Income tax bands, should there be more than 3?
Discussion
alorotom said:
Personally I don’t think there should be more than 1 band. Everyone has the opportunity to excel and/or progress, vast numbers choose not to for a plethora of reasons (which is fine and their prerogative) - penalising those that do I’ve never been in agreement with.
Jesus Christ. Flat tax would be fairest, but it's an easy gift to the rabble rousers. Even an continuously rising rate could be spun.
It's like the public sector "paying" income tax. Of course they don't really, but if the pay slips show it net the unions will get the donkey jackets out and re-form the flying pickets.
Educating the masses so they understand these things is not going to happen, either. The rich don't want the masses understanding money. They'd be lynched.
It's like the public sector "paying" income tax. Of course they don't really, but if the pay slips show it net the unions will get the donkey jackets out and re-form the flying pickets.
Educating the masses so they understand these things is not going to happen, either. The rich don't want the masses understanding money. They'd be lynched.
baptistsan said:
So if we were going to a single % what would it need to be set at?
Would you raise the tax free amount?
You can find all sorts of proposals, e.g.Would you raise the tax free amount?
https://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn72.pdf
I would set the tax free amount to be say £20k and work out the rate from there.
baptistsan said:
Thoughts?
That 40% band has quite the range.
Would it not be better and possibly fairer to have more than 3 bands?
My thinking may of course be completely skewed
And where does the arbitrary amount of £37500 even come from? Hardly a nice round number!
The £37500 number goes nicely with £12500 tax free allowance to give the politically accepted £50k earning before you hit the high rate tax threshold.That 40% band has quite the range.
Would it not be better and possibly fairer to have more than 3 bands?
My thinking may of course be completely skewed
And where does the arbitrary amount of £37500 even come from? Hardly a nice round number!
i remember reading an article some time ago advocating a flat % rate applied to Income Tax, VAT and National Insurance. I think it was 15% for all, and the economics suggested it would increase overall tax take and be fairer to society.
I’ve probably got that all wrong, but it was interesting at the time.
I’ve probably got that all wrong, but it was interesting at the time.
grumbledoak said:
Flat tax would be fairest, but it's an easy gift to the rabble rousers. Even an continuously rising rate could be spun.
It's like the public sector "paying" income tax. Of course they don't really, but if the pay slips show it net the unions will get the donkey jackets out and re-form the flying pickets.
Educating the masses so they understand these things is not going to happen, either. The rich don't want the masses understanding money. They'd be lynched.
No tax would be fairest. Everybody decide exactly what they want to have and pay for it directly.It's like the public sector "paying" income tax. Of course they don't really, but if the pay slips show it net the unions will get the donkey jackets out and re-form the flying pickets.
Educating the masses so they understand these things is not going to happen, either. The rich don't want the masses understanding money. They'd be lynched.
Is it "fair" to be forced to pay for an education system that you don't want, a health service you never use, or a Police force that penalises YOU but doesn't catch the real criminals?
Silenoz said:
I'd set income tax at zero. Put tax on consumption so via VAT / sales tax so no avoiding it if you want the product or service. Much fairer.
No government wants to merge taxes. If people actually worked out how much their NI (employer and employee), VAT, council tax, insurance premium tax, fuel duty, airport passenger duty, income tax, corporation tax (yes, it's YOU paying that in your product prices, not the "evil corporation") and then in London cases death taxes worked out at there would be riots.Have you looked at the ludicrous Scottish bands.
19%,20%,21%,41% & 46%
SNP created a band of £2k at 19%
So they can bang a drum about people paying less (maximum of about £20/yr less)
They then introduce a 21% band after some at 20% so that £20 is clawed back from anyone earning above average wage of £26k
We also didn’t benefit when higher rate threshold moved to £50k.
19%,20%,21%,41% & 46%
SNP created a band of £2k at 19%
So they can bang a drum about people paying less (maximum of about £20/yr less)
They then introduce a 21% band after some at 20% so that £20 is clawed back from anyone earning above average wage of £26k
We also didn’t benefit when higher rate threshold moved to £50k.
Countdown said:
No tax would be fairest. Everybody decide exactly what they want to have and pay for it directly.
Is it "fair" to be forced to pay for an education system that you don't want, a health service you never use, or a Police force that penalises YOU but doesn't catch the real criminals?
A 'pay-as-you-go' life? Absolutely not.Is it "fair" to be forced to pay for an education system that you don't want, a health service you never use, or a Police force that penalises YOU but doesn't catch the real criminals?
Take regulations. Nobody would 'choose' to be regulated but when you scrutinise them, you find that on the whole, they exist for our benefit and protection. But if nobody is paying for them to be created, monitored and enforced you have an unregulated society. There's plenty of nations that lack proper regulatory control and they really aren't the sort of places you'd want to live.
What happens if you need major surgery and lengthy after-care that's going to cost the thick end of £0.5million? You could take out insurance to cover such an eventuality but is that not a tax by a different name?
And without tax revenue, you have no government. So you have an unregulated, ungoverned country. How do you think that would go?
Peter Griffin explains it quite well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_-w_T-t8aM
Yes, there should be more bands. However, we should also scrap National Insurance and merge it into a single Income Tax with a separate payroll tax on employers.
Therefore, the thresholds can stay the same, but the bands would be along the lines of 20% "lower rate" for over 65s, 31% "basic rate", 42% "higher rate" and 47% "additional rate".
Therefore, the thresholds can stay the same, but the bands would be along the lines of 20% "lower rate" for over 65s, 31% "basic rate", 42% "higher rate" and 47% "additional rate".
I would remove
child benefit
Increase the income tax free element from £12.5k and push it up to £20k - yes I’m aware how much more tax would have to be clawed back
I would remove the winter fuel allowance - and simply increase the state pension by that amount. No govt will remove it and I know some OAPs simply don’t use the heating as they worry - so give it to them.
I’d remove the £100k removal of tax free allowance
I would remove the £150-200k removal of annual £40k pension contributions.
child benefit
Increase the income tax free element from £12.5k and push it up to £20k - yes I’m aware how much more tax would have to be clawed back
I would remove the winter fuel allowance - and simply increase the state pension by that amount. No govt will remove it and I know some OAPs simply don’t use the heating as they worry - so give it to them.
I’d remove the £100k removal of tax free allowance
I would remove the £150-200k removal of annual £40k pension contributions.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff