Cost of living is high and public services are abysmal. It's hard for lower earners to get by as it is, without the government ripping them off to cover for other peoples' screw ups.
The Budget™ 2009
- Thread starter cheets64
- Start date
Cost of living is high and public services are abysmal. It's hard for lower earners to get by as it is, without the government ripping them off to cover for other peoples' screw ups.
The same reason you pay more if you earn over 40k - you can afford it.
Yes, a tax cut which stimulates the economy - the figures show an extra £8-9bn increase in retail sales over what they would have been without the VAT cut. This naturally means less government revenue, which means more government borrowing that will have to be paid back. However it has been judged that it was more important to help the private sector recover from the mess they've made for themselves with an economic stimulus than to introduce huge government spending cuts and make a mess for everyone.
That's a big assumption you're making.
Why should I be taxed more for being more succesful?
Fair enough, but then why should people earning more pay more?
Someone earning £50,000 is already paying more tax then someone earning below the average wage. Why tax them even more? Especially since people earning this kind of salary tend to use more private services and so burden the tax budget less?
Indeed it is a big assumption, and it's a hangover from a socialist ideal. Try and make everything equal by taxing the higher earners more.
I'm just over the higher threshold, which admittedly means I'm only paying 40% tax on a small amount. That's irrelevant at present. The fact is - I pay for everything. And I'm taxed. And I pay more tax then someone on the average wage. Five years down the line if I'm still in this **** business and probably earning a lot more why should I then have to pay even more tax?
Last edited:
Someone has to pay - why should people be taxed more for being poor?
They shouldn't. There should be a fixed percentage across the board.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 8,010
- Location
- Wiltshire
Because you can afford too.
Please refer to my post above.
So if we got rid of the current upper band tax rate of 40%, we'd have to up the standard rate from 20% to say, 30% across the board. Therefore the poor would be paying more tax.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
But stops at 40% and then it doesn't matter what you earn as a maximum. More granularity is needed.
Why? The set percentage already means the more I earn the more I pay.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 8,010
- Location
- Wiltshire
Please refer to my post above yours.
Yes it stops at 40% regardless of what you earn. 40% of a six figure salary is more then 40% of a five figure salary. So - and I'll italicise this to make it easier to spot - you're paying more tax.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
You shouldn't. The percentage of earning taxed should be lower. Vice versa for higher earners.
But you didn't answer my question.
You're making uninformed and poorly chosen assumptions.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 8,010
- Location
- Wiltshire
Im making a informed and well chosen fact.
No, you're not. How do you know if I can afford to pay more tax?
The labour goverment used to have an evil tax regime where the more you earned the more you paid.
There were tax bands all the way up to nearly 100%.
That is to say if you had a high income you eventually got to only keep 1% or 2% of it (if I remember correctly).
Needless to say these high rates generated practically no money. High earners used good accountants to exploit loopholes or left the country.
The tax/NI system in this country is a joke the way it has evolved.