Proposed change to the tax system, 30% rate for all....

MooMoo444 said:
Well if poor earners are supposedly 'better off', and the high earners are massively better off, how will this work in any way?
Click to expand...

There will probably be some public cuts, but also hopefully some of the high earners may be less inclined to tax dodge so there could be about the same net amount, maybe more, but who really knows.
 
MooMoo444 said:
Well if poor earners are supposedly 'better off', and the high earners are massively better off, how will this work in any way?
Click to expand...

if a low earner is better off, why should they go on to care is the high earners are getting a good deal too ? Thats a pure and simple case of envy ?
 
P3N9U1N said:
Abolishment of inheritance tax is good, 30% on lower earner isn't really fair
Click to expand...

Abolishment of inheritence tax makes it easier for wealth to remain in wealthy families. Children of stinking-rich people will inherit masses, making them rich through no effort of their own.

Inheritance tax is a good way to increase social mobility. It needs reform because it hits those it shouldn't (fiscal drag FTW) but it needs to stay. I think a slightly higher threshold with your main residence exempt would work well.
 
wildman said:
the left will never agree or like it as this kind of system is not suited to punitively punishing the high earners as its all their fault we are in financial meltdown.

People love to see high earners get taxed to the hilt, in their eyes its justice. Personally I see it as envy. I am not a particularly high earner, but I also see zero benefit from loading more taxation on to the successful, it simply drives them out of the UK and to some where else. Net result is our loss as good innovators and business drivers leave the country in droves, leaving us likely in a worse position financially simply due to governments wanting to appease the jealous peasants.
Click to expand...

I agree in spirit with what you say and would, in an ideal world, like a flat tax rate for all but the problem is how to ensure that pay is distributed fairly? I don't mind a director at Barclays being paid 20 or 30 times a cashier in one of the branches but when it starts becoming 100 and 200 hundred times more you can no longer start accusing those at the bottom simply of jealousy as there is a genuine and legitimate feeling of unfairness.

Then look at how jobs and wages are decided at each end of the scale. It seems to be people at the top are given pay rises to make them work harder, whereas people at the bottom get there job threatened to motivate them. This is a well known and generally accepted unfairness built into our corporate culture.

If the amount everyone was paid was truly meritocratic and same market forces applied to the top and the bottom of the job market, a flat income tax rate would work. But we're no where near that kind of culture.
 
Last edited:
MooMoo444 said:
Well if poor earners are supposedly 'better off', and the high earners are massively better off, how will this work in any way?
Click to expand...

30% is 30%

Look at it this way, someone earning £20k is paying 30% tax on 50% of their earnings. £17k take-home.

Someone earning £50k is paying 30% tax on 80% of their earnings. £38k take-home.

So even though the gross salary of the £50k earner is 2.5 that of the £20k earning, the net salary of the £50k earner is only 2.24.
 
~Divine~Wind~ said:
Personal allowance increased by what 2k?
For an additional 10% tax for the lower earners.

Depending on how the NI thing works out people might be out of pocket.
So if we dont pay into the NI where does benefit/pension come from?
Click to expand...

I think you made the mistake of assuming that NI is used for benefits and pensions only.
 
grumpysculler said:
Abolishment of inheritence tax makes it easier for wealth to remain in wealthy families. Children of stinking-rich people will inherit masses, making them rich through no effort of their own.
Click to expand...

So? Someone worked for that wealth and decided to leave it to their children. Why should it get taxed once more? What does it matter if the children "never worked" for it? I don't get this idea of people paying for the wealth their parents accumulated through their work. Why exactly is that fair, and to whom?
 
kgi said:
So? Someone worked for that wealth and decided to leave it to their children. Why should it get taxed once more? What does it matter if the children "never worked" for it? I don't get this idea of people paying for the wealth their parents accumulated through their work. Why exactly is that fair, and to whom?
Click to expand...

and their more likely to go mad and spend it in the economy if they never earnt it in the first place :)
 
estebanrey said:
I agree in spirit with what you say and would, in an ideal world, like a flat tax rate for all but the problem is how to ensure that pay is distributed fairly? I don't mind a director at Barclays being paid 20 or 30 times a cashier in one of the branches but when it starts becoming 100 and 200 hundred times more you can no longer start accusing those at the bottom simply of jealousy as there is a genuine and legitimate feeling of unfairness.

Then look at how jobs and wages are decided at each end of the scale. It seems to be people at the top are given pay rises to make them work harder, whereas people at the bottom get there job threatened to motivate them. This is a well known and generally accepted unfairness built into our corporate culture.

If the amount everyone was paid was truly meritocratic and same market forces applied to the top and the bottom of the job market, a flat income tax rate would work. But we're no where near that kind of culture.
Click to expand...
I actually agree with you for once ;).
 
A good proposal, but needs more work, I'd like to see the benefits system incorporated into the taxation system as a means to generate the tax free allowance via equal treatment under the law. This would ensure that no-one either benefits disproportionately for their failures nor is punished excessively for their success, while still allowing for flexibility to account for disabilities or children if desired in a fair manner.
 
TrUz said:
That's 25% tax + 12% NI... Seriously, pay attention.
Click to expand...

25%(I think that's the amount) is emergency tax, which is far too much for low earners. What I'm saying is that when you get emergency taxed at 25%, for a short amount of time, that's too much, so 30% all the time would be silly. Low earners do not normally get 25%. If I'm wrong, let me know, I'm no tax expert.
 
Dolph said:
A good proposal, but needs more work, I'd like to see the benefits system incorporated into the taxation system as a means to generate the tax free allowance via equal treatment under the law. This would ensure that no-one either benefits disproportionately for their failures nor is punished excessively for their success, while still allowing for flexibility to account for disabilities or children if desired in a fair manner.
Click to expand...
A nice idea, but what about the problem of punishing people excessively for failures or reward people excessively for success?.

I do find some of your ideas on benefits/taxation to be quite interesting (I've read before), but the question is at what point the line is drawn will decide on how well the rewards of labour are balanced in society.

Not everybody who is rich is making a contribution to society, neither are they making a contribution 500 times that of a nurse or a cleaner.
 
Councils would see their grants from central government cut but would be given new powers to impose local income and sales taxes
Click to expand...

Unless i'm being incredibley unobservant, i don't see any mention of a proposed cap on local council tax rates, you could well wind up in a situation over time where by what you gain from ukgov, you lose to local gov?.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom