Autumn Statement 2016
Discussion
Revisitph said:
Hainey said:
Higher rate tax really should be north of 60k these days. It's set at a level just now where it's trapping people that are hardly rich by any means.
Which is exactly what Chancellors want! Fiscal creep - leave the threshold where it is and more and more people get caught, whether it is income tax or IHT. The issue with raising thresholds (especially at the lower end) is that a very large number of people benefit a little, but the overall cost is enormous. Currently it isn't the 40% threshold which really really pinches people earning more (though by taxing a lot of people at that rate you gain a lot of tax), the ultra-hard pinches are the effective 62% (inc N.I.) between 100 and ?122k as earners in that bracket lose their nil rate allowance by £1 for every £2 earned over the 100 threshold. At the top of that they are not earning any untaxed income, have a respite at 42% and then hit 47%, at which point the new tapered pension tax relief kicks in to make their effective rate ~ 70%, though the very few who earn over 210k drop back to 45% again.
Certainly there's not much sympathy for the 100k earners or even the 150k, and they are too few to have a political effect but there are enough of them to yield a useful tax take up to a point, until they are squeezed so hard that they either take steps to 1) reduce their income - especially if they are reaching the annual or lifetime pension allowances as well, or 2) decide to go elsewhere. I know of several GPs who, faced with effective tax rates of ~70% and a battering from politicians have decided to either cut their hours so that they are not working for 8 hours and being paid for 2 or stopping altogether.
Really though you cannot up the tax take on he £100-122k ditto for the removing of the pension taper relief. Then going above £210k there are so few people who do earn that level the actual tax take is pretty small.
So what do you do?
Drop the starting point of he 40% tax rate. Actually you could up the 0% to say 18k but conversely drop the starting point of the 40% so that net net HMRC get the same revenue.
But that means the 100-122k territory get f
ked ditto the over 150k
So what do you do?
Drop the starting point of he 40% tax rate. Actually you could up the 0% to say 18k but conversely drop the starting point of the 40% so that net net HMRC get the same revenue.
But that means the 100-122k territory get f
ked ditto the over 150kWelshbeef said:
Really though you cannot up the tax take on he £100-122k ditto for the removing of the pension taper relief. Then going above £210k there are so few people who do earn that level the actual tax take is pretty small.
So what do you do?
Drop the starting point of he 40% tax rate. Actually you could up the 0% to say 18k but conversely drop the starting point of the 40% so that net net HMRC get the same revenue.
But that means the 100-122k territory get fked ditto the over 150k
There is another way though and you aren't addressing that. We don't need to be spending the money we are spending in this country, not by a long shot.So what do you do?
Drop the starting point of he 40% tax rate. Actually you could up the 0% to say 18k but conversely drop the starting point of the 40% so that net net HMRC get the same revenue.
But that means the 100-122k territory get f
ked ditto the over 150kHainey said:
Welshbeef said:
Really though you cannot up the tax take on he £100-122k ditto for the removing of the pension taper relief. Then going above £210k there are so few people who do earn that level the actual tax take is pretty small.
So what do you do?
Drop the starting point of he 40% tax rate. Actually you could up the 0% to say 18k but conversely drop the starting point of the 40% so that net net HMRC get the same revenue.
But that means the 100-122k territory get fked ditto the over 150k
There is another way though and you aren't addressing that. We don't need to be spending the money we are spending in this country, not by a long shot.So what do you do?
Drop the starting point of he 40% tax rate. Actually you could up the 0% to say 18k but conversely drop the starting point of the 40% so that net net HMRC get the same revenue.
But that means the 100-122k territory get f
ked ditto the over 150kIt takes YEARS.
Welshbeef said:
Hainey said:
Welshbeef said:
Really though you cannot up the tax take on he £100-122k ditto for the removing of the pension taper relief. Then going above £210k there are so few people who do earn that level the actual tax take is pretty small.
So what do you do?
Drop the starting point of he 40% tax rate. Actually you could up the 0% to say 18k but conversely drop the starting point of the 40% so that net net HMRC get the same revenue.
But that means the 100-122k territory get fked ditto the over 150k
There is another way though and you aren't addressing that. We don't need to be spending the money we are spending in this country, not by a long shot.So what do you do?
Drop the starting point of he 40% tax rate. Actually you could up the 0% to say 18k but conversely drop the starting point of the 40% so that net net HMRC get the same revenue.
But that means the 100-122k territory get f
ked ditto the over 150kIt takes YEARS.
Hainey said:
Yes dear chap I am aware. However, seeing as you eat an elephant a bite at a time, shall we start?
But my point is just where do you start? Someone is going to lose out big time - which category of tax payer is that ?im guessing it isn't the poorest as they don't have the capacity to take the hit so it's the higher earner again.
PurpleMoonlight said:
I would like to see the Dividend tax abandoned.
I think it is hugely detrimental to the growth of the economy and employment creation.
I'm still surprised that didn't get more attention.I think it is hugely detrimental to the growth of the economy and employment creation.
The £100k threshold wants smoothing, there must be a significant number of people restricting their income at that point.
768 said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
I would like to see the Dividend tax abandoned.
I think it is hugely detrimental to the growth of the economy and employment creation.
I'm still surprised that didn't get more attention.I think it is hugely detrimental to the growth of the economy and employment creation.
The £100k threshold wants smoothing, there must be a significant number of people restricting their income at that point.
If you decide to wind it back then when do you remove the income tax free allowance? What income point?
Personally I believe it should be the same level for all and instead simply have a higher % income tax instead
What about child benefit. Why is it fair that 2x30k get full child benefit yet 1x60 gets zero - in fact the 2x30k pay less tax and have higher net salary so double whammmy
Welshbeef said:
But your giving a tax break to wealthy people to change it.
If it increases the tax take, who cares? (I know Labour will, but again, who cares?!)Welshbeef said:
If you decide to wind it back then when do you remove the income tax free allowance? What income point?
Personally I believe it should be the same level for all and instead simply have a higher % income tax instead
Various ways you could do it, but yes, that works.Personally I believe it should be the same level for all and instead simply have a higher % income tax instead
Welshbeef said:
What about child benefit. Why is it fair that 2x30k get full child benefit yet 1x60 gets zero - in fact the 2x30k pay less tax and have higher net salary so double whammmy
Agreed. I doubt we'd get it whatever happens though. My wife claims child benefit and then it invariably gets paid back out of my tax. 
KingNothing said:
Gonna need to look up the changes to salary sacrifice, need to make my choices for next year by next month, was looking to try and reduce my tax and NI liability by paying for some extra's, or pushing more into my pension.
He said pension contribution salary sacrifice will remain.Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff