You will happily pay more tax as a percentage?
Clegg wants to hit millions earning over £50,000 with higher tax bills
- Thread starter danielanthony
- Start date
You will happily pay more tax as a percentage?
Bad both my wife and I earn £50k+ each.
£50,000 isn't that much these days (when you factor in the cost of the average house).
What's needed is more bands to accommodate the differences in wages.
The difference (in theory if they both pay PAYE which the richest don't) between somebody earning £47,000 PA & somebody earning £53,000,000 PA in terms of percentage of wages isn't high enough (40% high rate vs 50% additional rate).
I see why it's done, it makes sense the lumber the reasonably well-off with the rich to reduce the changes of initiation political/economic change to rebalance the taxation system.
Taxing the richest earners in an economy does not damage growth, all the studies seem to have proven that the top tax rate has little no effect on economic growth.
Cutting benefits isn't a saving either, as the social problems that go hand in hand with the poverty caused isn't worth the few pound gained by reducing the benefits in the long term.
Tbh, if everybody who earned paid tax on all income earned (as PAYE) without the ability avoid/dodge/evade tax I'd be happy with that for now.
Seems unfair to go after the few reasonably high earners who already are paying a reasonable amount (compared to the super-rich who pay less as a percentage of income)
What's needed is more bands to accommodate the differences in wages.
The difference (in theory if they both pay PAYE which the richest don't) between somebody earning £47,000 PA & somebody earning £53,000,000 PA in terms of percentage of wages isn't high enough (40% high rate vs 50% additional rate).
I see why it's done, it makes sense the lumber the reasonably well-off with the rich to reduce the changes of initiation political/economic change to rebalance the taxation system.
Taxing the richest earners in an economy does not damage growth, all the studies seem to have proven that the top tax rate has little no effect on economic growth.
Cutting benefits isn't a saving either, as the social problems that go hand in hand with the poverty caused isn't worth the few pound gained by reducing the benefits in the long term.
Tbh, if everybody who earned paid tax on all income earned (as PAYE) without the ability avoid/dodge/evade tax I'd be happy with that for now.
Seems unfair to go after the few reasonably high earners who already are paying a reasonable amount (compared to the super-rich who pay less as a percentage of income)
Really don't like the idea of this, will be looking at a move abroad sooner than I was planning if it comes in (not really a hope in hell with the lib dems).
I wouldn't mind paying it if there was a huge reform on those who get benefits and a more visible impact seen for this increase, rather than the fact that the councils in the UK are useless and for the most part so are the MPs.
KaHn
I wouldn't mind paying it if there was a huge reform on those who get benefits and a more visible impact seen for this increase, rather than the fact that the councils in the UK are useless and for the most part so are the MPs.
KaHn
You do realise that the tax isn't paid on the whole of the higher rate?
You pay the lower rate upto the threshold then a higher rate on that above it.
KaHn
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
I earn 43k + a car allowance and am about to take a pension of 11k on top of which I will pay 50% back to the treasury because I am still working. I pay £700 per month in income tax (excl. NI) alone on my salary. I do not think that I should pay any more than I do now. I pay all my taxes, VAT, council tax and tax on interest from savings, so I am taxed several times over as are most people.
Nick Clegg can go hang.
Nick Clegg can go hang.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,321
- Location
- Southampton
50k is not a large amount these days, most people at that rate will be paye and working pretty darn hard
100k + is what id consider "a lot"
it may be the "top 10% of earners" over 50k but the range of that top 10 percent must be mutiples of multiples more than the range of the entire other 90%
100k + is what id consider "a lot"
it may be the "top 10% of earners" over 50k but the range of that top 10 percent must be mutiples of multiples more than the range of the entire other 90%
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Isn't this the argument the opponents of taxation always roll out? A fallacy to boot.
Nobody likes paying tax. Those that earn more (and let us not mince words here, if you earn 50k+ you are privileged) should pay more. The exact amount isn't for the general public to decide.
Your shop floor worker is squeezed far harder by the costs of living and the associated rises than the "squeezed" middle.
That I do (I'm paying it).
I just should have used a higher example (but the same principle applies).
The example I should have used,
80k earner loses out on 33.53% & a £250k earner on 44.59% & a 500k earner 48.29% (difference too small).
Not that people on more than £250k will be on PAYE anyway so the point is moot.
Last edited:
I agree. I don't earn that much but I still agree. I pay all those taxes, and all the hidden things like prescription charges (not that I'm currently prescribed anything - but whenever I am it annoys me that I have to pay for it when the scummy little oik in front of me in the queue just hands over their benefits card or whatever and takes a massive carrier bag full of stuff away for free).
Close the tax loopholes so they're not there to be used. Don't have any money left over from benefits to buy things like a sky tv subscription, iphones, designer clothes etc. And provide max. a 2 bedroom house to people on benefits. If you need more space then you have too many children if you can't support them.
/daily mail-esque rant.
Agreed. This is why they do already.
It is not so much about being privileged as having worked hard for a long time to achieve a reasonable income. Being privileged is having it handed to you on a plate and not having worked for it. So 50k a year is not privileged as a substantial number of people do earn in that area.
By all means make it harder to avoid PAYE so more people pay reasonable amounts of tax, but do not make we who do pay higher tax rate pay another disproportionate amount on top.
By all means make it harder to avoid PAYE so more people pay reasonable amounts of tax, but do not make we who do pay higher tax rate pay another disproportionate amount on top.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 4,503
- Location
- Darkest Worcestershire
Rubbish. I work hard and do lots of overtime/additional on call to make the money I earn. I am far from priviledged. Same goes for many many people.
Did you mean do or don't?
My experience is that there are plenty of people on £250k that are on PAYE.
Associate
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 2,283
- Location
- Rainham, Kent
At the end of the day, you can't take much more off the low paid as then they'll be unable to feed, clothe and home themselves. Those on 50k plus can afford to pay a bit more while still being able to do all of the above.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
What rubbish do we spend public money on, pray tell? Education perhaps? The NHS? Or perhaps you'd prefer if your roads went unmaintained.
