explain to the chancellor how a percentage works... This countries tax system pisses me off.
Everyone should be on the same income tax %
Serious? Everyone should be on the same income tax %
Money is worth more to people who have less of it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff