FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > What do you think should be the maximum amount of income tax in the UK?
What do you think should be the maximum amount of income tax in the UK?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Reading through a few misguided comments recently It got me wondering how much is too little and how much is too much.
So opinions please what percentage of someone’s salary should someone have to pay in income tax?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I can remember it being 90%
We still had shit loads of rich folk then as well.
 "
A lot left in the brain drain to other shores. We lost the march in many industries then especially in R&D. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think 25% is enough, then if you happen to earn £1,000,000 a year you would probably pay £250,000 in tax BUT at 50% you will have lots of incentive to find tax avoidance systems and probably pay none. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
In purely monetary terms? No limit.
In percentage terms? It depends on the kind of society you want to live in. DEnmark is often thought of as the happiest country in the world.
Income tax can be 65% but unemployment benefit is c £400 per week. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"I can remember it being 90%
We still had shit loads of rich folk then as well.
A lot left in the brain drain to other shores. We lost the march in many industries then especially in R&D. "
It wasn't all bad news. We managed to get rid of some right arseholes too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I can remember it being 90%
We still had shit loads of rich folk then as well.
A lot left in the brain drain to other shores. We lost the march in many industries then especially in R&D.
It wasn't all bad news. We managed to get rid of some right arseholes too."
True we lost the intelligent arseholes however the thick arseholes didn't leave. 
I would agree there should be no limit on the amount of tax paid but if I am honest if I was paying more than 55% of income out in tax I might well look at alternative countries to live in. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I can remember it being 90%
We still had shit loads of rich folk then as well.
A lot left in the brain drain to other shores. We lost the march in many industries then especially in R&D.
It wasn't all bad news. We managed to get rid of some right arseholes too.
True we lost the intelligent arseholes however the thick arseholes didn't leave.
I would agree there should be no limit on the amount of tax paid but if I am honest if I was paying more than 55% of income out in tax I might well look at alternative countries to live in. "
Because you might struggle to maintain a good lifestyle? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Right as a payroll manager lets get this mess sorted, i have seen you repoly 25% 50% 55% well we have a high personal allowance which you dont lose until u earn over £100k so lets reduce that allowance from £9440 (from April) to £2000 and have a tax rate at 15% on the 1st £25k then 40% to £100k then 45% on everything else. BUT lets reduce tax on everything like food, petrol etc The low paid will benefit the higher paid will pay more . i'm ready for all the stick i'm going to get now |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I can remember it being 90%
We still had shit loads of rich folk then as well.
A lot left in the brain drain to other shores. We lost the march in many industries then especially in R&D.
It wasn't all bad news. We managed to get rid of some right arseholes too.
True we lost the intelligent arseholes however the thick arseholes didn't leave.
I would agree there should be no limit on the amount of tax paid but if I am honest if I was paying more than 55% of income out in tax I might well look at alternative countries to live in.
Because you might struggle to maintain a good lifestyle?"
Not really more realism, resentment and I would think frustration if i was paying out almost 2/3 of my income. After all I aren't it there fore shouldn't I keep at least half? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"How about 85%? That's what the universal credit plans will mean for the lowest paid with the 65% pay back rate plus the 20% on council tax.
"
What's council tax got to do with income tax? you will be saying next richer people should have to pay 30% vat!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"How about 85%? That's what the universal credit plans will mean for the lowest paid with the 65% pay back rate plus the 20% on council tax.
What's council tax got to do with income tax? you will be saying next richer people should have to pay 30% vat! "
I don't approve of subsidising salaries directly from the public purse but as I don't approve of poverty either I take it as a lesser evil. If work is to pay then there is little incentive for people work if they get to keep 90p an hour on minimum wage. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"How about 85%? That's what the universal credit plans will mean for the lowest paid with the 65% pay back rate plus the 20% on council tax.
What's council tax got to do with income tax? you will be saying next richer people should have to pay 30% vat!
I don't approve of subsidising salaries directly from the public purse but as I don't approve of poverty either I take it as a lesser evil. If work is to pay then there is little incentive for people work if they get to keep 90p an hour on minimum wage."
No there should be incentive all round but personally there wouldn't be soft benefits option. It would be nice for everyone to have a good standard of living but then look at the number of people who are so called hard up spending £7+ a day on cigarettes and it makes you wonder.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Whatever the percentage.... It should be the same rate for everyone, irrelevant of income..  "
Hmmm I wouldn't go quite that far not unless you raised the threshold to pay tax. You need incentives at all levels. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
A simple flat tax of 30% on any earnings over £15k. Everybody the same, no excuses, no avoidences & no National insurance. Rich people would come from the world over to live here & revenues would be at an optimum. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Because you might struggle to maintain a good lifestyle?Not really more realism, resentment and I would think frustration if i was paying out almost 2/3 of my income. After all I aren't it there fore shouldn't I keep at least half? "
How do you think you would have 'earned' it?
There's a point beyond which I think it's vulgar to retain wealth. I'm happy for people to do well and become really stinkingly rich, but I'd like to think if I ever found myself in that position I'd not be too bothered about what I was being taxed.
For people that don't agree and threaten to emigrate.. goodbye There will be others. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"How about 85%? That's what the universal credit plans will mean for the lowest paid with the 65% pay back rate plus the 20% on council tax.
What's council tax got to do with income tax? you will be saying next richer people should have to pay 30% vat!
I don't approve of subsidising salaries directly from the public purse but as I don't approve of poverty either I take it as a lesser evil. If work is to pay then there is little incentive for people work if they get to keep 90p an hour on minimum wage.
No there should be incentive all round but personally there wouldn't be soft benefits option. It would be nice for everyone to have a good standard of living but then look at the number of people who are so called hard up spending £7+ a day on cigarettes and it makes you wonder.
"
I was in Bolton and Liverpool earlier this week. One of the speakers gave figures of £400 per week for rent in Manchester leaving a family with £100 to live on under the cap. His words were that all the poor would have to move to Salford in order to afford to live. I'm not sure where all of the poor in London could move.
Those currently working won't lose working tax credits immediately but they will lose them. The payback rate at 65% is a greater tax than we ask the wealthiest to pay.
The figures for the self-employed not earning enough are even worse. You can reduce your rate to £3 an hour to get work but will still be assessed as earning at least the minimum wage for each hour you work. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Because you might struggle to maintain a good lifestyle?Not really more realism, resentment and I would think frustration if i was paying out almost 2/3 of my income. After all I aren't it there fore shouldn't I keep at least half?
How do you think you would have 'earned' it?
There's a point beyond which I think it's vulgar to retain wealth. I'm happy for people to do well and become really stinkingly rich, but I'd like to think if I ever found myself in that position I'd not be too bothered about what I was being taxed.
For people that don't agree and threaten to emigrate.. goodbye There will be others."
Ahh now the whole philosophy of it being vulgar to retain wealth is an interesting one. I like many really don't believe that I just think is jealousy expressed by the have nots justifying why they are have nots. If it really was that vulgar then there would be no such things as national lottery's which occur in most countries with hundreds of millions of people trying to win it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Whatever the percentage.... It should be the same rate for everyone, irrelevant of income..
Hmmm I wouldn't go quite that far not unless you raised the threshold to pay tax. You need incentives at all levels. "
Why....??? Or am I missing something.....
If you earn lots, you pay lots
You earn less, you pay less....
But everyone pays the same rate....
If not you are into disincentives.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ahh now the whole philosophy of it being vulgar to retain wealth is an interesting one. I like many really don't believe that I just think is jealousy expressed by the have nots justifying why they are have nots. If it really was that vulgar then there would be no such things as national lottery's which occur in most countries with hundreds of millions of people trying to win it."
I didn't say it was vulgar to retain wealth, I said wealth beyond being stinkingly rich.
And I consider myself a 'have'. Albeit with different values to yours.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Ahh now the whole philosophy of it being vulgar to retain wealth is an interesting one. I like many really don't believe that I just think is jealousy expressed by the have nots justifying why they are have nots. If it really was that vulgar then there would be no such things as national lottery's which occur in most countries with hundreds of millions of people trying to win it.
I didn't say it was vulgar to retain wealth, I said wealth beyond being stinkingly rich.
And I consider myself a 'have'. Albeit with different values to yours.
"
You did say it was vulgar to retain wealth, never mentioned stinking rich though why we should limit someone's skills in bettering themselves should be classed as vulgar I fail to see but there you go.
Yes we all have different values true but personally I would rather have 10 guys in the UK earning a mill or more a year and putting in to the system 5 mill plus than 100 bleeding the system. Don't get me wrong if someone is on a 7 figure salary then fair do they need to pay tax but its hardly fair for them to pay in to support 10 that can't be bothered or didn't make the effort at school. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Whatever the percentage.... It should be the same rate for everyone, irrelevant of income..
Hmmm I wouldn't go quite that far not unless you raised the threshold to pay tax. You need incentives at all levels.
Why....??? Or am I missing something.....
If you earn lots, you pay lots
You earn less, you pay less....
But everyone pays the same rate....
If not you are into disincentives.... "
Because some people would be better off not working if they had to pay say 30% for all. You have to incentivise work for people above handouts. Also if you are in a privileged position you don't in general mind paying a bit more but then you don't want the tax man taking the piss and raking in twice what you get. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think 25% is enough, then if you happen to earn £1,000,000 a year you would probably pay £250,000 in tax BUT at 50% you will have lots of incentive to find tax avoidance systems and probably pay none."
Flat rate above a £15k threshold of 25% would make a whole lot of sense. Would save hundreds of millions at HMRC, would deter massive avoidance schemes and would be easy to administer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
What actually happens is people don't get lots of money & just keep it in a bank account. They tend to buy businesses, property & generally invest & spend their money in the local economy directly & indirectly creating jobs. If the dead hand of the State "confiscates" too much then not only does the extra tax money get wasted on pointless jobsworths & benefits, the said "rich" people buggar off to a better place so the Government gets an increased percentage of precisely diddly squat. Meanwhile, if the benefit system pays to be on the dole, what's the point in going to work? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
40% as the top tier, the argument that top earners only involve themselves in tax avoidance schemes because they pay more than 25% is frankly ridiculous, they would still utilise the skills and services of top accountants to (legally) avoid income taxeven if the rate was 10%....it's a habit they are too hooked on to give up easily. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You did say it was vulgar to retain wealth, never mentioned stinking rich"
Except for the bit where I did say:
"There's a point beyond which I think it's vulgar to retain wealth. I'm happy for people to do well and become really stinkingly rich, but I'd like to think if I ever found myself in that position I'd not be too bothered about what I was being taxed.
"
I'm laughing too much at people earning 'a mill' to respond sensibly to the rest. Good luck getting there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"What actually happens is people don't get lots of money & just keep it in a bank account. They tend to buy businesses, property & generally invest & spend their money in the local economy directly & indirectly creating jobs. If the dead hand of the State "confiscates" too much then not only does the extra tax money get wasted on pointless jobsworths & benefits, the said "rich" people buggar off to a better place so the Government gets an increased percentage of precisely diddly squat. Meanwhile, if the benefit system pays to be on the dole, what's the point in going to work?"
The trouble is they don't. They tend to buy busineses, houses etc overseas - much like the Russians do here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What actually happens is people don't get lots of money & just keep it in a bank account. They tend to buy businesses, property & generally invest & spend their money in the local economy directly & indirectly creating jobs. If the dead hand of the State "confiscates" too much then not only does the extra tax money get wasted on pointless jobsworths & benefits, the said "rich" people buggar off to a better place.."
This is true. Two of our neighbours are exceptionally rich and they've spent huge amounts improving their property, supported local issues etc. etc.
I've never heard either of them moaning about tax or threatening to emigrate however. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"You did say it was vulgar to retain wealth, never mentioned stinking rich
Except for the bit where I did say:
There's a point beyond which I think it's vulgar to retain wealth. I'm happy for people to do well and become really stinkingly rich, but I'd like to think if I ever found myself in that position I'd not be too bothered about what I was being taxed.
I'm laughing too much at people earning 'a mill' to respond sensibly to the rest. Good luck getting there."
Well they say little things please little minds don't they so if a round figure plucked out of the either amuses you your easily amused. I still stick with the vulgar wealth is a jealous trait but I have yet to meet many people who will openly admit to being jealous. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"40% as the top tier, the argument that top earners only involve themselves in tax avoidance schemes because they pay more than 25% is frankly ridiculous, they would still utilise the skills and services of top accountants to (legally) avoid income taxeven if the rate was 10%....it's a habit they are too hooked on to give up easily."
The avoidance comes from playing the system, when capital gains is less than income tax, when inheritance tax is more than capital gains etc etc. I maybe naïve and will stick my head up to be shot, but a simple flat rate system would make a whole load of sense to me. Of course you are always going to have people willing to pay experts lots of money to try and avoid (or manage as they like to put it) tax. But for 99% of the population, a fair, simple, easily understood tax regime would make a lot of sense and has some degree of fairness. If I earn £1m I pay £250k, if I earn £100k I pay £25k - simples.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"........if I was paying more than 55% of income out in tax I might well look at alternative countries to live in.
Any preferences re 'alternative countries'?"
I don't really have dereference but if the tax rate went up I would be looking. Some of south America is looking potentially good as they are growing far faster than other areas. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"What actually happens is people don't get lots of money & just keep it in a bank account. They tend to buy businesses, property & generally invest & spend their money in the local economy directly & indirectly creating jobs. If the dead hand of the State "confiscates" too much then not only does the extra tax money get wasted on pointless jobsworths & benefits, the said "rich" people buggar off to a better place..
This is true. Two of our neighbours are exceptionally rich and they've spent huge amounts improving their property, supported local issues etc. etc.
I've never heard either of them moaning about tax or threatening to emigrate however."
That sounds like a definition of nimbyism. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Much of the 'spare wealth' of top earners in the UK is actually spent overseas on property or on expensive imported foreign made cars, there is very little evidence to support the argument that by allowing them to keep more of their earnings will see them using it to bolster the UK economy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What actually happens is people don't get lots of money & just keep it in a bank account. They tend to buy businesses, property & generally invest & spend their money in the local economy directly & indirectly creating jobs. If the dead hand of the State "confiscates" too much then not only does the extra tax money get wasted on pointless jobsworths & benefits, the said "rich" people buggar off to a better place so the Government gets an increased percentage of precisely diddly squat. Meanwhile, if the benefit system pays to be on the dole, what's the point in going to work?
The trouble is they don't. They tend to buy busineses, houses etc overseas - much like the Russians do here."
What's wrong with spending there money abroad? They've earned it. But of course they'll spend their money in the local economy too. To suggest they don't is bonkers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"........if I was paying more than 55% of income out in tax I might well look at alternative countries to live in.
Any preferences re 'alternative countries'?
I don't really have dereference but if the tax rate went up I would be looking. Some of south America is looking potentially good as they are growing far faster than other areas. "
Mexico? Argentina? The Medellin area of Columbia? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"What actually happens is people don't get lots of money & just keep it in a bank account. They tend to buy businesses, property & generally invest & spend their money in the local economy directly & indirectly creating jobs. If the dead hand of the State "confiscates" too much then not only does the extra tax money get wasted on pointless jobsworths & benefits, the said "rich" people buggar off to a better place so the Government gets an increased percentage of precisely diddly squat. Meanwhile, if the benefit system pays to be on the dole, what's the point in going to work?
The trouble is they don't. They tend to buy busineses, houses etc overseas - much like the Russians do here.
What's wrong with spending there money abroad? They've earned it. But of course they'll spend their money in the local economy too. To suggest they don't is bonkers. "
Mostly they haven't earned it. They may well have been paid it but they haven't earned it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"That sounds like a definition of nimbyism."
Well we're friends with one of them and to be honest nimbyism would be a huge understatement sometimes.
I don't understand how you saw that as defining it though. Surely it's the opposite? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"Much of the 'spare wealth' of top earners in the UK is actually spent overseas on property or on expensive imported foreign made cars, there is very little evidence to support the argument that by allowing them to keep more of their earnings will see them using it to bolster the UK economy."
Even relatively poor people try to boost their ego by buying "expensive imported foreign made cars". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Much of the 'spare wealth' of top earners in the UK is actually spent overseas on property or on expensive imported foreign made cars, there is very little evidence to support the argument that by allowing them to keep more of their earnings will see them using it to bolster the UK economy."
Well I wouldn't say a greater proportion goes abroad personally. Yes cars are purchased from other countries but the maintenance is done here, they have a main home and often a second home in the UK. Saying all that I really don't think it matters where someone spends their money once tax has been paid the whole idea of frowning on how people spend money they earned is rather draconian to me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"That sounds like a definition of nimbyism.
Well we're friends with one of them and to be honest nimbyism would be a huge understatement sometimes.
I don't understand how you saw that as defining it though. Surely it's the opposite? "
I'm very perceptive |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Much of the 'spare wealth' of top earners in the UK is actually spent overseas on property or on expensive imported foreign made cars, there is very little evidence to support the argument that by allowing them to keep more of their earnings will see them using it to bolster the UK economy.
Even relatively poor people try to boost their ego by buying "expensive imported foreign made cars"."
I never said they didn't....but the thread is about top earners paying a lesser percentage of their income than they do at present, the argument being that they will reinvest their newfound extra wealth here in the UK...and on the whole they just won't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What actually happens is people don't get lots of money & just keep it in a bank account. They tend to buy businesses, property & generally invest & spend their money in the local economy directly & indirectly creating jobs. If the dead hand of the State "confiscates" too much then not only does the extra tax money get wasted on pointless jobsworths & benefits, the said "rich" people buggar off to a better place so the Government gets an increased percentage of precisely diddly squat. Meanwhile, if the benefit system pays to be on the dole, what's the point in going to work?
The trouble is they don't. They tend to buy busineses, houses etc overseas - much like the Russians do here.
What's wrong with spending there money abroad? They've earned it. But of course they'll spend their money in the local economy too. To suggest they don't is bonkers.
Mostly they haven't earned it. They may well have been paid it but they haven't earned it.
People generally do earn their money? Are you seriously saying that people that are high earners haven't earned it? They have because the money came from somewhere.
Fortunately there is a great example of the society that you seem to endorse. North Korea.
"
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Much of the 'spare wealth' of top earners in the UK is actually spent overseas on property or on expensive imported foreign made cars, there is very little evidence to support the argument that by allowing them to keep more of their earnings will see them using it to bolster the UK economy.
Well I wouldn't say a greater proportion goes abroad personally. Yes cars are purchased from other countries but the maintenance is done here, they have a main home and often a second home in the UK. Saying all that I really don't think it matters where someone spends their money once tax has been paid the whole idea of frowning on how people spend money they earned is rather draconian to me. "
Here here, where people choose to spend their post tax earnings is entirely up to them. I suspect the vast majority is spent on goods and sevices in the domestic market and some abroad by way of holidays etc. In the same way some of the worlds wealthiest individuals choose to have homes in the UK thus contributing to our economy.
An isolationist attitude is short sighted and as you say, draconian. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"........if I was paying more than 55% of income out in tax I might well look at alternative countries to live in.
Any preferences re 'alternative countries'?
I don't really have dereference but if the tax rate went up I would be looking. Some of south America is looking potentially good as they are growing far faster than other areas.
Mexico? Argentina? The Medellin area of Columbia?"
Brazil and Uruguay are possibilities but Chile is fast emerging friends at the consulate say though swinging out there is in its infancy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Much of the 'spare wealth' of top earners in the UK is actually spent overseas on property or on expensive imported foreign made cars, there is very little evidence to support the argument that by allowing them to keep more of their earnings will see them using it to bolster the UK economy.
Well I wouldn't say a greater proportion goes abroad personally. Yes cars are purchased from other countries but the maintenance is done here, they have a main home and often a second home in the UK. Saying all that I really don't think it matters where someone spends their money once tax has been paid the whole idea of frowning on how people spend money they earned is rather draconian to me. "
I never said 'more' (greater) I said 'much'....
We ourselves chose to buy a second home abroad rather than here in the UK, we earned the money with our hard work so I agree with you, we then chose how we spent it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"40% as the top tier, the argument that top earners only involve themselves in tax avoidance schemes because they pay more than 25% is frankly ridiculous, they would still utilise the skills and services of top accountants to (legally) avoid income taxeven if the rate was 10%....it's a habit they are too hooked on to give up easily.
The avoidance comes from playing the system, when capital gains is less than income tax, when inheritance tax is more than capital gains etc etc. I maybe naïve and will stick my head up to be shot, but a simple flat rate system would make a whole load of sense to me. Of course you are always going to have people willing to pay experts lots of money to try and avoid (or manage as they like to put it) tax. But for 99% of the population, a fair, simple, easily understood tax regime would make a lot of sense and has some degree of fairness. If I earn £1m I pay £250k, if I earn £100k I pay £25k - simples. "
But the 1% "doing a Jimmy Carr" is a hell of a lot of revenue that the poorest and middle earners have to make up for. Money that they cannot afford to give up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"40% as the top tier, the argument that top earners only involve themselves in tax avoidance schemes because they pay more than 25% is frankly ridiculous, they would still utilise the skills and services of top accountants to (legally) avoid income taxeven if the rate was 10%....it's a habit they are too hooked on to give up easily.
The avoidance comes from playing the system, when capital gains is less than income tax, when inheritance tax is more than capital gains etc etc. I maybe naïve and will stick my head up to be shot, but a simple flat rate system would make a whole load of sense to me. Of course you are always going to have people willing to pay experts lots of money to try and avoid (or manage as they like to put it) tax. But for 99% of the population, a fair, simple, easily understood tax regime would make a lot of sense and has some degree of fairness. If I earn £1m I pay £250k, if I earn £100k I pay £25k - simples.
But the 1% "doing a Jimmy Carr" is a hell of a lot of revenue that the poorest and middle earners have to make up for. Money that they cannot afford to give up."
And the 1% cheating the benefit system is also costing huge amounts. There will always be extremes at both ends of the spectrum. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
an economist will tell you that a flat rate tax will never work... because although the sum may look the same, a person at the bottom of the ladder is penalised more than the person at the top...
which is why in most countries will and do have a progressive tax system where the people at the top do pay more.... it is not always a redistrubution of wealth, sometimes just making the tax system fairer...
me... I thought the 50% rate was fine.... I don't think there is a point where the govt should take more of your earnings for working than you....
but I would... me personally have a 10% tax rate at the bottom.... to try and help those people who are most in need.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
".
But the 1% "doing a Jimmy Carr" is a hell of a lot of revenue that the poorest and middle earners have to make up for. Money that they cannot afford to give up.
And the 1% cheating the benefit system is also costing huge amounts. There will always be extremes at both ends of the spectrum."
I'm told the Jimmy Carr nonsense has actually done some good. A number of people are scared of similar exposure.
How long it'll last is anyone's guess. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"an economist will tell you that a flat rate tax will never work... because although the sum may look the same, a person at the bottom of the ladder is penalised more than the person at the top...
which is why in most countries will and do have a progressive tax system where the people at the top do pay more.... it is not always a redistrubution of wealth, sometimes just making the tax system fairer...
me... I thought the 50% rate was fine.... I don't think there is a point where the govt should take more of your earnings for working than you....
but I would... me personally have a 10% tax rate at the bottom.... to try and help those people who are most in need...."
You are of course totally right, which is why you need a sensible tax free threshold. Unfortunately every tax regime is imperfect and there will always be ways to manipulate the system. I do adhere to a flat rate being simpler and significantly cheaper to administer which would have a big benefit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
there is something warren buffet says that democrats love and republicans hate in the US...
If I, as one of the richest men in america, am paying a smaller proportion in tax than the cleaner who cleans my boardroom, then there is an issue with the tax system... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aucy3Couple
over a year ago
glasgow |
just how many talented people left in the brain drain,and where are they now,and what are they doing.
the more you earn,the higher your tax bracket,the less likely you are to actually pay that rate of tax.
the less you earn,the lower your tax bracket,the more likely you are to actually pay that rate of tax.
tax rates mean very little,to those earning the most.
making the what percentage should they pay argument,futile.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"there is something warren buffet says that democrats love and republicans hate in the US...
If I, as one of the richest men in america, am paying a smaller proportion in tax than the cleaner who cleans my boardroom, then there is an issue with the tax system..."
There are so many though who add items to the tax tariff to manipulate figures to show what they want to show.
Income tax should have a n upper limit of 50% no more but saying that I would sever the tax avoidance loopholes. Its all relative and people wanting to make a point will massage the figures to fit their point of view. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
